I feel that being nailed to the ground as soon as your characters Engage each other takes away a lot of depth from combat, making you rely too much on initial positioning before combat and too little during combat.

 

This is why i would like it if they gave the fighter (and maybe the barbarian) a modal ability, that would reduce your movement speed by maybe 50% but would allow you to move freely across the battlefield without suffering any disengagement attacks. (perhaps include it in the defender mode)

I think the animation could be taken from the stealth mechanic, with a little tweaking, so that while they are  moving they would be walking backwards and not forwards, (as in carefully backing up, not allowing anyone to get a free shot at them).

 

-First reason, I feel this would be good because you could then try to reposition your enemies, to be more susceptible to certain spell attacks like the wizard's Necrotic Lance, where it hits everything in a straight line.

Currently if 2 enemies position in front and at the back of your fighter, then the only way can hit both of them, is if you also hit your fighter in between.

Also you could position them so that they would now be standing next to each other so they could be hit by a fireball.

 

-Also the second reason is because currently there is very little you can do if your fighter gets trapped by engaging 1 enemy and another manages to slip through (by either bad positioning, or they just have a successful concentration check)

 

-And thirdly, this will perhaps make fighter more interesting as it will allow them to have something to do, beside knock people down and eat damage.

 

 

Edit: It sadly just occurred to me that this could cause problems with kiting as enemies do not recharge their attack timers while moving, allowing you to keep movin and never getting hit, so perhaps adding Sensuki's suggestion on allowing the attack to recharge while moving would also be a good idea.

Unless someone has a better idea one of fixing this.

Edited October 18, 201411 yr by Cubiq

I'll just leave this here:

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Wild_Sprint

 

Edit:

It's not exactly doing what you propose, but conceptually it's close enough. My point is that given this ability being limited use and all that, your suggestion would be way too strong. The mechanic is supposed to be limiting those classes, so if you remove these restrictions completely, then the mechanic is missing its point in the first place.

 

Also, why should you be able to set up your enemies for free in the first place when the AI won't be able to do the same to you? The problem with kiting you mentioned is a concern as well.

Edited October 18, 201411 yr by Doppelschwert

Sprint is mainly intended to use as a offensive ability to reach the enemy at the back very fast.

If you're going to use it as a an escape ability, or anything in the above i mentioned you are going to eat a lot of damage with that reduced deflection, especially if you have 2-3 enemies on you.

Or just remove engagement altogether, as it is essentially a glorified attack of opportunity, except only against specific targets. It also feels like a leftover from turn-based.

Edited October 18, 201411 yr by Sensuki

The mechanic is supposed to be limiting those classes, so if you remove these restrictions completely, then the mechanic is missing its point in the first place.

The mechanic is there to help you hold the line with a single character and it's currently not even doing that, it's not there just for a restriction on classes.

And as i said, people have been complaining of the fighter being too plain. So now you have something else to do with it.

And it's not like it's going to make any other mechanic obsolete. You will still be required to use escape abilities by other party members.

Also, why should you be able to set up your enemies for free in the first place when the AI won't be able to do the same to you? The problem with kiting you mentioned is a concern as well.

The enemy also doesn't seem to have the stamina mechanic and can heal itself fully, so arguing what it can do to you and what you can do to it is pointless.

 

Currently the enemy is so dumb it will simply attack the first thing it sees. That's the only reason the engagement mechanic works atm.

It completely falls apart once enemies start attacking from different directions.

 

 

Or just remove engagement altogether, as it is essentially a glorified attack of opportunity, except only against specific targets. It also feels like a leftover from turn-based.

Oh god i would like it removed, but i just don't think it will happen, so here i am making suggestions

Edited October 18, 201411 yr by Cubiq

Or just remove engagement altogether, as it is essentially a glorified attack of opportunity, except only against specific targets. It also feels like a leftover from turn-based.

 

I think engagement ia a very good addition.

 

Engaged opponents should, however, be able to move within a specified radius or zone without breaking engagement.

