Mr. Magniloquent

Agreed a thousand times over. Engagement can be renovated and made ideal in just a few simple bullet points. Fatalistic hyperbole not required.

Hmm... maybe we had a TWO-eighty-six? I can't remember now. We got a new computer when I was about 7. The first one's still sitting at my parents' house somewhere, though. Probly still works, too. I actually had to turn Turbo off on a few games, because it just made them run too fast. That was my reaction to Prince of Persia, also. "My goodness! SUCH REALISTIC SWORDFIGHTING!" Haha. He is correct. The x386 was 33mhz. I had one, a Hewlett Packard--turbo button and all. Several years later I used a tutorial online I found to turn it into a drink mixing robot. Not the most statutorily appropriate skill building exercise, but educational none-the-less!

Some developers have made the claim that it is possible, but will be exceedingly difficult. After playing the beta, I disagree entirely. Even with beta release versions that were considered easy, no class has sufficient tools to do anything on their own. They are all a fraction of a whole, and deliberately made so that they cannot operate independently. The frequency and size of the encounters are also going to make soloing prohibitive as well. One may be able to stealth their way through much of the game, but it has already been stated that combat will not be avoidable in many scenarios--particularly with regard to plot significant portions. Never say never, but I imagine that it will take an extreme amount of glaring, buggy, game-breaking exploits to solo PoE.

Absolutely correct. Well said. For anyone using spells and abilities offensively, maximizing accuracy is of utmost importance. The loss incurred by grazing will more significantly effect damage than any other statistic, even when a hit of any kind is assured. Considering that heightened accuracy also expands your critical range while minimizing your graze range, there is no question about it being the most valuable for abilities. My question is, when is DR applied? Before DT, after, or irrespective?

I need no instruction on the IE games. My mod list for the Baldur's Gate series alone quadruples the installation size and requires hours to install even on modern machines. I have mastered every aspect of the IE games, please do not condescend. Formations were superfluous in the IE games because they were porous. Outside of doorways and poor path-finding, any enemy could waltz through anywhere. Other than a spell, there were no mechanisms to shield weaker characters. Most enemies did not have any sort of ranged attack nor spell casting ability that could defend against kiting. These were deficiencies of those games, not merely from a player perspective, but a designer perspective. Engagement is an attempt to resolve these issues. It can work. It is presently less than desirable for reasons above, which you ignore. That does not mean that it has no place or cannot provide tactical value in a true RTwP environment. Keeping engagement, but handling its existing range, accuracy, damage, and recovery modifiers in well....the completely opposite fashion would make this mechanic shine. At this point, I'm just going to take Captain Shrek's advice and "exit stage left". I've said all I can on this subject.

Agreed. When I kickstarted, I wasn't aware that Mr. Sawyer loves 4th Edition D&D (See: MMO tropes). I also wasn't aware he hated spell casting. I get a strong vibe that the game he wanted to create is Age of Decadence. I was gritting my teeth the entire kickstarter once they began rolling out classes beyond the "core four". To me, almost every mechanic and design problem is attributable to the class concepts. I still have hope that these concepts can be overcome, but the taste of MMO is impossible to ignore. I doubt Josh will like AoD. AoD is hard. And not hard as in clumsy. It requires dedicated builds to win and has no soft checks. There are failure states which can make your character completely feel useless forcing you to start over. Also, it is extremely judgemental. It will openly criticize you for making silly character assessments of enemy 'talkers'. And you know what? It is amazing fun. Probably, no, scratch that, the best game I ever played. Truly? I've had my eye on it for some time, but have acquired, erm....cold feet towards developing products. What you say encourages me to perhaps take the chance.

I feel like this game is so close to being there. It's dancing on the edge of some really great things, but the implementation for so many aspects is just.....convoluted and questionable. Immediately from the beginning you're dealing with not-D&D names for everything. From there is nose-dives into the obtuse. The greatest offender is the class concepts. Choose an issue, and I can probably root it down to the class design. Unfortunately, that's one of the things least likely to change. *sigh*

We had no reason to suspect that they would modify attributes either. Did their initial problems mean that attributes should be struck from the game? See my above post.

