Engagement Mechanics- Problems and Solutions

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I mean that I literally have a lesser quantity of empirical experience playing the beta build than many others here. Apologies, as I didn't realize that was unclear.

 

If it'll make you feel any better, Hiro, the next time I want to talk about something that someone else has already pointed out that happens in a specific situation in the beta build, I'll go test that situation myself, before saying "that shouldn't happen."

 

Again, what's with this 'lesser quantity of empirical experience' business? If you experience problems, anomalies or just things that can be improved by citing actual gameplay, then the argument with 'lesser experience' doesn't stand. And citing specific gameplay is a good thing for the dev's. Otherwise a lot of your posts are just noise. You can play the beta for 10 minutes and notice things that are different to the IE games and not for the better.

 

The fact that you refuse to cite any specific actual gameplay is what's laughable. That's one thing the dev's want and it's something you refuse to do. As I said, it's a big WTF for me. It's not a case of beta testers not giving feedback, it's more that you categorically refuse to cite any specific actual gameplay at all and haven't done so since the beta went live and you now have confirmed you won't.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

I do cite actual gameplay, where applicable. But, citing design that gameplay doesn't match is a different thing, entirely. I can't cite gameplay when I say "here's what should happen," or there wouldn't even be anything to suggest in the first place, because I'd just be citing what's already happening, and that would be already meeting design goals/ideals.

 

My entire existence is a big WTF for you, for some reason. What else is new?

[Tsuga C]

My entire existence is a big WTF for you, for some reason. What else is new?

It's good to have a dedicated following.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I do cite actual gameplay, where applicable. But, citing design that gameplay doesn't match is a different thing, entirely. I can't cite gameplay when I say "here's what should happen," or there wouldn't even be anything to suggest in the first place, because I'd just be citing what's already happening, and that would be already meeting design goals/ideals.

 

My entire existence is a big WTF for you, for some reason. What else is new?

 

Never seen you cite actual gameplay from the beta. It's usually been conjecture, hypothesising and a lot of 7 paragraph posts taking a counterpoint to anything negative with the game from certain posters. Even other people have asked whether you've played the beta because a lot of what you say is conjecture.

 

Never said your entire existence is a big WTF for me. But nice try to make it out that it was. I said being a beta participant and categorically refusing to cite any specific actual gameplay and not telling anyone about it including the dev's which this beta is for is a big WTF for me. Even refusing to cite specific examples with the bug forum. Citing specific gameplay examples on this forum is a good thing for the dev's. It's a way to improve the game. Not the usual conjecture you go on about.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sensuki]

Pretty much, he seems to talk about things from their theoretical perspective an awful lot, rather than their actual application in the gameplay. 

 

I think you're way too focused on something being specifically a "problem" or not when deciding whether or not there's a reason to implement something or try a new design.

 

And that is because the developers cited that Melee Engagement was added to solve a "problem", refer yourself to Kickstarter Update 44: Melee Engagement. It was not added just to "try a new mechanic".

 

If the backers did not complain about Aggro mechanics in MMOs, then I think we would have one of those systems instead. I'm glad we don't though.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

I'm probably one of the few people that actually didn't mind AoO in NwN2, after I turned off the party AI that is. It's the beyond horrible AI and pathfinding that made them annoying as they were.

 

As I understand engagement has the same function as AoO - characters can't run away from attacking melee pursuers indefinitely and without any downside, and that attacking characters can't run past your "wall of defense". The second problem I definitely do see in BG2, playing with the SCS mod, and I could see why they would try to fix it.

[Guest 4ward]

i’d rather have enemies with stun/confusion/paralyze/level drain (mind flayers, vampires, beholder, vampiric shadows, or even your regular group of hobgoblins) where constant moving, repositioning is necessary and tactic like kiting is valid than a mechanic.

[Doppelschwert]

I still think this discussion is somehow meaningless, given that the mechanic is not properly implemented. Yeah it sucks, but it's also not working and mostly everything in the game is not balanced. 

