Lephys

I don't think it would be too tricky. If you can click it with a mouse (LvL X spell list), then you can execute the same code with a keypress. *shrug*

To both above: To be fair, it IS real-time with pause, and it does feature a party of characters (max of 4 instead of 6) performing various abilities at different times. And I know cooldowns aren't exactly the same thing as Recovery time, but, functionally, they produce the same effect (a delay between ability usages). That being said, there are many differences. Also... it's not true that you just mash buttons, u_u. DA:I features a "hold to consistently attack" standard attack button.

Oh, well, sorry... I did forget to mention that there's a minimum 5% chance to Graze (on the up-shift) and Hit (on the down-shift). Basically, you can never ONLY hit and crit, and you can never ONLY miss and Graze. Of course, that may need to be adjusted, too. But, yeah, having like 150 Deflection is a bit ridiculous, when one person on your team has 140 Accuracy and everyone else has less than 100. The differences shouldn't be that huge, I don't think. I mean, if crazy Deflection is one enemy's shtick, then sure, I guess. "Oh no, this giant turtle thing... it's just really hard to hit!". It has other defenses, so there are ways to target not-Deflection if you use the right abilities and plan accordingly. But, the biggest issue comes with crazy accuracy numbers. Because, as others here already pointed out, if something with 100 Accuracy attacks people with less than 60 or 70 Deflection, they're gonna be real real dead, real real fast.

If you're still struggling, perhaps I need to highlight the important points for you? Let me try that. Yes. Thanks. When I ask "why not change it from how it is, so that it isn't how it is?", please highlight the super relevant points of "BECAUSE THIS IS HOW IT IS, AND IS BAD!" Bravo... *applause*. Also, suggest that I'm having difficulty comprehending the things that you are saying, and/or lack reading comprehension. That's always productive. I mean, if you had only posted your points, and didn't make sure I knew I was struggling at comprehension, how on earth would I understand them as well? "Oh, I'm having trouble? Well, when I think of it that way, NOW I get what you're saying! 8D!" I didn't say I don't get what Sensuki types. I said that I don't get why "strip it!" is definitely a better idea than "make it not do those things that are dumb about it." Also, for the record, moving isn't a trap choice. Moving without first using some ability is. While I'm not saying that it's totally fine that you can't move at all without incurring an AoO (I've argued this about 37 times, now), avoiding "engagement" (not the strict mechanic, but just a melee conflict in general) is hardly any different from this in your "active abilities handle 'stickiness'" notion, except that in that, it's up to the defender to create the 'stickiness,' and in a melee engagement system, it's up to the offender (person trying to not-be-blocked) to avoid/actively break it. In your system: Foe rushes backline Wizard, Fighter blocks him by actively slo- but wait, the Foe STUNS the Fighter, and runs past with a troll face on. In the system with engagement: Foe rushes backline Wizard, Fighter blocks him by engagi- but wait, the Foe STUNS the Fighter and runs past with a troll face on. There's always going to be a "not if I counter it!" element involved... back and forth, indefinitely. "Oh, he stunned the Fighter and ran past? Okay, the Cleric CCs him so he can't get to the Wizard. Now the Fighter catches up to him before he's out of it and slows him. Now he tries to incapacitate the Fighter again, to get to the Wizard. OR he just runs at the Wizard and hopes for the best." The problems with engagement have been listed numerous times, and none of them are "it just takes care of everything and there's no way around it, and there's no active use of tactics, BECAUSE ENGAGEMENT!". So, obviously, we could just fix the problems with its current state. Honestly, you could take the current engagement mechanic and turn it into an active ability, directly, with limited uses and everything, and hardly anything would change at all. So, again, why destroy it to replace it with something that already exists in the game (you can already Web/slow/stun/knockdown/otherwise-incapacitate people in order to "sticky" them so that they cannot get to whomever you're trying to protect), when it could just be fixed (meaning it would no longer operate in the exact same, problematic manner that you've cited a hundred times, just to be clear)? I would like to know why fixing it, or at the very least attempting to, conceptually, is some horrible idea, and "tear it out of there and just let active status-effect abilities handle everything" is inherently a much better idea.