This is devolving into sophistry. See: Exalted. Tactical combat is one of the three major design goals of this game. Opinions on the implementation of that goal vary. Movement: Wild Sprint, Escape, Grimiore Slam, Flagellant's Path, Stalker's Link, Master's Call, Rooting Pain, etcetera. Dissatisfaction with implementation is an entirely different matter than design intentions. IE Games: Superfluous party formations. Inability to screen/defend another character. Kiting disproportionately favored. The inability of warriors to impede attackers or guard other party members was almost non-existent in the IE games. This was a problem. It was a common complaint. It was a deficiency of the AD&D rule set and its adaption to the digital format. Kiting was also a significant dilemma, as there were exceedingly few mechanisms for most enemies to combat it. Even with vastly improved AI through mods like Sword Coast Strategems, formation was superfluous and kiting was still extraordinarily advantageous. Enter Engagement. Is the implementation perfect? No! Does it resolve very legitimate problems with IE combat? Conceptually it does, but the implementation (again) is to be desired. Should babies be discarded with dirty bath water? That's why I have several times mentioned several tweaks which can resolve the current engagement system's offenses. Current Engagement Problems Radii is irrespective of weapon range......I concede that point. I took a look at the official wiki to find answers, and I did. It's pointless and illogical. I gave them more credit than was deserved evidently. I apologize for that. Accuracy bonus to engagement attacks. Damage bonus to engagement attacks. No recovery time for disengagement attacks. Allow recovery while moving. (I understand that's not explicitly an engagement mechanic, but it is of the same vein.) Those points are easily solvable. Just do the very opposite--restrict it to weapon reach, input an accuracy penalty, remove the damage bonus, give the disengagement attack a normal recovery, and allow recovery while moving. There needs to be a mechanic to automatically address moving around combatants. It was a problem in the IE games, and no amount of AI could address it. Engagement, with modifications, can. Engagement Improvements Disengagement attacks respect weapon reach. Disengagement attacks are made at an accuracy penalty. No damage bonus to disengagement attacks. Disengagement attacks suffer normal recovery. Recovery may occur while simultaneously moving. To those whom hate engagement, if those changes were made, would you find the mechanic agreeable? PS: The avatar change will remain for the month of November. Enjoy it.

Right, the intention was to create a mechanism where enemies could not freely waltz around warriors. That's all this statement provides. This is known. In a game where tactics are exalted (one of the three Pillars), why would they deliberately toss out or ignore weapon reach for a mechanic about tactical positioning? Your citation and following argument are not persuasive that engagement is intended to function outside of weapon reach. Every mechanic, desirable or otherwise, suggests that positioning is a significant factor in PoE combat. The questionable choice to have moment delay cool-downs, engagement itself, various class abilities circumventing engagement, weapon reach. These are all things were positioning is mechanically significant. To deliberately ignore weapon reach in a mechanic purposefully created to create tactical movement considerations would be beyond bizarre.

Agreed. When I kickstarted, I wasn't aware that Mr. Sawyer loves 4th Edition D&D (See: MMO tropes). I also wasn't aware he hated spell casting. I get a strong vibe that the game he wanted to create is Age of Decadence. I was gritting my teeth the entire kickstarter once they began rolling out classes beyond the "core four". To me, almost every mechanic and design problem is attributable to the class concepts. I still have hope that these concepts can be overcome, but the taste of MMO is impossible to ignore.

Yes, yes, lovely drawing. Where's the direct quotation with a link that engagement is deliberately designed to ignore weapon reach? I don't want to be wrong in this, true. Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of this game. Engagement deliberately allowing characters to strike beyond weapon reach is ridiculous. Citation first please. Smug gloating later.

