[What planet are we on?]

Anyone who has worked manual labor understands that we divide the day into thirds, not halves or quarters. Really, even a traditional job works roughly on a third system with traditional hours taking the middle third. (8 to 4/5 depending on lunch.) Moving that to 9 hour shifts seems reasonable to me.

[General feedback from a veteran]

Philosophy major explains everything.

[Character AI and cloaks and amulets?]

I for one am happy an amulet precludes a cloak and visa versa. I don't like the look of the cloaks for every character and I'd feel compelled to use one for stat boosts if a separate slott were available.

[The No Bad Choices Thread]

I will say, I totally agree otherwise. The stats are a bit disappointing, though I still like stats for builds better than stats for classes. (If there is an optimal stat choice for each class, why even pick stats? At least with the two builds, you can make some choices here and there. E.g., dps warrior vs tanky warrior.)

 

I do love the weapon talents. Very cool idea to group them the way they did. Especially with the three melee damage types working like they do.

[The No Bad Choices Thread]

See, I don't totally agree with the armor points. I'm running a barb as my main (admittedly on Hard and no PotD) and I find a light to medium armor to work best for me. Basically, I need the least amount of armor necessary to prevent getting wiped too fast for healing to save me.

 

Example: when I fought Readric, I had my barb dancing on the line of death (okay, knockout) the whole time all the while dishing out fast damage/carnage. If I'm naked, I can't intervene in time to stop his knockout. If I'm in full plate, I'm 33 percent slower, and we all die.

 

So while I agree the answer is obvious for tanks and ranging DPS/support, I think it is more complex for the melee DPS types. I'm no cRPG expert, but I wonder how medium/light armor could work for a Monk who needs to take as much damage as possible without insta wiping.

[Pretty disappointed, this launches in December?]

That's BG2 AI. Icewind Dale:HoW is very different.

 

the PC will just rush past the front line to hit the wizard/chanter/ranger/whoever in the backlines.

Good, because that's how it should be (and how it was in the Infinity Engine games). Since I will be attempting to do a full re-balance of the game for no engagement, I will likely re-tune all of the encounters for it.

 

When encounters are designed well (eg. The Guarded Compound in the Temple District in BG2), there is a decision to be made about whether you beeline your Fighter for the backline enemies or stay to defend the frontline from the enemy melee opponents. In that encounter I find all of the melee enemies to be larger threats than the Wizard at the back. Koshi with his katanas, Ketta with her backstab and the Orog guys with their axes.

 

In the encounter in the Sewers, the archer Gallachobhair is the biggest threat IMO and I usually go straight for him first.

 

 

 

So, to clarify, you don't believe that the front line should have any control on preventing the PC from gaining access to the back line? Then why even talk about AI targeting clauses at all?

 

I also don't understand the concept of "defending the front line" if the front line has no exertion over the battlefield other than as individual combatants. In fact, why have a front line and a back line if the PC can target either without any consequence?

 

I do understand the idea of "good encounter design", but the assumption underneath your argument is that the only factor that should determine target priority is threat level. If the PC uses this as well, which it should if it is the most tactically sound, our wizards/etc (depending on final balance) will nearly always be the target, with the rest of the party either chasing down the guys chasing our wizards or chasing their wizards (and hopefully fighting off their guys trying to chase us down). I guess that could work, though it isn't my idea of an interesting fight.

[Pretty disappointed, this launches in December?]

No one wants stupid AI targeting, but AI is not some magic thing that you can design and it thinks like a human. Good AI is deterministic and has a robust set of conditions.

 

In IWD:HoW, enemies will re-acquire targets if you try and kite them around. Many enemies in Pillars of Eternity just follow the original unit they targeted (eg. Beetles) so you can just run around in circles and kite that enemy around. Engagement gives the player an easy means of overriding AI targeting and forcing the AI to perform a certain action. It makes it easier for newer players, but for people who moved around in the IE games it really restricts what you can do in an encounter, and takes a lot of the fun out of it.

 

What you showed in your video earlier was stupid AI. I don't want that.

 

That said, I don't see how smart AI solves the problem either. If we have smart AI without engagement, per your suggestion, the PC will just rush past the front line to hit the wizard/chanter/ranger/whoever in the backlines. No amount of "just step in front of them/move your other guy away so that the AI forgets" will help in the case of smart AI.

[Pretty disappointed, this launches in December?]

And when it works like that and you block the pathing space, the AI glitches out and runs on the spot in an Infinite Loop (this happens currently in the BB sometimes, you can force beetles in the Dyrford Crossing to do it).

 

Enemies in IWD:HoW have very robust AI targeting, especially compared to this game. That's a 14 year old game, too.

That doesn't address the issue though. I want a system that lets me manage the front lines that is consistent with very smart AI. In other words, I want the PC to make the same sorts of decisions that I make. Otherwise, I feel like some kind of meta-god playing the game, which a) breaks immersion and b) makes it boring as all hell. Engagement might not be that solution, but stupid AI targeting sure isn't it.

[Pretty disappointed, this launches in December?]

 

Sensuki: The fact that people ignore this makes me want to pull my hair out, because if everyone understood how to manipulate AI targeting, there'd be a lot less people complaining about unit stickiness.

 

 

I don't want to play a game that basically asks me to abuse stupid AI in order to play strategically. If it is advantageous for the AI to pass my front line to kill my mage, I want the AI to try that, and I want a method of preventing it that is also available to the AI. Stupid AI targeting doesn't fix the problem at all. That may be one reason people are ignoring it.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity Part 2]

long story short I think having a damage stat is dumb, I just do not like might tying into how powerful spells are. I huge hulking idiotic barbarian who is capable of bending steel with his pink toe can also launch a firegball that can take out half the city, this lore and ruleset bugs me.

