Attack speed?

[Lephys]

My apologies, again. I wasn't aware that your clarifications of things to me were valuable, but mine regarding the exact same issue you already voluntarily spent your own time addressing were somehow wastes of everyone's time.

 

Lesson learned.

[Valorian]

Lephys, come on... I'm joking with you sometimes. I believe you're a good person so it's not my intention to hurt you in any way. Sorry.

[Lephys]

^ My bad. I read the wrong tone in that, I suppose. Really, sorry about that. I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion.

 

I appreciate the sentiment. And, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that I'm often difficult. Really. I get that the way I say things and think is frustrating, and clarifications and stuff wouldn't be necessary if I just thought like a normal person. But, *shrug*... I'm weird. I just try my best to mitigate it.

[teknoman2]

i can see the point of Lephys on the recovery time matter. if you have autopause when an enemy dies and the fighter gives the killing blow to his target, you give him a new target while paused. let's say that he has to walk for 5s to reach the new target. isnt that plenty of time to recover for his attack? why should he wait another 2s after reaching it before attacking?  i think that for melee, recovery time should count down even when moving (at half the speed maybe)

[Cubiq]

i can see the point of Lephys on the recovery time matter. if you have autopause when an enemy dies and the fighter gives the killing blow to his target, you give him a new target while paused. let's say that he has to walk for 5s to reach the new target. isnt that plenty of time to recover for his attack? why should he wait another 2s after reaching it before attacking?  i think that for melee, recovery time should count down even when moving (at half the speed maybe)

I also agree that it's weird that your character can run half of the map and still not able to get his weapon ready for the next swing. But by the sound of it, it's more of a balance issue than a logic issue.

Could Josh tell us why it's better to completely shut down recovery during movement? Do you believe that any kiting breaks too many things in the game? Or is there another reason?

(Like maybe the CC abilities already allow you to gain distance and therefor having recovery regenerate while moving would make kiting too strong?)

[Valorian]

^ My bad. I read the wrong tone in that, I suppose. Really, sorry about that. I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion.

 

I appreciate the sentiment. And, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that I'm often difficult. Really. I get that the way I say things and think is frustrating, and clarifications and stuff wouldn't be necessary if I just thought like a normal person. But, *shrug*... I'm weird. I just try my best to mitigate it.

 

It's fine. It's not frustrating, at least not for me. If I feel like skipping someone's (giant) post, I'll just skip it.

I get it that you have a compulsion to elaborate and explain as many little details as possible. Certain people will jump on someone if they think there's a weakness in what was said (Aha! You said this, but you're wrong because it's like this!), regardless of how irrelevant that detail might be and regardless of their interest in what is being discussed. Perhaps that's one of the reasons you want to preemptively clarify everything. 

 

 why should he wait 

 

The purpose is to discourage cheap exploits. Kiting can completely trivialize combat.

There's no reason to arbitrarily enforce recovery time just on ranged combatants.

[teknoman2]

logically speaking, someone with a sword can attack on the move. someone with a bow, needs to stand still to draw the string and aim. someone with a crossbow needs to stop to reload because it takes some strength to arm it. flintlock or matchlock guns are complicated to reload and the procedure cant be done on the move

technically speaking in game terms, a melee character cant kite anyway, while for those who can, there is a valid reason to have a delay to their attack if they move. 

in the end however, a melee character will barely have to move most of the time, and when he moves, it will be a few steps with 1 or 2s move time, since there probably wont be any large scale battles and most of the action of each encounter will be in an area about the size of the screen.

[Lephys]

Yeah, teknoman2, in a way, it doesn't make sense (realistically, that Fighter would have recovered while taking his 5+ second stroll across the battlefield), but, mechanically, and specifically within the context of the rest of the system, it serves a far greater purpose.

 

If the game simulated everything perfectly, it would be detrimental not to have that simulated, too. However, since most of it is abstracted, that one, isolated simulation is inconsistent with the rest of the mechanic.

 

So, a person with a sword shouldn't be unable to recover from attacks until he stands still, ever. BUT, in context, it's perfectly reasonable. Fitting into the game trumps fitting into reality, under the circumstances.