As for the gameplay, I think it boils down to whether you think its more fun to have micromanagement or if you think it's fun to have a bigger emphasis on how you initiate a fight.

I also think that the potential AI will overall act worse if the mechanic is removed and that this will be critized by many people that are for removing the mechanic at the moment (this game is too easy because enemies can be too easily kited, stupid AI, etc).

 

My suggestion would be to have the mechanic as it is, but with less accuracy bonus on the disengagement attacks and with the ability to get away (no reengagement) if the disengagement attack graces or misses. Then there should be some optional talents that basically allow you to play like the mechanic is not in the game by increasing the defenses for disengagement attacks. This way, people can have both with minor accomodation, and it's closer to the vision the devs had for the game. This is similiar to the way attacks of opportunity where handled in the NWN games, which really was not a problem if you slightly went out of your way to get some feats or ranks in tumble if they bothered you too much.

[Lephys]

And that is because the developers cited that Melee Engagement was added to solve a "problem", refer yourself to Kickstarter Update 44: Melee Engagement. It was not added just to "try a new mechanic".

That they did, but it's only a contextual/relevance problem. It's not a problem like "I need to get this desk home, but it won't fit in my car," or a memory leak. I mean, the very essence of this Kickstarter campaign was to fix the "problem" of there not being any good isometric RPGs made for a while.

 

In other words, they're "fixing" something that would otherwise conflict with their design goals. I don't think it's so much that it was just flat-out a game-stopping issue in the IE games, as much as it's "with all the stuff we're doing with this game, carrying that aspect straight over would be a bit of a problem."

 

Anywho, that's just what I gather from it. You're absolutely right that the game isn't broken if there's no sticky engagement. But, in the context of the rest of the combat system, it's a bit detrimental if a melee-er's role is simply "chase that guy down and try to kill him before he gets your Mage."

 

At the very least, melee engagement is something that goes highly unrepresented in games like this. Like I said, at the very least, even if it doesn't slow you down any, some form of "if you choose to completely ignore me and run right past my sword arm, prepare to have your knees clotheslined by a blade" should probably be represented, if only because of the scope of representation throughout the rest of combat, and because it makes melee-er roles more interesting than "I sure hope you don't constantly flee from me and attack someone else."

 

*shrug*. Maybe I'm crazy.

[Namutree]

I am reviving this thread! Now that's it's pretty clear that engagement isn't going away I think this thread will more helpful than before!

 

Remember: This thread is not to discuss the merits of whether there should or should not be engagement in poe. It is meant to identify problems with engagement, and how they can be solved.

 

Right now my biggest concern regarding engagement is the way it can be abused for uber kiting as seen in Senuki's videos. In the unlikely event that Obsidian is not aware of this issue I wish to bring it up one more time.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Namutree

[Shevek]

I am curious how far AI can go in curbing some of those issues.

[serenityangel]

I like engagement in theory,but wonder if it can be simulated well in practice.  I would be afraid the code for it might be too complex. I feel it is neccessary to let melee frontlines like fighters and paladins the capability to hold and command ground around them, a battle space if you prefer.  The problem is how the game treats disengagement and worry that not only is it too harsh, but too inflexible.   If I understand, if you move one pixel after in engagement then you'd be subject to an attack of opportunity which would be wrong.

 

I propose engagement be judged by weapon range.  The idea is that the battle space around a combatant is the radius distance of his weapon's reach and the melee fighter commands any that trespasses into it, if he has enough engagement capability then he can snag things entering it.  (So a fighter with a large reach weapon like a halberd can easily pick up bad guys).   Now, once inside and engaged ideailly the combatants can move around as long as neither leave each other's melee reach.  If one or other does so, then an attack of opportunity ensues before disengaged.  Only one attack per person per say 10 seconds should be done before you could try to reengage.  (So a thief with daggers and a small combat radius enters a fighter with halberd, that thief can move within the fighter's battle sphere, even easily flanking him but if he were to attempt to leave without use of special ability, feat, talent, whatever would incur an attack.   Consequently the fighter if being engaged by the thief has little room to move around for the theif's battle sphere is very small and so the fighter is pretty much locked into the fight.)

