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

[Sensuki]

Combat rounds are for human GMs. CRPGs do not need them. Engagement is tactically necessary and more or less attack-of-opportunity taken to its logical conclusion. To remove them would be a far greater disaster than failing to balance them perfectly. Melee is where PoE is on the right track and only improving. It's the spell casting that's all botched--not due to degrees, but in concept. Now that's a real problem.

No, Melee combat is by far the worst, I think you are talking about spell design rather than the act of spellcasting.

[Cubiq]

Well i find spellcasting to be the horrible part, not so much the spell design. I think they came out with some pretty nice ideas where certain spells have cone, circle or line shape area effct, yet it fails in execution since it's so hard to reposition in this game. From what i've seen they made casting time really short so that casters wouldn't be 100% useless (although it's pretty close atm) when engaged and used recovery time to balance the power of the spell.

Which you end up with the game feeling like it has rounds again where casters stand still like they are waiting for the next round to begin.

There's no feeling of an epic spell being cast since they are all so short.

So not only do i feel like they failed in removing rounds, i feel like they also removed the "cool" part of visual spellcasting.

[Sensuki]

There is a problem with spells in that they (particularly for the Wizard) are not very useful once combat has started. I find most of the time it's better for Wizards and Druids to simply use an Arbalest or Firearm to deal damage, because most of the time their damage dealing spells are not very good. Debuffing seems to be way more important at the moment.

 

That is partially an issue with spell design and combat speed. The act of spellcasting itself I think is pretty good.

 

Melee combat has huge issues because of various factors - combat speed, engagement, movement speed, pathfinding, damage etc etc

 

Josh has also nerfed moving after performing a ranged attack. This was a suggestion I made a month or so ago simply to get recovery time pause while moving removed because I felt that it was critical to implement at least for melee and the sole reason it existed was to hamstring ranged characters. I don't think moving after casting a spell or using a bow/crossbow needs to be nerfed.

However if I didn't make that suggestion, I don't think they would have considered it. It's something I can mod out of the game on release, I will put forward my case that I think nerfing it is unnecessary but if it's just me beating the drum, I don't think they'll listen.

 

I also think that the bonus range on Perception is pointless. Max range is basically v301 when range didn't affect anything properly. Closer range doesn't really matter too much because most of the time you need to be near the party anyway.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[Captain Shrek]

I still feel that most of these problems would go away if one replaced global cooldowns with animations speeds: Physical attacks should be fast to mid animation time depending upon time (i.e. default attack fast, special attack mid), spells should be slow and hugely damaging/affecting. 

 

This will really make the game more akin to its real inspiration. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Sensuki]

No it wouldn't. The real inspiration is the IE games and the IE games did have per-unit cooldowns for actions. The ONLY difference is the time divisions by which they were calculated.

 

The IE games were: (x actions / 6 seconds) * gamespeed FPS - I used 40 FPS, so rounds in my games were only 4 seconds long.

 

PE has a different formula : (animation length + recovery time) * modifiers

 

The IE game system did feel better, but PE's values are not correctly tweaked yet.

[Stun]

No way. That's regressive. Obsidian is attempting to forge something beyond the anachronisms of human limitation. The concepts are all solid, it's just an issue of degree. I know that devils lurk in details, and that they are enough to ruin anything--but that doesn't mean Obsidian should shrink away from the boldness to do something potentially great. That's the heart of the kickstarter purpose--to foster risk and endeavors that might not otherwise come forth.

The purposes of Kickstarter aside, ALL fantasy RPGs are attempts to forge something beyond the anachronisms of human limitation. Most of them have magic, after all. No; You're not really addressing the point. The concepts being demonstrated in PoE's combat do not seem solid to me. They seem unnecessarily experimental. Normally this wouldn't be a bad thing but in this case it is. You don't peddle a retro game and then produce something so....alien and unfamiliar. It also feels fractured, as if the devs aren't really sure what they want the finished product to look and feel like. (more on that below)

 

Combat rounds are for human GMs. CRPGs do not need them. Engagement is tactically necessary and more or less attack-of-opportunity taken to its logical conclusion. To remove them would be a far greater disaster than failing to balance them perfectly. Melee is where PoE is on the right track and only improving. It's the spell casting that's all botched--not due to degrees, but in concept. Now that's a real problem.

Rounds are for human PLAYERS. It's a mental thing. A round is an organizational tool that makes complex, numbers-based interaction between 2 opposing combatants flow in a way that a gamer can understand and follow.

 

In any case, PoE still feels like it has rounds, but the mechanics often times seem to be in opposition to the concept, so the end result is something that doesn't feel right. And I'm not sure how the system as a whole can be 'tweaked'. The issue seems to be at the core level. There's hardly anything that feels right in combat.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Stun

[erragal]

Okay so I'm working on some system design changes that should fix some of the issues related to combat. I've PM'd preliminary thoughts to Josh Sawyer just to let him know what I'm doing. Not sure if he'll reply, but I'm going to continue to work on the numbers and stuff and formulate it into something, probably a video and a document. It's more important that the backers (you guys) are receptive to the changes.

 

Note: None of them have to do with Melee Engagement, so for those that are still resistant to the idea of removing it you can wipe the sweat off your brow. Some of the ideas we have discussed in this thread.

 

So perhaps sometime soon, they will becoming to a thread near you. This was a helpful topic and it has given me a few ideas. Cheers.

 

 

So lets discuss both your ideas and you as a person. (I chose this post because it encapsulates both your passion and your extraordinary arrogance in one clean package).

 

As an individual that firmly believes more in observation rather than the necessity for obsessive rehashing of ideas on hte internet I was spurred into action by your repeated attempts in this thread to drive a particularly complex issue towards a direction you view as 'the only correct solution'.

 

To understand why your point of view is selfish you first need to acknowledge that the 'ideas' you have are only encapsulating -your- vision for the game. You have repeatedly used the mantra 'this is closer to how IE did it' as the punctuation dialogue for your posts; it's obvious that from an argument standpoint this is the shield you're standing behind in order to justify the aggresiveness with which you're pushing this particular design adjustment.

 

It's important if you want to be pushing an idea in good faith to separate yourself from ideology and evaluate the idea strictly based on the qualties that make up that idea. When you utilize an ideological statement to justify your idea you are in effect depriving others of a reasonable way to counteract your discussion; you are arguing in bad faith.

