Flanked

[AeonsLegend]

This is set as a status effect which is actually really weird. Flanking is an activity, not something that is in effect on a person. This makes the flanked status effect one of the most powerful effects in the game as everyone benefits from this even though only the person flanking an enemy should gain this bonus.

[Boeroer]

So what you mean is that not the victim of flanking should ge the affliction "flanked " but the character who flanks should instead get a buff named "flanking"?

Or do you mean that the flankig status should still be on the victim, but only the flanking character should profit from it (basically like Marked Prey or the Marking mechanic in PoE)?

[AeonsLegend]

7 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

So what you mean is that not the victim of flanking should ge the affliction "flanked " but the character who flanks should instead get a buff named "flanking"?

Or do you mean that the flankig status should still be on the victim, but only the flanking character should profit from it (basically like Marked Prey or the Marking mechanic in PoE)?

The first one. Anyone who flanks an enemy should get a buff to that enemy only. Probably not possible right now as all these things are single targetted only and not multiple I think. Or perhaps a self buff that's circumstatial.

Flanking means to attack from the opposite side. Only the flanking character should get a buff.

Now the spell Phantom Foes puts the flanked effect on enemies because they are seemingly attacking invisible foes. Which actually isn't true because these enemies still attack your party as normal. Hence they are actually not flanked and if they were then the phantom is flanking them and not any of your party.

[wih]

I understand the "flanked" condition as "overloaded". Having to defend from attacks from multiple sides.

[Boeroer]

But if you flank an enemy - why should only you get the bonus and not your buddy? You are both in the same position. What if a third party member joins? So I would argue everybody who attacks the flanked enemy in melee should get the bonus.

Your idea may be more realistic but it comes with several mechanical complications like the one above. That means it's more difficult to implement. 

Besides that there would be other issues, for example: Sneak Attack gets unlocked by flanked. With your solution that couldn't be done anymore (without altering the Sneak Attack logic quite a bit).
How would  Streetfighter unlock his passive? How would you implement Phantom Foes?

Wouldn't it be better if the enemy still got he flanked status but only characters that attack in melee would profit from it? 

Anyway I guess Obsidian went with the more abstract but easy solution that is in line with the other afflictions and more systemic. You can argue that a flanked character is distracted in general and has to take care of two or more attackers in melee which leaves him more vulnerable. 
At some point you have to scrap realism and go with the easier yet still imaginable solution.

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[AeonsLegend]

Why would the person engaged with an enemy get an advantage if someone else flanks him? You may only get an advantage if he gets distracted by the flanking person. Holding your shield towards an attacker and getting stabbed in the back is not going to stop you from blocking the frontal attack unless the attack harms you enough to be distracted.

I also think that full plate should make a person immune to flanking. A person in full plate can actually be hit by multiple angles and is almost impossible to get an advantage of by flanking. There's vids online of full plate fights where a single person clad in full plate can take on 4 people at once and win easily.

I also think that holding a shield should increase amount to flank by 1.

2 people flanking a person should both get the flanking bonus, unless the enemy is in full plate.

Edited April 5, 2020 by AeonsLegend

[Boeroer]

Let me repeat myself:

54 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

At some point you have to scrap realism and go with the easier yet still imaginable solution.

It's a game, not a simulation. You could also argue that an arquebus should at least have 20 PEN or that swords and axes usually are sidearms and not main weapons. You could argue that the rapier is the better sword and should simply have better stats or that daggers and stilettos should be inferior weapons on the battlefield. You could argue that leather armor is not really a thing and that actual padded armor is way tougher than some fur armor. And that plate armor doesn't really slow you down that much and is always superior. But what would you get if you put too much realsim into a game and make it a medieval simulation? A boring game.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[wih]

But you do not get a bonus because you flank your opponent. It is the flanked character that gets a malus from the fact they are attacked from many sides. It is a condition: you are flanked when you are attacked from different directions and this condition has certain negatives. The game does not care where the flanked character is facing when getting hit.

There is also this spell that makes you believe there are enemies around you and it also results in you becoming flanked. You are less focused defending from the real enemy, because you think there is somebody attacking you from behind.

[AeonsLegend]

Just now, wih said:

But you do not get a bonus because you flank your opponent. It is the flanked character that gets a malus from the fact they are attacked from many sides. It is a condition: you are flanked when you are attacked from different directions and this condition has certain negatives. The game does not care where the flanked character is facing when getting hit.

There is also this spell that makes you believe there are enemies around you and it also results in you becoming flanked. You are less focused defending from the real enemy, because you think there is somebody attacking you from behind.