What I meant by the second bullet, was that engagement attacks should have an accuracy penalty to increase the probability of a miss or graze, rather than hit normally. If it's a split-second opportunist action, then it's not likely to be accurate. I fenced for three years, practiced Kendo for one, and Aikido for six years when I lived in Japan. It is entirely possible to impede the movement of multiple attackers, and even strike one that may be seeking to get past you. If they aren't guarded while moving around me when in striking distance, they will most certainly be hit. That would cause me some defensive problems, but it can be done. Even in a 2v1, if I don't want you walking past me, you're not going to without paying for in some form. At the very least, absent a wide berth--you will be impeded. That degree of simulation isn't possible in a game like this, but there does need to be some incorporated mechanism where a warrior can defend and ward off attackers. I think the concept of engagement satisfies that. If it needs to be simulationist to succeed, than so be it. There will invariably be short-comings, but I believe that overall they can be mitigated and provide tactical enrichment to PoE.

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow. That would be such an absurd design, that I find it almost inconceivable. The entire concept of engagement is simulationist. To ignore weapon reach deliberately would be nonsensical. I would need some sort of direct quotation with a link to believe that. I truly hope that you are wrong. To me, engagement only needs tweaked in the following manners: The actual engagement attack itself incurs a normal recovery time. Engagement attack accuracy is pressured towards grazing. Engagement attacks have an enhanced interruption chance. Again, hope you're wrong about engagement deliberately ignoring weapon reach. If that's deliberate, then engagement needs to go. Otherwise, I think engagement is desirable feature.

So what you've demonstrated here is that the strike-zone for engagement attacks is entirely incorrect, as it does not reflect the weapon reach. This is indicative of engagement not working as intended, rather than being a poor mechanic. There is no reason to suspect that a developer with a fetish for medieval combat would want weapons ignoring their reach parameters. To use that as evidence of a design problem rather than a bug is beyond disingenuous, it's false. Otherwise, it's just two skirmishers out-maneuvering a common guard. Engagement provides the reasonable penalty for ignoring the warrior at your flank, and allowing warriors to actually guard. It was a problem in the IE games that enemies could casually waltz by your warriors. The only mechanism for blocking was to obstruct the AI's very poor path-finding. Engagement remedies those deficiencies. I ask you a third time. When and how would that guard applied, "slowing movement speed, stuns, disables..." to meaningfully change the outcome of this fight?

HAHAHAHAH YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING - the attacks are free of recovery time and rinse-repeat abusable, but I am not really surprised you think that based on the way you assign attributes to characters. Sorry but I think you'll be in the minority there. By the way the use of a Pike and a Quarterstaff are not related to the range that those free attacks occured. I could have had a Dagger equipped and that would have been the range that the attacks triggered. Engagement is independent of weapon reach. Engagement is independent of weapon reach? Can you cite this? That would be an odd implementation--glaring actually. I haven't been able to observe one way or the other. Can you reference this? I'd be appreciative. I don't see how your demonstration exhibited abuse though. You effectively kited that guard. In a 2:1 match-up, there is little an out-numbered melee opponent can do against skirmish tactics from comparable enemies. Each warrior not being pursued took advantage of the guard's exposure, harrying it with both damage and by impeding it. I don't know what kind of alternative you conceive for this scenario. You mention "slowing movement speed, stuns, disables...", but the guard only ever had one opportunity to strike BB fighter. How exactly would the guard have employed any sort of ability against your characters? Engagement attacks serves to provide a penalty for casually waltzing around a combatant while simultaneously allowing warriors to impede enemy movement. Both of those are functioning. The attack has to be "free", because if it was subject to recovery, then engagement attacks would never execute due to some other action's cool-down. The only changes I would make to engagement, would be so that the engagement attacks still ignore recovery from other actions, but suffer recovery time from the engagement attack itself like any normal attack. I would also have the interrupt probability enhanced, whilst accuracy was downward pressured towards grazing.

I agree that Accuracy is the most important statistic. I don't really look at it from the point of view that I need to gain an extra 50% damage though. To me is critical to surmount the -100% to -50% miss/graze penalty. DR + DT + Miss + Grazing really makes for ineffective damage. Dexterity is a good fit for the Cipher, because they have to divide their actions between two different states. The faster they attack, the more soul energy they gain. The more soul energy they gain, the more spells they can cast. The faster they execute and recover from casting, the faster they may return to leeching soul energy. Considering that any given spell will consume about 25% to 50% of their maximum soul energy, doing all of these actions even 16% faster makes a difference. Dexterity also really helps when using firearms and polearms. I made an Elven Rogue focused in using pikes to flank and interrupt, and it was a terror. It was attacking faster than any enemy, and between its high accuracy & high damage, I would say that greater than 2/3 of her attacks resulted in an interrupt.