 

So let us evaluate the -actual- reasons that you want the game to necessitate heavy micromanagement of unit control with frequent shifts in character positioning in order to maintain AI engagement. It's obvious from your repeated comparisons to RTS style unit management that you enjoy and have some level of mastery over the heavy micro of character switch with hotkey + click to new position gameplay that is necessitated by these games. It may come as a surprise to you but many MANY people do not play games like that particularly well and can find that high mechanical skillcap of this style of gameplay to be daunting and frustrating.

 

By pushing the game to a point where mechanical skillcap becomes more important you are in effect decreasing the 'role-playing' aspects of the game. How you might ask? Because the purpose of an RPG is to create what we call an -abstraction- of a combat scenario. This abstraction layer can be complex or simple depending on the type of action that is attempted to be simplified into a numerical format. The reason we want there to be an abstraction rather than a mechanical skill component is that it is the characters -within- the game that are supposed to be the possesors of the abilities.

 

Lets tackle the issue at hand: the frontline fighter. Melee engagement is an abstraction of the idea that when a frontline warrior approaches a target if he doesn't want him to get by he will mirror that opponents actions and prevent him from moving by him. Similarly AOO's have traditionally represented the idea that if someone DOES move past a combatant that does not -want- you moving past them they are opening themselves up to an attack. It is necessary to make these mechanics less focused on player skill because it is the -warrior- that is doing the mirroring/quick reflexes/pure muscle of holding back the threat from approaching his more vulnerable comrades.

 

In removing a binary system of engagement and reverting to the IE style you repeatedly cite the -value- of this RTS style 'blocking' mechanism to force engagements. This however is an introduction of personal player skill and does not reflect anything the character does themselves.

 

Now certainly there are issues within the combat related to the fluidity of the melee engagement system and the way it forces the AI to react. There are concerns with the speed of combat resolution overall that can likely diminish some of these issues as the engagement becomes more meaningful. It also isn't the -only- way to force an abstraction layer to this type of frontline action (But it is an interesting idea...particularly with the ability to later have feats/talents for characters to 'engage' multiple enemies at some point). I certainly find it to be a more representative system than either mmo-style aggro mechanics OR the kiting behavior you are pushing for.

 

Now lets discuss the -way- you're pushing your agenda in here.  While it's plain as day you care very deeply about this specific issue (You even made a mod to remove the mechanic!) you have shown a very aggressive and single minded point of view repeatedly throughout the thread. Your inflexibility and single minded intent to mold the game into -your- vision worries me as a backer; I did not pay money for the kid with the most time on his hands to repeatedly push for his one goal to end up in the game.

 

So I must say from my point of view and contribution to the game I hope your ideas are not utilized. If nothing else it would be a shame to indulge someone simply because they're the most zealous proponent of a particular idea and shouting other ideas down with zealotry and singleminded fervor.

 

I'd appreciate that you remember other points of view and dial down your ideology. Just because -your- real inspiration is the IE games does not imply that this game system was meant to be a 1 for 1 reimagining of those games. Quite frankly the combat in the IE games was the least memorable part and highly exploitable using many of the tactics you're trying to shoehorn in. Why so much obsession with a bad, ancient combat system? 

 

Ideology is the enemy of critical thinking.

Edited October 29, 2014 by erragal

[Sensuki]

So lets discuss both your ideas and you as a person. (I chose this post because it encapsulates both your passion and your extraordinary arrogance in one clean package).

 

As an individual that firmly believes more in observation rather than the necessity for obsessive rehashing of ideas on hte internet I was spurred into action by your repeated attempts in this thread to drive a particularly complex issue towards a direction you view as 'the only correct solution'.

 

To understand why your point of view is selfish you first need to acknowledge that the 'ideas' you have are only encapsulating -your- vision for the game. You have repeatedly used the mantra 'this is closer to how IE did it' as the punctuation dialogue for your posts; it's obvious that from an argument standpoint this is the shield you're standing behind in order to justify the aggresiveness with which you're pushing this particular design adjustment.

 

It's important if you want to be pushing an idea in good faith to separate yourself from ideology and evaluate the idea strictly based on the qualties that make up that idea. When you utilize an ideological statement to justify your idea you are in effect depriving others of a reasonable way to counteract your discussion; you are arguing in bad faith.

I will be the first person to admit that I am arrogant, particularly on the internet. Calling me extraordinarily arrogant only makes me smile because at least I make a strong impression on people

 

That's just how I am. At least I'm not ignorant of it though I'm sure you have your own personality flaws too.

 

I think it's a good thing that I uphold "the IE feels". I don't think it is a shield that I am standing behind at all, I think it is a legitimate position. However if you think you can find any instances where I am saying "this is how the IE games did it" and I am incorrect, please correct me. If the aim of the developers is to either emulate or invoke an Infinity Engine feeling, I think my posts offer good analysis and perspective from that point of view.

 

You will also note that I only make specific requests in some instances. Most of the time I offer a solution with my concerns but will gladly accept anything better. I believe I showcased this when Hormalakh did a better inventory design than I did. I did two mockups, and his first mockup was better than both of mine, and ever since - I have been advocating his design over mine.

 

So let us evaluate the -actual- reasons that you want the game to necessitate heavy micromanagement of unit control with frequent shifts in character positioning in order to maintain AI engagement. It's obvious from your repeated comparisons to RTS style unit management that you enjoy and have some level of mastery over the heavy micro of character switch with hotkey + click to new position gameplay that is necessitated by these games. It may come as a surprise to you but many MANY people do not play games like that particularly well and can find that high mechanical skillcap of this style of gameplay to be daunting and frustrating.

 

By pushing the game to a point where mechanical skillcap becomes more important you are in effect decreasing the 'role-playing' aspects of the game. How you might ask? Because the purpose of an RPG is to create what we call an -abstraction- of a combat scenario. This abstraction layer can be complex or simple depending on the type of action that is attempted to be simplified into a numerical format. The reason we want there to be an abstraction rather than a mechanical skill component is that it is the characters -within- the game that are supposed to be the possesors of the abilities.

Your argument about micromanagement and frustration here might have some merit if this was strictly a real-time game, however this is real-time with PAUSE. The skill is not in the micromanagement itself or the speed in which it is carried out it is in identifying that you need to make that action in the first place.

 

You are also forgetting that if the Melee Engagement exists, you cannot save your units by moving them back when they are on low health. That is the reason why I think it should be dropped. I explained that in a video earlier in this thread.

