Pretty disappointed, this launches in December?

[Emperor Pen]

That's BG2 AI. Icewind Dale:HoW is very different.

 

the PC will just rush past the front line to hit the wizard/chanter/ranger/whoever in the backlines.

Good, because that's how it should be (and how it was in the Infinity Engine games). Since I will be attempting to do a full re-balance of the game for no engagement, I will likely re-tune all of the encounters for it.

 

When encounters are designed well (eg. The Guarded Compound in the Temple District in BG2), there is a decision to be made about whether you beeline your Fighter for the backline enemies or stay to defend the frontline from the enemy melee opponents. In that encounter I find all of the melee enemies to be larger threats than the Wizard at the back. Koshi with his katanas, Ketta with her backstab and the Orog guys with their axes.

 

In the encounter in the Sewers, the archer Gallachobhair is the biggest threat IMO and I usually go straight for him first.

 

 

 

So, to clarify, you don't believe that the front line should have any control on preventing the PC from gaining access to the back line? Then why even talk about AI targeting clauses at all?

 

I also don't understand the concept of "defending the front line" if the front line has no exertion over the battlefield other than as individual combatants. In fact, why have a front line and a back line if the PC can target either without any consequence?

 

I do understand the idea of "good encounter design", but the assumption underneath your argument is that the only factor that should determine target priority is threat level. If the PC uses this as well, which it should if it is the most tactically sound, our wizards/etc (depending on final balance) will nearly always be the target, with the rest of the party either chasing down the guys chasing our wizards or chasing their wizards (and hopefully fighting off their guys trying to chase us down). I guess that could work, though it isn't my idea of an interesting fight.

[prodigydancer]

So, to clarify, you don't believe that the front line should have any control on preventing the PC from gaining access to the back line?

Here we go again. Engagement isn't just "any" control. It's more like total control. A decent front liner should have abilities that snare, trip or knockback enemies and, of course, he should be able to attack those who try to run past him. But it should be a regular attack (maybe with a bonus to hit), affected by recharge rate, not instant AoO that happens "because magic". Edited January 5, 2015 by prodigydancer

[Stun]

That said, I don't see how smart AI solves the problem either. If we have smart AI without engagement, per your suggestion, the PC will just rush past the front line to hit the wizard/chanter/ranger/whoever in the backlines. No amount of "just step in front of them/move your other guy away so that the AI forgets" will help in the case of smart AI.

Players will always employ whatever tactics they think will work, based on what's going on in front of them. The inclusion of an engagement mechanic won't change this, except maybe limit many of the options they otherwise would have had with movement freedom, which isn't really a good selling point for a game that claims to offer deep tactical combat. More to the point: if the problem is that the pesky player keeps trying to kill the squishy mage in the back first, then perhaps they should design enemy mages themselves to be a little harder to kill? Or, craft encounters that contain more than one mage? Or here's a crazy thought: set everyone else's AI to protect that mage with their standard fighting skills (knockdown, barbarian rage, crippling strike, healing etc.) Don't need an engagement mechanic for that.

 

 

I define good AI as enemies who use their abilities the way a player would. This includes employing Focus fire, or bull rushing the PC's mage, or trying to surround the party's 'tank' with summons; or moving their rogue around to find flanking positions etc. Incidently, the engagement mechanic will, in fact, render most of these UNDOABLE by the enemy as well.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Stun

[nipsen]

Oi, oi. Hold on.. an entire page of actual discussion about mechanics as they relate to gameflow? Which forum is this? Who are you guys?

 

 

And a final note: PoE was, in fact, envisioned as a niche title, for a niche crowd. Nothing else was ever an option. Otherwise we'd have seen Xbox and Playstation support as one of the stretch goals, yes?

 

Or maybe converting the UI to something halfway usable on a gamepad just seemed... extremely unappealing with the time they planned spending on actual coding? But good points. Still - I think it's very obviously a game that is niche in terms of marketing. But they also know that it's a type of game that has a completely different audience than typical PC gaming niches. Role-playing is kind of big. Fantasy literature the same. Interactive story-driven types of games arguably is what everyone making games wish they could do more with. So perhaps it could have been thought of more as an experiment, as well as an excuse to make a game Obsidian could be proud of showcasing: this is what we're really about. Here's a game on a tiny budget that has interactivity and story-telling interference with player input of the kind that AAA folks say, frequently, is impossible to do. But here's a tiny game that allows you to actually role-play just about anything, and still be immersed in the writing. A weather-balloon, as they say..

 

So what will it be a test for now?

