How to fix combat? It's still the big offender in the BB.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You are assuming that is a side effect of bad AI and not engagement.  I have seen enemies plenty of times just run right by my "tanks" and ignore them.

 

It's the same with my BB Rogue running around hugging enemies to flank and don't provoke AoO. The enemy is engaged with my BB Fighter and ignores anyone else.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Then make an actual effort instead of just moaning about other people's ideas. What you think in "theory" happens on the battlefield is a lot different than what's currently happening in beta.

If you want to disprove anything anyone mentioned, then post some game examples on why you think this should work like this and show examples.

It's exactly people like you who come with these "theories" like: "this wouldn't happen in real battle" without actually backing it up in gameplay that screwed up the game so much.

 

Well said.

[Infinitron]

Sensuki is incredibly, aggressively hypersensitive to anything that disturbs what he perceives as proper IE "feels", no matter how minor. That makes him useful for providing analysis, but it also means his opinions aren't representative of most players.

 

For my part, I don't think the melee engagement system is a very important factor at all among all the factors that make this game's combat messier than the IE games'.

 

(Of course, I also think that its degree of messiness is being greatly exaggerated in general.)

Edited October 26, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

For my part, I don't think the melee engagement system is a very important factor at all among all the factors that make this game's combat messier than the IE games'.

This is true, I don't think it's one of the major factors, but it is a factor and it became the debated part of the topic.

 

There are far, far more serious issues.

 

(Of course, I also think that its degree of messiness is being greatly exaggerated in general.)

Disagree here, although it depends who's exaggeration you are referring to, and you don't seem to have strong preferences for many things anyway no matter what game you are discussing and often if not always go against the grain during discussions.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Doppelschwert]

 

Tactics should depend on how good you are at making proper decisions, not on how skillfull you are to carry them out.

How does moving a character away from melee when they are damaged imply "skillful to carry out" ? You pause the game, you select your character that is injured, you click the ground away from combat .... it's not rocket science.

 

Apart that this was meant to be a general sentiment, you're picking a trivial example. Remember the example given by PJ in this thread, where one tries to guard a corridor with two chars where there is a gap between them that only one enemy can fit through?

You told him automation of this kind of stuff sucks and that you should hit them yourself. Problem is, as you point out yourself, that this probably won't align with recovery time and that you have to pause at the exact moment which needs you to recognize this first. It's not hard, but a lot more tedious to carry out than the automation. The tactic is to block the entrance, and if you make that decision, it shouldn't be hard to pull off.

I agree with PJ that one could expect this to be doable more easily. Go ahead and say that this automation sucks, but that's your opinion and not an actual argument.

 

 

So, whats the issue here? I'm not arguing that the disengagement attacks are not badly balanced at the moment. If the attacks are properly balanced, it's just a matter of when you disengage. You can estimate how many attacks your character can endure and disengage early enough that the disengagement attack does not kill you, then engage the attacker with one of your other characters for a safe retreat, heal up and head back in. If you plan around the attack and the attack is properly balanced, you still have all the options you had before.

No, because moving away gives the character a free attack independent of recovery time. Even in the IE games when damage was pretty well balanced, you keep your characters at the front line until they are in danger, because their job is to tank the damage/keep the units attacking them occupied while your other units do other things. Even if disengagement attacks didn't do huge damage, the fact that they exist makes moving away from melee combat against multiple opponents a non-choice - move away and suffer a serious blow to your character's tactical (Endurance) and Strategical (Health) resources AT NO REAL TIME COST TO THE ENEMY, or stand still and take it.

 

So moving them away while taking a hit and healing them succesfully afterwards is now considered an inferior tactic to letting them die there, just because you have to move them back a hit sooner? Or why is it all of a sudden a non choice, when it was perfectly fine without getting a disengagement attack in?

The main message you give is that it's not a proper tactic to have one single tank take all the damage, but I think that is perfectly fine.