 

The disengagement atk should come when 1 of them moves OUT of the rad/zone.

Sprint is mainly intended to use as a offensive ability to reach the enemy at the back very fast.

If you're going to use it as a an escape ability, or anything in the above i mentioned you are going to eat a lot of damage with that reduced deflection, especially if you have 2-3 enemies on you.

 

Yeah, of course. My point is this:

Why would you use an limited ability with such a high opprtunity cost if you could just use a modal ability with less downsides instead?

If sprint is meant to be a balanced ability the way it is now with all the downsides, your proposal is basically like a superpower.

well okey the barbarian was just a side mention, obviously some of the other abilities would need to be tweaked if they gave it to the barbarian as well.

As for why use sprint versus a 50% speed reduction modal ability?

Well to get to the enemy faster.

 

If sprint is meant to be a balanced ability the way it is now with all the downsides, your proposal is basically like a superpower.

I don't think things are really balanced at the moment. For instance the Priest has a level 1 spell that wraps your character in a bubble, and basically protects him from nearly all physical harm (except bleed effects, which lose a lot of power since the fighter can regenerate during combat)

Casting this spell on your tank every fight will currently allow him to basically never get damaged. Yet the spell needs to be there so that it can be used to protect your weaker party members if they get in a jam.

Edited October 18, 201411 yr by Cubiq

I think engagement ia a very good addition.

I don't. After playing the game with it on it feels way too much like NWN/NWN2 - aka bad. Infinity Engine games had RTS style combat, in RTS combat you micro your guys and move around. It is common in the IE games to move units around.

 

Here is me fighting the final boss of Icewind Dale

 

 

When a character gets low, I micro that character back - that is completely normal RTS style unit movement.

 

The mechanic is supposed to be limiting those classes, so if you remove these restrictions completely, then the mechanic is missing its point in the first place.

The mechanic is there to help you hold the line with a single character and it's currently not even doing that, it's not there just for a restriction on classes.

And as i said, people have been complaining of the fighter being too plain. So now you have something else to do with it.

And it's not like it's going to make any other mechanic obsolete. You will still be required to use escape abilities by other party members.

Also, why should you be able to set up your enemies for free in the first place when the AI won't be able to do the same to you? The problem with kiting you mentioned is a concern as well.

The enemy also doesn't seem to have the stamina mechanic and can heal itself fully, so arguing what it can do to you and what you can do to it is pointless.

 

Currently the enemy is so dumb it will simply attack the first thing it sees. That's the only reason the engagement mechanic works atm.

It completely falls apart once enemies start attacking from different directions.

 

well okey the barbarian was just a side mention, obviously some of the other abilities would need to be tweaked if they gave it to the barbarian as well.

As for why use sprint versus a 50% speed reduction modal ability?

Well to get to the enemy faster.

 

If sprint is meant to be a balanced ability the way it is now with all the downsides, your proposal is basically like a superpower.

I don't think things are really balanced at the moment. For instance the Priest has a level 1 spell that wraps your character in a bubble, and basically protects him from nearly all physical harm (except bleed effects, which lose a lot of power since the fighter can regenerate during combat)

Casting this spell on your tank every fight will currently allow him to basically never get damaged. Yet the spell needs to be there so that it can be used to protect your weaker party members if they get in a jam.

 

 

I get where you are coming from, but I still think the mechanic was introduced in order to make the fights more fair for the AI. Of course, the AI is not finalized yet, but I think it's fair if I say that no matter how good it will be in the end, it will neither be able to plan with positioning nor will it be able to recognize kiting correctly. I think that the reasoning for engagement is that all other things being equal, the player would easily win a fight where he has access to these kind of tactics, as he can abuse the AI to do stuff that he wants while the AI can never get you to move your units to specific spots just by kiting or similiar stuff.

Now with engagement, you can still do this kind of stuff as a barbarian with sprint, but that is the reason there are so heavy down sides to it. However, note at this point that you could easily buff your barbarian to deal with the attacks better, so that you can effectively already have what you want for a short period of time, but at a higher cost.

