Suggestion: Fighter movement ability

[Lephys]

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.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but that's exactly why we're exploring a way in which to feasibly allow movement with the engagement mechanic still in.

 

I agree that everyone being rooted in place OR ELSE SUFFER A PROBABLY VERY DAMAGING PENALTY HIT is banal gameplay. I also have to say that active repositioning is probably one of the most neglected things in this type of RPG. There're oodles of effects and abilities that knock enemies down, or root them in place, or otherwise incapacitate them. However, there aren't very many that give you much control at all over their relocation. I still think it would be neat to have some degree of representation of movement while engaging (more so in 1v1 engagements), a la the fight between Inigo and "The Dread Pirate Roberts" in The Princess Bride. You know, back your foe up to a cliff or wall, retreat yourself to a slightly higher/more open spot, etc.

 

You could simply allow for very slow movement while auto-attacking, but I'm not sure off the top of my head how to deal with who gets to do the "driving," so to speak. In other words, what dictates when your foe gets to push you backwards a little bit, and when you get to push your foe backwards a little bit? I dunno, but that'd be a pretty cool thing for a Fighter to excel at, and the repositioning would impact party tactics a great deal. AND it would make engagement less "bleh."

 

I really think Cubiq's onto something, here, with the adjustment of movement speed for the purposes of during-engagement movement. If you had to move really, really slowly, that would be your negative. That's kind of the whole reason engagement was put in, anyway: so foes couldn't simply sprint past your Fighter (and front line) to go freely slaughter your mage and archer, etc. If you're going to put yourself within blade-lengtho of a guy with a sword who's got nothing better to do than end you, and you're going to turn your back on him and/or not actually take his presence seriously, you're in for a rude awakening.

[Cubiq]

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.

That's exactly what i'm trying to tell you, it's not enough. You're underestimating the damage on Hard difficulty. The accuracy of the enemy also increases in Hard dificulty. You will be instantly killed if 3 out of 4 attacks are crits. It's an unlucky roll and you die. Defender mode that gives you +5 deflection isn't going to save you. And i'm talking from the assumption that you have full stamina, which you obviously won't have.

Trust me the damage isn't something you can laugh at, you need to be ready to cast healing spells on hard difficulty even without getting hit by disengagement attacks.

I'll point out to this bug i noticed in the first page of the thread, which i then reported:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69026-loadsave-power-buff/

This is probably a big reason why everyone was complaining that the game was too easy in v301 on Hard difficulty

 

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.

Well i'm not saying you should be able to walk away. The 50% speed reduction should still make you get hit by the enemy (if we fix the kiting problem, with sensuki's suggestion) and you will still need to use knockdown and such if you want to run away and stop eating damage.

Just now you should be able to reposition the enemy first so that you could use something like a cone knockdown. (assuming the knockdown will actually work even if it hits)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Cubiq

[Doppelschwert]

I'm surprised that hard difficulty is that unforgiving, as I have no experience with it and alyways thought the difficulty was only supposed to change the composition of enemy groups instead of attribute modifiers, which this sounds like.

 

I understand your argument then, but then again I'd argue that these effects are because of inproper balancing instead of poor mechanics design. When I was playing on normal, my fighter in defender mode converted almost every hit into a grace, so I think you shouldn't expect such a great shift in accuracy and damage by going from normal to hard all of a sudden.

 

Maybe we can shed more light on this if they release a new patch this week.

[Sensuki]

I think Cubiq got mixed up there. Hard just has more/better enemies. Path of the Damned increases enemy defenses. However it still does not change the fact that if you move away from melee combat with multiple enemies in PE, that character will likely get KO'd on the spot.

[Cubiq]

I think Cubiq got mixed up there. Hard just has more/better enemies. Path of the Damned increases enemy defenses. However it still does not change the fact that if you move away from melee combat with multiple enemies in PE, that character will likely get KO'd on the spot.

I admit i didn't actually test very much on normal difficulty? What do you mean better enemies?

 

 

But there were a few times that i played on hard where if i had 60-70% hp on my fighter and decided to cast a buff with my priest instead of a heal, he got killed before i could finish my next spell, though i don't remember where it happened. I do remember also getting critted by the cave spider with the gaze attack for 140 damage that 1 shotted my fighter. I think i got a screenshot of it at home. I thought the damage was so high because i'm playing on hard and the damage was increased.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Cubiq

[Sensuki]

On Hard, the encounters add/remove enemies. I think only Hard difficulty has Adra Beetles in the Dyrford Crossing, I'm not sure.

In PotD it adds all enemies from every difficulty and gives them a 50% boost in accuracy and defenses.

 

[Cubiq]

Ok i'll do a playthrough on normal when i get home to see the difference.