I'm playing it on a PS4, and the controls are actually pretty good for a console game of this type. I've only played it for about 2 and 1/2 hours now, and I'm playing as a Mage. I've had a few issues with things that, in the context of DA:I's AI, engagement would definitely handle. But, can't say that I've played long enough to decide that it's not handled by many other effects. I will say that I like that the standard attack of elemental staves actually produces effects (freeze, chill, etc.). And I've noticed at least a few pretty interesting abilities for Mages, such as the one that resets your cooldowns (or shaves X seconds off of them? Can't remember) and removes the mana cost of your next spell. Anywho, it's definitely dependent upon other factors. I'm playing on Hard, and all of the Dragon Age games have leaned towards (if not way too far towards) difficulty increases boosting the crap out of the attrition-factor of combat. On Normal or Easy, it may be that simply CC spells and abilities are all that is needed for melee-ers to corral most of the enemies away from your squishies. On Hard and above, however, it may be that the ratio of CC to how long it actually takes to kill something is out-of-whack, so that could lead to the increased demand for something resembling engagement. In PoE, it's very heavily dependent upon AI at the moment. If the AI isn't going to care one way or the other, then I don't see as much point in engagement. But, one would think you'd build your combat system, THEN ultimately build your finalized AI to take advantage of the whole combat system you've designed. It may be a technicality, but if PoE's engagement is largely dumb, at the moment, because of lacking AI, then I blame the AI, not the combat system that the AI happens to not yet be designed to take advantage of. *shrug*. DA:I and PoE are definitely a bit different, so it's hard to say "This is what PoE would be like without engagement" when you point to DA:I's combat. They're similar, but not extremely so.

It might, but again, if that, specifically, is what pushes them over the ledge, then how significant is all the other stuff in the game to that person, truly? I'm not judging what people like and don't like. But, if you don't like 90% of a game enough to want that game even if something as insignificant (to actual gameplay/game design) as some environment aesthetics is removed, then how badly do you really want that game in the first place? If a given person would be pushed over the ledge from that, then fine. But, I don't think that should really be high on the list of worries for the design team. "Oh crap... how can we keep those people that are hardly enthusiastic about much in our game but moving environments?!" That's what I'm getting at. I dunno how many things you could remove, because it depends on what they are. Certain things have measurably different significance in game design. They don't need animated environments to fulfill the "like the IE games!" premise, nor do they need it to enhance any given player's capability to play the game. So, that just leaves people who happen to not be able to stand non-animated environments, which, honestly, is probably a pretty small group.

That part makes perfect sense, but what I don't get is this part: Does being fairly certain the suggestion won't be fruitful warrant active opposition to the suggestion? Or is there some other reason?

You don't seem to realize, though, that people's gameplay behavior isn't just 100% preference. Just like people's existing mentality affects how they play a game, how they're allowed to play the game affects their mentality. Lots of people won't go buy a bunch of cookies. Yet, if you give them free cookies, they're going to eat some. It's not as simple as "everyone either never buys or eats cookies, or freely buys and eats cookies, no matter what." Another thing, regarding the "Hey Josh, listen to us more" sentiments and all, is that this is an iterative process. Just because something's too this or too that in the current beta build doesn't mean Josh and crew think that it's the perfect amount. And just because they're not posting on the forums doesn't mean they're not toiling diligently, every single day, on things. 90% of their work doesn't involve sitting around tossing design ideas and tweaks around. That's only part of it. They have to get to a point where they can actually tweak things, first, and they've got a lot on their plate. You don't have to believe they're going to make the perfect game just because you cut them some slack. You can be understanding and still complain about things simultaneously. They're just humans, like the rest of us.

