Spell queue

[Valorian]

Action queues are more suitable for games where:

 

1) Most abilities are single target as opposed to area effect

2) Character movement is generally unimportant

 

In a tactical RPG where characters are moving around and throwing area effects at each other, queues might be more likely to cause a mess than help anybody. That queued up fireball you had ready? The character you were aiming for is long gone.

 

I'll try not to drop several consecutive fireballs on top of my party.

 

There are some scenarios where I'd want to queue a few aoe spells. For instance, my front-liner is in the middle of a group of tough enemies, alone. He has a good (reflex) defense and meaty fire resistance. Depending on the HP pools of said enemies, I'd totally queue a few fireballs on top of them, while I'm managing the surrounded person.

 

 

 

I largely ignored your concerns because I've noticed that often, as of late, your concerns are irrational fears (of losing the "IE feels", whatever that means to you). Like, the magic missile is not red, it is purple instead. The selection circle is too thick, the color is wrong. The woman plate isn't different enough. Make it like IE.

 

In this vein, you think that an action queue will somehow disrupt.. something in combat. It will not.

 I've made hundreds of critiques about absolutely everything I've seen in the game since we saw the trailer

 

 

I know. 

[Arkeus]

Ok, adding my two cents on why Queuing is BAD:

 

1°) AoE and even CC abilities mean that you can't queue actions without constantly having to unqueue them, as not only enemy moves, but status effect means you need to quickly change your tactics. Having action queuing will mean that the tactical elements of the game will need to be lessened in order not to make the queuing an actual detriment/hassle for the player.

2°) Having queuing action will institute a "use abilities all the time" reflex from the player, and it doesn't mesh well at all with semi-Vancian magic. This means that players will want to rest more and more and more, and it will completely skew the game's balance.

[Caerdon]

No, I assume that after you've played the game a few times you have a certain way you beat each encounter. That's normal, but I don't think that's a good reason for an action queue.

 

That's not the reason I'm asking for an action queue.

[Caerdon]

Ok, adding my two cents on why Queuing is BAD:

 

1°) AoE and even CC abilities mean that you can't queue actions without constantly having to unqueue them, as not only enemy moves, but status effect means you need to quickly change your tactics. Having action queuing will mean that the tactical elements of the game will need to be lessened in order not to make the queuing an actual detriment/hassle for the player.

 

2°) Having queuing action will institute a "use abilities all the time" reflex from the player, and it doesn't mesh well at all with semi-Vancian magic. This means that players will want to rest more and more and more, and it will completely skew the game's balance.

 

I don't get it - who's forcing you to queue AoE abilities? Why do you guys keep insisting that having an action queue means that every action will be queued and you have to manually unqueue them? It's the other way around. You queue actions when you specifically want to do that - otherwise you just play as if the queue didn't exist at all.

[Sensuki]

I think you might have a different definition of an action queue to me. The action queue I was referring to is like the ones uses in the NWNs, KotORs etc, those that change the nature of selecting and cancelling actions - other RTS games have the ability to shift queue a couple of actions together (such as blink stuns in dota) - that stuff is fine to me although I'm not sure they'd be as applicable in PE due to the semi-vancian system as someone pointed out before.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Sensuki

[Billy O]

I'd mainly just use action queues to combine action with movement. Not to chain abilities together. For example pull your caster back 10 yards and then cast upon reaching their destination, or run your warrior into the fray and use an ability.

[Arkeus]

I don't get it - who's forcing you to queue AoE abilities? Why do you guys keep insisting that having an action queue means that every action will be queued and you have to manually unqueue them? It's the other way around. You queue actions when you specifically want to do that - otherwise you just play as if the queue didn't exist at all.

I didn't say any of those things- i said that if you do use queue (even manually), you will then have to manually unqueue things manually a lot as the tactical danger of the fight changes.

 

Basically, Queuing enhance the strategic aspect (macro) at the detriment of the tactical aspect (micro). It's even worse when you consider that in order to make queuing /work/, you would have to completely change the balance of the game even for those who don't use queuing.