Besides, you get the same benefit if the enemies disengage. Maybe they don't disengage, but then they give you the power to engage them wherever you want. It's not like it's a giant buff to the enemy.

 

 

 

Again, I think this point is moot. The tactics are still available, only harder to pull off.

It's not harder to pull off, it's easy to pull off, it's just a bad choice.

 

 

I agree, they are not harder to pull off, that was wrong. However it's not that it becomes a bad choice, the point is that it actually becomes a choice in the first place, because it was a no-brainer before.

 

 

I agree that there should be no aggro mechanic. Still, abusing proper attacking clauses seems like some kind of metagaming trick.

Are you serious? This is how you beat AI in every single game, you learn their patterns and exploit it. This is also how you beat people at things too. Learn their weaknesses and exploit them.

 

Maybe that's how you play games. In a RPG, I never search for exploits in AI, I just try to do stuff that works and feels fun to me. I feel cheap when I abuse AI to get a benefit that the enemy can't cope with.

 

 

And I argue that there will never be clauses that make for actual clever tactical decisions on the enemies part which you can't abuse.

No there won't be. So what? Difficulty does not need to be achieved by adding in un-fun mechanics to hurt/restrict the player because the AI is not a human. Encounter design can bridge the gap.

 

I'm fine with being restricted in order to have increased difficulty and think that it is worth it, that is all. I believe the AI with engagement will be objectively better than one for a system without it, and that would make it worth it for me.

[Sensuki]

Apart that this was meant to be a general sentiment, you're picking a trivial example. Remember the example given by PJ in this thread, where one tries to guard a corridor with two chars where there is a gap between them that only one enemy can fit through?

You told him automation of this kind of stuff sucks and that you should hit them yourself. Problem is, as you point out yourself, that this probably won't align with recovery time and that you have to pause at the exact moment which needs you to recognize this first. It's not hard, but a lot more tedious to carry out than the automation. The tactic is to block the entrance, and if you make that decision, it shouldn't be hard to pull off.

I agree with PJ that one could expect this to be doable more easily. Go ahead and say that this automation sucks, but that's your opinion and not an actual argument.

Did you read my previous posts in the thread? The Enemy AI is completely manipulable. If you have two characters guarding a corridor and there is a gap, no enemy is going to get through because they will attack your characters at the front of the corridor due to the AI targeting clauses. You need to PAY ATTENTION to who the enemies are targeting.

 

Here is a glorious mspaint demonstration

 

 

 

 

So moving them away while taking a hit and healing them succesfully afterwards is now considered an inferior tactic to letting them die there, just because you have to move them back a hit sooner? Or why is it all of a sudden a non choice, when it was perfectly fine without getting a disengagement attack in?

 

I have to ask you, when was the last time you played an Infinity Engine game? What do you do when your melee characters are nearly killed for whatever reason - let's say they got Held and nearly killed from automatic hits, your Cleric cast Remove Paralysis and they are now not stunned, but on a few HP - what do you do? You have two choices - let them die, or move them away. In the IE games, you micro them away from the enemies and make them quaff a potion, or get the Priest to queue up another healing spell etc etc

 

In Pillars of Eternity you can't move a character away from melee combat when they are on the brink of death - they will die from a disengagement attack. Disengagement attacks eliminate something which is the bread and butter of in-combat unit movement in any game with RTS style gameplay whether that be an Infinity Engine RPG, an RTS game, or even a MOBA. 

 

In fact, not only does it make trying to move your character away from combat a bad choice, but it also makes the fact that you cast Remove Paralysis a bad choice, because they can't move away from combat anyway - that is a load of garbage in my opinion.

 

Besides, you get the same benefit if the enemies disengage. Maybe they don't disengage, but then they give you the power to engage them wherever you want. It's not like it's a giant buff to the enemy.

 

This doesn't make sense. Enemies won't disengage ever, the only disengagement attacks you will ever score will be from your own spells causing enemies to disengage. You already have 'the power to engage' without engagement due to the way the AI targeting clauses work. All the Engagement system does is give the player a penalty from trying to move characters in melee away from melee combat. That is literally it.