 

Regarding the stamina of enemies, well, this would only be asymmetric if the enemy would heal their total hp more than at least 3 times over in a single fight, and I don't think that happens common enough to justify the extra work of implementing a health system for them. 

 

Regarding the balance of abilities and stuff - yeah, they are not balanced at the moment. But even ignoring actual values I think that the difference between a per rest / per encounter / modal ability says a lot about the aspired balancing point. I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion when it would be a per rest ability or otherwise limited. Then again, note that you can use knockback to disengage and reposition. I think it would work better if you would achieve this power by some upgrade of already existing abilities. For example, let the barbarian diminish the deflection penalty with a talent or make the fighter knockdown a small cone instead of single target with a talent. That can give you similar tactical choices while still working with the mechanic.

 

That being said, I think this just boils down to a matter of liking or disliking the engagement mechanic, where I think that some people that are against it simple want an unfair advantage over the AI (which are then probably the same people abusing this and complaining that the game is not challenging enough). I personally could live with both, but I like that its inclusion makes it more fair for the AI without losing much tactics, as you can still do everything you could do before, only in a more tactical way.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Doppelschwert

I think that some people that are against it simple want an unfair advantage over the AI (which are then probably the same people abusing this and complaining that the game is not challenging enough)

I think this is a bit of a loaded statement. Have you ever played Age of Empires 2 ? Ranged units in that game automatically kited you all the time. It's not like they can't program units to kite. If Ensemble Studios were able to do it in 1998, then there's no reason it cannot be done now.

 

Second, enemies don't need to be able to take advantage of that kind of stuff. Think of games like Starcraft, particularly the Brood War campaign. The 'static encounters' in that game can be somewhat difficult (particularly in the more RPG-style missions where you don't have a base) because the 'encounter design' was good. All those enemies do is follow their simplistic AI clauses - they attack the closest units on sight and sometimes use their abilities. That's it ... but it's still challenging because the game and encounters were well balanced.

 

You actually have to kite, you have to micromanage your units to be able to finish those levels. If you don't, you'll lose your units and not have enough to beat later fights.

 

The reason I use RTS games for an example is because The IE games had RTS-style gameplay, more similar to something like Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2 as opposed to their 3D counterparts like the KotOR games, Neverwinter Nights and whatnot.

 

Kiting has always been a part of RTS gameplay. It is as much in Single Player as it is in Multiplayer. The developers can try and fight kiting if they like, but I think doing so is resisting natural RTS gameplay, why not take advantage of it instead ?

 

As shown in my above IWD video, you can't just sit all of your party members and stand still and attack Belhifet because he does too much damage combined with status effects, you have to micro your characters off him when they get damaged otherwise they will die. I assume that was part of the normal design/balancing for that fight ... I have no idea why that kind of gameplay is being resisted.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Sensuki

I get where you are coming from, but I still think the mechanic was introduced in order to make the fights more fair for the AI. Of course, the AI is not finalized yet, but I think it's fair if I say that no matter how good it will be in the end, it will neither be able to plan with positioning nor will it be able to recognize kiting correctly.

First of all I'll point out that i support Sensuki's suggestion on allowing attack wait time to recharge while moving, as i don't think you can abuse the system with it, so that solves  kiting.

 

I think that the reasoning for engagement is that all other things being equal,

I already pointed out, things are not equal. The enemy has greater numbers, affliction melee attacks, greater defenses, faster running speed, not to mention other mechanics like able to heal to full health in combat. (yes it already happened to me)

 

the player would easily win a fight where he has access to these kind of tactics, as he can abuse the AI to do stuff that he wants while the AI can never get you to move your units to specific spots just by kiting or similiar stuff.

Not really, spells barely do any damage. And you actually need to put some tactics in to it to work.

Currently the enemy simply runs at the first thing they see, so you can already make use of the spells most of the time as they clump up, yet this don't unbalance the combat.