Haha. It's not a perfect analogy. I'm not trying to beat the forum. A victory would be having an idea actually pan out fully in a given topic, rather than hitting a dead end and having to switch to another idea. But, you're very correct in that, really, the only possibility is that you "run out" of ideas. Because, even if an idea does pan out well, it's still prudent to explore more ideas to ensure there isn't a better one. Which is kind of the purpose of discussion. To optimize problem-solving.

It's attacker's Accuracy minus defender's Deflection (in the case of Deflection being the defense that's attacked). When that number is 0, the Attack Resolution is as follows (on a d100 roll): 5% Miss(1-5), 45% Graze(6-50), 45% Hit(51-95), 5% Crit(96-100). The ACC-DEF is a modifier which shifts the scale, so to speak. So, if your Accuracy is 10 greater than your opponent's defense, it shifts in your favor, to: 0% Miss, 35% Graze(1-35), 50% Hit(36-85), 15% Crit(86-100). And if your Accuracy were 10 points lower, the opposite would occur (no chance to crit, higher chance to miss and graze, etc.). I apologize if I've gotten a detail incorrect, but that should be the general idea.

No theyre not. A good mentor-apprentice relationship is in The Name of the Rose. ... I'm so confused as to how that response matches that quote. o_o Yes, Bruce. If only no one bought DA:I, and Bioware and EA went out of business, all gamers everywhere would suddenly start demanding proper quality RPGs, and obviously some other company would fill the void and make nothing but the best games ever, all the time, that didn't appeal to the until-recently-unreformed masses. The only reason they don't get made right now is because EA keeps secretly sniping people who think up awesome RPG ideas and seem like they're actually going to create them. Also, how dare you enjoy a game without thinking it's the absolute pinnacle of gaming brilliance! If a restaurant serves chicken soup, it should be put out of business for not-serving lobster bisque! *grabs torches and pitchforks* MAN I love how immediately everything becomes "you're either for or against!" for people on the internet.

Yeah, I mean, just 'cause the game's "finished" doesn't mean they can't patch in all the changes we continue to demand.

I'm sorry, but if the thing that makes someone not buy the game (or, on the other hand, TO buy the game) is whether or not it has moving immaculately-hand-crafted backgrounds or just static ones, I don't think they should be playing this game. That's kind of like saying "If the football players on the field all wear neon green jerseys, that'll get rid of a lot of people who don't like neon green." No one's gonna say "Wait, they put environment animations in? Well, I wasn't interested in that game at all, but NOW I'M STOKED! 8D!"

Oh yeah. That's exactly the kinds of things I'm talking about. When attacks are going off 3 times as quickly/often, it changes a LOT of stuff. This approach works best when other design decisions are already made differently. Like in an MMO, when your active abilities are often on a separate timer from your "auto-attack." In that situation, it's just kinda silly to have a 4-second delay between weapon strikes, instead of much-more-frequent attacks that simply do less damage, etc. But, in a cRPG like PoE, it affects an awful lot of things that you don't really want it to. It might be possible to tune around those side-effects, but... it becomes pretty tricky, and probably not worth it.