 

However it's not that it becomes a bad choice, the point is that it actually becomes a choice in the first place, because it was a no-brainer before.

 

It's supposed to be a no brainer, that is what you are supposed to do when your characters get low - move them away from combat. It is up to the enemy AI to try and stop you from doing it, such as casting disables and crowd control spells making it difficult. Enemy Fighters could be scripted to cast their Knock Down spell when a character they are attacking is reduced below 25% health - that would make it tough to get away, providing they hit.

 

There is no need for some retarded automatic system to punish you for making the best tactical decision. Like wtf is that?

 

Maybe that's how you play games. In a RPG, I never search for exploits in AI, I just try to do stuff that works and feels fun to me. I feel cheap when I abuse AI to get a benefit that the enemy can't cope with.

 

In that case it seems like you're arguing just for the sake of it. You wouldn't play any differently whether or not there was an engagement system.

 

edit: I also play games the way that is fun for me. I don't rest spam or do anything insanely cheesy when I play the Infinity Engine games, and I have a whole Icewind Dale LP to prove it. But I do understand how the enemy targeting works and use that information to position and move my characters optimally in combat. 

 

I believe the AI with engagement will be objectively better than one for a system without it, and that would make it worth it for me.

 

You might believe it, but I don't think it would be true, especially considering your last statement. I honestly don't think it would affect how you play the game - especially if you never thought to micro characters back before.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

Sick mspaint skills and micro bruh. How about if they make the disengagement attacks less devastating?

 

edit: The way engagement overrides your orders is beyond annoying.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Seari

[Sensuki]

That won't make much of a difference for me as the major time when I want to disengage is when a character is about to die. In my IWD LP I experienced that situation many times and by moving the character away from combat, blocking the enemies with other characters and healing, I was able to save the situation. 

When one of my characters get's KO'd in PE I just reload the game.

[Namutree]

That won't make much of a difference for me as the major time when I want to disengage is when a character is about to die. In my IWD LP I experienced that situation many times and by moving the character away from combat, blocking the enemies with other characters and healing, I was able to save the situation. 

 

When one of my characters get's KO'd in PE I just reload the game.

If the attacks were less devastating you could still run away if your character is losing. Just don't wait till the brink of death. Well, that might be hard since enemies have such inflated attack power in poe. Let's assume though that the damage-to-life ratio wasn't bonkers.

[Sensuki]

It doesn't matter. If your character isn't about to die, you usually have time to cast heal, or use a potion but if there's no saving yourself - recovery time cooldowns on Priest and your character, then you can't micro that character back in PE because of Disengagement.

 

I removed Engagement from the game in a mod and it feels great. Can play just like the IE games, although the enemy AI targeting is p. dumb

 

This was Cubiq's reaction

 

Edited October 27, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

The disengagement attacks are less deadly on easier levels or maybe I was against creatures who did less damage. I don't know. I'm one for having the gameplay more like the IE games and getting rid of this. Combat in PoE isn't fun and this mechanic is just another thing I don't find fun at all. Same with the supersonic speeds of enemies.

[PoetAndMadman]

I 100% agree with Sensuki, there should be no place of AoO in real time party based, it bugged me very much in NWN2.

It feels very clunky and chaotic. 

I don't know, maybe making it as active ability for fighters (Engage Stance?) would be better idea, as they seem to be the tanking class.

I for sure wouldn't be crying if they will get rid of it entirely.

[Lhynn]

Impressive work here sensuki. Honestly guys, the combat feels wrong, its a mess and needs a lot of work. i believe disengagement attacks are a dead end, they only reduce tactical possibilities in a way that feels forced. It reduces fighters to little more than walls and makes combat feel static, there is simply no denying this.

 

Sensuki talks about IE combat feels, and how its different here, but i dont think thats inherently bad, its just this particular execution that is awful. I also believe that doing it like in the IE games is simply cost effective, as it has proven solid of mechanics that make for an interesting and challenging combat.

