Jump to content

Engagement Mechanics- Problems and Solutions


Recommended Posts

Doesn't the fighter already have a bonus to the number of engagement he can have? Why not keep that?

 

So a fighter could engage two enemies; paladins, barbarians, and monks one enemy; and everyon elese no enemies.

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wusses...

I already wrote that an alternate version of this can be made where a few other select classes or creatures and enemies, etc could have different versions.

Fighter can engage up to three targets this way currently, if they improve the skill. But whatever is done, if it is done at all, should make this a clear advantage (or danger from) of fighters and just an lesser additional skill or a talent for few other classes. Because of several other reasons, all written above already.

I dont think Monks need it, for example. Palladin.. yeah, i guess. As a talent. Military training. Maybe some of the starting backgrounds could have that skill enabled by default.

 

All these classes have plenty of their own abilities. In a nice seemingly counter-intuitive way, doing this would make other classes more original since the players would need to concentrate more on using their original abilities and playing them differently then basically as just another kind of a fighter.

Unless of course you are making the game for backline ease of use. Then all this doesnt matter much.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought of something.

It has to do with Engagement.

Please don't kill me.

I've been playing the Backer Beta a little, and while I like the idea of Engagement, I'm finding it nigh-impossible to move around once the pieces on the board is "set", and generally speaking, it just ends up being a big cluster where it's hard to even see who's engaged with who. My first idea was to move all the pieces around, get some distances, but, obviously, Engagement wouldn't have none of that **** from me.

I couldn't do what I'd do in the IE games; simply move slowly, facing my opponent, to move them towards me. I did this a lot in the old IE games, opening up choke points or just moving someone away from my squishier friends.

What if.. what if we have a real Walk/Run toggle? R to Toggle, hold Shift to Run/Walk on movement command. Or something.

And what if Walking didn't trigger Engagement attacks, because you are slowly walking (backwards), pulling the opponent with you?

And Running (maybe slightly faster than now?) always did? So you could still cut-and-run, or quickly try to assist someone, but you'd have to take the consequences.

That way:

  • You can tactically reposition slowly in combat, moving opponents away from eachother or towards eachother. Or plan ahead to move towards a friend that needs help as you are finishing off some mook.
  • You maintain the intended functionality of the Engagement system, to re-value melee and tanking, to create choke points. In fact, it would arguably make it better, since you'd endow them with the power of battlefield re-positioning.

Running and Walking wouldn't just be cosmetic, but have meaningful implications, tying the "immersive" aspect (that we don't want to friggin' run everywhere all the time) into the mechanical.

Obviously, movement penalties/bonuses would apply the same on Walking as on Running, so if (for example) Walking would be 40% of current Run (Default, ATM) speed and Run would be 120% of current Run speed, being subject to a slowing effect would act independently on the two. So walking while slowed wouldn't just be slow, it'd be really slow.

Also, as a completely separate idea, I think that animals (in general) shouldn't have Engagement, since Engagement (to me) is a concious tactic practised by sentient combatants. If they were likewise immune to Engagement, this could help re-value the Ranger Animal Companion. Why? I don't know why, stop asking questions, I guess animals dodge better or something, make something up, why do I always have to do it?

 

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm finding it nigh-impossible to move around once the pieces on the board is "set"

That's the idea, and that's why it's terrible.

 

 

I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent was to allow you to control the battlefield, to create choke-points, to hold up opponents, and so on. I think that the complete lock-up is an unintended side-effect that they don't know how to deal with appropriately, and they feel they have to choose between two options that are both sub-optimal.

 

On paper, with the rationale given, I really like the idea of Engagement. The mechanic itself is good, but I think that some of the effects of it is grating and jarring, as in, why on Earth can't I move at all. It locks things up way worse than it actually has to.

 

But more to the point, how'd you feel about meaningful Walk/Run toggle(s) and interacting with the Engagement system? We all know you hate Engagement, but apart from it's complete removal, any ideas?

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesnt need to be either too much engagement or none of it. Thats not the discussion.

The real proposition is given above. And sensuki made plenty of his own trying to deal with it by tweaking its inner mechanics. Go find them and read them.
Your idea is ... a bit ridiculous.