 

Why do you think a hulking barbarian can launch fireballs? Might determines soul strength, not physical strength. They are just uncorrelated in PoE, so you can be a physically tough Mage (high Athletics) or a wise, yet weak Mage (high lore) or whatever.

[Stop Right Now Thankyou Very Much]

So, what is the alternative to engagement? All I see are "stupid AI that attacks whatever is closest/most recent to attack it/etc" or "fighters have no special way to protect the backline."

 

I understand if the answer is just "there aren't resources to fix it", but it looks like many of you don't even support the general concept of melee stickiness at all.

[Stop Right Now Thankyou Very Much]

Personally, I like the idea of the engagement system. I am not sure how I like the implementation, as I haven't played enough lately to really assess it. My objection to the suggestion Sensuki has is that it goes against what I prefer to see in a combat system: parity. I want the AI and player to have access to the same exact abilities and skills as possible. This should include intelligence as well/ As much as the combat can be Chess, the better. I don't approve of a system that teaches the AI to do stupid things, unless that can be done to my players as well.

 

So, for example, if I wouldn't be stupid enough to ignore a wizard/ranger/whoever just because a warrior walked in front of me, I wouldn't want the AI to do so either. If I can "taunt" an AI into attacking my warrior against better judgment, then the game should be able to "taunt" my players against my better judgment as well. I understand it is supposed to be a game, but I find it boring/easy to trick the AI into doing stupid things when it can't do the same for me. And yes, this involves kiting. Would you ever allow yourself to be kited? If not, why do we allow AI to let itself be kited? I just don't understand the appeal.

 

In a perfect world, they can fix the system so that it produces natural incentives to avoid running past a tough frontliner instead of just "program the AI to be stupid and attack whoever steps in the way/whatever." That said, if they can't find a way to make it successful, then it should be cut. I'll just enjoy combat that much less.

[What You See Is What You Get Loot System]

 

I am against WYSIWYG for crap loot. I like the idea of the crap stuff breaking and dropping scraps and unique/fine items surviving. I find it tedious to gather the 73 sets of random junk I would in no conceivable way ever use just to sell, and I find it frustrating to leave it there.

 

If we are going for realism without compromise, then every human enemy should drop all of his/her clothing, weapons, armor, trinkets, personal items, organs, skin, meat, etc. The loot list should be thirty things long. After all, maybe you want to roll a character who is a serial killer who likes to cut his enemies feet off and store them in jars? At some point "realism" has to be left behind. So, my question is "do I find looting 73 sets of crap loot from goblins just so I can turn it into cash (per Sensuki's point) very fun?" And, for me, that is a big no. Just drop the cool stuff or stuff for crafting and be done.

The problem I see with "just drop the cool stuff or stuff for crafting" is that your system will degenerate into mindless loot clicking. Everything will be cool or for crafting, so pretty much everything will be worth picking up. It takes away the excitement of finding cool stuff, because everything is cool. In different genres of games, I'm actually in favor of the style you're suggesting. For example, Dark Souls or Bound by Flame pretty much only use the "drop cool stuff" mechanic, and something like Monster Hunter uses the "only drop crafting stuff" mechanic. I enjoy the aforementioned games, but I don't think PoE was intended to be like them. Rather, it was intended to be like the old infinity engine games, where if you killed a goblin archer you got to loot the number of normal arrows it had left, any special arrows, and its bow. I thought that was pretty neat, but maybe I'm in the minority.

 

It also doesn't frustrate me to leave behind 73 short swords; I take the gold and search for cool stuff and move on. I never had problems with money in the IE games - I was overflowing with it most of the time - and I never lugged back all the plain cheapo items to sell. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that -not- looting worthless stuff frustrates people to the point where they need to remove it from the game to enjoy themselves.

 

 

Well, therein lies the problem. With the stash, it will already be mindless looting. We'll be taking everything and sorting it out later as it is. The only difference will be whether we auto sell the 73 longswords/leather armors/trinkets/etc or just get some cash. On the flip side, if they kill the stash, then you don't need the junk items because your limited inventory helps motivate you to keep or discard things. If a monster drops a magic longsword, but I'd only want it to sell/collect, I have to make that same tough decision: do I take it to sell or do I drop it to fit other stuff that I might use (or sell for more)?

 

If the motivation for WYSIWYG is just to have crap loot to make cool loot fun, then add in some crap loot I guess. I just don't want 73 longswords/etc personally.

[What You See Is What You Get Loot System]

I am against WYSIWYG for crap loot. I like the idea of the crap stuff breaking and dropping scraps and unique/fine items surviving. I find it tedious to gather the 73 sets of random junk I would in no conceivable way ever use just to sell, and I find it frustrating to leave it there.

 

If we are going for realism without compromise, then every human enemy should drop all of his/her clothing, weapons, armor, trinkets, personal items, organs, skin, meat, etc. The loot list should be thirty things long. After all, maybe you want to roll a character who is a serial killer who likes to cut his enemies feet off and store them in jars? At some point "realism" has to be left behind. So, my question is "do I find looting 73 sets of crap loot from goblins just so I can turn it into cash (per Sensuki's point) very fun?" And, for me, that is a big no. Just drop the cool stuff or stuff for crafting and be done.