Once the AI becomes smart enough to target members at the back, they will spread out more and at that point area attack spells will become completely useless.

So what's better? Keeping the AI dumb, so you can actually use some of the spells? Or adding a mechanic where you can compensate for the enemy becoming smarter.

 

 

Now with engagement, you can still do this kind of stuff as a barbarian with sprint, but that is the reason there are so heavy down sides to it. However, note at this point that you could easily buff your barbarian to deal with the attacks better, so that you can effectively already have what you want for a short period of time, but at a higher cost.

No you can't, the buffs aren't going to save you from the bonus disengagement attacks get and the reduced deflection the barbarian gets, try it if you don't believe me.

(see image below)

 

Regarding the balance of abilities and stuff - yeah, they are not balanced at the moment. But even ignoring actual values I think that the difference between a per rest / per encounter / modal ability says a lot about the aspired balancing point. I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion when it would be a per rest ability or otherwise limited. Then again, note that you can use knockback to disengage and reposition. I think it would work better if you would achieve this power by some upgrade of already existing abilities. For example, let the barbarian diminish the deflection penalty with a talent or make the fighter knockdown a small cone instead of single target with a talent. That can give you similar tactical choices while still working with the mechanic.

The cone knockdown is pointless because the whole reason for you to reposition is so you can clump them up in the first place, where you would then be able to use aoe attacks, like cone knockdown.

 

 

or example, let the barbarian diminish the deflection penalty with a talent

The sprint gives you -20 deflection

Let's say that there's a talent that puts this penalty deflection to 0

Now you need to give him some armor and a shield so that they will actually be able to receive some damage. (trust me you need it)

So what you ended up is with a gimped fighter that doesn't have defender mode.

Here's the result on Hard difficulty:

http://i.imgur.com/C69E3N3.jpg

This is a Barbarian with the BB fighter's armor and shield, versus a couple of beetles that Sensuki has been complaining are too easy.

I don't have Sprint activated so there is no deflection penalty and i have 15 in intellect, which gives +5 deflection. (i can upload a video if you don't believe it)

Getting stopped by a disengagement attack isn't that big of a deal.

The damage is.

 

Edit: i think i just found a bug where the difficulty of the game sets to easy once you use quickload. The slider on the difficulty doesn't actually move however after you reload you start doing x2 damage and the enemy is only doing 0.5-2 damage to you even on disengagement attacks.

Maybe this is why people have been complaining why the game feels too easy.

I'll need to do some more testing.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Cubiq

 

I think that some people that are against it simple want an unfair advantage over the AI (which are then probably the same people abusing this and complaining that the game is not challenging enough)

I think this is a bit of a loaded statement. Have you ever played Age of Empires 2 ? Ranged units in that game automatically kited you all the time. It's not like they can't program units to kite. If Ensemble Studios were able to do it in 1998, then there's no reason it cannot be done now.

 

Second, enemies don't need to be able to take advantage of that kind of stuff. Think of games like Starcraft, particularly the Brood War campaign. The 'static encounters' in that game can be somewhat difficult (particularly in the more RPG-style missions where you don't have a base) because the 'encounter design' was good. All those enemies do is follow their simplistic AI clauses - they attack the closest units on sight and sometimes use their abilities. That's it ... but it's still challenging because the game and encounters were well balanced.

 

You actually have to kite, you have to micromanage your units to be able to finish those levels. If you don't, you'll lose your units and not have enough to beat later fights.

 

The reason I use RTS games for an example is because The IE games had RTS-style gameplay, more similar to something like Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2 as opposed to their 3D counterparts like the KotOR games, Neverwinter Nights and whatnot.

 

Kiting has always been a part of RTS gameplay. It is as much in Single Player as it is in Multiplayer. The developers can try and fight kiting if they like, but I think doing so is resisting natural RTS gameplay, why not take advantage of it instead ?

 

As shown in my above IWD video, you can't just sit all of your party members and stand still and attack Belhifet because he does too much damage combined with status effects, you have to micro your characters off him when they get damaged otherwise they will die. I assume that was part of the normal design/balancing for that fight ... I have no idea why that kind of gameplay is being resisted.