  

  What if.. what if we have a real Walk/Run toggle? R to Toggle, hold Shift to Run/Walk on movement command. Or something.
    And what if Walking didn't trigger Engagement attacks, because you are slowly walking (backwards), pulling the opponent with you?

 

Walking or running shouldn't have any effect on engagement and disengagement, except maybe generally speaking running or moving fast should reduce it. But that doesn't exist in the game as you cannot run and fight at the same time and there isnt any such movement in the game anyway. You don't have such "moves" at your disposal.
Walking, or moving slower, should only make it all worse. Not better.

How in the hell would you not trigger a disengagement attack by walking slowly?

What pulling? There is no pulling of anything in the game, the enemy wouldnt move with you - he would just wait and make a disengagement attack - because thats the most favorable option available. And they could do it more easily - BECAUSE YOU ARE MOVING AWAY SLOWLY.

 
Yes the animals shouldn't have engagement, i already said that, its rather obvious,  but i cannot fathom why or how could anyone think they should be resistant to disengagement? Just.... how? Why?
What would be the point?

Obviously you think this would cause all kinds of effects in your imagination but its an absurd suggestion, that doesnt take in account all of the situation but just the imagined and also incorrectly judged PC side or angle. Its genius really, move slower and avoid counter attacks, move faster and get more of them! Brilliant!

 

Also... Sensuki didnt mean to say bad performance was the bloody intent of that system,... ffs... he is saying that yes - finding it nigh impossible to move around is the problem, obviously. For the player but also for the Ai.

And that effect has two bigger reasons that create it, not one. Lack of animations for bodies and how they move in combat (including any that would present engagement or any special moves to disengage), and the Engagement that is applied to every being in the game.

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent was to allow you to control the battlefield, to create choke-points, to hold up opponents, and so on. I think that the complete lock-up is an unintended side-effect that they don't know how to deal with appropriately, and they feel they have to choose between two options that are both sub-optimal.

On Hard, when there's more enemies than party members in encounters, you often don't control the battlefield.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What i would like to see:

 

Once engagement ability becomes the sole provenance of fighters, with few other select classes being able to have its basic form only...

 

The fighter should have either better defense or offense against engaged targets.

He would improve these stats through leveling and increase how many targets he can engage.

He should be able to occasionally inflict some critical when dishing out reactive disengagement attacks, that should mostly affect enemy movement, speed and agility.

This ability to inflict critical hits, to inflict status effects and exactly which ones should be skills that can be improved and chosen by the player.

 

He should also have increased chances to disengage without penalty versus other fighters, but usually would be able to move freely and disengage and engage some other enemies as necessary, of course.

 

So it would be nice if fighter could learn to also offensively disengage at higher levels, by performing a disengagement attack - which would need to be a critical hit, to succeed.

If it succeeds, the fighter effectively scores a critical hit and then disengages from that enemy. Which would make sense visually. The enemy is momentarily disrupted or even hurt, some smaller status effect is applied... and you move away to engage someone else.

 

When a fighter is able to engage three enemies at once, he should be able to choose which ones to engage by selecting them - provided they are in appropriate range.

That would mean you are using your fighter tactically, to precisely deal with specific changing threats inside the combat.

 

A fighter that is able to move around more freely, change targets, inflict criticals when engaged, disengage more easily or even disengage with an attack move, all under control of the players of course, as skills. (plus whatever other skills a fighter has)

 

 

 

So, for a gameplay example.... when you fight those Lions that can be encountered in one of the maps.

First, Lions should have bigger stealth in those grasses and their attacks should be sneak attacks that cause knockdowns. And they should attack as a pack more often, with some better movement around and to the flanks,....

 

But... anyway... a fighter should be able to engage up to three of them, stop them from attacking, have better defense or offense against them, dish a critical or two if they try to disengage - (which they should since they are animals and cannot be aware of tactics of engagement and disengagement) - or disengage with an critical attack on one selected target (or without that move spent if player chooses not to use it) - then aim at and engage specific other Lions that would be attacking the rest of the party by that time.

 

At the same time, the rest of characters and animals and creatures would be able to move around more freely since nobody would be engaged by everything around them.

And if you would want to have easier time with such enemies you would then have a very, very good reason to take fighter or two with your team.

 

 

 

 

Then, the rest of the classes can play off the fighter beautifully.