[Valorian]

 

technically speaking in game terms, a melee character cant kite anyway, while for those who can, there is a valid reason to have a delay to their attack if they move. 

 

I'll give an example. We don't have to call it kiting.

You use one character to lure a creature and with another you go stab it in the back with a melee weapon. AI, being silly as AIs usually are, keeps chasing the other character while being stabbed in the back repeatedly. This cheap tactic would be harder to execute if moving stops your recovery timer.

[teknoman2]

 

 

technically speaking in game terms, a melee character cant kite anyway, while for those who can, there is a valid reason to have a delay to their attack if they move. 

 

I'll give an example. We don't have to call it kiting.

You use one character to lure a creature and with another you go stab it in the back with a melee weapon. AI, being silly as AIs usually are, keeps chasing the other character while being stabbed in the back repeatedly. This cheap tactic would be harder to execute if moving stops your recovery timer.

 

actualy this can be done in this game even with the recovery time.

you do as you say.... if the enemy keeps going for the fighter while your rogue is on his back, the rogue will get a disengagement attack. and as the rogue follows while the enemy tries to catch the fighter he will trigger disengagement attacks constantly. and since for this tactic to work, the rogue needs to be faster than the enemy, then the rogue through various stops as he reaches the target will deplete the recovery and will be able to attack again. so the tactic will work anyway, it will just take a bit longer

[Valorian]

It will take longer and it will be harder. Clearly, if someone is inclined to abuse exploits, he/she will probably find a way. However, there's no reason to offer auto-win methods on a silver plate.

Just because potentially there could be a similar exploit with disengagement attacks (I'm sure they won't let AI suicide like that) doesn't mean they need to add more ways to abuse the AI on top of that.

[teknoman2]

that's what i say. people will always find ways to exploit, no matter how exploit proof you make the game. so making a game mechanic in a certain way just to prevent certain behaviours with no other reason in mind, would be bad game design. im not talking about this game in particular because they offer valid reasons for the way the system works.

[Lord Gorchnik]

Remember when you find a way to exploit or break something its not a bug......ITS A FEATURE!

[Sensuki]

The attack speed mechanics seem very robust.

 

The new system they have created solves the problem of accidentally cancelling a character's attack or spell that happened fairly often in the IE games (cancelling a spell by accidentally issuing a move command was annoying) while maintaining responsiveness and the ability to cancel if you wish. In the new system if you cancel your attack before the hit frame you do not have to wait for your next "turn" to attack, like you did in the IE games. I think that cancelling a spell before the cast point also does not waste the spell.

 

It seems like the Unity 4.2? feature of being able to trigger events on animation frames helped make this possible.

 

The inputs to the attack speed system come from a limited number of cases - armor and weapon choice, abilities/spells and items - which is about the same number of inputs as the IE games had (weapon, proficiency, item bonuses, abilities and spells). Hopefully there are some items in Pillars that have a naturally increased rate of attack (Gloves of Recovery - reduce recovery by 10% etc).

 

I first asked about attacks and attack cancels way back in 2012: http://au.cybergamer.com/article/3083/Interview-with-Josh-Sawyer-of-Obsidian-Entertainment/

 

A good example of a tried and true RTS combat system is the one used by Warcraft 3/Defense of the Ancients/DotA 2. Units and Heroes have a Base Attack Time in seconds (1.7), as well as an Attack Animation time (eg 0.5) a Damage point, and a backswing time (eg 0.7) and attack speed is calculated by scaling these values [ Animation or BAT / (1 + attack speed bonus)]. Is this a similar direction to the one you're going with moving combat system design away from the d20 system ? The ability to cancel attack animations/casting animations has disappeared in more recent games as well but these were handy in the IE games.

Calculating actions (and cancels) in frames (or seconds, from a user perspective) is something we've had to do on most of our recent titles, especially Dungeon Siege III and Fallout: New Vegas. It's less important for the player to perceive when it's not a direct input system (like Dungeon Siege III or New Vegas), but working in real-time means, yep, you have to think about things on a real-time scale. In a round-based system, increments to attack rates need to be made on a coarse-granularity scale. That's why older editions of AD&D had attack rates like 3/2 before 2/1 and GURPS gets into some complicated time unit subdivisions. When the round is the basis for combat timing, you don't have many other choices.