 

 

I have played all these strategy games, yes, and I also kited in them because it's expected from the player. However, your argument is besides my point:

You can have a game with RTS gameplay and kiting and you can have a game without that, as you already pointed out with the games you listed. That decision is up to the designer of the game. If you include RTS gameplay and kiting, then it is only natural that you will design your encounters around that - otherwise the content is too easy for people that actually use it. Consequently, the game will make you kite sooner or later, which is also shown by your IWD example. I'm not claiming that's bad, I'm claiming that it's different and that the designers didn't seem to want that.

 

Granted, given that the game is supposed to be a spiritual successor of the IE games, I see why you would want to have RTS gameplay included, and that's fine by me.

 

However, I think we can agree that a player will be way better at using kiting tactics than any AI anyone ever will come up with, so by that logic it will be an unfair advantage towards the AI (in the sense that the AI will not able to use the tactic to the same degree). I'm not claiming that this is bad per se, but the way I understand the game design goals, it is a mechanic that is supposed to even this out. As I stated before, I don't really care, I just want to argue what the motivation behind the mechanic is, given what we can infer about other information in the game, like the wild sprint ability.

 

 

 

I get where you are coming from, but I still think the mechanic was introduced in order to make the fights more fair for the AI. Of course, the AI is not finalized yet, but I think it's fair if I say that no matter how good it will be in the end, it will neither be able to plan with positioning nor will it be able to recognize kiting correctly.

First of all I'll point out that i support Sensuki's suggestion on allowing attack wait time to recharge while moving, as i don't think you can abuse the system with it, so that solves  kiting.

 

I think that the reasoning for engagement is that all other things being equal,

I already pointed out, things are not equal. The enemy has greater numbers, affliction melee attacks, greater defenses, faster running speed, not to mention other mechanics like able to heal to full health in combat. (yes it already happened to me)

 

the player would easily win a fight where he has access to these kind of tactics, as he can abuse the AI to do stuff that he wants while the AI can never get you to move your units to specific spots just by kiting or similiar stuff.

Not really, spells barely do any damage. And you actually need to put some tactics in to it to work.

Currently the enemy simply runs at the first thing they see, so you can already make use of the spells most of the time as they clump up, yet this don't unbalance the combat.

Once the AI becomes smart enough to target members at the back, they will spread out more and at that point area attack spells will become completely useless.

So what's better? Keeping the AI dumb, so you can actually use some of the spells? Or adding a mechanic where you can compensate for the enemy becoming smarter.

 

 

Now with engagement, you can still do this kind of stuff as a barbarian with sprint, but that is the reason there are so heavy down sides to it. However, note at this point that you could easily buff your barbarian to deal with the attacks better, so that you can effectively already have what you want for a short period of time, but at a higher cost.

No you can't, the buffs aren't going to save you from the bonus disengagement attacks get and the reduced deflection the barbarian gets, try it if you don't believe me.

(see image below)

 

Regarding the balance of abilities and stuff - yeah, they are not balanced at the moment. But even ignoring actual values I think that the difference between a per rest / per encounter / modal ability says a lot about the aspired balancing point. I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion when it would be a per rest ability or otherwise limited. Then again, note that you can use knockback to disengage and reposition. I think it would work better if you would achieve this power by some upgrade of already existing abilities. For example, let the barbarian diminish the deflection penalty with a talent or make the fighter knockdown a small cone instead of single target with a talent. That can give you similar tactical choices while still working with the mechanic.

The cone knockdown is pointless because the whole reason for you to reposition is so you can clump them up in the first place, where you would then be able to use aoe attacks, like cone knockdown.

 

 

or example, let the barbarian diminish the deflection penalty with a talent

The sprint gives you -20 deflection

Let's say that there's a talent that puts this penalty deflection to 0

Now you need to give him some armor and a shield so that they will actually be able to receive some damage. (trust me you need it)

So what you ended up is with a gimped fighter that doesn't have defender mode.