That's completely unrealistic. The way that works is that three people from the front get an advantage because there's an insignificant thing at the back. Imagine this. A lvl 1 enemy with absolutely no means of harming your level 20 character attacks you from behind and two people attack you from the front. Everyone now gets a bonus to attack you. Makes no sense.

Flanking is an activity. To flank is to attack from both sides to gain an advantage. Such as being able to hit someone who cannot defend themselves against you because you are flanking them. This does not stop the person from defending themselves against the other attacker.

[wih]

3 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

That's completely unrealistic. The way that works is that three people from the front get an advantage because there's an insignificant thing at the back. Imagine this. A lvl 1 enemy with absolutely no means of harming your level 20 character attacks you from behind and two people attack you from the front. Everyone now gets a bonus to attack you. Makes no sense.

Flanking is an activity. To flank is to attack from both sides to gain an advantage. Such as being able to hit someone who cannot defend themselves against you because you are flanking them. This does not stop the person from defending themselves against the other attacker.

Yet the game treats it as a condition. It as if it skips the activity part and simulates the end result, which is that the flanked character suffers not only from the fact that they are attacked by many enemies, but also that these enemies attack at the same time and from different directions. The game does not track who's facing who, because this would complicate matters greatly.

[AeonsLegend]

7 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Let me repeat myself:

It's a game, not a simulation. You could also argue that an arquebus should at least have 20 PEN or that swords and axes usually are sidearms and not main weapons. You could argue that the rapier is the better sword and should simply have better stats or that daggers and stilettos should be inferior weapons on the battlefield. You could argue that leather armor is not really a thing and that actual padded armor is way tougher than some fur armor. And that plate armor doesn't really slow you down that much and is always superior. But what would you get if you put too much realsim into a game and make it a medieval simulation? A boring game.

Rapier is actually not effective vs armored enemies as it is a long piercing weapon. This weapon became popular during the time that armor was less used. A rapier is seriously not going to harm a person in full plate unless you get immensly lucky.

Daggers and stiletto's are inferior weapons  on the battlefield that is also true. And heavy weapons like maces and morning stars should be much much stronger the more armored your opponent is.

Plate armor is actually quite heavy depending on the time period and requires a lot of stamina to use.

I don't think it would be boring if the game was a bit more realistic. It would just make some things circumstantial and make certain classes and weapons require specific action to make them effective. Don't really remember when daggers became popular in games. It was a while back when people had no idea how weapons worked and just thought it was cool. Now we assume they must be there just because. Any person running into the battlefield wielding a dagger and wearing a cloth armor is dead in seconds. This is why the rogue class should play into that. Right now all characters work the same. They all engage enemies in the same way which would put some classes at an extreme disadvantage. That's why all these weapons are balanced in the same way.

It wouldn't be hard to implement this properly and it might actually make some classes more fun to play.

[AeonsLegend]

Just now, wih said:

Yet the game treats it as a condition. It as if it skips the activity part and simulates the end result, which is that the flanked character suffers not only from the fact that they are attacked by many enemies, but also that these enemies attack at the same time and from different directions. The game does not track who's facing who, because this would complicate matters greatly.

Wouldn't be hard to implement. It also tracks things for flanking and engaging.

[wih]

7 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Wouldn't be hard to implement. It also tracks things for flanking and engaging.

In this game characters are able to turn around instantly. To be realistic, characters should not be able to turn around so quickly, because players will be able to avoid flanking by heavy microing.

I am also a fan of realism, by the way. But this game's approach to realism is by abstracting many things.

Edited April 5, 2020 by wih

[AeonsLegend]

4 minutes ago, wih said:

In this game characters are able to turn around instantly. To be realistic, characters should not be able to turn around so quickly, because players will be able to avoid flanking by heavy microing.

I am also a fan of realism, by the way. But this game's approach to realism is by abstracting many things.

You could implement a type of disengagement attack by turning while flanked unless you have the right skills. I'm not saying everything should be 100% realistic, that doesn't make sense for a videogame. I'm just looking at this from a more realistic perspective.

[wih]

6 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

You could implement a type of disengagement attack by turning while flanked unless you have the right skills. I'm not saying everything should be 100% realistic, that doesn't make sense for a videogame. I'm just looking at this from a more realistic perspective.

That would be nice. I would like that. I don't know how it would work with all the spells and abilities and what not, but I like realism.

Edit: Oh, and the AI would have a whole lot more to take care of. I still think it would be complicated.