 

Basically, i want my strategic aspects to be in the character building/gearing/grimoire selection, and not in the actual combat itself. I want the combat itself to have /challenging/ tactical gameplay, and in order for the tactical gameplay to be challenging, it must constantly present new difficulties/challenge that the player either didn't expect or didn't consider likely, and as thus will make queuing a hassle.

[Ragg]

 

I don't get it - who's forcing you to queue AoE abilities? Why do you guys keep insisting that having an action queue means that every action will be queued and you have to manually unqueue them? It's the other way around. You queue actions when you specifically want to do that - otherwise you just play as if the queue didn't exist at all.

I didn't say any of those things- i said that if you do use queue (even manually), you will then have to manually unqueue things manually a lot as the tactical danger of the fight changes.

 

Basically, Queuing enhance the strategic aspect (macro) at the detriment of the tactical aspect (micro). It's even worse when you consider that in order to make queuing /work/, you would have to completely change the balance of the game even for those who don't use queuing.

 

Basically, i want my strategic aspects to be in the character building/gearing/grimoire selection, and not in the actual combat itself. I want the combat itself to have /challenging/ tactical gameplay, and in order for the tactical gameplay to be challenging, it must constantly present new difficulties/challenge that the player either didn't expect or didn't consider likely, and as thus will make queuing a hassle.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. You don't have to have a system where you have to manually unqueue, you can just have optional queueing that plays identically to the old IE games except when you choose to use the queue. Game balance doesn't change at all because you could already pause and do it manually.

[Sensuki]

A shift queue system wouldn't even be that useful because there's a delay between your actions (recovery time), usually between 1-2 seconds.

[Caerdon]

I think you might have a different definition of an action queue to me. The action queue I was referring to is like the ones uses in the NWNs, KotORs etc, those that change the nature of selecting and cancelling actions - other RTS games have the ability to shift queue a couple of actions together (such as blink stuns in dota) - that stuff is fine to me although I'm not sure they'd be as applicable in PE due to the semi-vancian system as someone pointed out before.

 

Just because something is implemented in a particular way in some other games it doesn't mean that's the only way to implement it. I always try to think how things should function in context of this game instead of just applying them blindly from other games, but maybe that's just me.

 

And maybe you don't see much value in being able to chain actions together with an action queue. I do. I think it'd be really nice if I could tell a character to cast a debuff at a target and then keep firing arrows at another target without having to give commands at two separate occasions. It would allow me to focus more on the actual tactics instead of handholding.

[Sensuki]

Like I said, if it's like Warcraft 3 where you hold shift and click an icon on the action bar, target it and then do another one - that's fine. The NWN/KotOR style action queue is horrible.

 

I never use those (still manually do everything in DotA 2 lol), but it doesn't get in the way of normal play.

[Caerdon]

 

I don't get it - who's forcing you to queue AoE abilities? Why do you guys keep insisting that having an action queue means that every action will be queued and you have to manually unqueue them? It's the other way around. You queue actions when you specifically want to do that - otherwise you just play as if the queue didn't exist at all.

I didn't say any of those things- i said that if you do use queue (even manually), you will then have to manually unqueue things manually a lot as the tactical danger of the fight changes.

 

Basically, Queuing enhance the strategic aspect (macro) at the detriment of the tactical aspect (micro). It's even worse when you consider that in order to make queuing /work/, you would have to completely change the balance of the game even for those who don't use queuing.

 

Basically, i want my strategic aspects to be in the character building/gearing/grimoire selection, and not in the actual combat itself. I want the combat itself to have /challenging/ tactical gameplay, and in order for the tactical gameplay to be challenging, it must constantly present new difficulties/challenge that the player either didn't expect or didn't consider likely, and as thus will make queuing a hassle.

 

 

You seem really confused.

 

If the situation changes, you just give commands as you always would. It will clear the queue of all actions. Zero extra effort required.