[Cubiq]

Yep you were right Sensuki, i was wrong, i'm sorry Doppelschwer.

There is no damage increase in normal vs hard.

 

I'm having a bad day so i didn't play very far and didn't reach the cave.

Does this damage spike happen on normal as well?

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

Edited October 21, 2014 by Cubiq

[Doppelschwert]

No need to apologize.

 

As I've said before, with a new patch the enemies are hopefully more balanced in a way that a normal attack graces your fighter most of the time, which is his role after all. With this assumption, imo getting a grace while disengaging would be acceptable, if you have a talent that brings the enemies accuracy down on a normal level and I could see the ability work.

 

I think you did a good job at explaining the motivation for attacks of opportunity in turn based games sensuki (now that I search for it here, was that in another thread?) , although I also get the feeling that the devs motivation for the engagement mechanic is also about separating moving from fighting in the sense that you are supposed to arrange formation and location before the fight actual starts.

 

Regarding the damage spike, is that the work of the infamous petrification effect? It applies the damage directly to health instead of stamina and reduces your defenses heavily.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Sensuki]

I think you did a good job at explaining the motivation for attacks of opportunity in turn based games sensuki (now that I search for it here, was that in another thread?) , although I also get the feeling that the devs motivation for the engagement mechanic is also about separating moving from fighting in the sense that you are supposed to arrange formation and location before the fight actual starts.

 

That's not how real-time combat works though. You can pre-position, sure - but realtime combat is supposed to be reactive.

 

if you move a unit up to another unit, that unit can hit you back. If you run away from that unit, he can chase you.

 

I think it's smart gameplay if you micro a unit back when the enemy is in between sword swings / actions, as that's what you would do in a real fight I guess, if you wanted to move away you'd do it when they don't have a chance of swinging back at you ... but of course they can follow you too.

 

This is also why moving should not pause recovery, because at the moment when you chase, you have to wait to attack - which is dumb.

 

If you want to stop a unit from moving away - that's what crowd control abilities are for. In real time games, disables, slows and higher movement speed/movement speed buffs is what you use to hit units when they are running away. Also tactical positioning - you can block enemies in the IE games, you can force them to attack you. Enemies can block you as well.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeHydra]

I'm fine with engagement; combat shouldn't be balanced around knowing the player can step back and escape at any time. This makes "escape" skills more desirable. Maybe we could use a few more of those.

 

Any kind of modal ability that lets you completely ignore engagement is probably a bad idea. I understand the appeal, especially for RTS fans, but IE-style games aren't really RTS. (OK, they blur the line a bit.) The focus is more on ability, spell and item usage then on placement/micromanagement. I don't really want to spend half or more of my time moving "units" around, like I do in Warcraft 3, Starcraft etc. Engagement would indeed feel silly in those games, where it's more about hit-and-run, and there are many more units with far fewer abilities per unit.

 

I get that some people don't like engagement, but I've played the beta to completion and felt it made combat more tense and less fussy. Being face-to-face with an enemy feels more threatening, and there's more incentive to set up a good approach. Rather than have to reposition my guys every few seconds because damage was rebalanced around someone not liking this "restriction". Instead I can let my front line do its thing and focus on supporting them, activing/deactivating their own damage mitigation as needed.

 

Also, the stealth system plays nicely with engagement because it lets you set up clever attacks with stealthy characters. If you could move away from the enemy at any time, this wouldn't be worth doing--except for the obvious sneak attack.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Sensuki]

I don't think it makes it more tactical, I think it makes it less tactical. It forces combat to be this stand still fest, which is not like the IE games at all. Feels more like Crapon Age Origins.

[PrimeHydra]

I don't think it makes it more tactical, I think it makes it less tactical. It forces combat to be this stand still fest, which is not like the IE games at all. Feels more like Crapon Age Origins.

Well, it is making you do more running around and less choosing whether to activate an ability that affects damage vs. defense. This system adds a dimension to combat; you have to give a crap who engages who and when. Aren't fights chaotic enough without having to run around like a chicken with your head cut off? I'd rather activate defensive abilities and support.

 

Edit: Let's not forgot, you actually aren't rooted in place. Engagement simply adds a cost to escape--the attack of opportunity. This is a tactical design choice.

 

Also, I don't get all the hate on Dragon Age: Origins. Yes, EA are evil, and the freaking $$DLC$$ spammers get outta my campsite!  But the actual game? Loved it, played the hell out of it. It's not Baldur's Gate, but it's solid. The combat in particular was excellent, if not well-balanced.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Sensuki]

What? You don't run around like a chicken with your head cut off in the IE games. You micro characters back when injured, just like you do in other RTS games.