Josh also posted on the Obsidian forums, in one of the update threads in response to one of my questions that they were probably not going to include attack cancels. Good to see they did though, because not being able to cancel an animation would give the combat a clunky non-IE feeling.

 

The system sounds like it should "feel" similar to the IE games in regards to attack animation speed. The game animations run at 30FPS which is the same speed that the IE games ran at, so that should also help the game "feel" IE as well (although I personally played at 40 FPS, as it was smoother).

Edited May 12, 2014 by Sensuki

[Mor]

i can see the point of Lephys on the recovery time matter. if you have autopause when an enemy dies and the fighter gives the killing blow to his target, you give him a new target while paused. let's say that he has to walk for 5s to reach the new target. isnt that plenty of time to recover for his attack? why should he wait another 2s after reaching it before attacking?  i think that for melee, recovery time should count down even when moving (at half the speed maybe)

This will put into disadvantage fighters (who have an increased engagement limit and likely to hold more than one target), while offer expand micro-management opportunity on an anal level for those willing to shave couple of seconds on attacks :/ I'd rather have the current less realistic variant.

 

 

technically speaking in game terms, a melee character cant kite anyway, while for those who can, there is a valid reason to have a delay to their attack if they move.

I'll give an example. We don't have to call it kiting.

You use one character to lure a creature and with another you go stab it in the back with a melee weapon. AI, being silly as AIs usually are, keeps chasing the other character while being stabbed in the back repeatedly. This cheap tactic would be harder to execute if moving stops your recovery timer.

 

It would be further difficult to execute due to engagement. The moment the rouge will catch up to the target and stop, they both stop and engaged. At which point the target will most certainly recheck its AI routine and far more likely to start targeting the rouge (who is also likely to be a softer target), if the rouge want to keep playing cat and mice he will have to use his abilities to break engagement and run away..

 

btw, engagement will also allow you to "tackle" enemy attackers going for your rare units.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Mor

[Valorian]

Here's a quote from the update on melee engagement:

 

 

Here's how it works: 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.

 

Unless it's been changed, melee engagement doesn't trigger if both combatants are moving.

[Sensuki]

That's correct. You have to be stationary to be eligible for disengagement attacks.

[Mor]

@Valorian, Which is why I said that it will be triggered the moment the "rouge will catch up to the target and stop". I assume that for an attack(action\animation) to commence the character will have to stop movement, which will happen automatically i.e. once ordered to attack, your character move until he is in his melee range, then stop(invoking engagement, causing the other character to stop) and attack (not chase after the target swinging or wait for you to hit the "stop" button to enter engagement).

Edited May 12, 2014 by Mor

[Sensuki]

We'd have to actually see the system in play based on your situation, or have Josh confirm it.

 

It depends on the movement speed of the characters and whether or not once an attack animation begins, and the target moves out of range, whether the attack animation still plays, or is cancelled by the target moving out of range.

 

We're not really sure how Melee Engagement works regarding chasing down foes, we know how it works on an intercept basis. Chasing down engagement is one of the areas where the system has the potential to be a bit strange, but yeah I assume if you get close enough to start an attack animation, that probably does stop the enemy unit from moving and it would be logical for an enemy AI to turn and face their attacker.

[Valorian]

@Valorian, Which is why I said that it will be triggered the moment the "rouge will catch up to the target and stop". I assume that for an attack(action\animation) to commence the character will have to stop movement, which will happen automatically i.e. once ordered to attack, your character move until he is in his melee range, then stop(invoking engagement, causing the other character to stop) and attack (not chase after the target swinging or wait for you to hit the "stop" button to enter engagement).

 

I read what you wrote. The thing is, why would they mention "not moving" as a requirement if combatants can: move, not move, run, chase and stab, dance and roll around the battlefield and engage each other anyway?

[Lephys]

One thing I'm curious about, with all this new-ish knowledge of specifically how recovery time fits into ability usage, is if there will be any (probably very few, for various reasons) "instant-use" abilities that are usable even while recovery is going on. Any at all. That could be kind of interesting. Of course, those would have to be pretty limited-use (once per encounter/rest or so).

