Sensuki

It's possible that one of the issues this skill system is having is BECAUSE there are so few skills.

It's not the background it's the camera. Because the lower angled camera is 15 degrees lower, units that are 'behind' other units are less visible. I have seen a Dragon in this game because Bester modded one from the game files in, and in the outside camera angle, you can't see your characters if they are behind the dragon because it completely obscures them from view. Forest Lurkers obscure units from view, and so do 'tall' spell FX like the aftermath of the Fireball explosion. Actually yes it is, but I did not say remove the effect, simply to tone it down. You obviously like over the top spell FX and are more concerned that they look fantastic than their practicality - okay, but I vehemently disagree with you and I will not shut up about this issue until it is remedied. You can count on that. They do display less information, however spells should not be designed around the fact that "as long as Combat HUDs are visible, things are fine. That is bad design. I know of no other isometric game that has crap like this, other than Planescape Torment.

Is it my arrogance, or is it your own arrogance? I wonder. I think it might be yours, because you assumed that I posted that because I assumed you cared about me. Perhaps I thought you cared about practical analysis, or an informed opinion *shrug*. You are the one making assumptions about another person based on a small slice of their words in posts from one thread in an internet forum. Calling someone's motivations selfish based on that is a big call, and other posters have already disagreed with you in between your two posts. In your next post, would you also be so kind as to disclose whether you are a beta backer? No, I understand the perspective that you and others are coming from on this topic completely. I believe your opinions are formed by a combination of both the fact that you did not use this tactic when you played the Infinity Engine games, and if you did, you did it begrudgingly because you think that moving a unit back is 'too hard' or 'micromanagement', when in reality it takes two button clicks, and you can pause while doing it. While paused, the issue is not time critical, so as long as you can move and click a mouse, you can perform those commands. Your arguments about in the first paragraph I quoted here are indeed, flawed and are a very strong indication that you prefer automation over manual input. Most of the time, enemies do not engage vulnerable characters. Characters become vulnerable after they have been engaged. Some people have argued that removing Melee Engagement would trivialize movement in melee and make it a non-choice. The thing is, is that it is already a non-choice - don't move in melee. Melee Engagement removes the option to be able to retreat units from the frontline to heal them. In retreating from the frontline in the first place, you are already doing two things - giving up that unit's output in combat for the X seconds that they are disengaged from it, and spending strategical resources to get that unit back into shape. There is already a 'penalty' for retreating a unit, not withstanding that enemy units can still chase you after you have moved away ... you know ... in real time. People have argued that 'you should have healed earlier', but there are some instances where you cannot predict you are going to suffer a massive hit, sometimes your units will be killed by it, sometimes they won't be. If you are so lucky that they are not felled by a massive blow and have 1-2 health left, why should you be forced to let them die? Why should you be forced to reload the game in that instance? LOL. Just as I predicted - you hate manually doing things. I'm sorry buddy, but in this game, you will have to manually do stuff. It's kind of funny because the removal of Melee Engagement does not actually require you do play any differently. The AI will still target the same units as they do now, it's just that the player has the option to retreat when low. You currently cannot do that, and if it was removed you would be able to - that is literally the only difference here. So I cannot for the life of me figure out why you are complaining based on the fact that it changes anything in regards to micromanagement. The specific MSPAINT drawing I did earlier was to demonstrate that you could control enemy AI clauses in the Infinity Engine games, as PrimeJunta was saying that they were imperfect and that you couldn't control them. I was providing a demonstration. I think you have taken that demonstration as "If Melee Engagement is removed ... this is what you will have to do to get enemies to attack you" - that won't be the case (at least, not necessarily) it is all about how the developers program the enemy AI clauses. I don't think you understand what Melee Engagement is in it's rawest form, I think you are speaking about it from an ideological perspective rather than a practical one. Melee Engagement is simply two things - a combination of AI clauses that cause units to auto-attack one another when a condition is met (EngageEnemy and isEngaged) and the Disengagement Attack mechanic. You are complaining about having to micromanage, and the removal of Melee Engagement has nothing to do with micromanagement. It does remove some forms of micromanagement from the game, but removing it does not add any extra necessary ones. Infinitron (the user who posted that thread) I know very well, and he formulated his post a few patches ago when Engagement was unclear. Back then Engagement worked differently to how it does now, although it lacked a UI. Obsidian has changed the Melee Engagement system to be more 'snappy'. However the reason I do not like Infinitron's idea is because it is not WHEN Engagement happens that is the issue. It is that once you are engaged, you can't retreat your units if they are on low health - that option is removed from the gameplay by the manner of disengagement attacks. You may prefer that method, and it may be better than the current mechanic, but I do not think it will lead to as fun gameplay as simply removing it. This is what I was referring to above, you have mistaken my post with the MSPAINT drawing for what the game should play like if Melee Engagement was removed. This leads me to believe that you are not a beta backer (although you may be, I'm not sure ...) however if you have come to that opinion based on the actual Pillars of Eternity gameplay then you don't understand how the game works. That was a demonstration of how AI Targeting clauses worked in the Infinity Engine games and how you could manipulate them to your will. You may not like that in the IE games you sometimes had to block/kite enemies around to get them to change targets (as you do not like manual input). It is up to the Obsidian programmers how they make the AI Targeting clauses work in Pillars of Eternity, but myself and many others find them currently inferior as they do not change targets once they have acquired them. I'm not sure how you would prefer that they be. Yes the writing in Baldur's Gate 2 is more mature than BioWare's writing now. Black Isle's was even more mature, but I'm not really moved by the writing in either of those games anymore. I find most game writing a little bit on the disappointing side these days, although E:C had some nice writing. The flaws were not the RTS style gameplay though. You might think they are because you have clearly demonstrated that you do not like manual input. Many people liked them BECAUSE they played like an RTS. There are many of those people on this forum. Newsflash, I've already been listened to quite a few times. If the fact that people sometimes listen to me is a bad thing, then avert your eyes for your own good. Your post reeks of vitriol based on the 'tone' of my posts and my evocative language. Too bad that you don't like me, or the way I post but I'm not going to change it, and I'm not going anywhere either