 

Just imagine how nicely a rogue can play off on such situations, against already engaged enemies, locked down by the fighter. What a nice tandem that would make. So natural too. Fighter locks them down, rogue comes from the flanks and they just make minced meat in between them.

 

Or Fighter and a Paladin, helping from behind with his auras and commands while also being able to fight, only with no or very limited engagement abilities. Behaving more like a commander then a fighter in combat, giving bonuses and buffs to fighters and others in the team.

 

Ciphers, Chanters... anyone...

 

And isnt that what a party based combat should be?

Using different classes and their abilities so they help and enhance and play off each other.

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent was to allow you to control the battlefield, to create choke-points, to hold up opponents, and so on. I think that the complete lock-up is an unintended side-effect that they don't know how to deal with appropriately, and they feel they have to choose between two options that are both sub-optimal.

On Hard, when there's more enemies than party members in encounters, you often don't control the battlefield.

 

 

Which is, of course, a problem. While I think there's a good argument in that it makes perfect sense that it would be hard to control more opponents than you have allies (or even just melee allies), I think it can (and will) lead to frustration amongst players when they feel they have no way to control the battlefield. Hence the suggestion.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if.. what if we have a real Walk/Run toggle? R to Toggle, hold Shift to Run/Walk on movement command. Or something.

 

And what if Walking didn't trigger Engagement attacks, because you are slowly walking (backwards), pulling the opponent with you?

 

And Running (maybe slightly faster than now?) always did? So you could still cut-and-run, or quickly try to assist someone, but you'd have to take the consequences.

 

That way:

  • You can tactically reposition slowly in combat, moving opponents away from eachother or towards eachother. Or plan ahead to move towards a friend that needs help as you are finishing off some mook.
  • You maintain the intended functionality of the Engagement system, to re-value melee and tanking, to create choke points. In fact, it would arguably make it better, since you'd endow them with the power of battlefield re-positioning.

Running and Walking wouldn't just be cosmetic, but have meaningful implications, tying the "immersive" aspect (that we don't want to friggin' run everywhere all the time) into the mechanical.

 

Obviously, movement penalties/bonuses would apply the same on Walking as on Running, so if (for example) Walking would be 40% of current Run (Default, ATM) speed and Run would be 120% of current Run speed, being subject to a slowing effect would act independently on the two. So walking while slowed wouldn't just be slow, it'd be really slow.

 

 

I haven't played the beta, but from what I could gather I had also mentioned the walk (fall back) / run toggle as a possible remedy to engagement a couple of times. (Even before the beta was released.) I agree with you that you should be able to reposition by slowly backpedalling without inducing any AoO. It makes sense, it is how real fights are also fought. 

 

AoO should only be initiated when you try to run away (turn your back to the enemy).

 

I don't know, it seems to make a lot of sense to have this thing and it would probably solve a lot of the negative stuff associated with engagement. I guess the additional thing for the devs to do in this case is to add the backpedalling animations and maybe it is too late for it now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
agree with you that you should be able to reposition by slowly backpedalling without inducing any AoO. It makes sense, it is how real fights are also fought.

 

 

...

:facepalm::shrugz:

in what universe?

 

you guys are confusing some things.... its the other way around...

 

 

backpedaling... :facepalm:

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

The run/walk thing is something I suggested earlier as well but a bit different.

It could be done that once engaged any single click to move would be automatic walk that does not provoke any disengagement attacks but if you double click you run and suffer those.

 

So you can move slowly around your opponent but if you really want to reach that back line in time you need to risk it.

AI that also goes slowly around to reach the wizard and priest would then even give Sensuki what he wants, need to reposition his front line and back line to stop this.

 

Also there are many cool things that could be used with this mechanic. Like single wolf would not be able to engage but 2+ would as wolves fight in packs.

Edited by archangel979
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What if.. what if we have a real Walk/Run toggle? R to Toggle, hold Shift to Run/Walk on movement command. Or something.

 

And what if Walking didn't trigger Engagement attacks, because you are slowly walking (backwards), pulling the opponent with you?

 

And Running (maybe slightly faster than now?) always did? So you could still cut-and-run, or quickly try to assist someone, but you'd have to take the consequences.