 

Engagement does add a cost to moving away, but most of the time it's a pretty bad decision to move away from enemies that are attacking you, particularly against multiple enemies.

 

This is a spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine games, not Dragon Age Origins, not Neverwinter Nights 2 - both games which I think had terrible combat. DA:O had MMO aggro mechanics to keep units in place, NWN2 had AoOs which were retarded anyway.

I will wait a few more patches before pushing for it, but if it's still a bug-ridden feature come end of November or whatever, it's probably worth just removing. 

Edited October 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeHydra]

What? You don't run around like a chicken with your head cut off in the IE games. You micro characters back when injured, just like you do in other RTS games.

 

Engagement does add a cost to moving away, but most of the time it's a pretty bad decision to move away from enemies that are attacking you, particularly against multiple enemies.

 

This is a spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine games, not Dragon Age Origins, not Neverwinter Nights 2 - both games which I think had terrible combat.

I was exaggerating for lulz, sorry. It just creates an amusing image, everyone in a line running up to hit the big badass, then retreating to heal so the next guy in line can have a whack at it. I know this isn't actually what happens.

 

And yes, the cost of moving away is harsh. With practice, you'll be able to tell when you'd better back out your fighter because he bit off more than he could chew. It probably won't be often that you have to do this, if you're properly supporting them.  No engagement = hit-and-run attacks against foes that you'd never actually be able to tank with your, you know, tank.

 

And please don't lecture me about how the game is an IE successor. That's precisely why I backed it. I'm not advocating them to make the game more like non-IE games than it already is. I'm advocating for them to leave this aspect of combat alone. We clearly disagree. That doesn't mean DA:O was a bad game (the user metscore is 8.6, even if you despise critical reviews that give it a 91 metascore). But that's another conversation.

 

OE aren't slaves to the IE formula. They're breaking the mold in a few small but significant ways. IIRC you're not in favor of combat XP, either? So if it's something you like, they're being innovative, but if it's not, they're copying (insert game manufacturer you despise whose game employed said design).

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Cubiq]

I agree with Sensuki on this, yes you don't have to micromanage your positions during combat, because the enemy just attacks the first thing they see and then they stay there, so you have an easier time holding the line. So do we just leave the AI this simple? I'm kind of not happy with that

And if some make it past you need to rely on spells like Withdraw which are really unbalanced.
 

As I've said before, with a new patch the enemies are hopefully more balanced in a way that a normal attack graces your fighter most of the time, which is his role after all. With this assumption, imo getting a grace while disengaging would be acceptable, if you have a talent that brings the enemies accuracy down on a normal level and I could see the ability work.

...graze you mean?

Well there's still the problem with the unlucky roll.

If you just rely on making them graze most of the time, then won't there come a time where they can still crit?

You will still get instantly KOed if you hit on that unlucky roll.

I think just a flat out damage reduction would be better if they went with this.

 

Also will it be worth it?

You will take more damage, so you can do more damage in return? Won't this more or less even out in the end, making it not worth at all?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Cubiq

[Sensuki]

 

 

OE aren't slaves to the IE formula. They're breaking the mold in a few small but significant ways. IIRC you're not in favor of combat XP, either? So if it's something you like, they're being innovative, but if it's not, they're copying (insert game manufacturer you despise whose game employed said design).

 

Not at all. No XP for combat works fine and it fixes various problems that the IE games had with their always being a 'best' option - that which gave the most XP.

Melee Engagement is a creation to solve a problem which I think is overblown, and can actually be solved in other ways other than creating a turn-based inspired system for dealing with it. I gave the system the benefit of the doubt and actually didn't complain about it at all until giving it a good thrash. You'll find posts from 2 months ago on the RPGCodex where I defend the system, but after playtesting it thoroughly I have come to think that it stinks.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Doppelschwert]

I think PrimeHydra made an excellent point regarding micro management versus planning, and I think that is also where josh is actually coming from.

Now that I think about it, I actually agree that the outcome of a fight should more depend on playing than actual micromanagement and that tedious micromanagement (evading every hit, because its possible) should not be rewarded.

[PrimeHydra]

 

OE aren't slaves to the IE formula. They're breaking the mold in a few small but significant ways. IIRC you're not in favor of combat XP, either? So if it's something you like, they're being innovative, but if it's not, they're copying (insert game manufacturer you despise whose game employed said design).

 

Not at all. No XP for combat works fine and it fixes various problems that the IE games had with their always being a 'best' option - that which gave the most XP.

 

Melee Engagement is a creation to solve a problem which I think is overblown, and can actually be solved in other ways other than creating a turn-based inspired system for dealing with it. I gave the system the benefit of the doubt and actually didn't complain about it at all until giving it a good thrash. You'll find posts from 2 months ago on the RPGCodex where I defend the system, but after playtesting it thoroughly I have come to think that it stinks.