 

And what's this talk about "balance"? Please, please tell me how the capability to queue actions affects the balance in any way?

 

Words like "tactical" and "strategic" don't mean what you think they mean. They both involve planning, prediction and reacting.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm with @Sensuki on this one. No command queue please.

[Gleipnir]

All I can say is that it was tried in NWN and I did not appreciate it.

[NothingToSeeHere]

I think a lot of people here (Arkeus in particular) don't quite understand what the shift+click RTS-esque queue is - if you want to issue two/multiple commands instead of one, you hold shift+issue those commands - you do not cancel single items in a queue, you either execute the whole queue or cancel the whole queue by issuing a new command. I don't see how this is going to make the game unbalanced in any way. Either you use this feature for something stupid like chain fireball-ing and make the game harder for yourself, or use it for something more useful like moving units around enemies in a queue of short steps to avoid engagement/disengagement. Not an essential feature by any means, but it isn't game breaking either.

[Panteleimon]

I think a lot of people here (Arkeus in particular) don't quite understand what the shift+click RTS-esque queue is - if you want to issue two/multiple commands instead of one, you hold shift+issue those commands - you do not cancel single items in a queue, you either execute the whole queue or cancel the whole queue by issuing a new command. I don't see how this is going to make the game unbalanced in any way. Either you use this feature for something stupid like chain fireball-ing and make the game harder for yourself, or use it for something more useful like moving units around enemies in a queue of short steps to avoid engagement/disengagement. Not an essential feature by any means, but it isn't game breaking either.

 

So, what, a mechanism for kiting? Engagement/disengagement are given weight for important reasons. Why make it easier to circumvent and go back to the good ol' days of shooting Sarevok to bits while he chases your hasted fighter?

[Arkeus]

If the situation changes, you just give commands as you always would. It will clear the queue of all actions. Zero extra effort required.

 

 

And what's this talk about "balance"? Please, please tell me how the capability to queue actions affects the balance in any way?

 

Words like "tactical" and "strategic" don't mean what you think they mean. They both involve planning, prediction and reacting.

 

 

I think a lot of people here (Arkeus in particular) don't quite understand what the shift+click RTS-esque queue is - if you want to issue two/multiple commands instead of one, you hold shift+issue those commands - you do not cancel single items in a queue, you either execute the whole queue or cancel the whole queue by issuing a new command. I don't see how this is going to make the game unbalanced in any way. Either you use this feature for something stupid like chain fireball-ing and make the game harder for yourself, or use it for something more useful like moving units around enemies in a queue of short steps to avoid engagement/disengagement. Not an essential feature by any means, but it isn't game breaking either.

No, i understand it perfectly- but it does influence the rest of the game. Basically, a queue can only be usable if the times it can be used at all are common.

 

This, by itself, imply that you can predict what your character will do in 4/5 seconds after the current action and the recovery time in a reliable manner.

 

Basically, in order for a queue to work out, the tactical challenge must be dimnished. This is compounded by the semi-Vancian system, as it enables degenerate gameplay where you just spam abilities and thus are forced to rest more and more.

 

This obviously also apply to "useful things" like moving around to not get into engagement attacks, as it presupposes that by the time your character get to the first 'endpoint' of the queue the enemies will not have adjusted. In a decently done game, this actually would kill your characters, not help them (i am obviously not talking about stuff like in a RTS where you use this for pathfinding/ambush after minutes of walking).

[NothingToSeeHere]

No, i understand it perfectly- but it does influence the rest of the game. Basically, a queue can only be usable if the times it can be used at all are common.

 

This, by itself, imply that you can predict what your character will do in 4/5 seconds after the current action and the recovery time in a reliable manner.

 

Basically, in order for a queue to work out, the tactical challenge must be dimnished. This is compounded by the semi-Vancian system, as it enables degenerate gameplay where you just spam abilities and thus are forced to rest more and more.