[anameforobsidian]

If your character's about to die, maybe there were bad mistakes leading up to that point.  Also, there's way more that you can manage a dying frontline instead of micro in the IE games:  

Casting web (or even grease) on your frontline fighters with a ring of free action,

drinking a potion of invisibility,

vhailor's helm / other multiple image items,

items that cause transformations with high ac / immunities or regeneration (cloak of the sewers),

hold person,  

emergency hide in shadows,

using a scroll that increases your DR,

contingency anything really,

casting chaotic commands / fear / other mindbending / sunray spell to cause the enemy to scatter,

emergency hide in shadows attempt,

casting beserk for those emergency hitpoints,

drinking the healing potion while a cleric moves in with a more serious heal,

melee abilities that raise DR like certain spins,

quick magic missile to try to kill the enemy before the next attack,

and most importantly, avoiding letting your character get that low in the first place and avoiding fights when you don't have the resources to beat them.

 

Microing may be your favorite tactic, but it's far from the only one, or even the best.  The rest of the decisions require that you anticipate rather than solely react, which has the potential to make the game more interesting.

 

That definitive IE feel hardly relies on running in circles.  Even if it did, an engagement system does not theoretically mean that you can't micro, it just means that it has a cost imposed on it just like every other decision.  I can't speak for the current implementation of it, because I don't have beta access, but the theoretical problems with an engagement system are vastly overstated in this thread.

Edited October 27, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[prodigydancer]

I totally agree with Sensuki. Engagement system limits our options in combat, favors ranged classes by making melee characters more vulnerable and overall turns fighting into a do-or-die endeavor. Or, actually, stand your ground or die which is even worse.

 

I would buy it if it enhanced gameplay in some way but it doesn't. Tactically it amounts to picking a spot where you want your tank to stand (and fall) and then you're set probably for entire encounter. It's not challenging. It's not realistic. It's just stupid.

[prodigydancer]

I don't know, maybe making it as active ability for fighters (Engage Stance?) would be better idea, as they seem to be the tanking class.

Indeed, tanks should be able to stop someone trying to run past them. But it shouldn't be a devastating AoO. It should be a tripping attack or a hamstring.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't get the 'you should have moved your tank back sooner' argument. When do you move them back? Because if an enemy does a disengagement attack and it crits (not sure if they can crit or not), then it doesn't matter if you moved them back sooner.

[Namutree]

 

That definitive IE feel hardly relies on running in circles.  Even if it did, an engagement system does not theoretically mean that you can't micro, it just means that it has a cost imposed on it just like every other decision.  I can't speak for the current implementation of it, because I don't have beta access, but the theoretical problems with an engagement system are vastly overstated in this thread.

The fact you don't have beta access shows. No one is overstating it. 

[prodigydancer]

if an enemy does a disengagement attack and it crits (not sure if they can crit or not), then it doesn't matter if you moved them back sooner.

Engagement system promotes the kind of gameplay that favors glass cannon ranged DPS parties. The reasoning is simple: if combat is always a high risk vs. high reward game anyway why not make risk even higher? The only question is whether it's possible to create a party which packs enough firepower to obliterate any enemy group before it could mount a meaningful response. Generally it's possible, especially if ranged classes have access to CC.

 

Everyone's talking about "degeneration gameplay" these days. Well, here you go.

Edited October 27, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Engagement system promotes the kind of gameplay that favors glass cannon ranged DPS parties. The reasoning is simple: if combat is always a high risk vs. high reward game anyway why not make risk even higher? The only question is whether it's possible to create a party which packs enough firepower to obliterate any enemy group before it could mount a meaningful response. Generally it's possible, especially if ranged classes have access to CC.

 

Everyone's talking about "degeneration gameplay" these days. Well, here you go.