Do you think that streamlining the IWD2/3E/4E skills into 5 skills was a good idea?

I have played both games. The whole point of League of Legends is to make it simpler and focus on player vs player fighting. In DotA 2 there are many ways to win - 5 man deathball, various ways to get an economic advantage including the method I described before, split pushing, farming. In many instances it is better not to fight in DotA 2. DotA 2 is far and away more complex game and requires more skill, but it can sometimes be less 'exciting'. Some people however require more instant gratification than DotA 2 provides, and thus prefer League of Legends.

Technically Obsidian promised full separation of combat and non-combat skills ... and a Documentary DVD What happened to those?

Oh by the way, your post also focuses mostly on the 'stickiness' that is controlled by the AI targeting clauses themselves. Melee Engagement in it's current form IS actually an aggro mechanic like MMOs because it 'forces' enemy units to attack you when engaged, the only difference is that when you try and leave the engagement range you most likely suffer automatic damage, whereas in an MMO system, you can't leave engagement range (unless you pass a check or something). Disengagement attacks are of no concern to the AI because the AI does not disengage, they are there for you to beat, and the AI has no concern for preserving resources or keeping units alive.

But you weren't a hardcore IE game fan! alignment sux

I will be the first person to admit that I am arrogant, particularly on the internet. Calling me extraordinarily arrogant only makes me smile because at least I make a strong impression on people That's just how I am. At least I'm not ignorant of it though I'm sure you have your own personality flaws too. I think it's a good thing that I uphold "the IE feels". I don't think it is a shield that I am standing behind at all, I think it is a legitimate position. However if you think you can find any instances where I am saying "this is how the IE games did it" and I am incorrect, please correct me. If the aim of the developers is to either emulate or invoke an Infinity Engine feeling, I think my posts offer good analysis and perspective from that point of view. You will also note that I only make specific requests in some instances. Most of the time I offer a solution with my concerns but will gladly accept anything better. I believe I showcased this when Hormalakh did a better inventory design than I did. I did two mockups, and his first mockup was better than both of mine, and ever since - I have been advocating his design over mine. Your argument about micromanagement and frustration here might have some merit if this was strictly a real-time game, however this is real-time with PAUSE. The skill is not in the micromanagement itself or the speed in which it is carried out it is in identifying that you need to make that action in the first place. You are also forgetting that if the Melee Engagement exists, you cannot save your units by moving them back when they are on low health. That is the reason why I think it should be dropped. I explained that in a video earlier in this thread. I think you are failing to understand or forgetting that in a real-time system, the situation you describe here where "a frontline warrior approaches a target if he doesn't want him to get by he will mirror that opponents actions and prevent him fron moving by him" DOES HAPPEN in the Infinity Engine games and it does happen in Pillars of Eternity without engagement. The player input controls the character movement, and the recovery time system combined with the player's input can mirror the other unit's actions because IT IS A REAL TIME GAME. The Melee Engagement system and Attack of Opportunity systems give units a FREE attack. In Pillars of Eternity, this attack has no animation, and is completely abstract from 'time'. It is invisible and automatic and is only triggered by moving away from the target. The only reason people will prefer this system is if they do not enjoy controlling their units. There are several people here (probably yourself included) that prefer automation to manual input. There are other ways (as demonstrated perfectly by other games) to handle unit 'stickiness' than a system this clumsy. While your arguments raise some interesting points and this was a well formulated post for a lurker's first post, I do not think you have a valid argument. Actually this is not true, and your assumption here probably lacks the perspective because you have not read my posts over the years on here, the RPGCodex or Something Awful. I have been an advocate of the Melee Engagement system up until playing the beta, and up until giving it two full months of testing. I did not complain about it's inclusion. You will find numerous posts where I have defended the inclusion/trial of the mechanic over at the RPGCodex, feel free to search my post history on here and on the RPGCodex. After playing Pillars of Eternity for one month straight, then going back and doing a Let's Play of Icewind Dale, and then playing Pillars of Eternity again did I decide that I think the Melee Engagement system has to go. The least memorable part? Hahaha. I can see why you disagree then. There are quite a few people out there that do not like the Infinity Engine games combat, however there are boatloads of people that played it for the combat. To me the combat was the best thing about the games (excluding Planescape Torment). The writing, quests and characters appealed to me when I was younger as I believe that they were explicitly written for a PG-13 crowd, and most of the time (moreso in the BG games) the writing does not scale very well as you get older. The thing I find that leaves a lasting impression is the enjoyable combat system, art style and control schema. Personally I think people who didn't like the IE combat should be the last people that are listened to regarding how the combat should be. Would you dislike the implementation of a mechanic solely based on the person who suggested it, or on the mechanic itself?

