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

[Sensuki]

Cubiq just sent me some videos of the Medreth fight with my mod installed that removes engagement. It plays the same due to the AI targeting clauses.

 

If you pre-position the BB Fighter out in front, the same enemies that dogpile him in the unmodified BB will still do so, the Boar never targets the Fighter, it always runs to attack the BB Rogue or the Wizard (I think it's whichever character opens combat) and there's that Dwarf guy that either casts spells or attacks another backline character that isn't the Fighter.

 

It's the AI targeting clauses that matter most - not Engagement.

 

 

I liked the bit where when his PC was about to die he ran him around in circles until the Priest heal went off - exactly how you do it in the IE games. That would not have been possible in PE because he would die from Disengagement attacks.

 

Removing Engagement also stops your characters from cancelling their actions too ^_^.

 

And for real Sensuki it's supposed to be RPG tactical game not RTS. I like micro in Starcraft, but not in my RPG.

As Namutree said - that type of gameplay was in the IE games. I have a whole Let's Play of Icewind Dale where I regularly showcast tactical unit movement in combat

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIRfCmyR7ijJU11xQVn2SXIwmeuajTkom

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Cubiq]

and there's that Dwarf guy that either casts spells or attacks another backline character that isn't the Fighter.

Yes that guy is really bugged atm. Most of the time he will teleport to your wizard at the back and just stand there or cast buffs/heals/cc.

[Gorionsson]

 

and there's that Dwarf guy that either casts spells or attacks another backline character that isn't the Fighter.

Yes that guy is really bugged atm. Most of the time he will teleport to your wizard at the back and just stand there or cast buffs/heals/cc.

 

 

At present it's difficult to suggest changes, because of all the bugs.

Getting to a mostly bug-free state,- at least during combat, would make it easier to descern enemies default behaviour.

[Namutree]

 

That type of gameplay was present in the IE games.

Is that a relevant argument when people are complaining about the game mechanics? The magical mantra "it was in IE games" will not make bad gameplay good.

There are numerous gameplay mechanics in IE that was changed or completely altered in PoE, so why shouldn't Obsidian fix this one to?

For a game that have combat every 20 seconds it's a disaster to have a bad combat.

It seems to me that Obsidian made all that little mechanics of combat separately never asking the simplest question "how will it all work out together?".

 

I think you misunderstood me. The RTS gameplay Sensuki was referring to were in the IE games; the lack of it is a big part of why poe's combat is flawed.

[Sensuki]

Precisely - it was the RTS style combat that made the IE games fun. PE combat is closer to Neverwinter Nights 2 at the moment, except with an isometric camera and faster paced combat.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

Since there is no experience gained from combat and current combat system is horrible, how about going one step forward and removing all combat from the game. There could be something like those text screens, like when you gather eggs from the mountain. It would be like "You stumbled across a bunch of stone beetles, what do you do?".  There would be no need for random encounters, and everyone who likes the "rpg over everything" and who is against combat xp, would be satisfied.

[bronzepoem]

[Namutree]

 

 

Excellent post.

[Cubiq]

There are numerous gameplay mechanics in IE that was changed or completely altered in PoE, so why shouldn't Obsidian fix this one to?

 

The problem is they didn't really fix it. They just removed it completely.

Which also removed quite a bit of tactical combat. This is also one of the reason why combat is now mostly decided in the first few seconds. Since movement barely works after that.

The combat without the engagement mechanic is surprisingly balanced. Not completely but, but a lot more than i first expected it would be.

They already fixed quite a LOT of "problems" that i read some people had with the IE games just by adding CCs like Knockdown, movement impairing strikes and similar things.

(I'll explain in more detail what i mean by this later.)

Edited October 26, 2014 by Cubiq

[bronzepoem]

Cubiq just sent me some videos of the Medreth fight with my mod installed that removes engagement. It plays the same due to the AI targeting clauses.

 

If you pre-position the BB Fighter out in front, the same enemies that dogpile him in the unmodified BB will still do so, the Boar never targets the Fighter, it always runs to attack the BB Rogue or the Wizard (I think it's whichever character opens combat) and there's that Dwarf guy that either casts spells or attacks another backline character that isn't the Fighter.

 

It's the AI targeting clauses that matter most - not Engagement.

 

 

I liked the bit where when his PC was about to die he ran him around in circles until the Priest heal went off - exactly how you do it in the IE games. That would not have been possible in PE because he would die from Disengagement attacks.