 

I think the Attack of opportunity is too harsh, incurring criticals too easily.  In fact, I believe that it should just be a normal unaltered attack, unless this attack were made by a rogue who should get sneak attack.  I think rogues and barbarians should get a talent or have the capability to either have increased deflection to all disengagement attacks or something to let them be more mobile in field.  Currently everyone has a base engagement of 1 target, I'd wish all melees (monks,barbs,chanters,paladins,fighters,rogues) have a base engagemtnt of 2 and ofcourse fighters have that skill that pumps it up more and anyone can get hold the lines if want to to make it even more.  

 

As for a UI, only need to know who is selected with light blue selection circle, their battlesphere reach, and all those engaged with it maybe with darker selection circles.  I'd not need arrows, no need anything fancy or cluttered.  I'd be smart enough knowing who am attacking and would select a target again to make sure if I didn't..all of which would only be seen while paused in combat.  When not paused, there's no need to draw the battlesphere of the selected unit.

 

I don't have any faith in AI scripts, at all.  I don't think engagement issues can be solved through it.  The only enemy script that I'd like to see is a smarter target reacquisition script.

 

So sumamry: Engagements are based on battlespheres that combatants range are varied by weapon reach.  The price of disengagement is not overly harsh but do incur attacks of opportunity when exiting an enemy's battlesphere.  Use only a simplified UI available in combat pause and keep it simple.  Don't bog down combat with heavy AI scripts because AI is too dumb anyway.

 

That's how I'd do engagement, but dunno if the mechanic could be coded and implemented well...if it couldn't..I'd ditch it all together.

Edited November 28, 2014 by serenityangel

[Sensuki]

What are you talking about guys? Engagement works exactly as intended, nothing to see here.

[Hormalakh]

It's now more clear than ever that they are wasting more time and energy on UI, mechanics, AI on a poorly thought out design that does not work as hoped. It's time to kill the beast and turn our energies to more fruitful discussions. I think killing engagement will make the Poe combat much more fun and interesting.

[Shevek]

Combat is feeling pretty good. Many posts acknowledge this. I just dont see the wisdom in ripping out mechanics when the system is playing well.

[Hormalakh]

Go away, yes-man. If you like this implementation, you aren't in the right thread. This is about problems with engagement.

 

It's not my problem that your play style is not creative enough to expose a clearly broken system.

 

Go away.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Trodat]

It's now more clear than ever that they are wasting more time and energy on UI, mechanics, AI on a poorly thought out design that does not work as hoped. It's time to kill the beast and turn our energies to more fruitful discussions. I think killing engagement will make the Poe combat much more fun and interesting.

I agree. It's pretty much unplayable right now IMO.

[Shevek]

Lol

[Sensuki]

Haha that's a good one - yes-man. I'm going to use that.

[Seari]

I retract my previous statement - engagement needs to die in a fire.

[Namutree]

Guys! If you want to talk about removing engagement please do so on another thread. We all know there isn't a snowballs chance in hell it's going to get cut at this point. I agree that engagement is bad, but I'd rather discuss how to make it better than discuss how wonderful life would have been without it. 

 

Problem for me is; I don't have any good ideas on the matter.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Namutree

[Sensuki]

Removing it is a solution. I appreciate your support on most matters, but I will not budge or back down from my opinion on Engagement and I will not be silent about it and I ask anyone else who also wants it removed to add your voice to mine. Being silent about it is not going to produce results.

[Namutree]

Removing it is a solution. I appreciate your support on most matters, but I will not budge or back down from my opinion on Engagement and I will not be silent about it and I ask anyone else who also wants it removed to add your voice to mine. Being silent about it is not going to produce results.

If you start a thread about it I'll be happy to discuss it there.

[Sensuki]

I will be, but I need time to formulate a proper argument.

[Namutree]

I will be, but I need time to formulate a proper argument.

Got it. Please try to keep fecal matter out of the discussion though; it just makes conversation toxic.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Namutree