You're making good points, but the gist of your argument is still "engagement currently sucks," when I have yet to argue "no, no, it's totally fine like it currently is!". You shouldn't accept anything that gives free unlimited attacks independent of the rules, which is why myself and oodles of other folks have proposed "Hey, let's limit that shyte, and make it obey the law!", amongst other changes. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think relying solely active abilities to handle this "stickiness" issue and tuning the system around that would be a bad idea, in and of itself. I simply disagree that it would somehow be inherently more tactical than what engagement could potentially be. Really, the main thing is just that engagement's already in-place, so tweaking and tuning that into a better implementation seems like a much better idea than trying to go about things completely differently. And the only real problem I have with active ability reliance is that, I really don't want "stickiness" occurring from my active abilities. I don't even want actual stickiness occurring from passive engagement mechanics. What I want are choices. I want an incentive to "sticky" to a target, not just always and forever, but as a default, if you're not employing some other tactics. I think here's what it comes down to: You think "tactics" are what you do to produce the "stickiness," while I'm simply trying to point out that tactics are also (without even changing anything, functionally, and using those very same abilities) what you do to avoid stickiness in the first place. With engagement, you can, feasibly (I'm not saying in the exact current, unchanged system with X abilities per-encounter, etc., at your disposal) avoid engagement all together. The difference is that it's on the attacker -- or the person trying to jog past the front lines -- to tactically get past the frontlines. It's not on the defender to burn a bunch of abilities just to make sure people don't charge right at all his "squishies." I know what you mean about realistic examples, because what we're talking about is loosely founded on realism, but isn't attempting to 1:1 simulate it, per se. BUT, your example works well. However, it also illustrates a situation in which, represented by game terms, someone used something special to get past a defender, because your standard attacks aren't represented as time-buying parries or "stuns" of any kind. According to what a standard attack is representing in the game, if you simply took a graze or even a miss, then immediately followed that up with dropping your guard and breaking into a sprint past your opponent, he would just immediately follow up his attack with another attack, and you'd be hurting really badly, because Deflection represents more than just passive armor toughness. So, without your actual attention on the fight, you'd be suffering the functional equivalent of a Deflection penalty, at the very least. Here's another thing: They mentioned way back when that abilities would go per-rest, per-encounter, at-will. I think it would help if things like Knockdown and such were actually at-will abilities. They could be on cooldowns, even (just the at-will abilities), or have a chance of the effect failing (targets a different defense than Deflection, like many other effects after hit), etc. Anywho, I would just very much like to see significant changes made to the specific problem areas of the current engagement system, THEN see what people think. It's not that there's NO other way to do it, or we're all doomed if they remove Engagement. Just, I still don't get why people are arbitrarily jumping to "strip it from the game," when there are so many little things that we all agree should change, and could be quickly and easily changed. And, as for stuff like "the AI doesn't do engagement right," I agree that's problematic, but fair's fair. That's a problem with the AI, not engagement itself. If the AI didn't react right to character class, I wouldn't say remove classes from the game. It's just kinda like saying "Well, your radiator's out of coolant, so better just not-use this engine here," instead of simply filling the radiator with coolant. I don't know of much in the game that doesn't suck when the AI completely ignores it. I realize we aren't going to be playing against friggin' Skynet, here, but it'd be nice if the AI at least acted like it was "thinking." Even just random dice rolls for decision-making, out of a pool of "these aren't horrible options in this situation" choices would be good. Or, to put it another way, I think it's more important that the enemy sometimes does A, and sometimes does B (so that you're always wondering what it's going to do), than for it to react like an actual human being in all situations. Aggro mechanics do some things pretty well, but they're too constant. Stir up enough aggro, and that guy's gonna switch targets. So, even though it's reacting realistically, in a sense, it's also reacting predictably. Which kind of takes you back to pre-aggro, where the enemy was just doing the same thing no matter what. If he always switches targets when you want him to, he might as well never switch targets.

True... I shouldn't have said "ludicrous" for that, because I just meant that if something like a dragon has 10 more accuracy/defense than anything else in the game, that's one thing. If it pushes the bounds just a bit, it just makes it a huge challenge, without making it just-plain-stupid.

I remember both games using a grid for space, but I was talking about abstracting the space, even. You would have like 50 space, and item X would take up 10 space. In a grid, shape would be an issue. That's really the only difference. And yeah. I understand that some aspects of game design come down to feelies, but I don't think you should incorporate arbitrary feelies in the face of mechanical/technical design choices that contradict those feelies. If feelies are deemed that big of an issue, then just forego the technical choice, and vice versa.

I kinda miss the D&D thing of what you're wearing affecting interactions and such. Not necessarily (but not excluding) disguises. But... just, "Oh, you're wearing fine clothes with gold embroidery? People will treat you differently because they think you're a noble. You're dressed like a scholar? People will assume you're a scholar," etc. Not every single person reacting to it in a significant fashion, necessarily.

