Update #44: The Rules of (Melee) Engagement

[Lephys]

In light of that I hope there are knockback abilities available to prevent abuse of the mechanic in doorways.

Not to mention knockdown abilities. .

 

"You're stopping us from getting past to your Wizard? HAH!"

*Trample*

[Osvir]

Great points!
- Knockback
- Knockdown
- Trample

Not to exclude
- Overwhelm
- "Intimidate" and/or "Fear" (A psychological knockback/Indirect, no damage taken but perhaps other penalties)

[Tsuga C]

Not to mention knockdown abilities. .

 

"You're stopping us from getting past to your Wizard? HAH!"

*Trample*

I always disabled knockdown completely in NWN2 as it was death on my d4 and d6 characters. Without the ability to designate protective formations to shepard the more vulnerable characters, it wasn't worth having in the game.

[Lephys]

I always disabled knockdown completely in NWN2 as it was death on my d4 and d6 characters. Without the ability to designate protective formations to shepard the more vulnerable characters, it wasn't worth having in the game.

Granted, but I'd just like to see it actually be worth having in a game.

[Osvir]

With things like the engagement circle, knockback specifically sounds like something very tactical in general.

Being able to push enemies out of engagement circles and being pushed away by an enemy etc. etc.

Engagement:


Knockback:


I can see situations where the AI is gunning for my Wizard or some other character, and my Barbarian engages with a Wild Rush and knocks the AI out of the Wizards engagement circle. Or my Fighter is getting a lot of damage and is locked in engagement, being able to "push back" the enemy and run back a little bit and heal up some stamina might also be a life saver.

Knockdown is pretty much the same thing as "Stun" or "Dazzle" but with a little bit more *Thunk* to it. I wouldn't mind the mechanic, and I want some challenge so it'd definitately not be something I would turn off entirely from the game. Instead, look at other solutions, how would you protect yourself from getting "knocked down" and how can that be introduced into the mechanics? (A shield helps, helmet, perks, spells, a Fighter has a natural resistance to knockdown abilities/attacks? Etc. etc.)

[Lephys]

Well, I'm thinking maybe it's time for knockdown to be more "You're on your back and now have to deal with that change in your situation" than "you're rendered completely inert for 10 seconds, and this happens to be accompanied by a shnazzy animation."

 

Maybe you get different attacks, or you get trip opportunities on every other opponent who runs through your now-smaller engagement radius. Maybe you get feats and such that affect this, so that if foes don't take care in how they approach you, you chest-kick them to know THEM down before pulling yourself back up to your feet, or you side-roll dodge a blade, then disarm the attacker before getting to your feet and re-engaging them.

[Sensuki]

They already said they have a prone stance in the game, so there will be some kind of knockdown stuff. Hopefully just no bull**** knockdown arrow skill like DA:O, that was the most annoying piece of **** ever.

 

And the Grimoire Slam is basically a knockback skill for Wizards, so you would assume that Fighters, Barbarians and the like would have something similar. Could also be something to relate to polearms and/or 2H crushing weapons as well.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Sensuki

[Osvir]

^Great points & ideas Lephys. We'll probably not get "lying down fighting" animations or "rolling around" animations (you won't be able to attack from prone-stance for instance). I like the thoughts on the abilities, that's something that could work very well for a Barbarian Class or Fighter (I'm envisioning a sort of "Wrestle Perk").

Concept of what that could mean: 
Wrestle Perk: When Effected by "Knockdown"; character with this perk can pull down a single hostile target within Engagement Circle, causing "Knockdown" to target whilst possibly removing effects of "Knockdown" on Self (Otherwise both character and target gets "Knockdown" effects).

Additional thoughts:
- 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue engaged = 100% Engagement (Locked in combat)
Standard combat sequence (Auto-Attacking each other) "Chop chop"

- Knockback = Forcing 0% Engagement ("Force Disengage")
Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Disengaged.

- Knockdown = 25%-50% engagement (Characters would still be locked in engagement, "Escape" would be easier to utilize and Fighter wouldn't be able to chase after if "Escape" is successful)
Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Still engaged in proximity.

- Dazzled = Blind Fighting, 50%-75% Engagement
Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Still engaged in proximity & combat, character effected just has a poor/blurred vision.