Edited April 5, 2020 by wih

[Boeroer]

29 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Rapier is actually not effective vs armored enemies as it is a long piercing weapon. This weapon became popular during the time that armor was less used. A rapier is seriously not going to harm a person in full plate unless you get immensly lucky.

That is not correct. It was developed during a period where plate armor was prominent (1550+). I guess you are confusing it with a foil.

Anyway - I don't want to turn this into a discussion about misconceptions about medieval weaponry since that's completey deflecting from the actual discussion and utterly missing my point: that realism shouldn't be a primary concern for a D&D inspired fantasy RPG. 

Unless you have insight in the code of Deadfire and are a programmer you can't judge how easy or difficult it would be to implement something. 

About rapiers (for anybody who's interested) :

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[AeonsLegend]

1 hour ago, Boeroer said:

That is not correct. It was developed during a period where plate armor was prominent (1550+). I guess you are confusing it with a foil.

Anyway - I don't want to turn this into a discussion about misconceptions about medieval weaponry since that's completey deflecting from the actual discussion and utterly missing my point: that realism shouldn't be a primary concern for a D&D inspired fantasy RPG. 

Unless you have insight in the code of Deadfire and are a programmer you can't judge how easy or difficult it would be to implement something. 

About rapiers (for anybody who's interested) :

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Thanks for that information. Although there is also a misconception about the effectiveness of bladed weapons vs full plate. There's almost no bladed weapon that is even remotely effective vs full steel plate armor. There is no way to pierce it and no way to cut it. Period. The steel is too thick. There's plenty of vids online where steel plate armor is tested vs many things and they all bounce off. The fact that the weapon was around at the same time doesn't make it effective vs this armor.

Also I'm tired of people saying something can't be done or is difficult to do because x reason programming. Whenever someone brings up an idea it is almost always pounded into the ground because it would be hard to implement forcing an explanation on the person who brought up the idea and while the person who deflected it can just sit back. I guess there will always be people that think in terms of road blocks rather than in terms of roads. I have done plenty of programming in the past and building something like this isn't complicated. It may require effort yes and it may be counter to how the engine was built. But the thing is, you build it around what you want to do. You don't build it around what you can't do.

[Boeroer]

1 hour ago, AeonsLegend said:

Although there is also a misconception about the effectiveness of bladed weapons vs full plate. There's almost no bladed weapon that is even remotely effective vs full steel plate armor. There is no way to pierce it and no way to cut it. Period. The steel is too thick. There's plenty of vids online where steel plate armor is tested vs many things and they all bounce off. The fact that the weapon was around at the same time doesn't make it effective vs this armor.

I didn't say that. You are refuting a statement that wasn't made. I never said (nor do I believe) that blades can pierce plate armor - nor did I say that a rapier was effective agaist plate. I merely corrected your statement that the rapier was invented in a time when armor was less common while in fact it was used while plate armor was on a steep rise. My initial point was that the rapier could be seen as the better sword - or daggers can be seen as inferior battlefield weapons - and yet those different weapons are all sort of balanced in most RPGs so that the player has some stylistic choice. The point was that if you make things too realistic then the game becomes boring: players would all flock to the most effective "realistic" setup which would be some sort of plate armor and a pole weapon. And that point I just made to show that flanking doesn't necessarily have to be implemented in the most accurate way - if the simpler solution also works well enough (what I think) mechanically and conceptually. 

 

 

1 hour ago, AeonsLegend said:

Also I'm tired of people saying something can't be done or is difficult to do because x reason programming. Whenever someone brings up an idea it is almost always pounded into the ground because it would be hard to implement forcing an explanation on the person who brought up the idea and while the person who deflected it can just sit back. I guess there will always be people that think in terms of road blocks rather than in terms of roads. I have done plenty of programming in the past and building something like this isn't complicated. It may require effort yes and it may be counter to how the engine was built. But the thing is, you build it around what you want to do. You don't build it around what you can't do.

I am a computer scientist and software developer and I know some of the inner workings of Deadfire by observation and inspection.
The current solution of flanking is more systemic and is easier to fit into the affliction system than your idea. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea - and as stuff like Marked Prey, Minor Threat and Stalker's Link show your idea isn't impossible or even that hard to realize. But it would be more complicated than the current, rel. simple flanking affliction that gets applied like any other hostile effect. Also and especially with regard to the string of consequences for other abilites and mechanics that use flanked as a trigger. 

I didn't say that it's impossible, I only wanted to show that the current solution is easier to fit into the system and works well enough. So that this might be a plausible explanation as to why Obsidian did it that way. Since development time costs money and most likely the vast majority of players don't really care if flanking is a benefical effect on the player or a hostile effect on the enemy I presume that most developers would go for the easier solution (if they are not hellbent on doing a realistic version).