 

That way:

  • You can tactically reposition slowly in combat, moving opponents away from eachother or towards eachother. Or plan ahead to move towards a friend that needs help as you are finishing off some mook.
  • You maintain the intended functionality of the Engagement system, to re-value melee and tanking, to create choke points. In fact, it would arguably make it better, since you'd endow them with the power of battlefield re-positioning.
Running and Walking wouldn't just be cosmetic, but have meaningful implications, tying the "immersive" aspect (that we don't want to friggin' run everywhere all the time) into the mechanical.

 

Obviously, movement penalties/bonuses would apply the same on Walking as on Running, so if (for example) Walking would be 40% of current Run (Default, ATM) speed and Run would be 120% of current Run speed, being subject to a slowing effect would act independently on the two. So walking while slowed wouldn't just be slow, it'd be really slow.

 

 

I haven't played the beta, but from what I could gather I had also mentioned the walk (fall back) / run toggle as a possible remedy to engagement a couple of times. (Even before the beta was released.) I agree with you that you should be able to reposition by slowly backpedalling without inducing any AoO. It makes sense, it is how real fights are also fought. 

 

AoO should only be initiated when you try to run away (turn your back to the enemy).

 

I don't know, it seems to make a lot of sense to have this thing and it would probably solve a lot of the negative stuff associated with engagement. I guess the additional thing for the devs to do in this case is to add the backpedalling animations and maybe it is too late for it now.

 

 

Highlight mine. And yes, that's also what I thought. When I was playing, my intent wasn't to run away; it wasn't even to quickly rush and help a comrade. I was simply trying to reposition myself while walking backwards and then I realized that, of course, I couldn't. It felt incredibly odd, and after playing I can see why people would have a problem with the Engagement System as it is.

 

It's very jarring to practically not be able to move at all, even reasonably, in a way that should "just work", compared to most other games I've played. And I'm not even raising the issue of using powers that makes the characters move (even though you didn't expect them to) and whomp, Engagement Attack!

 

I'm not sure it needs any backpedalling animations, really. I mean.. well.. actually.. I just assumed that there already were walking animations for moving backwards.. you might be right.

 

...

facepalmri6.gifshrugnz9.gif

in what universe?

 

you guys are confusing some things.... its the other way around...

 

backpedaling... facepalmri6.gif

 

Not that it matters much to you, since you have a tendency to argue for the sake of arguing without any merit to anything that rolls out of your mouth, but fighting while moving backwards has historically been so prevalent that most keeps and castles have taken it into account when structuring it's fortifications, such as spiral staircases that leaves the right arm of the retreating defenders free.

 

When you face an opponent liable to stab you in the eye, the only way to reposition safely is to retreat backwards. Precisely because if you don't, you're just going to stand there and get stabbed in the face, and if try to run away, you get stabbed in the back. Hell, most streetfights today still go about the same. I was once in a fight that was more or less a dodging retreat slowly backwards over 100m. The reason for this was precisely because we couldn't turn our backs without getting smacked on the head, and we didn't have any solid weapons to defend ourselves with to actually parry effectively (they had branches/clubs, we had practically nothing).

 

In other news, I have composed a guide for everyone on the forum. A "How-To" to reduce the amount of white noise by at least 90%: http://i.imgur.com/gTG521z.png

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 3

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

facepalmri6.gifshrugnz9.gif

in what universe?

 

you guys are confusing some things.... its the other way around...

 

backpedaling... facepalmri6.gif

 

Not that it matters much to you, since you have a tendency to argue for the sake of arguing without any merit to anything that rolls out of your mouth,

 

Oh, thats a second time youre trying to lie about me by using a strawman. Youre going to pay for that dearly.

 

Start by quoting a single post where i argue either for the sake of it, or without any merrit - which is what you are doing right now with your suggestion and this sentence above. Actually.

 

 

 

but fighting while moving backwards has historically been so prevalent that most keeps and castles have taken it into account when structuring it's fortifications, such as spiral staircases that leaves the right arm of the retreating defenders free.

 

 

 

Yes, fighting while moving - which is also what i suggested needs improvements. THAT IS NOT DISENGAGEMENT.

Its fighting while moving.