- Stun = 0% Engagement
Engagement Circle Nullified in CCQ.

Trample & Overwhelm feels like a sort of "On top of Knockdown"-Effects: If a character is suffering from "Knockdown Status" and more creatures/enemies enter the engagement circle, % of Trample or Overwhelm.

Finally, something that struck me writing on the "Dazzle Effect". A Blur Spell could be a sort of Buff to "improve" some sort of Engagement Advantage?

[Barzarel]

• Don't know if any of the crew read the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: Combat and tactics there some nice things in it to. Just a instance where a double team can function well together from it, a sword and board fighter holding the ones storming while a 2handed uses he range benefit with a polearms or spear to pose a threat for those who gets within spear range from getting stabbed, giving the sword and board some breathing space from some that might look for weaknesses otherwise up close to jab in past. Not sure why those options were never added into the pc games as it would give some worth to 2handed weapons which often fall way behind in usefulness to the tanking abilities but also the dual wielder who usually can push out more damage.

[Guest 4ward]

i’d like to reply to the original post in this thread  (i haven’t read the entire thread and the following posts), i know it’s late but i wasn’t aware of the game back then and i honestly saw this video and the entire thread just today. Perhaps it’s a mistake to post a reply now and here but this is really a concern for me and i would like to post my thoughts and ‘get it off my chest’ as they say. It’s more a direct reply to Obsidian and a plea if you will..

 

The assumption that melee chars need to protect ranged chars when initializing battle is not correct. You position melee chars in front where they are also the only characters recognized in line of sight, the ranged chars are usually not recognized as first targets. Next to positioning ranged characters in safe places, they also have protections themselves (protection spells and/or armour). E.g., in BG2 you’d have stoneskin which basically would resemble a per-rest spell and fireshield which would resemble a per-encounter spell. Stoneskin would go away after i think 5 hits on the caster, the fireshield would still be present.

Either way, your melee char could then assist the ranged char if necessary or you could move your ranged char away and cast another protection on yourself. But there’s no need for protection of a ranged char upon initializing a battle. Therefore, melee chars don’t need to control an area from the perspective of the player. If it’s about the perspective of the computer AI, it’s the same, they have also those protection spells and they’re positioned back.

 

Melee chars could not be foiled unless opponents had haste spells or boots of speed. If you’re worried about that, simply let chars move at the same speed. If armour effects speed, give talents that make up for slow speed. Blocking is also easier for melee chars then. Backpedalling of ranged chars can be avoided by encounter design and also by area design.

 

You’re saying that

‘when two opposed combatants come near each other and one of them a) has a melee weapon equipped b) is not moving and c) is not currently at his or her maximum limit of engagement targets (the standard is 1), the other character will be Engaged.’

Have you also considered if that works when multiple enemies are close to each other and engaged at later stages of the game but not just the most simple example of 2 facing each other. With the a.m. b ) precondition you have also killed any movement (after the initial movement when closing in) in melee.

 

You say

‘When an opponent is Engaged by an attacker, moving any significant distance away from the attacker will provoke a Disengagement Attack.’

 What is a significant distance though? Weapon range? How is that calculated with multiple opponents next to each other? Also, i will always let chars fight with long weapons and neglect short weapons?

 

You say

‘Of course, there are other ways to end Engagement. If the attacker switches to a non-melee weapon or performs a non-melee-based action, Engagement immediately ends. If the attacker moves away from their Engagement targets, is paralyzed, knocked down, or otherwise prevented from maintaining a threat, Engagement will also immediately end. If the attacker has a limited number of Engagement targets (as most do) and switches his or her attack focus to a different character, Engagement immediately ends.’

You mean to tell that a melee char will during battle perform a non-melee action or switch to a non-melee weapon? Why would he do that? Why would computer AI switch enemies in melee?

 

How can this mechanic give computer AI as you say ‘clear "decision point" where they can evaluate the threat of their new status and choose the appropriate course of action’?

 

What tactical challenges does it add to the human players? They could have had certain abilities without the mechanic if you’re worried that they were just auto-attacking in the old games could you not? Why do you think that melee chars were not potent threats in the old games. How are they supposed to be potent threats if you robbed them of movement?

 

Thank you.