 

This obviously also apply to "useful things" like moving around to not get into engagement attacks, as it presupposes that by the time your character get to the first 'endpoint' of the queue the enemies will not have adjusted. In a decently done game, this actually would kill your characters, not help them (i am obviously not talking about stuff like in a RTS where you use this for pathfinding/ambush after minutes of walking).

 

 

I don't think you really do understand how it works. A shift+click queue is optional, not the default method of issuing commands. Why must the game be dumbed down to accommodate it? It is an ease of use feature. Tactical challenge is a mechanics issue. There's no need to change one because of the other.

 

My statement about engagement attacks applies equally well to persistent AoE effects like Cloudkill. Queuing basically allows you to micromanage pathfinding, which I still think is a valid use-case. Again, it's something IE games have worked fine without, so it's not necessary, but it's definitely not something which will kill a game, like you seem to suggest.

 

(But then again, it's been a long time since I've played an RTwP so I can't say I'm 100% sure of what I'm saying. At least I think queues will be useful...)

Edited August 14, 2014 by NothingToSeeHere

[mindx2]

Another no to command queue

[Lephys]

I don't understand the level of againstness here...

 

With a queue, I can tell my Wizard "Cast Shield on this guy. When you're done, and as soon as you can cast again, cast Obscuring Mist over here, so our foes will be driven away from that area, so that they can see, and will lose their strategic advantage that that area offers."

 

Without a queue, the only difference is, I have to constantly monitor my Wizard's actions, specifically, and pause to make sure he didn't stand around like an idiot, just firing off wand blasts at the nearest foe, for a couple of seconds purely because I wasn't anal enough with my manual micromanagement.

 

A queue allows you to queue things. That's it. It doesn't force anything, it doesn't murder your family. It's not evil. What's the big deal? It's not a virus. It's just a friggin' feature.

 

Apply these same arguments to formations, and see how silly it is. "NO! You can already pause! You should just move everyone, manually, to make sure they always stay in formation!" I mean, movement is an action. It's just a position-affecting action.

 

Just because queuing up 5 fireballs would be moronic doesn't mean there's nothing you can do with a queue that isn't moronic.

[ryukenden]

I originally thought that a simply queue for spells but now everyone is thinking +5 or more actions. 

 

can't we compromise by: use the shift to queue, maximum 3 actions, on/off mode switch?  That way people that want it can use it but those that don't won't suffer as a result.

Edited August 15, 2014 by ryukenden

[Caerdon]

That way people that want it can use it but those that don't won't suffer as a result.

 

Would someone please explain to me how anyone would suffer from a perfectly non-intrusive feature, the use of which is completely, absolutely voluntary?

[Lephys]

Indeed, Caerdon. It's like saying "Don't put companions in the game, because I want to play the game solo!"

[ryukenden]

 

That way people that want it can use it but those that don't won't suffer as a result.

 

Would someone please explain to me how anyone would suffer from a perfectly non-intrusive feature, the use of which is completely, absolutely voluntary?

 

Beats me, I can't justified it. I didn't find it intrusive. But someone here thinks its bad.

[Iucounu]

 

I think a lot of people here (Arkeus in particular) don't quite understand what the shift+click RTS-esque queue is - if you want to issue two/multiple commands instead of one, you hold shift+issue those commands - you do not cancel single items in a queue, you either execute the whole queue or cancel the whole queue by issuing a new command. I don't see how this is going to make the game unbalanced in any way. Either you use this feature for something stupid like chain fireball-ing and make the game harder for yourself, or use it for something more useful like moving units around enemies in a queue of short steps to avoid engagement/disengagement. Not an essential feature by any means, but it isn't game breaking either.

 

So, what, a mechanism for kiting? Engagement/disengagement are given weight for important reasons. Why make it easier to circumvent and go back to the good ol' days of shooting Sarevok to bits while he chases your hasted fighter?

 

If it's that easy to trick the engagement mechanics, you could still achieve the same by just pausing a bit more, so..