Here's the result on Hard difficulty:

http://i.imgur.com/C69E3N3.jpg

This is a Barbarian with the BB fighter's armor and shield, versus a couple of beetles that Sensuki has been complaining are too easy.

I don't have Sprint activated so there is no deflection penalty and i have 15 in intellect, which gives +5 deflection. (i can upload a video if you don't believe it)

Getting stopped by a disengagement attack isn't that big of a deal.

The damage is.

 

Edit: i think i just found a bug where the difficulty of the game sets to easy once you use quickload. The slider on the difficulty doesn't actually move however after you reload you start doing x2 damage and the enemy is only doing 0.5-2 damage to you even on disengagement attacks.

Maybe this is why people have been complaining why the game feels too easy.

I'll need to do some more testing.

 

 

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. In the case you didn't know, the way the game is set up at the moment, disengagement attacks are bugged and balancing is way off. I don't think its sensible to discuss how good the mechanic is based on that.

 

Of course, in a given scenario things are not equal, but in my opinion the way you design your system should be based around that assumption.

You then buff enemies afterwards to compensate for bad AI so that they can compete.

 

I personally also think it is fine if you are not able to position your enemies for AoE spells in every battle, and that the fighter running around does not solve the problem of AoE spells, especially because the spells should be a feasible alternative every now and then without having a fighter in the party. Lastly, I'm not sure if your argument is to taken seriously if you talk about hard difficulty, when the same is probably viable in normal difficulty. If you play on hard, at some point there should be mechanics that make it actually more tactical, which it appaerently seems to do.

 

Again, I think it is possible to have a nice game with or without the mechanic, but we should wait until it actually works before we judge it. Up till then, most arguments basically boil down to: I prefer this mechanic over that mechanic.

However, I think we can agree that a player will be way better at using kiting tactics than any AI anyone ever will come up with

Maybe for melee, but the ranged units that kite in AoE2 are ridiculously annoying hahah, no human can do it as perfectly as that.

In the case you didn't know, the way the game is set up at the moment, disengagement attacks are bugged and balancing is way off.

I know, i'm the one who found them, posted the videos and reported them.

Yet from all i've seen i'm not convinced that just fixing those bugs will help in the long run, if you expect the enemy AI to be at least a little bit smarter.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Cubiq

 

However, I think we can agree that a player will be way better at using kiting tactics than any AI anyone ever will come up with

Maybe for melee, but the ranged units that kite in AoE2 are ridiculously annoying hahah, no human can do it as perfectly as that.

 

 

That's true.

But I somehow remember them as being easily pullable to my own archers, although it's been ages since I played the game.

 

 

In the case you didn't know, the way the game is set up at the moment, disengagement attacks are bugged and balancing is way off.

I know, i'm the one who found them, posted the videos and reported them.

Yet from all i've seen i'm not convinced that just fixing those bugs will help in the long run, if you expect the enemy AI to be at least a little bit smarter.

 

 

Aw, now I feel stupid for not remembering it was your thread, sry. Can never remember who did what if there is no profile pic... Great work you did there, by the way!

I agree that fixing those bugs won't be enough, but I'm curious to see what new talents are available in the next patch. I think what is ultimatively needed to fix these issues are more abilities that change position of the enemies (like a forcefield for example).

I

 

Great work you did there, by the way!

Cheers man! Guess i really did highjack the thread if you're calling it "my" thread now

 

I think what is ultimatively needed to fix these issues are more abilities that change position of the enemies (like a forcefield for example).

Well there's a reason i'm going for such an easy ability to use.

You will see that some people on the forum have also been complaining about the high maintenance of each class during combat, as they already have lots of abilities that you can and have to use. And i agree with them. Even though the AI is fairly stupid now you already have quite a lot to do controlling 5 characters (+ 1 more when you will have a full party)

 

For instance there is already a level 1 druid spell that can knockback (not knockdown) enemies, so you could theoretically use it to slightly reposition the enemy. It doesn't push very far though.

