FootDive Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 One of the things I've noticed about the combat in this game is how much clutter you need to go through which is something I've been worried about since I saw some of the first skills previewed in the updates. There's a lot of micromanagement to be had which is one of the disadvantages of the RTwP. Naturally in both PoE and the older games you were more inclined to just leave your melee/archers to autoattack all day as opposed to micro'ing your casters to cast spells, waiting for the casting to finish and then casting again. Now here's a proposition to alleviate this problem: Remember how KotOR2 allowed you to queue attacks and skills? The same logic can apply here and make it much more better in this game by allowing your characters to queue actions not just by attacks but also by movement and by target. This keeps the tactical side of the game (you can't anticipate when to use heals and dispels for example) while alleviating the cluttered nature of having to cast/recast spells. What do you guys think? 6
Cabamacadaf Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 I like this idea. I think it would be a quite useful addition. 1
PrimeJunta Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Please no. No command queue. It would completely change the feel of the combat. Seriously. Apart from the bugs, the main problem with combat is lack of feedback. Sensuki's gone over this in detail; with the status/action icons on the portraits, feedback when hovering over them, indications of who's targeting/engaging whom, and sounds/animations/flashes for interrupting or getting interrupted, it'll feel a lot clearer. But yeah, it does need all that. 10 I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com
Sebmono Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 +1 for queues! Love what that adds to the flow in games like KOTOR. As an added benefit (over the current implementation and old IE ways) you don't spend all of combat staring at the portraits timing when a spell finishes casting and can actually spend some time looking at the nicely designed characters fighting. Queues are an excellent and elegant way of easing away some unnecesary micromanagement while still allowing for one to micro as much as they desire. 1
Mr. Magniloquent Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 I'm unsure on the issue. On one hand, despite major micromanagement, I feel like my actions are still inefficient. A queue would help this, but I think it's only treating a symptom of a greater problem. I agree with PrimeJunta, in that it's the lack of feedback that is the root of the problem. My lack of efficiency is ultimately because I'm not sure what my character are doing at any given moment. Combat is also too chaotic for queues to be useful in its current implementation. In that all character are effectively operating on their own time cycles, synchronization of action is difficult. Engagement is also a problem, as it's not quite effective in keeping enemies at bay. I think that queues would only increase the incidence of missing widely and/or inappropriate timing with spells and abilities. 1
Ben007 Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Mark me dwn as "FOR" queues. No one says you HAVE to use them.
Matt516 Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Agree on the need for more feedback, though I don't know that I've ever seen anyone who disagrees with that haha. I'm a little confused though.. How would a queue system change the feel of the combat in a negative way? Edited August 23, 2014 by Matt516
Ganrich Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Please no. No command queue. It would completely change the feel of the combat. Seriously. Apart from the bugs, the main problem with combat is lack of feedback. Sensuki's gone over this in detail; with the status/action icons on the portraits, feedback when hovering over them, indications of who's targeting/engaging whom, and sounds/animations/flashes for interrupting or getting interrupted, it'll feel a lot clearer. But yeah, it does need all that. Agreed, on all points. Agree on the need for more feedback, though I don't know that I've ever seen anyone who disagrees with that haha. I'm a little confused though.. How would a queue system change the feel of the combat in a negative way? If there was 1 critique I've had with the IE games it was that many Non-caster classes are set it and forget it. I feel like needing to constantly switch between my party and make decisions about what each member is doing (using limited resources) is one of the things this game has fixed and, IMHO, it could use a few more abilities on some of the classes to make it even more intense. If you add a queue system it marginalizes that change. Can you honestly say that the IE games feel anything like Kotor? The IE games require a bit more active play while the Kotor games, although I enjoyed them, you could set up a series of commands and watch it happen until things went wrong and respond accordingly. It is a much more passive game than the IE games. 5
Starwars Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 If there was 1 critique I've had with the IE games it was that many Non-caster classes are set it and forget it. I feel like needing to constantly switch between my party and make decisions about what each member is doing (using limited resources) is one of the things this game has fixed and, IMHO, it could use a few more abilities on some of the classes to make it even more intense. If you add a queue system it marginalizes that change. Can you honestly say that the IE games feel anything like Kotor? The IE games require a bit more active play while the Kotor games, although I enjoyed them, you could set up a series of commands and watch it happen until things went wrong and respond accordingly. It is a much more passive game than the IE games. Agreed on this. I find a queue system to be sorta desireable just at a moment's glance, but once you think about it, it *really* changes the feel of the combat a lot. So I'd say no to a queue system as well. 1 Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0
silverlock Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) I'm absolutely for a queue — but a limited one (<= 3, tops). Enough to get you through this round and then next, but not much more. Combat should force you to be adaptive, but at the moment even with feedback you will be swapping between characters almost constantly in order to keep them "busy" using anything but auto-attack. I'm also not sure how the presence of a queue would "change the feel of combat" a lot (no-one thus far has cared to actually elaborate). Without a queue (or NPC AI), you're only able to plan one round ahead. In longer fights with more than one caster class, you're in for a world of micromanagement. How do you avoid that whilst still avoiding a queue? Edited August 23, 2014 by silverlock 1
Labadal Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 No queue system please. We just need the auto attack function and companion AI and things will be better. 2
Tartantyco Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I think that, whatever you queue up, it will consequently have to be altered as the combat situation changes. It would simply be a pointless addition. 1 "You're a fool if you believe I would trust your benevolence. Step aside and you and your lackeys will be unhurt." Baldur's Gate portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale 2 portraits for Pillars of Eternity [slap Aloth]
silverlock Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I think that, whatever you queue up, it will consequently have to be altered as the combat situation changes. It would simply be a pointless addition. That's always been the case, though. And in most games, you can always modify the queue—say, by right clicking the elements. Assuming we don't see NPC AI (which, IMO, doesn't solve the problems a queue does), how else do you deal with directing party members in combat? If you have to pause every 2s then we might as well be entirely turn-based.