 

Lets tackle the issue at hand: the frontline fighter. Melee engagement is an abstraction of the idea that when a frontline warrior approaches a target if he doesn't want him to get by he will mirror that opponents actions and prevent him from moving by him. Similarly AOO's have traditionally represented the idea that if someone DOES move past a combatant that does not -want- you moving past them they are opening themselves up to an attack. It is necessary to make these mechanics less focused on player skill because it is the -warrior- that is doing the mirroring/quick reflexes/pure muscle of holding back the threat from approaching his more vulnerable comrades.

 

In removing a binary system of engagement and reverting to the IE style you repeatedly cite the -value- of this RTS style 'blocking' mechanism to force engagements. This however is an introduction of personal player skill and does not reflect anything the character does themselves.

 

Now certainly there are issues within the combat related to the fluidity of the melee engagement system and the way it forces the AI to react. There are concerns with the speed of combat resolution overall that can likely diminish some of these issues as the engagement becomes more meaningful. It also isn't the -only- way to force an abstraction layer to this type of frontline action (But it is an interesting idea...particularly with the ability to later have feats/talents for characters to 'engage' multiple enemies at some point). I certainly find it to be a more representative system than either mmo-style aggro mechanics OR the kiting behavior you are pushing for.

I think you are failing to understand or forgetting that in a real-time system, the situation you describe here where "a frontline warrior approaches a target if he doesn't want him to get by he will mirror that opponents actions and prevent him fron moving by him" DOES HAPPEN in the Infinity Engine games and it does happen in Pillars of Eternity without engagement. The player input controls the character movement, and the recovery time system combined with the player's input can mirror the other unit's actions because IT IS A REAL TIME GAME.

 

The Melee Engagement system and Attack of Opportunity systems give units a FREE attack. In Pillars of Eternity, this attack has no animation, and is completely abstract from 'time'. It is invisible and automatic and is only triggered by moving away from the target. The only reason people will prefer this system is if they do not enjoy controlling their units. There are several people here (probably yourself included) that prefer automation to manual input.

 

There are other ways (as demonstrated perfectly by other games) to handle unit 'stickiness' than a system this clumsy.

 

While your arguments raise some interesting points and this was a well formulated post for a lurker's first post, I do not think you have a valid argument.

 

Now lets discuss the -way- you're pushing your agenda in here.  While it's plain as day you care very deeply about this specific issue (You even made a mod to remove the mechanic!) you have shown a very aggressive and single minded point of view repeatedly throughout the thread. Your inflexibility and single minded intent to mold the game into -your- vision worries me as a backer; I did not pay money for the kid with the most time on his hands to repeatedly push for his one goal to end up in the game.

Actually this is not true, and your assumption here probably lacks the perspective because you have not read my posts over the years on here, the RPGCodex or Something Awful. I have been an advocate of the Melee Engagement system up until playing the beta, and up until giving it two full months of testing. I did not complain about it's inclusion. You will find numerous posts where I have defended the inclusion/trial of the mechanic over at the RPGCodex, feel free to search my post history on here and on the RPGCodex.

 

After playing Pillars of Eternity for one month straight, then going back and doing a Let's Play of Icewind Dale, and then playing Pillars of Eternity again did I decide that I think the Melee Engagement system has to go.

 

So I must say from my point of view and contribution to the game I hope your ideas are not utilized. If nothing else it would be a shame to indulge someone simply because they're the most zealous proponent of a particular idea and shouting other ideas down with zealotry and singleminded fervor.

 

I'd appreciate that you remember other points of view and dial down your ideology. Just because -your- real inspiration is the IE games does not imply that this game system was meant to be a 1 for 1 reimagining of those games. Quite frankly the combat in the IE games was the least memorable part and highly exploitable using many of the tactics you're trying to shoehorn in.

The least memorable part? Hahaha. I can see why you disagree then. There are quite a few people out there that do not like the Infinity Engine games combat, however there are boatloads of people that played it for the combat. To me the combat was the best thing about the games (excluding Planescape Torment). The writing, quests and characters appealed to me when I was younger as I believe that they were explicitly written for a PG-13 crowd, and most of the time (moreso in the BG games) the writing does not scale very well as you get older. The thing I find that leaves a lasting impression is the enjoyable combat system, art style and control schema.

 

Personally I think people who didn't like the IE combat should be the last people that are listened to regarding how the combat should be.

 

Would you dislike the implementation of a mechanic solely based on the person who suggested it, or on the mechanic itself?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

I agree with Sensuki here. Especially about the part that it is real time with pause and it does not need good player mechanical skills. And anyone having bad mechanical skills, what are you even doing here? Turn based games are for you. Don't come to forums of a real time with pause game and complain about people asking for more things to do. 

 

Also I need to note that IE games have always been about players skill. Automation didn't work. Player skill determined builds, strategy and tactics. The games always asked players to learn them and be good at them. That is what we expect from PoE, any dumbing down is not looked at positively. 

 

Melee engagement is a good as idea but if it is going to be end up making game more simple due to lack of movement during combat it needs to be scraped or modified. Many people already asked that it is turned to something similar to NWN AoO system as that one prevented movement less but also gave a penalty to those that ignored front line. 

 

Personally I would rather see some of the abilities from 4e D&D, like fighter could stick some enemies to him but if those ignored him and attacked someone else they suffered a big attack penalty. In this case, if one just wanted to retreat to heal it would be OK.

Edited October 29, 2014 by archangel979

[Sensuki]

snip

Oh by the way, your post also focuses mostly on the 'stickiness' that is controlled by the AI targeting clauses themselves. Melee Engagement in it's current form IS actually an aggro mechanic like MMOs because it 'forces' enemy units to attack you when engaged, the only difference is that when you try and leave the engagement range you most likely suffer automatic damage, whereas in an MMO system, you can't leave engagement range (unless you pass a check or something).

 

Disengagement attacks are of no concern to the AI because the AI does not disengage, they are there for you to beat, and the AI has no concern for preserving resources or keeping units alive.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

What's wrong with expressing our own point of view ? I'm sure that Sensuki is fully aware of other opinions. I don't see anything wrong with his "zealous" approach for the testing, and if someone have other ideas, he should show them in similiar, convincing way. You see Sensukis involvement in such manner, because there is no other user expressing his ideas in such persuasive way. Maybe there's a reason behind it, maybe it's because sensuki\s ideas are simply good. I accept such a strong display of mans opinion as long as it's reasonable and supported by logical arguments. 