Yet it's very difficult to use and most of the time just isn't worth it. There are a lot of other useful spell you could use if you want to waste spells. It's even easier to just nuke enemies separately as they at least will go down faster individually and stop doing damage to you.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Cubiq

engagement should be a select unit ability for fighters and barbarians.

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by AlekzanderZ

 

I think engagement ia a very good addition.

I don't. After playing the game with it on it feels way too much like NWN/NWN2 - aka bad. Infinity Engine games had RTS style combat, in RTS combat you micro your guys and move around. It is common in the IE games to move units around.

 

Here is me fighting the final boss of Icewind Dale

 

 

When a character gets low, I micro that character back - that is completely normal RTS style unit movement.

Doesn t mean that engagement, a.k.a. opportunity atk, can t be incorporated in RTS. What do you think of my earlier suggestion? Adding to that, disengag atk could be nerfed and not have an accuracy bonus.

 

All in all, whatever makes the default game exp *harder* works best for me

 

I like to have trouble positioning, makes the combat feel more dangerous, more like the way it should be.

The problem here is that the 'solution' stems from a turn-based mindset, rather than a real time one. The implementation is too close to the NWN version - it lacks an animation, doesn't give very good feedback and isn't even working anywhere near correctly.

I (along with the majority) also do not like MMO aggro mechanics.

If you want to stop enemies from reaching your backline, you can position them in a manner that makes it difficult for them to get past ... this is possible in the IE games and I used it many times in my IWD playthrough, as after a certain number of 'attempts' the IE AI gives up and attacks a closer unit.

 

Compared to the IE games, PE encounters have been pretty banal so far, with way less enemies.

That's bad. I hope that everyones suggestion and feedback turn combat into an excited exp. I have faith that the story element will be

I think what is ultimatively needed to fix these issues are more abilities that change position of the enemies (like a forcefield for example).

Well there's a reason i'm going for such an easy ability to use.

You will see that some people on the forum have also been complaining about the high maintenance of each class during combat, as they already have lots of abilities that you can and have to use. And i agree with them. Even though the AI is fairly stupid now you already have quite a lot to do controlling 5 characters (+ 1 more when you will have a full party)

 

For instance there is already a level 1 druid spell that can knockback (not knockdown) enemies, so you could theoretically use it to slightly reposition the enemy. It doesn't push very far though.

Yet it's very difficult to use and most of the time just isn't worth it. There are a lot of other useful spell you could use if you want to waste spells. It's even easier to just nuke enemies separately as they at least will go down faster individually and stop doing damage to you.

 

 

I don't have a good overview over the spells (I'm more interested in the martial classes), good to know. I'd miss a spell that constructs a temporary barrier of some sort if its not in the game at the moment. A lot probably also boils down to level design.

 

I'm wondering what compromise we can come up with if we take the engagement mechanic as given for the final version. I came up with the following (convoluted) compromise:

 

Keep engagement, but only reengage if the disengagement attack scores a hit or a critical, that is, if it graces or misses you are free to go. Make a general talent that lowers/negates the accuracy bonus for enemies on a disengagment attack on you.

Also make a talent that increases engagement accuracy, such that you can still have special enemies whose engagement can't be broken without escape abilities.

 

The result would be that engagement is less binary, although the inherent accuracy bonus still gives enemies a high probability of re-engaging you if you don't have any talents. Even if you have talents, your chance to break free scales with your ability to properly defend yourself, such that the fighter is actually best suited to evade engagement. Wild sprint is not invalidated and people can have some kind of kiting if they invest into it, without it being necessary.

 

Which flaws have I missed, apart from being convoluted?

Edited October 19, 201411 yr by Doppelschwert

Keep engagement, but only reengage if the disengagement attack scores a hit or a critical, that is, if it graces or misses you are free to go. Make a general talent that lowers/negates the accuracy bonus for enemies on a disengagment attack on you.

