Shevek

Ok, so why does the current implementation of difficulty (more mobs generally - though some tougher mobs too, I think) preclude fixing engagement by simply tuning down engagement attack dmg? (EDIT: I would also add a minor, nonstacking snare to engagement as well)

That wasnt what I was saying at all. I just want to nerf engagement dmg across the board. I think we have a bit of a miscommunication. I might have misunderstood what you were saying and you misunderstood what I was saying. Perhaps you can clarify why this can only be balanced at one difficulty despite it being a percentile reduction. This is where, I think, we may be having a difficult time communicating.

Thats not at all what I am saying. I am just saying that this quote by you... ...is incorrect.

1. More mobs = more dmg 2. Encounters tend to have tougher mobs at higher difficulties. Thats a separate issue.

Sensuki: Where does one get this item adding mod?

I don't see that. If they reduce the dmg from disengagement by a percentage then the dmg reduction will vary with the dmg mobs do. That will work across difficulties. When you need to disengage from multiple enemies, you may need to get your teammates to help out with an AoE daze, knockdown or whatever. Multiple classes have skills like that.

Hell, how do you add items to your game?

Its impossible to agro just one unit at a time for the entire beta - even on normal. The druid things in east Dyrford Crossing come at you in a large group, as do the spiders in the cave, etc. That being said, I am not experiencing massive difficulties. One guy (at worst two) may go down when stuff is REALLY hairy, but they get right back up at the end of combat and you keep on trucking. No biggie. Also, they may be tuning combat at Hard, again, for a well geared party. So, you are kinda stuck at this position where, ya, you could test out hard but if you want to test a variety of weapons, then you have to use non-fine ones and you lose of on the 25% bonus to dmg. That means you have to build for mostly one handers and a single two hander (the stuff the BB characters are holding) to be somewhat decently equipped to try hard level difficulty. I dunno, seems like a pretty skewed test. It might be nice if we requested that they load up the BB characters inventory with fine weapons for the next version (pikes, poleaxes, flails, etc). We can use those weapons or even sell a bunch of them and remake the party from scratch. That open up the testing to really try out a variety of weapons and varying party combinations. That might give a different impression of hard difficulty.

I have no problem with pathfinding in Eternity during combat. Out of combat, characters sometimes get stuck and stop or two characters run into eachother and do a funny shuffle across the screen. As a side note, it must be the difficulty because I dont have that many issues with engagement attacks on normal. You might wanna try dialing the difficulty down seeing how the game plays on normal for you.

Multiclassing in 3.x sucks because spellcasting multiclasses (some of the more interesting ones) are only good with prestige classes. Ultimately, players need to be in the mid/high levels to enjoy decent 3.x character development and you need a few key prestige classes to make spellcasting multiclasses feel viable. Running through BG2 with a spellcasting multi or even triple class is viable. Actually, spellcasting multiclasses feel worthwhile in ADnD.

Thats weird. I noticed enemies changing targets a bit. I always pull with my fighter but I sometimes see them switch to support characters like my chanter mid battle.

Well, when they fix Pally auras, you can easily build a passive party around a paladin. That will give you another party build option. Part of the issue is that the game is in beta and has a some balancing and bugs to work out before release. I will say that the only class that I think outright sucks right now is the wizard. The Paladin only sucks due to a bug. The wizard just sucks which is why I killed it off in my playthrough. So far, I have experience with a Fighter, Rogue, Chanter, Barb, Cipher, Ranger and Monk. All those play very well in a passive party. Thats alot of options in my book and you do not need one specific party build (I just offered one possible option). For a beta, thats pretty good. By the time the full game comes out, they will fix pally auras and, hopefully, make the wizard a bit more attractive. I don't have much experience with the Druid, I must admit, but I might give them a go. Plenty of folks seem to like them but they seem pretty active.

This is all way overblown. Simple mechanical tweaks is all thats needed. Lower engagement attack dmg and add a TINY snare. Eventhough players can conceivably power through a single engaged foe, the system would discourage running around or near groups. The system would reward engagement breaking tactics in certain situations and that increases combat variability. Also, this opens the door to better differentiate and balance encounter design since you can have skillful enemies which may be better at breaking through tank engagement and targetting weaker or injured characters in tougher encounters. There is no need to conjure up long solutions to simple issues. There is no need to remove innovative interesting game mechanics because they are somewhat troubling at higher difficulties in a buggy beta with an undergeared party. Logic, folks. Logic.