 

Another thing. Sensuki is making all these references to IE games, just because we all remember those games as satisfying, and highly enjoyable when it comes to combat. When sensuki is talking about RTS games mechanics, it's because IE games used similiar mechanics and it worked very, very well. 

All of this is just because this "bad, ancient combat system", as you called it, is still a MUCH BETTER system than everything what POE shown in beta.

For me, current POE combat is complete garbage, and I know that I won't enjoy this game to the extent I was hoping for, if I will fail to extract any fun from the encounters in the game. I see that now, when I played both Divinity: Original Sin, and Wastelands 2. Despite the fact, that Wastelands 2 had better plot and overall rpg experience, I remember Original Sin as simply, just a better game. It's because combat was such a huge part of both games, D: OS did it better. 

 

tl;dr - as for now(and there's not much time left) IE games did it better, we should gather from them as much as we can.

[IndiraLightfoot]

This is what Obsidian "promised" regarding combat in their Kickstarter updates during their KS campaign:

Update #3:

"Formations
A key element of the classic party-based tactical combat that we are developing is the use of party formations. As in the good ol' games, you can arrange your party in a large number of set formations. You can also construct your own formations if you want to get fancy. When moving companions, you have the ability to rotate formations for more precise positioning."

 

Classic party-based tactical combat is at the core of PoE - they emphasize moving your party members and positioning them with precision.

 

Update #12:

"Kaaaboom asks…
I was a bit discouraged when I heard that the combat was going to be RTwP (real time with pause).  My question is then: how are you going to make the combat in P:E tactically interesting despite it being RTwP?

Answer: Hmm, this is a bit of a loaded question, as it implies that real-time games aren't tactically interesting while all turn-based games are. Believe me, I have played plenty of dull turn-based games with very few options on what to do on each turn, and there are lots of real-time games that are incredibly tactically rich. Look at all of the real-time strategy games out there!

So to answer your question, we are going to make sure that the distinct abilities that our classes will have will each provide different roles to those characters in combat, and that you will always have choices to make in combat about how to best position yourself and use your attacks. In addition, we are going to design the enemy encounters to be ever-increasing challenges, so that one way of fighting won't carry you through every encounter. You will be forced to mix it up a bit, tactically speaking, and use all of your combat skills to make it through to the end of the game.

Let me add that as an Infinity Engine inspired game, our pillars of design include isometric exploration of a fantasy world and real-time with pause combat. Those elements are expected in our game, and we feel strongly about providing them."

 

OE clearly states this is "an IE inspired game" with expected RTwP. They also intend to give each class varied combat skills and roles, and that various encounter will take different tactics.

 

Update #16:

"Opportunity attacks and flanking are definitely in, as well as charging. Grappling abilities will not be included."

 

AoO is in, as well as charging apparently.

 

Update #22:

"We are working hard to make Project Eternity revive the spirit of the older IE games, and this includes making leveling up an important accomplishment, one that makes your character feel substantially more powerful afterward."

 

The spirit of the IE games is to be revived! Oh, and after each level up our characters should become substantially more powerful.

[Sensuki]

Technically Obsidian promised full separation of combat and non-combat skills ... and a Documentary DVD What happened to those?

[erragal]

I will be the first person to admit that I am arrogant, particularly on the internet. Calling me extraordinarily arrogant only makes me smile because at least I make a strong impression on people

 

That's just how I am. At least I'm not ignorant of it though I'm sure you have your own personality flaws too.

 

I think it's a good thing that I uphold "the IE feels". I don't think it is a shield that I am standing behind at all, I think it is a legitimate position. However if you think you can find any instances where I am saying "this is how the IE games did it" and I am incorrect, please correct me. If the aim of the developers is to either emulate or invoke an Infinity Engine feeling, I think my posts offer good analysis and perspective from that point of view.

 

You will also note that I only make specific requests in some instances. Most of the time I offer a solution with my concerns but will gladly accept anything better. I believe I showcased this when Hormalakh did a better inventory design than I did. I did two mockups, and his first mockup was better than both of mine, and ever since - I have been advocating his design over mine.

 

It shouldn't make you smile. Holding a position doesn't require arrogance. Confidence is the positive expression of the characteristic you should aspire too; arrogance is when your confidence cuts you off from considering other viewpoints. An enlightened human should never be proud of having a closed minded point of view.

 

You completely misunderstood the argument in your next statement. It's a shield in that your evaluations are devoid of any practical analysis outside of an attempt to push the game further towards your point of view; you utilize it as a defense of your point of view without offering substantial reasons outside of personal preference as to why your point of view has merit.

 

Holding a point of view without objective data is what they call ideology. Ideology is not a path to critical thinking. You're basically saying right here "I am an ideologue and proud of it".

 

I did not go back to review your past post history. There's that arrogance to assume I care enough about -you- to research your past decisions? Your past actions don't excuse present behaviour. That's a logical fallacy...one I'm not surprised to see from an ideologue.

 

 

 

Your argument about micromanagement and frustration here might have some merit if this was strictly a real-time game, however this is real-time with PAUSE. The skill is not in the micromanagement itself or the speed in which it is carried out it is in identifying that you need to make that action in the first place.

 

You are also forgetting that if the Melee Engagement exists, you cannot save your units by moving them back when they are on low health. That is the reason why I think it should be dropped. I explained that in a video earlier in this thread.

 

They still hold merit. Regardless of the ability to pause there is still a significant reaction and point/click necessity to micro movements in a real time setting. Not everyone has flawless physical capabilities and to assume so is again, arrogance (Ignorant of other peoples positions/situations in life).

 

I certainly am not forgetting melee engagement exists. Not being able to disengage safely is what we would call a tactical risk. It also allows the enemy to gain an advantage by successfully engaging on one of your vulnerable characters thereby necessitating a swift response (All those knockback spells/abilities seem relevant?). Again your ideological point of view is inhibiting your thought processes. Instead of evaluating the merits of the system you only cite the flaws because you have an agenda that is informed by your strict point of view. This does not lead to good game design.

 

Replicating something old just to 'recapture' it is in fact artifice. Artifice is not the realm of the creative, it is the realm of those lost in the past. 

 

 

 

I think you are failing to understand or forgetting that in a real-time system, the situation you describe here where "a frontline warrior approaches a target if he doesn't want him to get by he will mirror that opponents actions and prevent him fron moving by him" DOES HAPPEN in the Infinity Engine games and it does happen in Pillars of Eternity without engagement. The player input controls the character movement, and the recovery time system combined with the player's input can mirror the other unit's actions because IT IS A REAL TIME GAME.