 

What immediately comes to mind are the disengagement abilities that were mentioned. Because, thus far, the only thing that seems to happen "instantly" (without conforming to the rhythm of the rest of combat actions, and can even occur during your recovery time) are Attacks of Opportunity. So, maybe we get very limited-use things like Grimoire Slam, to be used at our discretion to make that engagement escape/"dodge" at the opportune moment? *shrug*

 

Just a thought.

[Mor]

JS said they have a single resolution system for all attacks, I assume that is true of all actions as well and that abilities, melee\ranged attacks, spells, item use etc will all be treated the same and have action time(animation time) and recovery time, and can be interrupted. What you suggest is plausible(animation time 0 ?), but its likely be very unique/limited abilities not common use ones.

 

Btw what about difficulty settings, i remember that in nwn effect time of status effects was changed, will this something like that be in place here? e.g. different attacks speed for v.easy and v.hard would mean a big difference in hit count and interrupt chance.

 

The thing is, why would they mention "not moving" as a requirement if combatants can: move, not move, run, chase and stab, dance and roll around the battlefield and engage each other anyway?

probably because all their action/attack animations are for stationary characters, like in IE games.

 

It was said somewhere that engagement is about area control. which fits well with how I see it, this way you can tactically position your characters or engage with them, to protect your weaker units in the back from enemy skirmishers, instead of silly chase\hack scene on repeat.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Mor

[Sensuki]

Recovery time is basically to simulate the pause between actions in the Infinity Engine games.
 
Icewind Dale got rid of the fake attacks in the Baldur's Gate engine, but it also did not have the "ready" stance either.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2kTAZetEFU&list=PL0AB42C2A904B2FE2#t=163

 

A video example above:

 

JES is very fond of unified mechanics and rules, so all actions will have an animation and recovery time. 

 

 

 

It's likely, that there will be three use durations for active abilities: immediate, short(~3 seconds), and long(~6 seconds).[4] Those will be set to specific intervals and will be consistent between characters. E.g. a fighter's "short" ability use is the same as a wizard's "short" casting time.

 

There are apparently immediate abilities, I assume they will have standard recovery time of 1 second to avoid ridiculous circumstances.

[Randomthom]

There is a very key difference between the new PoE system and the old IE engine.

 

In the old IE engine character A would swing his sword then wait 6s then swing again.

In the new PoE system a character B will swing their sword then wait 6s then swing again.

In the new PoE system, a character C with faster attacks will swing their sword, wait 5s then swing again.

 

Thus, over the course of a 1-minute fight character C gains an extra 2 attacks (13 vs 11).

 

This becomes even more obvious and important with spellcasting. In IE, every character in the party (and the enemies) are locked into this 6s window. In PoE the window is per-character.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Randomthom

[zhandao]

 

What about if the monster is just running away, from a fear spell or morale failure. Will the Engage mechanic be enough to allow melee to hit the target? 

As far as i know that only works when the opponent isn't moving, so will melee be able to damage a fleeing opponent at all?

 

If you can catch up to the character, it should.  As soon as the pursuer stops moving, they will engage the enemy (meaning the enemy stops).  The enemy can move away, but that immediately provokes a Disengagement Attack.

 

Does that only apply to a player character pursuing an enemy NPC? Or will it apply vice versa - that if an enemy pursues one of my player characters and succeeds in Engagement, will my character immediately stop movement, or will my character continue to move and suffer a Disengagement Attack?

 

I would prefer that if an enemy Engages me while I'm fleeing, then beginning Engagement stops my movement. If I still want to continue movement and voluntarily suffer a Disengagement Attack, I can choose to do so afterwards. Basically, this would give me a "decision point" the same way it gives AI a clear decision point.

 

Otherwise, it seems that noticing Engagement and then avoiding the subsequent Disengagement Attack would be an extremely short time window, resulting in a too much reflex based gameplay. On another forum, someone suggested that there could be an Auto-Pause on Engagement. That is an objectively good solution, but subjectively I predict myself to find it clunky. Or perhaps Movement Stop on Engagement could be a toggleable gameplay option.