Jump to content

Engagement Mechanics- Problems and Solutions


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:Picard triple facepalm:

answer me this riddle

 

If im waving a sharp sword at you and want to kill you... how exactly do you ... walk away from me... slowly?

 

Just like this...

 

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar

 

:facepalm: #define TRUE (!FALSE)

I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I still have some doubts (and suggestions) about engagement, and I didn't feel like creating yet another thread about it so I'm using this one:

 

Can a creature do a disengagement attack to a fleeing oponent even when it itself is engaged by another one? I mean, realistically speaking, if a movement of trying to get away from an attacker is punishable, shouldn't the movement to reach the fleeing creature be punishable too? Of course, if it's being engaged by a third one.

 

Also, is the rogue the only class able to flee withot suffering disengagement attacks? I mean, if you have enough athletics skills, you should be able to roll back from an oponent right?

 

Lastly, is the disengagement attack hit influenced by weapon range?

 

I know this have been discussed a lot. I'm not against the disengagement attack idea at all, I just worry if the devs payed attention to other features and consequences of the mechanics, concerning realism.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have some doubts (and suggestions) about engagement, and I didn't feel like creating yet another thread about it so I'm using this one:

 

Good idea. I like that my thread is back!

 

 

 

Can a creature do a disengagement attack to a fleeing oponent even when it itself is engaged by another one?

Yes. If you move while engaged; you get hit by a disengagement attack.

 

 

 

Also, is the rogue the only class able to flee withot suffering disengagement attacks? I mean, if you have enough athletics skills, you should be able to roll back from an oponent right?

 

There lots of ways to get around engagement. You could for example use knockdown with a fighter. Or knock the enemy away with a Monk. Interrupts also end engagement so there are ways out even for non-rogues.

 

 

 

Lastly, is the disengagement attack hit influenced by weapon range?

 

Nope.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Namutree, thanks for the answers. I didn't play the BB, so I was not able to get a feel of engagement other then videos. But now that you mentioned interrupt, I wonder how does that work? The character that was able to interrupt its oponnent gets a few seconds to back away without triggering the disengagement attack? Is there a animation or feedback on the interrupting state/duration?

 

Osvir, thanks for linking to the other thred. I've missed most of the discussion on engagement, so I might read some of it out of curiosity. I also watched the video again, and that's what worried me and made me ressurect the topic actually, because Josh seems to have created the mechanism for that single case that he used in the example, but it seems to me that most encounters take place in open areas and with large numbers of enemies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a glimpse back in time.

 

That is 5 months after the Kickstarter ended.

 

Here's the thread:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63432-update-44-the-rules-of-melee-engagement/

 

For those of you interested in research/history of the engagement system.

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I took a glimpse back in time.

 

That is 5 months after the Kickstarter ended.

 

Here's the thread:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63432-update-44-the-rules-of-melee-engagement/

 

For those of you interested in research/history of the engagement system.

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

 

 

I don't think I will ever understand how some of you people go through life without constantly cutting yourselves on your edginess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The character that was able to interrupt its oponnent gets a few seconds to back away without triggering the disengagement attack?

Yup. Interrupt ends engagement giving the player a few seconds to retreat without penalty.

 

 

Is there a animation or feedback on the interrupting state/duration?

They kinda freeze up animation wise, the combat log tells you that you have interrupted the enemy, and the arrows indicating engagement disappear. So yeah, it's easy to tell that they're interrupted.  The enemies have a recovery bar that you can see so you know the duration.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

 

 

How is such vitriol helping either your plight or mood? It seems to me you're making yourself miserable over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing. Additionally, by posting such emotional reactions you move to effect others, either souring their moods or forcing them to shrink away from you and your cause.

 

"broken piece of trash" - This won't help your cause, the developers, your influence, the reader nor anyone else. Get a hold of yourself man!

  • Like 2

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar

 

:facepalm: #define TRUE (!FALSE)

I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

 

How is such vitriol helping either your plight or mood? It seems to me you're making yourself miserable over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing. Additionally, by posting such emotional reactions you move to effect others, either souring their moods or forcing them to shrink away from you and your cause.

 

"broken piece of trash" - This won't help your cause, the developers, your influence, the reader nor anyone else. Get a hold of yourself man!

 

You must've missed all the countless threads where this was reasonably discussed. I was commenting specifically on the video and how it actually made me want to like the Engagement system again, on an emotional level, despite me knowing on that it's a broken piece of trash as a reasoning individual. One of those fun dualities of man.

 

I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

 

Nor will this make me miserable "over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing". I'm not even sure where you got that from. Engagement being a broken piece of trash doesn't do that, nor does acknowledging that Engagement is a broken piece of trash. My statement was one of tiredness and melancholy, not of world-ending sorrow and wailing.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Sensuki's latest video and how he describes all the ways to fight disengagement and I come away with the mindset that it just adds more tactical decisions to the gameplay. :closed:

 

That's kinda sad, because Sensuki is probably the best one to explain to you why you're wrong.

  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensuki plays in a different way to a lot of people so his thoughts on the matter are coloured by that. Not to say that he's wrong its just something to keep in mind.

 

Very true, just because a player or handful of players dislike a feature doesn't make it awful by default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, just because a player or handful of players dislike a feature doesn't make it awful by default.

That's actually very true. What makes it awful by default are the actual issues created, not the dislike that stems from them.

  • Like 2

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

 

How is such vitriol helping either your plight or mood? It seems to me you're making yourself miserable over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing. Additionally, by posting such emotional reactions you move to effect others, either souring their moods or forcing them to shrink away from you and your cause.