 

The Melee Engagement system and Attack of Opportunity systems give units a FREE attack. In Pillars of Eternity, this attack has no animation, and is completely abstract from 'time'. It is invisible and automatic and is only triggered by moving away from the target. The only reason people will prefer this system is if they do not enjoy controlling their units. There are several people here (probably yourself included) that prefer automation to manual input.

 

There are other ways (as demonstrated perfectly by other games) to handle unit 'stickiness' than a system this clumsy.

 

While your arguments raise some interesting points and this was a well formulated post for a lurker's first post, I do not think you have a valid argument.

 

You literally didn't read what I said at all. I am well aware that the player can control that...the point being that it -SHOULD NOT BE UP TO THE PLAYER- to replicate those actions. Being a real time game doesn't mean that the player should have the burden of micro movement for each individual character to perform feats of athleticism; this introduces a level of physical player skill and reaction time into the gameplay that limits the ability of the game to represent the raw skillset of a trained combatant.

 

You have a misunderstanding that being a real time game must necessitate a huge micro control burden on the player. This is not Starcraft 2 or Dow2. I'm happy for you that you like to play these games this way...but it's not how most people played them.

 

Your argument here is spurious "The only reason people will prefer this system is if they do not enjoy controlling their units". This is a very predatory debate tactic that you need to set aside. You do not get to decide the -only- reason people may enjoy a mechanic and choose a point that is insultingly simplistic. I prefer automation when it comes to close range melee engagement because it better captures the reactivity of a trained warrior as opposed to relying on excess unit movement to represent a mechanic that can be better abstracted with numerical means.

 

Stating other things are demonstrated perfectly without citing those examples is pointless.

 

I don't have a valid argument? Do you often dismiss other people's points of view based on your own evaluation without actually considering what they're saying? Ideologue indeed.

 

 

 

Actually this is not true, and your assumption here probably lacks the perspective because you have not read my posts over the years on here, the RPGCodex or Something Awful. I have been an advocate of the Melee Engagement system up until playing the beta, and up until giving it two full months of testing. I did not complain about it's inclusion. You will find numerous posts where I have defended the inclusion/trial of the mechanic over at the RPGCodex, feel free to search my post history on here and on the RPGCodex.

 

After playing Pillars of Eternity for one month straight, then going back and doing a Let's Play of Icewind Dale, and then playing Pillars of Eternity again did I decide that I think the Melee Engagement system has to go.

 

What you said in the past doesn't excuse your attitude/behavior now. It's not that you're complaining about it's inclusion that is the issue. It's your vehmence and the reasoning behind your disagrement that makes no sense. As I repeated: You aren't conducting critical analysis of how to improve the feature you're simply arguing that since the feature doesn't replicate a specific combat system in full that it is not sufficient.

 

There's a suggestion in the game mechanics forum about making a 'time-delayed' engagement system that I find FAR more intelligently thought out than your ideas. That's how you take something that isn't working and innovate/brain-storm tweaks to get the results you want without trying to -revert- back to something that ALSO didn't work. (EDIT: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68761-the-problem-with-binary-melee-engagement-in-a-real-time-game-its-not-just-about-the-visual-feedback/)

 

Instead you are arguing that because people liked the game at the time based on what it could do that no other games could that we should simply utilize that system. You are arguing a system that is hackneyed and manipulative (kiting your characters in front of enemies to change their AI targeting) is somehow a -good- solution because it creates a 1 for 1 mirror of what existed before.

 

This is the message of an ideologue. Someone that wants things to remain the same without an honest evaluation as to whether that thing was even good in the first place.

 

To escape this you need to evaluate what the goals of the combat system are. Replicating an old system isn't the goal...it's replicating the -goals- of the original system. That is to abstract a party based combat system so that multiple actions take place simultaneously based on the length of the action while allowing for the human operator to pause and redirect actors and change course as combat situations change. 

 

Fundamentally the ability to move people around in circles to create sticky aggro wasn't a goal...it just happened to work. Replicating that doesn't serve the best interests of the game...only your interests in creating an identical gameplay experience.

 

 

 

The least memorable part? Hahaha. I can see why you disagree then. There are quite a few people out there that do not like the Infinity Engine games combat, however there are boatloads of people that played it for the combat. To me the combat was the best thing about the games (excluding Planescape Torment). The writing, quests and characters appealed to me when I was younger as I believe that they were explicitly written for a PG-13 crowd, and most of the time (moreso in the BG games) the writing does not scale very well as you get older. The thing I find that leaves a lasting impression is the enjoyable combat system, art style and control schema.

 

Personally I think people who didn't like the IE combat should be the last people that are listened to regarding how the combat should be.

 

Would you dislike the implementation of a mechanic solely based on the person who suggested it, or on the mechanic itself?

 

I didn't say I disliked the combat. It was enjoyable but certainly not as memorable as striking characterization and the finest immersive fantasy world building in a virtual environment that was available (Although Menzoberranzan, Stone Prophet, and Birthright did pull this off in different ways). You had designers who were clearly into the forgotten realms lore (A world which had a decade+ of iteration and has stood the test of time as the most popular D&D campaign world ever). I'm not sure why you would consider the writing to be PG-13 either...it's certainly more mature than the teenaged power fantasy Bioware/The Witcher games are selling these days.

 

Recognizing gaping flaws in a combat system that was attempting to transition a strictly PNP game into a set of rigid computer rules is being realistic.

 

I don't believe anyone who operates from a position of ideology and arrogance should be listened to. They are arguing from bad faith and therefore their position is poisoned. You have a preset idea of what you want to accomplish and instead of trying to push for the 'best abstracted third person rpg combat' you are pushing for a particular vision. Outcome oriented thinking is the most biased thought process you can have. Objectivity requires that you set aside your intended outcome and to consider details in isolation.

Edited October 29, 2014 by erragal

[erragal]

I agree with Sensuki here. Especially about the part that it is real time with pause and it does not need good player mechanical skills. And anyone having bad mechanical skills, what are you even doing here? Turn based games are for you. Don't come to forums of a real time with pause game and complain about people asking for more things to do. 

 

Also I need to note that IE games have always been about players skill. Automation didn't work. Player skill determined builds, strategy and tactics. The games always asked players to learn them and be good at them. That is what we expect from PoE, any dumbing down is not looked at positively. 