This is not only faster but also more robust since there is less risk of intruducing new bugs - and it also doesn't entail a whole new stream of potential problems with related mechanics such as Heating Up/On the Edge, Sneak Attack and so on - as I've already mentioned above.

If Obsidian had it planned differently from the get-go then it would be another case I guess. Maybe if they had made a seperate category of effects where stuff like Marked Prey, Sworn Enemy, Minor Threat etc and then also Flanked could have been put in. Then your idea would have had a good chance to not only be more realistic but also be systemic and fit well.

But even then I don't know if it wouldn't be too complicated for the common player. I already find the mechanics of Marked Prey and Sworn Enemy a bit obscure for new players. Could be solved easily with better tooltips, explanation and tutorials of course...     

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[Elric Galad]

27 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

So that this might be a plausible explanation as to why Obsidian did it that way. 

Or simply because they copier DnD 3rd Edition principle (which I honnestly find good mechanically).

[Boeroer]

Or that. But I really can't remember much about how 3rd Edition D&D things so...  

[Kaylon]

The idea of flanking is the defender will avoid hits less effectively vs multiple attackers, thus he gets a penalty. Saying that not all attackers should get the same bonus is not right to me because the defender won't face all the time to the same attacker while the other(s) stabs him to death in the back. In a real battle nobody will let someone at his back and instead will move trying to keep enemies in front of him. In a game such behavior would be hard to implement and thus, no matter the position, all attackers share the same bonus.

[AeonsLegend]

23 minutes ago, Kaylon said:

The idea of flanking is the defender will avoid hits less effectively vs multiple attackers, thus he gets a penalty. Saying that not all attackers should get the same bonus is not right to me because the defender won't face all the time to the same attacker while the other(s) stabs him to death in the back. In a real battle nobody will let someone at his back and instead will move trying to keep enemies in front of him. In a game such behavior would be hard to implement and thus, no matter the position, all attackers share the same bonus.

Another reason not to just grant this bonus to everyone. Since lots of this stuff is handled by Rolls you could actually add a roll to a person flagged for flanking. You could then add boni and such or penalties for being good or bad at flanking or fighting in general. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic. An attack roll is also unrealistic. I never got my head around the fact that any person in DnD has a 5% miss chance on huge inatimate objects.

[Elric Galad]

25 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

I never got my head around the fact that any person in DnD has a 5% miss chance on huge inatimate objects.

Invisible turtles are the doom of adventurers.

[thelee]

5 hours ago, AeonsLegend said:

An attack roll is also unrealistic. I never got my head around the fact that any person in DnD has a 5% miss chance on huge inatimate objects.

Strictly speaking, in newer D&Ds this should be a skill or stat check. Attack roll is supposed to abstract all the luck and shuffling around of combat. For hitting a truly inanimate mundane object, you really should just pass a check (which can neither critically fail not succeed).

 

To paraphrase 3e DM guidance I've read, tying your shoe laces is not something that everyone critically fails at 1 out of 20 times, and rocket science is not something an idiot gets right by dumb luck 1 out of 20 times.

 

Edit: from a game design perspective there is a good argument to be made in favor of critical hits and misses. They basically create a min and max capability for everyone. Doesn't sound like much, but in PoE1 I played a virtually untouchable solo character which just grinded out fights, but in IWD2 even with infinite deflection a large band of heart of fury kobolds will eventually kill you so you couldn't neglect damage.

Edited April 6, 2020 by thelee

[AeonsLegend]

26 minutes ago, thelee said:

Strictly speaking, in newer D&Ds this should be a skill or stat check. Attack roll is supposed to abstract all the luck and shuffling around of combat. For hitting a truly inanimate mundane object, you really should just pass a check (which can neither critically fail not succeed).

 

To paraphrase 3e DM guidance I've read, tying your shoe laces is not something that everyone critically fails at 1 out of 20 times, and rocket science is not something an idiot gets right by dumb luck 1 out of 20 times.

 

Edit: from a game design perspective there is a good argument to be made in favor of critical hits and misses. They basically create a min and max capability for everyone. Doesn't sound like much, but in PoE1 I played a virtually untouchable solo character which just grinded out fights, but in IWD2 even with infinite deflection a large band of heart of fury kobolds will eventually kill you so you couldn't neglect damage.

Still the fact that critical hit and miss is the same for a seasoned battle veteran and a toddler that cannot hold a fork is kind of strange.