 

 I don't think we've seen any real game breaking compromises. E.g., the bestiary XP change was a compromise. It adds some kill XP but it doesn't turn the game into a grind fest and it works with the design of the game (that is, the "hard" difficulties don't become easier than the "easy" difficulties as they would with pure kill XP (due to the larger number of higher level creatures present when you turn up the difficulty slider)). Overall, it was a reasonable design choice in response to an issue that was important to a lot of people.

 

Those were minor, though, and made sense, even if I think they weren't necessary. The decision to separate the character ability stats from the combat, streamlining the classes, etc... apparently to attempt to make the underlying system simpler, so that the presentation automatically also is easier to understand, or something like that. That's what ends up making the combat monotonous, where your input or character makeup doesn't really matter all that much. Where your character creation is more cosmetic than anything else. Where the combat is decided on how well you can guide the combat rolls and game things to your advantage on a technical level. And it's also what requires the extra abilities and a complete rework of the combat system, if they want to make it something people happily spend time on.

 

I mean, I can't imagine an rpg combat system, in a game where combat isn't the only focus, that's more interesting than where you actually can use your own character's general traits to make small and rare, but significant, tilts to turn the combat your way. Where several player-controller heroes fight multiple enemies - but where it doesn't turn into "mark all units of this type and attack the tank in the middle", etc. Because it doesn't require you to control every detail, things can go on automatic for the most part, and you still feel that what you're doing has an impact on the outcome. Not because you just got a new sword, or because you just unlocked a new ability, or the AI cheats, or the designer cheats and hides the horde of guards in the cutscenes, or the boss stage is designed so suspension of disbelief is a player skill rather than a designer skill - but because your character used their strengths to their advantage in a combat situation that actually made sense. Or, you role-play your character, and they have the traits you chose, and they make a difference in combat without leading everything every single step. .. *shrug* It's like some sort of holy grail for rpg-rulesets , that you might imagine could be done but can't really understand how specifically. But there it is -- and.. then weirdness starts happening.

[Sensuki]

Actually in the most recent patch I have seen enemies switch targets, though I am not totally sure what the driving decision was that motivated their switch. They also no longer attack "the fight thing I saw".

Yeah they have, I've tested it against Medreth's group - they now change targets. Beetles do not however.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

When IE games are mentioned we need to remember that the IE games covered a wide spectrum of games. How man D&D games were made with IE and how many non-D&D games?

Every single game made with the infinity engine was a D&D game.

 

ROFL.

 

It really makes me wonder when people ask a question like; How many games were made with IE and not D&D games?

[Nakia]

 

 

When IE games are mentioned we need to remember that the IE games covered a wide spectrum of games. How man D&D games were made with IE and how many non-D&D games?

Every single game made with the infinity engine was a D&D game.

 

ROFL.

 

It really makes me wonder when people ask a question like; How many games were made with IE and not D&D games?

 

I looked up the games made with the IE and the list said 17 games.  Then I checked what games where made with the IE game.  Actual games, not an adaptation for a different platform or an expansion for the core game or an EE redo but the core games themselves.  Yes, I was curious if other games had been made with the IE games.

 

By the way I played all the core games and expansions.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Nakia

[khermann]

Hey guys so I'm back back back! Let's do this!!

 

Let's review where we've been and where we are:

 

The original backer beta was released back in august. I took a quick look. Nope, nope, nope. Not interested in beta testing this RPG and playing a super broken game while spoiling. I don't pay people for me to test their software, period. 

 

So I stepped back, posted here about my concerns, was very happy when the release delay was announced - I am very happy the developers could take the extra time, I know that is not always an available option (because money/groceries). 

 

At that point I resolved not to play the game until December, closer to launch. 

 

December came around, and I popped back in ever so briefly to look at the UI and combat progress. Played maybe an hour of content, never really left the opening areas.

 

That was enough for me to feel better about the direction and progress of the game, however clearly all the time sunk in to re-inventing many under-the-hood wheels left a lot of rough edges (in comparison to mature systems like in BG2 and NWN) , and that's kind of where I expect the release to be from a technical perspective.

 

However I am looking forward to this release in a couple days and anticipate enjoyment taking my time picking through the story. Clearly this game is hoping story-driven content fills the big gaps in the combat systems, but I'm prepared to be surprised on that front as well. 

 

Trying to be realistic and optimistic, so we shall see in a couple of days, right ??  I'm pretty excited to approach this game very fresh, with practically no spoilers.