 

And... even your intelect should realize that if you are moving slowly - you cannot disengage. As in - you continue to fight. >Doesnt matter if you move backwards or sideways or forwards - you are fighting. Especially if your oponent is being "pulled" by you, as you yourself suggested... genious.

 

 

 

When you face an opponent liable to stab you in the eye, the only way to reposition safely is to retreat backwards. Precisely because if you don't, you're just going to stand there and get stabbed in the face, and if try to run away, you get stabbed in the back.

 

Not if you manage to SUCCEFULLY DISENGAGE. That means you escaped that oponent effective reach momentarily and went after another or infact had managed to run away. Thats what succesfull disengagement would allow you to do.

 

Hell, most streetfights today still go about the same. I was once in a fight that was more or less a dodging retreat slowly backwards over 100m. The reason for this was precisely because we couldn't turn our backs without getting smacked on the head, and we didn't have any solid weapons to defend ourselves with to actually parry effectively (they had branches/clubs, we had practically nothing).

 

Thats only because you couldnt run away fast enough and your enemies were being "pulled" after you, while also being smarter - so you coudlnt DISENGAGE.

 

While, guessing by your general level of smartness, you probably think that trying to "disengage" is turning the back while standing in place - against the enemy with longer reach weapon.

 

because you are a GENIOUS OF MERRIT.

 

 

 

In other news, I have composed a guide for everyone on the forum. A "How-To" to reduce the amount of white noise by at least 90%: http://i.imgur.com/gTG521z.png

 

 

 

Thats only because you cannot argue with any merrit about any of your "ideas" that roll out of that mouth of yours. You can just drop declaratory statements how something MUST BE but you cannot explain any of it, since its actually pretty much ridiculous. And you dont even understand what disengagement is meant to be.

 

Not to mention other wider consequences since its not only about your characters...

 

And then all you can do is run and stick your head into the sand. Congratulations.

:lol:

 

 

What a clown...

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

spell checking works funky on these forums, but as long as its understood...

Im not actually angry at the BigHead at all because he is just so ridiculously beyond laughable it isnt even funny. Its just sad really. But also fortunately not of great consequence since devs are fortunately sane people with a "bit" wider overview.

That all looks like some posts made for absurdity purposes, really... like some twisted cabaret. I can hardly stop myself from sarcastically arguing in favor, if the goal would be to secretly completely ruin the game.

and its especially kind of weirdly fascinating watching that almost fanatical resentment of facts and rejection of even listening to or considering arguments to the contrary, but instead only splurging more declaratory one liners and fake lying ad hominems.

 

 

:lol: just imagine how encounter with Lions i described a page back would look and play out with these mechanics :lol:

Lions attack in straight dull lines like they do now, everyone engages everyone else :lol: - if you try to move fast you get hit, :lol: - if you move slow enemy follows you around any you cannot disengage :lol: and they hit you more all that time :lol: if you try to disengage you first turn in place exposing your back for an attack before trying to slowly move away :lol: which doesnt disengage you so you get to repeat all that until you get killed from all those hits in the back. :lol:

Its a fascinating parody, really.

I am doing it a service by even addressing it but hey, at least its really ridiculously hilarious.

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course moving slowly away and still being attacked by enemies following you is expected and even wanted as long as disengagement attacks are not suffered.

 

it is a tactical choice and a better one then automatic disengagement attacks and this choice follows the rules of the game where enemy attacks still have attack animations and recovery time instead of invisible instant attacks.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course moving slowly away and still being attacked by enemies following you is expected and even wanted as long as disengagement attacks are not suffered.

 

it is a tactical choice and a better one then automatic disengagement attacks and this choice follows the rules of the game where enemy attacks still have attack animations and recovery time instead of invisible instant attacks.

 

Of course, I had just assumed it was obvious that action of walking/repositioning to pull opponents wouldn't count as becoming Disengaged. You'd still be very much in Engagement, still being attacked by your target, the target similarly moving with you (or at least moving with you if it wants to keep attacking you and not end Engagement).

 

The more I think of it and the more input I get from other people, the more I really want to see this functionality put into the game. It'd make both Engagement and tactical movement possible, which is currently sadly mutually exclusive under the current mechanics.

