archangel979

Yes. That said I'll take even a bad RtwP system than a TB system any day.I guess you will get your wish than. It's not my wish; it's just the lesser of two evils. Not that I think combat in poe will be bad. I think we'll get combat that's decent, but decent is horrible compared to how fantastic IE combat is.Oh it is. Because on a good day RTwP combat can maybe come close to turn based.

Yes. That said I'll take even a bad RtwP system than a TB system any day. I guess you will get your wish than.

Is it too late to change the game into turn based one? :D :D It seems like less work than fixing this mess.

Mechanical skill is not game theory skill. And who says I'm referring to myself? I can play Dow2 which requires infinitely more micro than any RTwP game. However mechanical skill determining the efficacy of a particular character archetype in performing their fundamental strengths doesn't reflect the goals of an RPG game. I would ask you: If you want mechanical skill to affect your character why are YOU here? That's what a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, Blazblu, Company of Heroes, Dota2/LoL are for. Games where the abstraction layer isn't mean tto be present. 4e was a video game system that never got turned into a proper game. It has a lot of excellent ideas that should be used but people are afraid to touch it because it didn't resonate well in the PNP environment. Melee Engagement doesn't have to necessitate a lack of movement during combat. One of the primary issues with lack of movement is short combat resolution timelines. Multi-faceted combats with longer resolution will allow for more re-positioning of characters. Improving enemy AI so they make better tactical decisions (Spiders dropping down in your back line, casters that teleport, boars that charge through ignoring enemy engagement) will change the way combat operates and force you to move as things are occuring to avoid being engaged yourself. Melee Engagement is also a tool for the enemy to create threatening situations. Control casters will be squishy and being engaged is a threat; if you have perfectly free movement then you allow player mechanical skill to override the natural vulnerability of these characters. This is why the philosophy of relying on micro to 'save' your characters is in effect an exploit. The value of these 'hard' sticky systems is that they actually create a threat/necessitate a response outside of just pause + reposition. Pause + reposition doesn't enhance tactical combat scenarios it simply adds to mechanical micro. A game can be real time and still be tactical. You have 3 spiders dropping to your back line and a line of enemy skirmishers charging forward...you'll have to move all your characters to adjust but how you move them will be more dynamic than if you can simply run your melee guys freely around. You have to use your resources more wisely. In a real time game with pause moving your characters should be part of game theory or turn based is superior always. For the rest, I agree with you. I see no reason why we cannot have both this little mechanical skill requirement and all this other interesting encounter design suggestions.

Who needs intellect wizards... pfff

I agree with Sensuki here. Especially about the part that it is real time with pause and it does not need good player mechanical skills. And anyone having bad mechanical skills, what are you even doing here? Turn based games are for you. Don't come to forums of a real time with pause game and complain about people asking for more things to do. Also I need to note that IE games have always been about players skill. Automation didn't work. Player skill determined builds, strategy and tactics. The games always asked players to learn them and be good at them. That is what we expect from PoE, any dumbing down is not looked at positively. Melee engagement is a good as idea but if it is going to be end up making game more simple due to lack of movement during combat it needs to be scraped or modified. Many people already asked that it is turned to something similar to NWN AoO system as that one prevented movement less but also gave a penalty to those that ignored front line. Personally I would rather see some of the abilities from 4e D&D, like fighter could stick some enemies to him but if those ignored him and attacked someone else they suffered a big attack penalty. In this case, if one just wanted to retreat to heal it would be OK.

Actually if I remember well each skill check was part of characters attributes. If you had 13 dex and wanted to jump over a fence you rolled 1d20 and needed to get 13 or less on the roll. IE games didn't use this option.

I agree with you. There are good modern AAA games. You just have to put up with really streamlined mechanics. Modern games try to appeal to bigger audiences and avoid allowing players to screw themselves by poor planning, as well as trying not to overwhelm them with different systems. Unfortunately for those of us who like complicated mechanics and options, this leaves a vacuum. However, if one looks carefully, one can find a lot of decent indie games, provided one is willing to put up with poor graphics and no voice acting. Unfortunately PoE seems to be one of these games. At least we got WL2 and I also expect TToN to be better than PoE.