I just found it funny that someone happened to use Xena, specifically, to cite a good sidekick relationship they'd like to see that steers clear of the realm of romance, 8P. That's all. Anywho, I get Inquisition whenever it ships to me, now, so I'll come back with a full report of the quality of its romances (which I expect to be entertaining, but far from as well-written as possible.) Haha, yeah. 'Cause companies never change personnel, and different people never have different ideas about how to do things. Obviously, companies are giant hiveminds, and they always think the same, forever.

I want, so badly, to make an XCOM-style medieval fantasy game. Having somewhat-realistic melee pugilist units would be pretty awesome in that.

Yeah, heh. That, and people act like he hasn't provided explanations for basically everything he's done, and/or tested things he's liked, found them to be less than satisfactory, and switched back to designs he didn't like. It's a design process, and he's not perfect, but man does he take a lot of uncalled for, hyperbolic flak. Not only that, but you even begin to suggest such a thing, and immediately you obviously think he's a deity who can do no wrong. There's a difference between thinking someone isn't perfect and that their designs have room for improvement, and thinking "OMG, this guy hates us and all his designs are shyte and he doesn't even consider anything or employ the process of thought!"

@Gairnulf: Thanks for that info. I was not aware of that. I always played a mage when I got to play any of the IE games, and I typically just generally managed the rest of my party while I super micro-managed my mage, so I never noticed how asynchronized things were. I mean, I knew people didn't move and act and start casting at the exact same time, but I thought everyone had to wait until the same "tick" to be able to move/act again (even though they all went in slightly different orders and at different speeds, etc.). So, yeah, I guess it's just the long "recovery time" in that that makes the difference. *Shrug* One thing that I prefer on an aesthetic level is to take that one-attack-per-several-seconds and split it up into smaller, lesser attacks that occur much more frequently, but end up with the same DPS, etc. So that, instead of just having people swing, then stand around for 3 seconds, or swing REALLLY slowly for that same interval, what you have is people going *swing, parry, thrust* in the same duration. However, if you do that, unless it's just one attack with extraneous animation for visual feels, you have to recalculate and tune some things. I mean, if you split each regular attack into 3 (just for example... the exact numbers could obviously differ), you'd have to cut the base damage by 2/3, or everything would die 3 times as quickly. AND, if you did that, you'd have to adjust the DT average. So, I dunno... there's a lot to change with that. BUT, I actually prefer "regular" attacks to be more constant like in an actual fight. But, again, more from a "feels" standpoint, and less from an actual mechanics standpoint. Mechanically, it's a lot easier to do the more infrequent-yet-significant attacks.

In metaphor-land, I treat forums like an arcade console: I just keep feeding it quarters until I've beaten the game, or I run out of quarters.

Well... I mean, in the IE games, they actually used rounds, right? So, the actions were quite literally synchronized. I realize that ability execution times still varied, but it was kinda like fireworks that all got their fuses lit at the same time. Honestly, seeing people swinging weapons when attacks weren't actually occurring was one of my least favorite things about the IE games. The very purpose of attack animations is to visually say to the player "an attack is occurring," so to throw in some extraneous ones just for kicks seems to be completely at odds with their purpose, if you ask me. But, what you say makes sense. I was just clarifying that I was speaking to the actual synchronization of combat actions. You do have to give a round system credit for the fact that it does provide a pretty good pause-and-issue-orders metronome. Also, though, I think it should be easier to change your action, mid-action. Many a time, I realize that I want my BB Wizard to cast some spell, but he's .0004 milliseconds into brandishing his wand to fire off another standard attack, so even though I've paused and said "Hey, man... cast this!", he waits until he's attacked, then recovered, THEN casts the spell. By which point in time it's sometimes too late because someone moved, or I need him to cast something else, etc. That's the trouble I have with a round-based system. Everyone's still jogging around like maniacs for 6 seconds, THEN your abilities and spells go off. So, you still have to try and time your pauses and command-issuings to just before it's time for a round to go off. *shrug* But, I do think general slowing of the combat pace will help a bit. Of course, it's a bell curve: at some point you're getting less benefit and more just-plain-slow combat.

I dunno. I like to think they're for productivity, /jest