Also make a talent that increases engagement accuracy, such that you can still have special enemies whose engagement can't be broken without escape abilities.

The problem is the damage, the free extra hit they get, not the stagger effect. If you look at the the screenshot i posted before you will see that the beetle hit me for 23 damage with a simple normal swing.

So you have a minimum of 2 opponents that can hit for about 23 damage on average. (there's no reason to reposition if you only have 1 opponent)

So each one hits you with an auto attack for 23 damage so thats 46 damage.

Plus 2 disengagement attacks that would also do around 23 as normal damage, so thats together 92. So 92 damage that you can get under a second on a heavy armored character with a shield.

Even if you have full stamina you will get floored in the next 1-2 hits. You just can't heal that damage that quickly. And this is against simple trash mobs. If 3 of those attacks are crits you're going to instantly die even if you have full stamina.

I know you're dismissing it because it's on Hard difficulty, but why make a talent or implement a mechanic that can't be used with Hard difficulty or above?

The Hard dificulty will have more opponents (and smarter AI i think), so that's exactly where you would need this mehcnaic. Not the other way around.

My conclusion is that Melee Engagement/Disengagement attacks are retarded. I wasn't against the Melee Engagement system when it was announced, but after playing with them for a few months all they do is pidgeonhole your units into standing still in melee - which is banal gameplay.

 

Keep engagement, but only reengage if the disengagement attack scores a hit or a critical, that is, if it graces or misses you are free to go. Make a general talent that lowers/negates the accuracy bonus for enemies on a disengagment attack on you.

Also make a talent that increases engagement accuracy, such that you can still have special enemies whose engagement can't be broken without escape abilities.

The problem is the damage, the free extra hit they get, not the stagger effect. If you look at the the screenshot i posted before you will see that the beetle hit me for 23 damage with a simple normal swing.

So you have a minimum of 2 opponents that can hit for about 23 damage on average. (there's no reason to reposition if you only have 1 opponent)

So each one hits you with an auto attack for 23 damage so thats 46 damage.

Plus 2 disengagement attacks that would also do around 23 as normal damage, so thats together 92. So 92 damage that you can get under a second on a heavy armored character with a shield.

Even if you have full stamina you will get floored in the next 1-2 hits. You just can't heal that damage that quickly. And this is against simple trash mobs. If 3 of those attacks are crits you're going to instantly die even if you have full stamina.

I know you're dismissing it because it's on Hard difficulty, but why make a talent or implement a mechanic that can't be used with Hard difficulty or above?

The Hard dificulty will have more opponents (and smarter AI i think), so that's exactly where you would need this mehcnaic. Not the other way around.

 

 

But I took care about the issue with the feat that negates the accuracy bonus for the enemy? Given defender mode and everything, a fighter should be more than able to convert these hits into graces as he should be able to do that with the normal hits anyway. I think it's fine to pay for the extra movement with getting a grace in, and if the enemy is overpowering you with normal attacks, then it makes sense that you can't easily walk away.

The issue with staggering is that the way the mechanic is supposed to work, the staggering lets the enemy reengage you instantly, resulting in unlimited disengagement attacks if you move on. The way it's planned now, you can never break free of engagement without an explicit escape ability, so my change is mandatory if it is supposed to be resolved by pure walking. Again, if you don't invest into talents, then my suggestion plays the same as now, but if you do, then you get a chance to break free proportional to your chance being hit, which is balanced, as my starting point was that one wants to keep the mechanic while finding a compromise. Also, if players don't feel restricted by the mechanic, they are free to skip the talent to pursue something which is more worthwhile to get in their eyes.

And don't get me wrong, I don't automatically dismiss arguments from a viewpoint of hard difficulty, I'm just feeling like these kind of mechanics should scale with difficulty as well. In fact, my suggestion does this, as it depends on the enemies hit chance.

 

Personally, in general, I'm more in favour of having gradual mechanics instead of binary ones so I would prefer this to binary engagement as well to abilities which basically turn off mechanics completely, as in your suggestion.