 

Talking about glass cannon parties. This is the very reason why I survived this fight I posted about in another thread. My ranged characters (BB Wizard, BB Priest, Druid and Cipher) stayed out of the room for the entire encounter and are all on full health by the end of it. The only character that went down but still alive is BB Rogue (no armour and on half health when the fight started as I wasn't expecting the fight to start) who ended up tanking outside the room to protect my glass cannons. Even my BB Fighter didn't take much damage as my ranged characters did the lion's share of the work.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[IndiraLightfoot]

First off. I see the opinion that PoE combat resembles NWN/NWN2 combat being bandied around. Well, it doesn't. Those AoO didn't make it become much closer to the mess we have right now. Even DA:O combat feels crystal-clear and tactical all the way compare to these supersonic hard-hitting, constantly health bleeding enemy maniacs that twitch like Butoh-dancers. It's like a wasp nest, where you prefer to just have one in the party take the madness, while the rest do glass cannon business, just like Hiro mentioned above.

 

I wonder if what's really needed is building it all from the bottom up.

Start with level 1 characters of classes and combos.

Have them meet ONE enemy of "level 1", then another of the same level, and so on.

Then do it all over with "level 2", "level 3", level 4"...

Then you have your character level up, and then to encounter various baddies of level 1.

Let it level up all the way to level 12, and keep the baddies at level 1.

Then you rinse and repeat, but increase enemy level by one.

 

Then test with two characters against one enemy, later two characters vs four enemies.

Make a combat arena test trainer, OE! And have some peeps do combat hours on end in this way, after two weeks you will have achieved balance and pacing to combat encounters.

 

Reiterate until 1 player character can stand up against a melee opponent of equal level at least for a number of seconds without this helpless sense of supernatural urgency overwhelming you. All enemies in PoE right now are like those twin ghosts in Matrix 2. Adjust damage and DT (armour) accordingly, and then lower the speed of enemies, and enjoy good combat in your game. Need I say that the speed of enemies was actually the worst part of Dungeon Siege 3.

Edited October 27, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Captain Shrek]

Reducing combat speed is only going to make an RTwP game better.

[IndiraLightfoot]

What surprises me the most is this: Have the devs played the game all in slomo? Or have they actually sat down and played this combat for a couple of months now, and then they nod in agreement with their QA peeps and go: "Yeah. It's shaping up, guys! I really enjoy this. It's so intense, and there's no running away."

 

I simply just can't believe it. I'm dumbfounded. I know that there is a small minority here that seems to like the combat as is, but most people seem to be really bothered by the speed and the chaos and the general lack of genuine possibilities and effective feedback of countering stuff without pausing! This should be possible in a RTwP-game. Since I am indeed a player that have played through the BG series and the NWN and NWN2 series with very few pauses, I can honestly say that this is an altogether different combat. It's something else.

Edited October 27, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sensuki]

The people who think it's okay are probably using auto-pause and/or slowmo. I know a few people who only play combat in slow mo. There's also the people who don't really care about the combat and play the game for the story/dialogue. There's plenty of those people on the RPGCodex but all of them have been put off by the combat so far.

 

I'm not sure how familiar QA is with the IE games. Matt Sheets the QA Lead is a Watcher backer, so I think he must have played them before. The other guys are all younger than I am so it's a toss up. Personally if I was doing it, I'd have the IE games installed and be doing hot swap comparisons - however their work schedule may not allow that. So doing that kind of stuff is probably up to us.

 

I probably need to install Icewind Dale 2, but I've got BG1, BG2, and IWD1:HoW installed on my PC ready to go and I think my recent LP of IWD was really, really helpful in grounding myself in the IE experience after spending 2 months playing nothing but PE.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I never play in slowmo. It should play like the IE games. If it doesn't and you have to resort to slowmo, then that's a fail.

 

Also, not sure how all these new bugs came about with the spells as they were all working okay with the last build. Fan of Flames from the Wizard was a big wtf when I casted it the first time in this update. Decided to boot up an old save just to how it's gone all weird.