 

Additionally, I think it just makes a lot of sense from an immersive perspective, whereas the complete lack of Engagement (complete free movement on the battlefield, feel free to ignore the heavies) and the current Engagement system (complete lock-down, static cluster that cannot be moved without escape mechanics or being hacked to bits; both which will do jack squat to reposition the foe(s) both don't make a lick of sense.

 

Also, icing on the cake that we'd get a Walk/Run toggle to play with.

  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, no need for a walk/run toggle, one click walk two clicks run outside combat while during combat one click is always run except when character is engaged when one click is always walk.

 

It can also be setup that if outside combat you one click far away enough the default is to run.

Edited by archangel979
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you people are certifiably insane and not aware of what you are saying or thinking, really.

 

Of course moving slowly away and still being attacked by enemies following you is expected and even wanted as long as disengagement attacks are not suffered.

 

 

So.... youre saying it would be the same as if you were standing in place and not suffering the disengagement attacks? EH?

 

Except you would suffer disengagement attacks from any other enemies that had you in engagement range if you would just move away from one of them, in case you were outnumbered, just like it happens right now.

Isnt that so?

 

Or would they follow you too so it would be the same as if you stayed in place? EH?

 

Or would they had some magical reason not to hit you with disengagement attacks? Because you moved slowly? So they got bored?

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what if Walking didn't trigger Engagement attacks, because you are slowly walking (backwards), pulling the opponent with you?

And Running (maybe slightly faster than now?) always did? So you could still cut-and-run, or quickly try to assist someone, but you'd have to take the consequences.

 

 

coupled with the fact that everyone would still have engagement no different then now...- which means you would be engaged all the time, and no disenagegement would be possible since it would be all the same....

 

and that i am actually arguing for improved movement in combat in my other thread in which BigHead also splurted some inane objection then left all huffed up and purple in the face.

 

and the fact it wouldnt mean anything if engagement itself isnt changed in a more fundamental way.

 

It would mean that BigHead idea achieves nothing, except being incredibly inane and self defeating.

 

 

 

 

But yeah, it actually sounds great! Obsidian should totally do it! :lol:

Backpedalling ftw!

 

 

 

 

 -  the complete lack of Engagement (complete free movement on the battlefield, feel free to ignore the heavies) and the current Engagement system (complete lock-down, static cluster that cannot be moved without escape mechanics or being hacked to bits; both which will do jack squat to reposition the foe(s) both don't make a lick of sense.

 

Im not sure has anyone mentioned removing engagement completely before but this snipped bit is one thing you got right, inadvertently.

Thats why my Mean engagement system idea is actually a working real solution, atleast when it comes to ideas.

Edited by Surface Reflection
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sensuki

 

I had not even considered the engagement vs. the amount of enemies you're facing on hard. I'm finding myself uncomfortable on normal how many enemies I need to engage at once; I can't even imagine it on hard or PotD (which I someday plan on at least trying). How badly are you outnumbered by beetles in dyrford crossing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually 1 to 1 depending on pull, but spiders in the cave can be worse. I once faced down odds of 5 to 1 due to a bad spider pull, got caught in the patrol path. I only play on Hard difficulty, too. More items, more loot, more options for itemization during the beta.

 

Hard would probably be harder if scouting mode wasn't so useful. As it stands, even without training the skill, I can have my whole party enter any room and then position themselves before I initiate contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, no need for a walk/run toggle, one click walk two clicks run outside combat while during combat one click is always run except when character is engaged when one click is always walk.

 

It can also be setup that if outside combat you one click far away enough the default is to run.

 

One does not exclude the other, though. The current double-click functionality (to move camera) is useless, anyway.

 

Usually 1 to 1 depending on pull, but spiders in the cave can be worse. I once faced down odds of 5 to 1 due to a bad spider pull, got caught in the patrol path. I only play on Hard difficulty, too. More items, more loot, more options for itemization during the beta.

 

Hard would probably be harder if scouting mode wasn't so useful. As it stands, even without training the skill, I can have my whole party enter any room and then position themselves before I initiate contact.

 

I think we're straying a bit off-topic, but I've been thinking about that too. I think that it's great that Scouting works so well, because it's the first time in a game like this where Scouting really helps and where positioning can be so important, but at the same time, Stealth vs. Hostiles seem to be largely overpowered on average, where, as you say, it's easy to enter any room and position yourself very close to them before intiating Combat.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...