 

OK, agree to disagree then--I've also played a lot of backer beta, and engagement felt right for the reasons I've already gone over.

[PrimeHydra]

I think PrimeHydra made an excellent point regarding micro management versus planning, and I think that is also where josh is actually coming from.

Now that I think about it, I actually agree that the outcome of a fight should more depend on playing than actual micromanagement and that tedious micromanagement (evading every hit, because its possible) should not be rewarded.

It's true--I've dodged more than my share of blows in BG by "escaping" just before the Iron Golem laid the smack down. It always felt like gaming the system a bit. I like that PoE adds more defensive abilities so fighters can do more than hit and run.  Haer Dalis's Defensive Spin was fun because I could up his tankyness without doing the usual dance of hit, take some damage, retreat, heal, repeat.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Sensuki]

I think PrimeHydra made an excellent point regarding micro management versus planning, and I think that is also where josh is actually coming from.

 

Actually one of Josh's goals was that he wanted more active combat - increased micromanagement from players.

 

Nothing about Melee Engagement involves planning. In the current patch, melee combat is pretty much this

 

Enemies and Player units rush at eachother at lightning speed, and stand there. If you try and reposition in the middle of combat against big groups of spiders, or if the AI bug does it for you, that character dies. 

 

Enemies have simple targeting clauses, they do not move around in combat, they just stand there. All of the IE games had more advanced AI than PE currently has, and when the AI gets more advanced, it will be very easy to 'abuse' the engagement mechanics with multiple melee characters.

 

The problem with your Iron Golem anecdote is that the Iron Golem is a HUGE unit and you can abuse the navmesh so that he can't hit you through a door, or a tight corridor or something where he gets stuck - most common place to do that is in the Planar Sphere. That's a level design issue - not a system design one.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeHydra]

Actually one of Josh's goals was that he wanted more active combat - increased micromanagement from players.

If he wanted more movement micromanagement, I don't think he'd have chosen an engagement system.

 

 

Nothing about Melee Engagement involves planning.

Sure it does. In PoE it's more important that you approach the enemy with heavy hitters in a good position; you can't just do a quick sneak attack with your rogue and then retreat him while the Barbarian charges in. Also my point about stealth was conveniently ignored--with the stealth system, you can set up good engagement. Even if you don't have enough time to get behind every monster, you can at least get a decent formation before time runs out.

 

I think you just don't like how this mechanic plays, but you want to discredit it on a tactical basis rather than admit you simply preferred the IE system.

 

As for AI, though, I agree we need a lot more of it such as simple AI scripts for players. This has nothing to do with abuse, though. Smarter monsters will take engagement into account too. In fact, I can easily see a custom AI script abusing non-engagement via hit-and-run.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Sensuki]

How does a lack of an engagement system promote more movement than the IE games? 

 

There is no difference between how you set up for encounters in PE and in the IE games except that in PE you can see enemies in the fog of war and thus can 'abuse' the line of sight. Units in PE have more active abilities, so you use more active abilities.

The current patch requires no tactical planning whatsoever if you're using firearms and arbalests. Select Rogue with Arbalest, toggle Reckless Assault, select Crippling Strike - attack enemy *boom* 200 damage, dead in one hit.

 

The IE games had much less useless dogpiling

 

[PrimeHydra]

How does a lack of an engagement system promote more movement than the IE games? 

It doesn't--if they added more micromanagement, it was through having more abilities per character.

 

Look, I get it, you love the IE system enough to post 45-minute videos of you playing Icewind Dale. I respect your devotion, but at the same time I want Obsidian's design to be given a chance.  It could be simply that disengagement feels too punishing right now to ever use it. They may need to tone down the attack of opportunity enough to make it a viable choice. It doesn't mean the whole system should be dismantled because you miss Icewind Dale.

 

As for your example with ranged attacks, that has nothing to do with engagement or lack thereof. It's just an example of guns being overpowered.

 

Clearly this conversation will continue to go in circles, so I'll let you have the last word. I got other stuff to do

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Sensuki]

I like new ideas when they are clearly beneficial. I don't think the Melee Engagement system is a good one though, but as I said previously, before I start campaigning against it, I'm going to give them a bit of a chance to fix it. It has a lot of problems besides the actual mechanics - how to display it as a UI without being obtuse, how it should work (not currently defined 100%) and currently the actual feedback for it is terrible because it lacks an animation.

 

I do like the idea of other changed systems - Health system, Attack Resolution, Objective-based XP ... etc, I'm only singling this one out because I don't think it is beneficial to the gameplay.