Luridis

I was actually just being silly.

Because if you do not agree with him... that means that YOU must be stupid. Because he is infallible, and thus anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the clearly superior logic of the "Wolf God" must, in fact, be dumb. Well, that's how his reasoning appears anyway. I don't think I've ever seen anything resembling humility in his postings.

Here... scrub this video to 4:00 in and you'll see exactly why I complained about the guy in the rebuttal video to "dumbing down" going on about how he likes quest markers and how quests that tell you where to search for something is, as he says, "archaic design that has no business in modern games." (para.) I lost any and all consideration of respect for his position on the "dumbing down" when that came out of his mouth. 4 minutes in, this guy makes it so clear nothing else needs to be said.

I agree with this. Way way back, when Josh first described the concept of the engagement mechanic, I thought it was a great idea. And the first thing that popped into my mind was precisely what you're saying: It would give front line combatants more of a "foot print" on the battlefield. It would make them more tactically meaningful beyond just the 'meat shield' role. My mind began racing, thinking about all the cool options the game would give me to control an encounter with my fighter - options that the IE games didn't give us, beyond the usual fare (like creating chokepoints in narrow passages; blocking enemy access to your mage by exploiting enemy path-finding, etc.) But no. It didn't turn out this way in implementation, did it. The fact that everyone gets this engagement power -AND- the piss poor Enemy AI that effectively makes this engagement power meaningless for the player -AND- the chaotic nature of the visuals/feedback -AND- giving some enemies free, uninterruptable teleportation powers, rendering the engagement mechanic pointless.... It all feels like the system has collapsed upon itself. But even all that would be ok, if it wasn't for the fact that the current implementation of the Engagement mechanic takes it a step further and actually prevents even traditional tactical gameplay - Like repositioning and tactical retreats, and rushing to the aid of a party member who's in trouble etc. You missed the point of my post. I'm not saying whether or not engagement is working correctly. I was expressing frustration with people coming in who are not in beta expressing opinions about how broken a game they've never actually played is.

I'm curious to know from someone on the inside. If you need a feature, or anything else that isn't supported in the engine as you get it (Unity/Unreal/Source/etc.) Where is the line between what the studio would need to do themselves and what the engine developer would have do?

Something I don't understand... 1-40 damage as Sensuki said. Why not have a weapon that does 40(max) and D10 or D20 the last 50-60% of the damage. I see PrimeJunta's point about applying debuffs before magic. But, 1-40 on a weapon is a pretty wild damage range. I can see how that would lead to a pretty RNG dependent encounter. I mean, lets assume you save before battle and some warrior gets 5 consecutive hits at the start of the battle both times. 2, 3, 2, 10, 7 = 24 damage over 5 hits 20, 5, 2, 26, 38 = 91 damage over 5 hits That's a pretty wild variance for the same number of hits. Look at the same with 40% min-max percentage rolls. (16 + Round(1d60 as %)) (same rolls) 16 + 0, 16 + 1, 16 + 0, 16 + 2, 16 + 1 = 67 16 + 3, 16 + 1, 16 + 0, 16 + 4, 16 + 6 = 78 Now, granted the original rolls were not 1-60 like would be actually used for the second set. But the damage isn't looking so wild. They could even go down to 25% + 1d75 as % if the variance is too little. That would at least prevent the weapons from being so lucky or unlucky depending on how things are playing out. I know they could use the D20 way of handling minimums... 3d6 + 8, etc. But that's going to look strange on weapon descriptions and less clear. Doing it the percentage way, weapons could have a description that reads: Damage Type Damage Amount Damage Variance i.e. Type: Slashing Damage: 40 Variance: +/- 24 (60%) Weapons of higher quality could then be, not necessarily TONs more damage, but have less variance.

I posted in this thread back in August and give it a break. A whole lot of stuff has been fixed since then, which is pretty much what I expected. What I didn't expect is some of these last minute weirdos coming on to the forums and talking themselves up like their feedback is the most important in the world. Yet, not only did they not back the game, but they also do not have access to the beta where they can actually see how anything works at the moment. To quote the most recent noodle-noggin... Why would he do that? Probably because he's an experienced game developer and designing mechanics is something they sorta do... professionally. How can you form a personal opinion of what a mess it is if you can't actually try it yourself? Well, I guess we can hope they'll get bored and leave when it becomes apparent no one is taking them seriously. Sure, I've seen some non-backers and come here to suggest features. But, forming opinions on the state of a game you're not playing based off of hearsay that, "it's a mess" isn't real constructive. Someone already said that after all, a more constructive input would come from someone who's actually playing it and doesn't find it "a mess" or does find it one, and why in either of those cases.