What would you expect to happen as an alternative? Your character's attacks came from beyond that guard's reach, naturally it is going to pursue. Being outnumbered 2:1, your other warrior both flanks him with attacks and even slows him slightly. What part of this is inappropriate? If that guard had stopped and fought your second warrior after being struck...that scenario would be just as easily taken advantage of when you outnumber the enemy 2:1. I don't agree that this is an example of engagement being broken. To me it felt like a demonstration of effective skirmish tactics. Your use of spears was deliberate, as they were a necessary component of this demonstration. That's the point of a reach weapon, and that's why they make such great skirmishing weapons. Had you been using daggers, this scenario would have been quite a bit different. I can't find anything wrong with the tactics and outcome of this video.

I did. Makes classes pretty much useless. Fighters with Res and Dex max with might added practically made them fodder. Wizards with per and Dex maxed made them weakish wannabe nukers etc. I'm guessing by "weakish" you are regarding hit points? Perception is the single most important stat to the Wizard, as their spells are utterly dependent on accuracy. If your wizard is getting hit, you are doing it wrong. Also, are you actually using Wizard for damaging spells? What I was asking about was your regard of the Perception attribute. I didn't understand the meaning of your comment has to how Perception contributes to a wizard being "weakish". That's what I was inquiring about, if poorly.

I did. Makes classes pretty much useless. Fighters with Res and Dex max with might added practically made them fodder. Wizards with per and Dex maxed made them weakish wannabe nukers etc. I'm guessing by "weakish" you are regarding hit points? Perception is the single most important stat to the Wizard, as their spells are utterly dependent on accuracy.

That's not a bad idea. I put some entries in.

Might: Typically baseline value of 10. I will prioritize Might higher for Clerics, Paladins, and Druids, but is rarely maxed. Dex: Always 10 with exception to the Cipher. Ciphers always have their action speed maximized. Con: Often minimized. Melee characters will typically be assigned above 10, but rarely maxed. Intellect: Most of the classes I play benefit from this. Often maximized. Perception: Always maximized, except in the case of a purely defensive warrior build. Resolve: Second highest priority for classes I most frequent. Often maximized. Edit: This pertains exclusively to the v333 build.

Hrm. I thought about using Eldritch Aim to boost spell accuracy, but I've never actually done it because the description says it only boosts "Ranged and Melee" accuracy. I did not believe the spells were inclusive to the ranged stipulation. That ability generally results in a total-party-wipe for me as well. I will agree that this effect is excessive. I can't see much when it strikes, but considering it eliminates my party of level 7 to 8 characters in about 6 seconds....there isn't much to look at right now!

How is this debate still raging? Again, this problem has been solved already. I repeat, this problem has been solved already. Effective Challenge Rating E.C.L. Any activity that yields experience is assigned a Challenge Rating. When experience is earned, this challenge rating is compared to the challenge rating of the character earning said experience. Proportionately less experience is awarded the higher a character's rating is above the challenge. This can sometimes reduce the award to nothing. Conversely, proportionately more experience is awarded the lower the character's rating is below the challenge. It's the best of all approaches. Everyone gets experience for everything. Diminishing returns strongly discourage "degenerative game play". A quasi-equilibrium is enforced through those diminishing returns even on the most ardent completionist. Quest/Objective experience may still be awarded at a specified sum irrespective of ECL if so desired. What more is there left to argue about?

This system is far from being a total mess, and more near to functioning ideally than not. A simple standardization of all the activation and recovery times incurred by abilities and all of this is resolved. You choose your upper limits and your lower limits, then align everything in between those two points in relation to each other. That's not as much work as it sounds. I get a strong sense that many abilities were designed ad hoc--in strong contrast to the meticulous and unified design of weapons and armor. That's an annoying problem to have to go back and revisit, but not a difficult one to solve. If I'm wrong about the root of this problem, I will most certainly eat crow, but I don't feel that I'm incorrect on this.