 

Melee engagement is a good as idea but if it is going to be end up making game more simple due to lack of movement during combat it needs to be scraped or modified. Many people already asked that it is turned to something similar to NWN AoO system as that one prevented movement less but also gave a penalty to those that ignored front line. 

 

Personally I would rather see some of the abilities from 4e D&D, like fighter could stick some enemies to him but if those ignored him and attacked someone else they suffered a big attack penalty. In this case, if one just wanted to retreat to heal it would be OK.

 

 

Mechanical skill is not game theory skill. And who says I'm referring to myself? I can play Dow2 which requires infinitely more micro than any RTwP game.

 

However mechanical skill determining the efficacy of a particular character archetype in performing their fundamental strengths doesn't reflect the goals of an RPG game. I would ask you: If you want mechanical skill to affect your character why are YOU here?

 

That's what a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, Blazblu, Company of Heroes, Dota2/LoL are for. Games where the abstraction layer isn't mean tto be present.

 

4e was a video game system that never got turned into a proper game. It has a lot of excellent ideas that should be used but people are afraid to touch it because it didn't resonate well in the PNP environment.

 

Melee Engagement doesn't have to necessitate a lack of movement during combat. One of the primary issues with lack of movement is short combat resolution timelines. Multi-faceted combats with longer resolution will allow for more re-positioning of characters. Improving enemy AI so they make better tactical decisions (Spiders dropping down in your back line, casters that teleport, boars that charge through ignoring enemy engagement) will change the way combat operates and force you to move as things are occuring to avoid being engaged yourself.

 

Melee Engagement is also a tool for the enemy to create threatening situations. Control casters will be squishy and being engaged is a threat; if you have perfectly free movement then you allow player mechanical skill to override the natural vulnerability of these characters.

 

This is why the philosophy of relying on micro to 'save' your characters is in effect an exploit. The value of these 'hard' sticky systems is that they actually create a threat/necessitate a response outside of just pause + reposition.

 

Pause + reposition doesn't enhance tactical combat scenarios it simply adds to mechanical micro. A game can be real time and still be tactical. You have 3 spiders dropping to your back line and a line of enemy skirmishers charging forward...you'll have to move all your characters to adjust but how you move them will be more dynamic than if you can simply run your melee guys freely around. You have to use your resources more wisely.

[archangel979]

 

I agree with Sensuki here. Especially about the part that it is real time with pause and it does not need good player mechanical skills. And anyone having bad mechanical skills, what are you even doing here? Turn based games are for you. Don't come to forums of a real time with pause game and complain about people asking for more things to do. 

 

Also I need to note that IE games have always been about players skill. Automation didn't work. Player skill determined builds, strategy and tactics. The games always asked players to learn them and be good at them. That is what we expect from PoE, any dumbing down is not looked at positively. 

 

Melee engagement is a good as idea but if it is going to be end up making game more simple due to lack of movement during combat it needs to be scraped or modified. Many people already asked that it is turned to something similar to NWN AoO system as that one prevented movement less but also gave a penalty to those that ignored front line. 

 

Personally I would rather see some of the abilities from 4e D&D, like fighter could stick some enemies to him but if those ignored him and attacked someone else they suffered a big attack penalty. In this case, if one just wanted to retreat to heal it would be OK.

 

 

Mechanical skill is not game theory skill. And who says I'm referring to myself? I can play Dow2 which requires infinitely more micro than any RTwP game.

 

However mechanical skill determining the efficacy of a particular character archetype in performing their fundamental strengths doesn't reflect the goals of an RPG game. I would ask you: If you want mechanical skill to affect your character why are YOU here?

 

That's what a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, Blazblu, Company of Heroes, Dota2/LoL are for. Games where the abstraction layer isn't mean tto be present.

 

4e was a video game system that never got turned into a proper game. It has a lot of excellent ideas that should be used but people are afraid to touch it because it didn't resonate well in the PNP environment.

 

Melee Engagement doesn't have to necessitate a lack of movement during combat. One of the primary issues with lack of movement is short combat resolution timelines. Multi-faceted combats with longer resolution will allow for more re-positioning of characters. Improving enemy AI so they make better tactical decisions (Spiders dropping down in your back line, casters that teleport, boars that charge through ignoring enemy engagement) will change the way combat operates and force you to move as things are occuring to avoid being engaged yourself.

 

Melee Engagement is also a tool for the enemy to create threatening situations. Control casters will be squishy and being engaged is a threat; if you have perfectly free movement then you allow player mechanical skill to override the natural vulnerability of these characters.

 

This is why the philosophy of relying on micro to 'save' your characters is in effect an exploit. The value of these 'hard' sticky systems is that they actually create a threat/necessitate a response outside of just pause + reposition.

 

Pause + reposition doesn't enhance tactical combat scenarios it simply adds to mechanical micro. A game can be real time and still be tactical. You have 3 spiders dropping to your back line and a line of enemy skirmishers charging forward...you'll have to move all your characters to adjust but how you move them will be more dynamic than if you can simply run your melee guys freely around. You have to use your resources more wisely.

 

In a real time game with pause moving your characters should be part of game theory or turn based is superior always.

 

For the rest, I agree with you. I see no reason why we cannot have both this little mechanical skill requirement and all this other interesting encounter design suggestions. 

[Sensuki]

It shouldn't make you smile. Holding a position doesn't require arrogance. Confidence is the positive expression of the characteristic you should aspire too; arrogance is when your confidence cuts you off from considering other viewpoints. An enlightened human should never be proud of having a closed minded point of view.

 

You completely misunderstood the argument in your next statement. It's a shield in that your evaluations are devoid of any practical analysis outside of an attempt to push the game further towards your point of view; you utilize it as a defense of your point of view without offering substantial reasons outside of personal preference as to why your point of view has merit.

 

Holding a point of view without objective data is what they call ideology. Ideology is not a path to critical thinking. You're basically saying right here "I am an ideologue and proud of it".

 

I did not go back to review your past post history. There's that arrogance to assume I care enough about -you- to research your past decisions? Your past actions don't excuse present behaviour. That's a logical fallacy...one I'm not surprised to see from an ideologue.

Is it my arrogance, or is it your own arrogance? I wonder. I think it might be yours, because you assumed that I posted that because I assumed you cared about me. Perhaps I thought you cared about practical analysis, or an informed opinion *shrug*.