mrmonocle Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) General concern and possible solution already posted here Edited August 23, 2014 by mrmonocle I see the dreams so marvelously sad The creeks of land so solid and encrusted Where wave and tide against the shore is busted While chanting by the moonlit twilight's bed trees (of Twin Elms) could use more of Magran's touch © Durance
Polanski Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I don't think Queues are the answer, but they could be implemented and some people would like it, while the reactionaries would hate it like the plague.I think the missing AI for our team, along with missing and confusing feedback and UI, is what makes the Combat experience very messy right now. I'm certain that these things will be fixed in the coming beta updates, which will make it a lot easier to discuss the combat mechanics and the feel of the pace / micromanagement.
Longknife Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I think that, whatever you queue up, it will consequently have to be altered as the combat situation changes. It would simply be a pointless addition. Dis. 2 "The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him." Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?
Tartantyco Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Assuming we don't see NPC AI (which, IMO, doesn't solve the problems a queue does), how else do you deal with directing party members in combat? If you have to pause every 2s then we might as well be entirely turn-based. First of all, pausing in the IE games was pretty much essential, so it's not like it's deviating from its inspiration here. Second of all, you have a slow-motion mode that slows down the game 50%. Third of all, a lot of bugs are really messing with our ability to actually read the combat properly, as does the fact that the feedback system is not implemented yet. I think the general consensus is that some parts of the combat is a little fast, and we'll see if they do anything about that, or if bug fixing and feature implementations help smooth out the bumps in combat. "You're a fool if you believe I would trust your benevolence. Step aside and you and your lackeys will be unhurt." Baldur's Gate portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale 2 portraits for Pillars of Eternity [slap Aloth]
Sebmono Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Queues can only be beneficial, if you don't like queuing because you think combat situations change too fast, don't use it, simple. On that same note I'm curious to what extent people think queues extend, its not like you would queue up 12-20 actions in a row and then think "oh I need to change something! ". For one thing, the queues would be limited to 3-5 actions, like in KOTOR, and for another you can always jump in and change the actions. The key here is that you have the OPTION to queue or not to queue, you're not forced into pausing every 1 or 2 seconds and essentially turning the game into a pseudo-turn based. 3
Tartantyco Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 The question is more whether the developers have time to spend on implementing it. Sawyer mentioned in the PCGamer video that they have thought about it, and might try to implement it, but that they don't know if it will work or not. I'm not opposed to queues, I just don't think they have the utility necessary to spend resources on. But we shall see. 1 "You're a fool if you believe I would trust your benevolence. Step aside and you and your lackeys will be unhurt." Baldur's Gate portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale portraits for Pillars of Eternity IXI Icewind Dale 2 portraits for Pillars of Eternity [slap Aloth]
Sebmono Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Yeah the time/resource issue is obviously legit, especially at this point. My question then would be, what is the alternative area to spend the resources? If the choice is between party AI development and implementing a queue then hands down I'm in favor of queue because a given set of resources could result in a queue much more easily than a good AI system from scratch.
Mr. Magniloquent Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 I think that, whatever you queue up, it will consequently have to be altered as the combat situation changes. It would simply be a pointless addition. Dis. Seconded. That's why I'm not very interested in a queue at the moment. It's not about people having the choice to use it. It's about the root of the problem. Combat is too chaotic for reasons other than lack of a queue to be able to benefit from one. It's a misapplication of a solution to a tangential problem. 1
Mayama Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 I think that, whatever you queue up, it will consequently have to be altered as the combat situation changes. It would simply be a pointless addition. Dis. Seconded. That's why I'm not very interested in a queue at the moment. It's not about people having the choice to use it. It's about the root of the problem. Combat is too chaotic for reasons other than lack of a queue to be able to benefit from one. It's a misapplication of a solution to a tangential problem. Trust me after some time the combat stops beeing chaotic, the problem is that its hard to read because everyone stands on top of each other.
Recommended Posts