 

Can I ask you all, what's the one thing you are most excited about playing in the full game? What's your favorite part of the systems? Inventory or Combat - which one has better depth? Give me your unvarnished opinions! huzzah!

Edited March 24, 2015 by khermann

[stratigo]

No one wants stupid AI targeting, but AI is not some magic thing that you can design and it thinks like a human. Good AI is deterministic and has a robust set of conditions.

 

In IWD:HoW, enemies will re-acquire targets if you try and kite them around. Many enemies in Pillars of Eternity just follow the original unit they targeted (eg. Beetles) so you can just run around in circles and kite that enemy around. Engagement gives the player an easy means of overriding AI targeting and forcing the AI to perform a certain action. It makes it easier for newer players, but for people who moved around in the IE games it really restricts what you can do in an encounter, and takes a lot of thought of it.

 

 

I think you are missing the importance difference between PoE and a DnD set game. In seeking Tabletop fidelity, the IE DnD games had a lot of the same imbalances built into it that made it so that there were no tanks. DnD games have no tanks, everyone had the ability to avoid or mitigate damage (or they were decidingly unoptimal and taking them was a bad idea). In PoE, the same cannot be true. A mage cannot magic himself into immunity in PoE and still nuke everyone with a fireball (or a meteor strike) like you could in BG. Thus, you have a need for an aggro mechanic.

[khermann]

 

 

When IE games are mentioned we need to remember that the IE games covered a wide spectrum of games. How man D&D games were made with IE and how many non-D&D games?

Every single game made with the infinity engine was a D&D game.

 

ROFL.

 

It really makes me wonder when people ask a question like; How many games were made with IE and not D&D games?

 

 

My biggest concern is that this game isn't using a mature ruleset and is re-inventing many wheels. Remains to be seen if this is real creative inspiration or simply hubris.

 

At least I have Sword Coast Legend to satisfy my desire for D&D canon.

[Lychnidos]

What is a "mature ruleset"?

[wanderon]

What is a "mature ruleset"?

 

Teenagers getting excited over romances?  

[Tamerlane]

What is a "mature ruleset"?

2e's been able to buy drinks in any bar in the world for quite a while now.

[Karkarov]

Why was this thread of all the threads out there necro'd?  AGAIN?

[Stun]

I'm pretty disappointed, this launches on the 26th?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why can't they just launch it tonight?

[Karkarov]

I'm pretty disappointed, this launches on the 26th?

Yeah Stun, it clearly needs to be delayed.  No way it will be ready by the 26th.  January 2016 or bust.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Karkarov

[Voss]

 

No one wants stupid AI targeting, but AI is not some magic thing that you can design and it thinks like a human. Good AI is deterministic and has a robust set of conditions.

 

In IWD:HoW, enemies will re-acquire targets if you try and kite them around. Many enemies in Pillars of Eternity just follow the original unit they targeted (eg. Beetles) so you can just run around in circles and kite that enemy around. Engagement gives the player an easy means of overriding AI targeting and forcing the AI to perform a certain action. It makes it easier for newer players, but for people who moved around in the IE games it really restricts what you can do in an encounter, and takes a lot of thought of it.

 

 

I think you are missing the importance difference between PoE and a DnD set game. In seeking Tabletop fidelity, the IE DnD games had a lot of the same imbalances built into it that made it so that there were no tanks. DnD games have no tanks, everyone had the ability to avoid or mitigate damage (or they were decidingly unoptimal and taking them was a bad idea). In PoE, the same cannot be true. A mage cannot magic himself into immunity in PoE and still nuke everyone with a fireball (or a meteor strike) like you could in BG. Thus, you have a need for an aggro mechanic.

 

You can tank in most of the IE games just fine. Most of the time, enemies go for the first thing they see or the first that hits them.  That is totally under player control. And you can line up your front line to intercept people chasing your fireballing wizard, and they will switch targets.  An engagement mechanic  (or aggro mechanic, which is even worse) is 100% not needed. 

 

Or even more bizarrely, in the IE games you can fight at a choke point, and the enemies will settle in and fight.  I don't know if its still true in the final version, but in bb480, you can see several videos where PoE enemies try and fail to find a path to a target, and wander around the combat (and back again) vainly seeking to fight whichever target they happen to be fixated on, even if another target is nearby.

 

This is just garbage AI, and has nothing to do with aggro or engagement.

 

 

 

@releasing tonight sarcasm- obviously, they have to get the day 1 patch done.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Voss

[khermann]

Yeah i really wish the game were coming out, like, right now. I have tomorrow off from work. 

 

either way, looking forward to it!