Spiritshift is almost completely useless. Actually It is completely useless. I found it useful a few, well, a lot of builds back to engage melee that broke the line and keep them off the clothies. But that was about it, too frail for the front and you lose all that utility too in animal form.

I completely agree. I feel like the pets are gimmicky as they are. Rangers as ranged physical DPS or melee nuker, sans rogue-like tricks would define them into a unique roll. As for melee, they'd be more tanky than a rogue, but have less utility. Additionally, if weapon swapping were a little easier for them then they would also be able to switch on the fly to a light, backfield tank, should something get through the front line. Edit: I wasn't trying to reword your post, I meant to say that my thinking is in line with yours because what I wrote has been rolling through my head the whole time I was trying to play one.

They were presented as DPS and that is what they are, especially once you get the pet synergy going. Think of them as nature themed rogues that comes with two parts: one ranged and one melee. The pets are not designed to tank, they are designed to increase the Ranger's contribution to damage. That's all well and good in theory, but when they're getting destroyed repeatedly because the companion cannot weather the melee it's supposed to be engaged in... Rogues can't really tank, but they also manage to stay up in the front line. With the range, as soon as the pet engages stamina starts plunging rather quickly.

This is how I end up with those AOO fires, the fighter moves in for the lead attacker (Gold). The priest I send to engage the rear target on the obvious path (Blue). But, the AI decides to suddenly double back to come from the other side (Red). If this were a big line of enemies, I might not be able to micromanage a stop on the priest before she ends up whacked several times.

You say this, not considering the crowd control abilities of the back line. A single hold person or knockdown would stop the rogue's threat. Engagement shouldn't be the only way someone stops movement. I also like the fighters only engagement idea. Or front lines only, etc I see where you're coming from completely. But, I wasn't speaking from my own opinion of how it should or should not work. I was trying to consider what they might have in mind with the way it is currently implemented. My best guesses were: don't want things too easy for rogues or, on the technical side, inherited object mechanics. As to the last bit, it might be easier to see what I am talking about for the non-programmers if I link one of Unity 4's tutorials. (Just scrub to 2:45)

I thought that's what was triggering the AOO's... engagement. If not, then are they double-penalizing? AOO cause you moved and another for disengaging? I'm gonna go back and move some guys around and see what the log is saying. Still, you would think they could make them stop moving if a reactive trigger will fire based on what you input and the fly-by-wire the AI applied. D:OS doesn't do this stuff because it isn't real-time.

If I had to venture a guess as to why engagement is on everything it is because they don't want to see rogues running wanton through the backfield. Their first ability is Escape, 1-per-enc, which is specifically for that purpose. I suspect they want some degree of melee committal from rogues so they aren't simply able to run from target to target deploying blinds and cripples to everything in sight. Granted, rogues are supposed to threaten the backfield, but single-handedly devastating it, at will, is a little OP. Another possibility is enemy design. Like we've seen in many games, various beasts and monsters have a "class" similar to those of the humanoid types. Obsidian may be building the engagement into the root classes, assuming they're doing it this way, and don't want or need to provide overrides to core mechanics in "is-a" types. So, if lions are rogues, they might inherit that mechanic from the root class so you simply can't turn and run from them without penalty. We need to know how problematic non-warrior engagement is in the absence of goofy path behavior. Right now, attempting to move anyone once engaged, or even change targets is precarious at best. My priest gets wiped out all the time just trying to move to a new target as the path finding algorithm decides the best approach is to run around the back of the front line, resulting in AOO from everything that is run past. I mean, we can't actually see the no-fly zone. While it does show a path, that is not always the path the AI plots once the move is ordered. A target that looks one octal/square/what-have-you forward may be inaccessible due to an idle/combat animation placing a weapon shadow or something in that square periodically. So, the AI just paths it all the way around. So, the first thing that needs to be fixed is that, then we can see if backfield disengagement is overzealous. A warning box with confirm could do it, or it could be much more intuitive with something like a yellow/red path warning and tool-tip icon. Provided it doesn't decide to take a different path after you've confirmed the action, and before it moves the actor.

Well... there goes the thread.