 

You are the one making assumptions about another person based on a small slice of their words in posts from one thread in an internet forum. Calling someone's motivations selfish based on that is a big call, and other posters have already disagreed with you in between your two posts.

 

In your next post, would you also be so kind as to disclose whether you are a beta backer?

  

They still hold merit. Regardless of the ability to pause there is still a significant reaction and point/click necessity to micro movements in a real time setting. Not everyone has flawless physical capabilities and to assume so is again, arrogance (Ignorant of other peoples positions/situations in life).

 

I certainly am not forgetting melee engagement exists. Not being able to disengage safely is what we would call a tactical risk. It also allows the enemy to gain an advantage by successfully engaging on one of your vulnerable characters thereby necessitating a swift response (All those knockback spells/abilities seem relevant?). Again your ideological point of view is inhibiting your thought processes. Instead of evaluating the merits of the system you only cite the flaws because you have an agenda that is informed by your strict point of view. This does not lead to good game design.

 

Replicating something old just to 'recapture' it is in fact artifice. Artifice is not the realm of the creative, it is the realm of those lost in the past.

No, I understand the perspective that you and others are coming from on this topic completely. I believe your opinions are formed by a combination of both the fact that you did not use this tactic when you played the Infinity Engine games, and if you did, you did it begrudgingly because you think that moving a unit back is 'too hard' or 'micromanagement', when in reality it takes two button clicks, and you can pause while doing it. While paused, the issue is not time critical, so as long as you can move and click a mouse, you can perform those commands. Your arguments about in the first paragraph I quoted here are indeed, flawed and are a very strong indication that you prefer automation over manual input.

 

Most of the time, enemies do not engage vulnerable characters. Characters become vulnerable after they have been engaged. Some people have argued that removing Melee Engagement would trivialize movement in melee and make it a non-choice. The thing is, is that it is already a non-choice - don't move in melee. Melee Engagement removes the option to be able to retreat units from the frontline to heal them. In retreating from the frontline in the first place, you are already doing two things - giving up that unit's output in combat for the X seconds that they are disengaged from it, and spending strategical resources to get that unit back into shape. There is already a 'penalty' for retreating a unit, not withstanding that enemy units can still chase you after you have moved away ... you know ... in real time.

 

People have argued that 'you should have healed earlier', but there are some instances where you cannot predict you are going to suffer a massive hit, sometimes your units will be killed by it, sometimes they won't be. If you are so lucky that they are not felled by a massive blow and have 1-2 health left, why should you be forced to let them die? Why should you be forced to reload the game in that instance?

 

 

You literally didn't read what I said at all. I am well aware that the player can control that...the point being that it -SHOULD NOT BE UP TO THE PLAYER- to replicate those actions. Being a real time game doesn't mean that the player should have the burden of micro movement for each individual character to perform feats of athleticism; this introduces a level of physical player skill and reaction time into the gameplay that limits the ability of the game to represent the raw skillset of a trained combatant.

LOL. Just as I predicted - you hate manually doing things. I'm sorry buddy, but in this game, you will have to manually do stuff. It's kind of funny because the removal of Melee Engagement does not actually require you do play any differently. The AI will still target the same units as they do now, it's just that the player has the option to retreat when low. You currently cannot do that, and if it was removed you would be able to - that is literally the only difference here. So I cannot for the life of me figure out why you are complaining based on the fact that it changes anything in regards to micromanagement.

 

The specific MSPAINT drawing I did earlier was to demonstrate that you could control enemy AI clauses in the Infinity Engine games, as PrimeJunta was saying that they were imperfect and that you couldn't control them. I was providing a demonstration. I think you have taken that demonstration as "If Melee Engagement is removed ... this is what you will have to do to get enemies to attack you" - that won't be the case (at least, not necessarily) it is all about how the developers program the enemy AI clauses. I don't think you understand what Melee Engagement is in it's rawest form, I think you are speaking about it from an ideological perspective rather than a practical one.

 

Melee Engagement is simply two things - a combination of AI clauses that cause units to auto-attack one another when a condition is met (EngageEnemy and isEngaged) and the Disengagement Attack mechanic. You are complaining about having to micromanage, and the removal of Melee Engagement has nothing to do with micromanagement. It does remove some forms of micromanagement from the game, but removing it does not add any extra necessary ones.

 

 

What you said in the past doesn't excuse your attitude/behavior now. It's not that you're complaining about it's inclusion that is the issue. It's your vehmence and the reasoning behind your disagrement that makes no sense. As I repeated: You aren't conducting critical analysis of how to improve the feature you're simply arguing that since the feature doesn't replicate a specific combat system in full that it is not sufficient.

 

There's a suggestion in the game mechanics forum about making a 'time-delayed' engagement system that I find FAR more intelligently thought out than your ideas. That's how you take something that isn't working and innovate/brain-storm tweaks to get the results you want without trying to -revert- back to something that ALSO didn't work.

Infinitron (the user who posted that thread) I know very well, and he formulated his post a few patches ago when Engagement was unclear. Back then Engagement worked differently to how it does now, although it lacked a UI. Obsidian has changed the Melee Engagement system to be more 'snappy'. However the reason I do not like Infinitron's idea is because it is not WHEN Engagement happens that is the issue. It is that once you are engaged, you can't retreat your units if they are on low health - that option is removed from the gameplay by the manner of disengagement attacks. You may prefer that method, and it may be better than the current mechanic, but I do not think it will lead to as fun gameplay as simply removing it.

 

 

You are arguing a system that is hackneyed and manipulative (kiting your characters in front of enemies to change their AI targeting) is somehow a -good- solution because it creates a 1 for 1 mirror of what existed before.

This is what I was referring to above, you have mistaken my post with the MSPAINT drawing for what the game should play like if Melee Engagement was removed. This leads me to believe that you are not a beta backer (although you may be, I'm not sure ...) however if you have come to that opinion based on the actual Pillars of Eternity gameplay then you don't understand how the game works. That was a demonstration of how AI Targeting clauses worked in the Infinity Engine games and how you could manipulate them to your will. You may not like that in the IE games you sometimes had to block/kite enemies around to get them to change targets (as you do not like manual input). It is up to the Obsidian programmers how they make the AI Targeting clauses work in Pillars of Eternity, but myself and many others find them currently inferior as they do not change targets once they have acquired them. I'm not sure how you would prefer that they be. 