I buy TWO party members. I buy one BEFORE I kill anything just by selling excess gear. Then I kill Medreth, sell that loot, kill my own wizard and buy a Cypher (for the tougher fights). Then I turn in the quest and level everyone up.

Listen, this kind of high level commentary over what might be better than engagement is all well and good but, frankly, I have not heard CONCRETE reasons as why simple mechanical tweaks can't make the engagement system more of an asset. I just find it odd that the assumption is that there is no way to utilize engagement in a positive manner. That kind of absolutist statement must be wrong. While I have my own issues with the game (like the lack of combat xp or the current state of the skill system), I certainly don't believe that a team of seasoned devs have implemented systems which are completely without hope of success. Also, honestly, engagement has been given a fair amount of dev time and has talents, abilities and UI elements dedicated to it. Wouldn't it be more efficient to discuss how to improve the system rather than toss the baby out with the bathwater and waste all the dev time that went into it?

I am not saying you shouldnt be able to disengage. I am saying that you shouldnt be able to do it easily. Again, this offers another dimension in how you create a party. You may consider abilities simply for their utility in breaking engagement. Similarly, this would add an element of reactivity to combat. You would still be able to disengage and spread damage around but it would not be as simple and kiting the enemy around while you pop potions until it gets bored and attacked something else. I think this is how the devs want it to work now but the damage is too high ffrom disengagement to allow you to simultaneously move away as you attempt to break engagement.

I disagree. I don't see a flaw on a design level other than maybe the amount of dmg the engagement attacks do. I actually think the IE games were far too forgiving and let players exploit bad ai/pathfinding when they let players disengage and run around popping potions whenever they got themselves in trouble. I also think there is something to be said for a system that doesn't force the player to exploit choke points (doorways, etc) just to protect its ranged characters an enemy dog pile.

I just think with engagement we have ability to turn an apparent flaw into a significant strength. The game needs ways to promote reactivity during combat according to you. If engagement attacks didnt do as much dmg but still served at holding the line, players would see incentives in using a wider array of abilities mid combat to break engagement before backing the injured character off. The lower engagement attack dmg down to mostly graze level and giving engagement a minor snare, that keeps engagement relevant while giving characters ample reaction time to break it.

I am not convinced that the only way to address issues arising from engagement is to remove it altogether. Seems to me that a reduction in engagement attack dmg would allow more mobility while still penalizing running around in circles to pop potions (which should be penalized). I could even see engagement applying a minor snare and a reduction in engagement attack dmg to the lower end (mostly grazes). That would meet design goals of allowing melee to hold the line without needing to exploit chokepoints or bad ai pathfinding. It would also not penalize the occaisonal tactical retreat since it would give you more time to break engagement as you back the injured character off. It seems to me that would the player time to react and increase rhe value/use of engagement breaking abilities.

Every non-named encounter shouldnt be the equivalent of a pack of gibberlings even on easy. That being said the vid I made clearly shows that non -named fights are very easy on NORMAL with only rudimentary tactics so long as I build for passive play. The key is in how you build your party. If you build for active play then no matter the difficulty you should be expected to play actively. Choices should always matter in cRPGs no matter the difficulty. Folk seem to suggest that easy should be easy to roll through with passive autoattacking even if the player builds for active ability use. Well, I disagree there.

Hard should be hard. Normal should be normal. Game difficulty is working as intended.

I was thinking about Barbaric Blow but I wanted to skew mostly passive so folks could see that standard tank and spank was possible (at least on normal). Might have to pick Barbaric Blow later. Not too many other talents interest me.

I made a quick vid on what I do in the first 30 or so minutes of the game. I am not a huge fan of micro managing - so I tend to make parties that require mild to moderate input from me for most encounters but can dial it up for the big fights. The quality sucks (sorry, my first vid) but it should be useful for folks who want some quick tips. This is for you, Waffle. LINK

Not sure if you are serious... Are you being sarcastic? Its hard to tell with text. So needing any tactics AT ALL is too much? That means theres a problem? What? I think its funny that folks are advocating for more pointless encounters that are totally devoid of challenge.

That how to play against trash mobs. Thats exactly what I did in the IE games against trash mobs. Honestly, I didnt feel the need to do much else against the hordes of Gnolls and Gibberlings those games tossed at you.