 

"broken piece of trash" - This won't help your cause, the developers, your influence, the reader nor anyone else. Get a hold of yourself man!

 

You must've missed all the countless threads where this was reasonably discussed. I was commenting specifically on the video and how it actually made me want to like the Engagement system again, on an emotional level, despite me knowing on that it's a broken piece of trash as a reasoning individual. One of those fun dualities of man.

 

I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

 

Nor will this make me miserable "over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing". I'm not even sure where you got that from. Engagement being a broken piece of trash doesn't do that, nor does acknowledging that Engagement is a broken piece of trash. My statement was one of tiredness and melancholy, not of world-ending sorrow and wailing.

 

 

Calling a system you don't like a broken piece of trash, whether as some sort of "zinger" or as "a rational response to your emotional opposite response" does not make you look clever.

 

It makes you look like a bitter, petty child trying to be edgy to impress other edgy children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Man, the pitch still sounds good, and again makes me want to like this piece of broken trash.

 

How is such vitriol helping either your plight or mood? It seems to me you're making yourself miserable over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing. Additionally, by posting such emotional reactions you move to effect others, either souring their moods or forcing them to shrink away from you and your cause.

 

"broken piece of trash" - This won't help your cause, the developers, your influence, the reader nor anyone else. Get a hold of yourself man!

 

You must've missed all the countless threads where this was reasonably discussed. I was commenting specifically on the video and how it actually made me want to like the Engagement system again, on an emotional level, despite me knowing on that it's a broken piece of trash as a reasoning individual. One of those fun dualities of man.

 

I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

 

Nor will this make me miserable "over one mechanic decision and letting it ruin any possibility of satisfaction from playing". I'm not even sure where you got that from. Engagement being a broken piece of trash doesn't do that, nor does acknowledging that Engagement is a broken piece of trash. My statement was one of tiredness and melancholy, not of world-ending sorrow and wailing.

 

 

Calling a system you don't like a broken piece of trash, whether as some sort of "zinger" or as "a rational response to your emotional opposite response" does not make you look clever.

 

It makes you look like a bitter, petty child trying to be edgy to impress other edgy children.

 

 

I'm not the mewling manchild whining about edgyness and other people's preferences. There's countless of posts in countless of threads where all of this is reasonably argued, and you'll see me on the side of being positive towards Engagement in the beginning of some of them. It was not intended as a "zinger" nor "a rational response to your emotional opposite response" (I have no idea what you even want to say with that).

 

It was intended as exactly what I said, in the way I said it. I still want to like the idea of the Engagement mechanics. That's the whole point. It still sounds like a good idea, and that pitch was what originally sold me on it. It resonated with me and appealed to me, it makes sense when it is put that way. Repeat it, and I still go "Hey, that sounds pretty good" and "That's a good idea".

 

And that video reminded me of that, which is actually quite annoying, when I look upon how the Engagement system actually works in practice, and make judgements upon how it works in the actual game. And it's a mess. I call it a broken piece of trash because it's a broken piece of trash. There's countless of logical arguments if you want to pick a fight about it, it's a bit silly to start attacking someone one of the few times when they express themselves emotionally about it.

 

The mechanic itself is terrible, yet there's this part of me that still feel that it's a good idea or ideal, which probably explains why Sawyer is holding onto it so strongly come hell or high water, no matter how much criticism is levied against it, no matter how much it can be exploited, or how much it detracts from tactical mobility, despite the fact that Sawyer has been almost neurotic about rooting out other "exploits" left, right and centre stage. And I can actually understand that, to a degree.

 

I think the only one here being a bitter and petty tryhard that is trying to look clever is probably you. I derive zero pleasure out of looking "3 edgy 5 u", whereas you seem to be driven by the urge to attack other people because they don't play with the same toys the way you do, or because they express a loose differing opinion about them. If you actually had an interest in the topic, you would've raised an actual argument around it, or reviewed the discussion. But no, you're just here to pick on easy targets that had no relation to the factual discussion to begin with, nor was ever intended as constructive feedback, but merely an expression of fatigue and lamentation (for lack of a better word).

 

I still wish it would've turned out better. I'm still looking for a way that this could work, simply because I like the idea, I just can't find a way to reasonably do it.

  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanic itself is terrible, yet there's this part of me that still feel that it's a good idea or ideal, which probably explains why Sawyer is holding onto it so strongly come hell or high water, no matter how much criticism is levied against it, no matter how much it can be exploited, or how much it detracts from tactical mobility, despite the fact that Sawyer has been almost neurotic about rooting out other "exploits" left, right and centre stage. And I can actually understand that, to a degree.

 

[...]

 

I still wish it would've turned out better. I'm still looking for a way that this could work, simply because I like the idea, I just can't find a way to reasonably do it.

 

And yet you haven't actually played with it have you? I can't understand how you can be so convinced that something is terrible having never even tried it yourself.

 

There's countless of posts in countless of threads where all of this is reasonably argued

 

[...]

 

If you actually had an interest in the topic, you would've raised an actual argument around it, or reviewed the discussion. But no, you're just here to pick on easy targets that had no relation to the factual discussion to begin with, nor was ever intended as constructive feedback, but merely an expression of fatigue and lamentation (for lack of a better word).

 

I don't post much these days but I've read all those threads you're talking about from beginning to end, and if I wanted to have a discussion about it, that's where I would post.

 

But I consider "lamentations" and non-constructive feedback to be toxic and childish, so I commented here instead on a representative example of the kind of crap you and some others are fond of spewing.

 

Though I will say that you do at least post constructive comments as well, at least when the topic is not engagement, unlike some people who just ****post all day every day.

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