 

I didn't say I disliked the combat. It was enjoyable but certainly not as memorable as striking characterization and the finest immersive fantasy world building in a virtual environment that was available (Although Menzoberranzan, Stone Prophet, and Birthright did pull this off in different ways). You had designers who were clearly into the forgotten realms lore (A world which had a decade+ of iteration and has stood the test of time as the most popular D&D campaign world ever). I'm not sure why you would consider the writing to be PG-13 either...it's certainly more mature than the teenaged power fantasy Bioware/The Witcher games are selling these days.

Yes the writing in Baldur's Gate 2 is more mature than BioWare's writing now. Black Isle's was even more mature, but I'm not really moved by the writing in either of those games anymore. I find most game writing a little bit on the disappointing side these days, although E:C had some nice writing.

 

Recognizing gaping flaws in a combat system that was attempting to transition a strictly PNP game into a set of rigid computer rules is being realistic.

The flaws were not the RTS style gameplay though. You might think they are because you have clearly demonstrated that you do not like manual input. Many people liked them BECAUSE they played like an RTS. There are many of those people on this forum.

 

I don't believe anyone who operates from a position of ideology and arrogance should be listened to. They are arguing from bad faith and therefore their position is poisoned. You have a preset idea of what you want to accomplish and instead of trying to push for the 'best abstracted third person rpg combat' you are pushing for a particular vision. Outcome oriented thinking is the most biased thought process you can have. Objectivity requires that you set aside your intended outcome and to consider details in isolation.

Newsflash, I've already been listened to quite a few times. If the fact that people sometimes listen to me is a bad thing, then avert your eyes for your own good. Your post reeks of vitriol based on the 'tone' of my posts and my evocative language. Too bad that you don't like me, or the way I post but I'm not going to change it, and I'm not going anywhere either

[Stun]

Technically Obsidian promised full separation of combat and non-combat skills ... and a Documentary DVD What happened to those?

And Idiot Dialogue. We were flat out promised in a kickstarter update that if you created a character with low intelligence, he wouldn't be able to talk properly. What happened to that?

[ElvenRogue]

I personally find Sensuki irritating, guilty of overstating the qualities of I.E combat, a serial powergamer (see the IWD LP) and too eager to pour his antipodean scorn over every major (or minor) feature / suggestion he takes issue with.

 

However, I regularly watch his videos, read his posts here and on the codex and even find myself agreeing with some of his observations. Am I stalking him or do I just think that his feedback - in whatever manner it is delivered - is necessary to the development of the game? "But he's so arrogant!" Yes he is, but that's not the point.

 

This is what erragal misses with all labelling and ear-covering. Sensuki is passionate about seeing the game he wants get made. Because of this he has provided a broad spectrum of feedback that OE will be reading. Not because he shouts the loudest, but because he represents one end of the spectrum of gamers who will play PoE. His input is necessary for debate to happen and for the developers to see broader range of reaction to features and bugs. There are plenty of other people who are also passionate about seeing the game they want get made, maybe they're not as vocal, but why would anyone want to silence someone for being forthright with their ideas?

 

For one, I'm glad he nitpicks and moaned incessantly about selection circles, targeting reticules and a whole load of other stuff - I don't share his approach to playing the game and don't agree with all of his observations but these are changes I wanted to see in the game.

 

There have been a lot of comments about backers like Sensuki bending the ear of the designers and forcing them to make decisions that only please those who shout loudest. Please grow up. Even if the inclusion of a broad spectrum of play styles weren't a stated design goal, you are insulting the professionalism of OE by trying to stifle the debate with your protests. Josh Sawyer and the rest of the designers will make their own decisions regarding the merits of all suggestions. Sure they may change direction if there are enough dissenters making enough noise, but one road warrior and his youtube channel probably aren't enough to ruin the experience for all.

 

On a final note, I think Sensuki is right about melee engagement and it should be revisited, but whether you agree with him or not don't try and stifle the feedback.

 

eR 

[Uomoz]

I hope engagement stays and kiting (one of the most retarded mechainics ever implemented in RTSs), will not be a viable strat in this game. We have specific character powers/abilities crafted exclusively to deal with positioning, and the game is fine like that. Being able to retreat when you committed to a melee you shouldn't have committed to is just BAD design. Learn to use your abilities to either raise your chances in the melee (via buff or debuff) OR escape OR manipulate the enemy position. The possibilities are effing endless, lets not play with retarded 90's mechanics. FYI I have thousands of hours of dota and I use/love kiting/orbwalking in that game, but it only makes sense because its player vs player and there's a direct competition: kiting and exploiting AIs feels so goddamn retarded. 

[Sensuki]

You can kite and exploit the AI anyway Uomoz, regardless of whether melee engagement is in or not. Combat is horrible when all units just stand still and though there are some abilities that break engagement such as Rogue escape, the situation I have described is still a valid one I think. Real time games that give enemies free attacks independent of real-time feel so goddamn retarded.

 

You can kite the crap out of anything if it's slower than you or you have multiple units against a single unit. That will not and does not change whether or not Melee Engagement exists.

 

I also don't agree with rules that handicap the player against the AI.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

To preserve my sanity and to prevent myself the agony of reading this kind of nonsensical bull**** again, I've decided to ignore erregal.

[Namutree]

 The possibilities are effing endless, lets not play with retarded 90's mechanics.

There hasn't been a single crpg since the IE games that come even close to being as good as IE combat. You don't want those "retarded" 90's mechanics; I don't don't want the absolutely horrible 2000's mechanics.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Combat rounds are for human GMs. CRPGs do not need them. Engagement is tactically necessary and more or less attack-of-opportunity taken to its logical conclusion. To remove them would be a far greater disaster than failing to balance them perfectly. Melee is where PoE is on the right track and only improving. It's the spell casting that's all botched--not due to degrees, but in concept. Now that's a real problem.

No, Melee combat is by far the worst, I think you are talking about spell design rather than the act of spellcasting.

 

I disagree. Melee combat has many kinks, but it will still get the job done. My grievances with magic are far beyond spell design. If they were isolated to that, I would have said spell design. It goes to the class concepts, resource mechanics, action/recovery times, memorization, you name it.

[Sensuki]

I agree that action & recovery times for spells are warped - partially due to the 'simplistic' system whereby there are only a few different set times for spells "short, medium, long" although I think they are breaking away from that mould after the recent patch.

 

I was more referring to the act of spellcasting. I agree that the classes have issues as well (Wizards lol).