It should be like the IE games. owned

Well at least on Hard, you only get two sets of camping supplies. I preferred the previous system where you could only rest at set locations tbh but whatevs.

PM'd you the list, btw. Engagement is a flawed system There are better ways to handle character stickiness.

The wounds that you get from Scripted Interactions can only be recovered by resting. They're introduced in the prologue - remember that Heodan gets a wound from being hit by an Axe and wants to rest, but Calisca does not - etc.

Yes it did. Wounds/Injuries were trivial in Dragon Age. Oh by the way, this game has wounds and injuries - they're mostly related to failing checks in Scripted Interactions though.

I think my solution is more intuitive, because once you run out of Health/Healing points you'd only have your remaining Endurance left (what's in the portrait) and wouldn't be able to heal any further. The talents that give an active health heal ability should just be changed to give those characters more health instead. Kinda like the D&D Toughness feat(s). Health healing is p. dumb and trivializes the health system.

I wouldn't say it closely models it's UI or it's systems around the IE games, UI design is not close enough

Haha, min-max that sh1t. I suppose as long as your Wizard doesn't get hit she'll be pretty right. You'll run out of spells after a few encounters though.

I don't think he's as important as the Monk is, but I did read your above post and have considered trying that tactic in a future video. Medreth, the Monk and the Ranger are definitely the top three characters to kill first in that group. I don't like it how the other guys don't have names though. It would feel more Baldur's Gate / etc if they were named characters.

I think it would make more sense if the current Health pool healed the Endurance pool, rather than both of them being dealt damage at the same time. They would need to be renamed, but it would make more sense and be more intuitive (more like D&D 4E Healing surges, except fully granular). Josh does love Darklands though so ... they may not change anything.

PE uses a mix of PC and per-unit skill checks. Sometimes the PC's skill is checked, sometimes it's a single unit and sometimes it's everyone. I did suggest combined checks a while ago, back when there was a big debate about the Crafting Skill and Durability Here is what Josh Sawyer had to say in reply I think the answer is to make some options in the game require two skills to pass. That would encourage dabbling in two different skills at least.

Yeah the effect is a bit strong isn't it. I would prefer if it looked more like the IE flaming swords - a bit more toned down.

Here's a video with a Hearth Orlan Chanter Something strange happened here when I told my Rogue to Crippling Strike Medreth, she ended up not doing it, even though I clearly commanded her to *shrug*, so fight would have been shorter if she did. Deep Wounds is still OP.

They could re-render the areas, but I think they've painted over them already (can't be sure).

Hiro is not talking about those though. Obsidian have made changes to systems and mechanics based on player feedback and hopefully they make more because combat is severely fkd up at the moment. Attributes still fail to meet the design goals and the skill system is barfed too.

When people say complex mechanics they do not necessarily mean pointlessly convoluted mechanics. They mean mechanics that add depth and complexity to decision making. DotA has denying your own units as a feature which prevents the opposing team from getting gold and also gives them less experience. It adds depth and complexity by giving teams an extra way to control the lane and restrict the other team's economy. It also requires skill to do consistently. You can also deny your own creeps and control the lane equilibrium, which is where the lane creeps meet in the lane, you can push it closer to the enemy tower, or back to your tower simply by controlling the creep waves. League of Legends removed this feature ... and thus the depth, complexity and skill that goes with it.