If you want this to go away movement speed is not only thing they need to slow down. Damage per attack needs to go down as well. And other things probably.

Combat should be balanced around 5-6 spells cast vs smaller groups or non trash enemies, and 10+ spells cast vs unique enemies/bosses. I use spells cast as measurement as spells are slowest with 3s casting time and 3s recovery without armor.

This combat is way too fast. The game should need on average 5-6 spellcasting rounds to take down smaller groups if they want it too feel anything like IE games.

In 3.5e AoO also had the purpose of giving a penalty to ranged attackers and spellcasters once a melee enemy is in their face like it would be in real life. But in IE games, melee got a +4 attack bonus vs ranged and ranged got -4 penalty to hit vs enemies in their face so that is how it was balanced. Spellcasters spells got almost always canceled if melee hit them. Removing melee engagement would ask for some of these things to be brought back to balance ranged and casters vs melee.

Slow mode does not help much as it slows down everything. They need to reduce attack and move speed as well as damage of everything and give casters more spells to compensate for lower damage

This just shows that no matter how much some people bash D&D in cRPG, there is no real replacement. D&D works. OE would be wise to modify their system even more to how D&D works.

You could already do that in the previous system though ? The only thing I thought was superfluous about it was that it was needlessly complicated to assign skill points at level up. You spent like 15 mouse clicks leveling up skills with triangular points that don't actually give you a bonus until you hit the threshold - Why? That's the only good thing about the new system, is that you no longer have to do that, but it would still be nice to choose your skills, rather than having to accept whatever the talents have. Yea, I didn't really understand the point of the threshold skill system.

So, combat still bad. Nothing new here it seems.

Screw too much gamism

Yea, ME2 and ME3 are really not worth talking about. Lets talk about good RPG games.

So, because ~5 out of 80+ abilities have soft lock (for a proper reason) and this third person shooter has an unFirst Person Shooter cover system it is a bad shooter? You sure have thought that one through... No, I played it. And as a fan of RPGs and FPS games this gameplay sucked badly.

I personally loathe cinematic storytelling in games, as it runs contrary to the idea of an interactive medium (The Last of Us is the worst example of this). What made Planescape work for me was that it got me personally invested in the characters and world, and particularly in my own story (who I was, why I couldn't die, why the shadows were chasing me etc). Ok fair enough, I got you wrong first time. But by reading this post of yours, I would say you are a victim of your expectations. WL2 was never advertised as anything similar to PST. You can compare it with Wasteland 1 and even with Fallout and none of those games had what you want here. In Fallout you had one character but I didn't care much about his main quests. It was just a backstory to give you a reason to go out and explore the world. WL2 works similarly.

Yeah. That's 'cause it's a good hybrid. That's like saying Jello sucks because it's neither a good liquid, nor a good solid. *eyeroll* To re-iterate, this isn't about the whole game being entirely good or entirely bad. But "dedicated shooters with no RPG elements have much better purely shooty mechanics" is not an objective argument towards the conclusion that ME3's sheer gameplay was bad, or that the whole game was bad because of that. The only thing I can fault the game for is the actual RPG side, not the function of science-magic in combat, or the existence of mind-boggling cover. I'm with other people. I played the game on Insanity, and if you think the whole game was just "take cover, then keep taking pot shots 'til you win," I don't know what difficulty you played on. *Note: "You" above is being used generally, as in "whomever you are, if you think that," not specifically "you, the last person who posted" or any other particular person. That is your opinion, mine is that is sucked as it was a bad result. I play both RPGs and FPS games and ME2 and ME3 were just worse than both.

That is why developer Gods gave us a start of Witcher 2 :D

What? I though it was a gifting simulator. Unless romance today comes down only to finding and giving gifts.

Making someone unconscious by knocking them in head is actually quite difficult thing to do and and to cause person to lose their consciousness by oxygen deprivation one needs to block their airways for over minute or two. "[Lunge for Aelys and break her neck.]" is much easier and faster to do especially when target of the attack don't resist. But one could argue that there should still be some sort attribute check. Not in movies. Fantasy RPGs are cinematic experience, not realistic because half the mechanics would not work then.

That's...not even remotely what he said. Not sure where this strawman comes from. That is how I understood as because he wasn't clear enough. And what are you, his lawyer?