Whatcha all think?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.tj1YYnn4E6 Clear enough? I did notice more than half of those incidents involved off-duty police officers, which kind of weakens the argument for random citizens carrying concealed weapons to protect the world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/ This woman was educated, trained, and had a lot of experience with guns. So I'm not comfortable just writing her off as incompetent. I definitely have trouble relating to the culture of carrying around a gun wherever you go. I've lived in rural areas, I've had guns in my house. Usually the only use they've ever been was to scare off coyotes, but I get that they are reassuring when you know the police response time isn't great. My wife does competitive skeet shooting. But we keep the ammo separate and out of reach, we keep the gun in pieces, and the only time it leaves the house is to go to the range. As for using guns to overthrow the government, good luck with that. The greatest weapon against the government in a revolution is going to be the media and the ability to spread information. You aren't going to compete against the military, you want the military to turn against the government with you. Nice... No seriously. I see your points, especially the one about insurrection within the ranks of the actual armed services. Because, I would hope that if they're ordered to turn their weapons on unarmed civilians of their own country they'd have some kind of objection. I love it when someone says something not puked out of CNN or Fox. At the same time, better to have something to fight than just get steamrolled. And, at the same time, American civilians are often armed better than is assumed. It's not uncommon to see hunters or survivalists with sophisticated stuff like night vision, etc. Additionally, may of them are previous members of the military themselves and therefore know the tactics and equipment likely to be employed against them. So, it would not be tilted in favor of the civilian for sure, it would also not likely be as easy as invading the 3rd world. The biggest problem would likely be the helicopters.

Hurrah for role models, I had one too... He was a biker, and a carpenter for 5 star jewelry stores, or whatever they call those ones that sell to the top 1 percenters.

I heard this argument a few times and I never understood the logic behind it.If 'assault rifle in every home' didn't turn back US army in Iraq and Afghanistan then I think it's safe to say that civilians cannot oppose modern military forces in open conflicts. That's why people turn to terror for their violent policy changing. Oh yea, I'm sure every Afghan and Iraqi had went out to their local sporting goods store or gun show and picked up plenty enough to fight the good fight. I've not heard your argument before and I don't understand the logic behind making stuff up ("assault rifle in every home of 2 3rd world countries") and then founding your whole argument upon it. So, you know... keep flapping. I'm sure it will make sense to the polarized and mob mentality public. Don't worry, I won't respond to anything you might say in reply because what you said up there was doubtless an argument regurgitated from one of the two dominant news agencies. I don't watch TV so I can avoid them and I'll be damned if I'll sit here and let you relay it to me as their proxy.

Partly true. You're assuming that just reaching out is all that's needed. I don't know how many proper headcases you've met. But I've met more than my quota and reaching out isn't that easy. Yes, it's worth trying, but don't kid around like it works most of the time. Reaching out by one, or reaching out by many? How about just not continuing to attack people until they do something crazy. It's not as simple as one person, it's a pile of rubble that we need not to put on in the first place. Not easy by any means, but neither is anything else. But we have to start somewhere, and chasing political deadlocks for decades doesn't seem to be helping.

Yea, I know... CNN and Fox do a damn good job of keeping the general public at diametrically opposed positions on these things. Watching TV has never been more poisonous to the rational mind.

Of course, we as a society could try something breathtakingly rational as to reach out to people before they flip their damn lid and shoot up a school. Society feeds that kind of rage with it's self-centeredness and apathy. Just look in this very forum, a guy comes here reaches out, says he's lonely. What do people do... charge into the thread and poke fun and derail the whole thing into a conversation about hookers. You really want to know why people are going bonkers? Look at how they get treated. If just one person stopped to listen or help, some of them might not have spilled over into crazy.

What I find most puzzling about gun control advocates... And, I'm not speaking of the ones who just want better background checks and/or better and more regular training. No, I mean the ones who think civilians should not own guns... period. What I find puzzling about them is that they actually believe that the government does not abuse it's position of power, when we've seen nothing but that since the Patriot Act. Gitmo, NSA, Stop & Frisk, Bad Cops, people held without charges or bail. So, what are you going to do? Throw rocks at them if they turn on the populace? Personally, I don't think Obama or anyone else up there is trying to take over the world. I worry about the expansion of powers, and the psychopath who's sitting in a cell somewhere writing a book titled, "My Plan". Because, that's pretty much how it happened then. An overpowered government office + 1 single psychopath seeing it for the opportunity it is. Anyway, that's the real threat to me. Not the banks or Illuminati or new world order any other fanciful stuff that will happen one way or another, regardless of who's responsible or it being a conspiracy at all. The crazy but charismatic person seeking public office. The one who has an axe to grind against a specific group of people he feels wronged him and is cold, contemplative and calculating enough to talk his way into power, power the civilians didn't fight hard enough to keep in check. That's the real threat.

I grew up in Chicago, next door to a prison guard with a federal level firearm permit. He took me range shooting a lot. Full auto assault rifles, submachine guns, you name it. First thing he taught me was that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. Strangely enough, I don't own one now. But, that's because I've never really felt I needed one. Of course, if the nature of this place continues to become more draconian, I'll go get one. I've already got CJIS background clearance, so it's likely not going to take long to get a permit if I were to apply.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.tj1YYnn4E6 Clear enough?