 

Removing Engagement also stops your characters from cancelling their actions too ^_^.

 

And for real Sensuki it's supposed to be RPG tactical game not RTS. I like micro in Starcraft, but not in my RPG.

As Namutree said - that type of gameplay was in the IE games. I have a whole Let's Play of Icewind Dale where I regularly showcast tactical unit movement in combat

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIRfCmyR7ijJU11xQVn2SXIwmeuajTkom

 

I understand you mean but... sometimes you know, "RTS style" sound not so acceptable for RPG fans,espically a lot of people here didn't play RTS deeply.Your words just scared them~

So just change a word,without "RTS", for example "IWD style","IE style" something like that.Then those people will find "Wow ,that's exactly what I want!"

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Since there is no experience gained from combat and current combat system is horrible, how about going one step forward and removing all combat from the game. There could be something like those text screens, like when you gather eggs from the mountain. It would be like "You stumbled across a bunch of stone beetles, what do you do?".  There would be no need for random encounters, and everyone who likes the "rpg over everything" and who is against combat xp, would be satisfied.

 

Actually, you do get xp from combat with killing every critter and the current beta feels like the IE games in terms of reward only because you have to kill 6 of each type of enemy before you don't get anymore xp. And there's a lot of cases where there's not more than 6 of that type of enemy. The Lions, the Stone Beetles, most of the spiders, the wolves, the pwgra, the forest lurker, etc. And you get rewarded immediately after each kill. You don't have to wait for the bestiary page to be filled to get rewarded.

 

So now I want to go and engage in combat 'most' of the time. It's when I kill that 6th specific enemy and the bestiary page is filled, I then get turned off from combat. The current beta is like a placebo and it doesn't really show what the bestiary xp is like until you get into the ruins and then see you're not getting rewarded because you've already killed 6 spectres and then it comes back to being a boring grind of no rewards. It actually feels like a grind to get no rewards and I feel like turning back and not continuing and avoid all this combat. I have to wonder why people call kill xp grind xp because I find no xp to be more or a grind.

[Sensuki]

Bestiary XP does nothing for me, but I'm not against it. I play exactly the same as I did before, because I don't need a reward to engage in combat as an activity.

 

I'm more against Lock and Trap XP and I think the implementation of Exploration XP is silly as well. Will look into those further during testing.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

• Party members still have AI that cancels your actions - I think it's related to engagement
• Player controlled units do not have IE style auto-attack clauses
• All monsters have a faster movement speed than the party.
• Movement speed in combat is too fast
• Pathfinding is a nightmare
• Per-hit damage is ridiculously high - party members can die in a single hit.
• Spell FX is way too over the top, what do I have to do to get RTS style spell FX design ?
• Enemy AI Targeting needs more development
• Melee Engagement flat out sucks donkey balls and restricts tactical movement in combat

 

All of these are culprits at the moment. All this taken together makes combat feel like Charleston with jazz hands and all the dancers need to pee but the only WC is always floating around the controlled PC!

 

If you take a look at the vid where Sensuki has removed Combat Disengagement, it's still ridiculous. Quite honestly, it's a constant pausing, and despite this, enemies have time during fractions of a second to move far too fast and far too much. If you don't pause, the enemies are barely distinct units doing distinct actions which you as a player can follow and counteract. In fact, all the baddies feel like one big combat fluid that's pouring over the character that the player is controlling in any given moment.

I almost hate it. Compare this to Sensuki's IWD-playthrough vid, and all of the sudden I feel at ease again, at home - that is how party-based combat should look like, feel like and play. I feel in control of what's taking place - I feel in control over all of my party member and of all the enemies I need to deal with.

 

EDIT: I feel that the entire point of combat right now is having 1 or 2 semi-invulnerable or at least very resilient tanks, and then you are almost forced to use the rest with ranged weapons and ranged spells, just in order to wrestle back some of that sense of control. In the IE games, I could easily make a party of all wizards or all fighters. A party with no tanks? No problem. Good luck with a glass canon party (using an ARPG term, sorry) in POE right now.

Edited October 26, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Starwars]

It would be interesting if they slowed enemies down by a lot (I guess maybe even the player party in combat) and see what difference that makes. Like you say, it's staggering how fast some mobs zoom between the game auto-pausing at start of combat, and me pausing not even a second later.

 

Again, I know the slow-mode is there but it should feel more manageable at regular speeds.

[archangel979]

This just shows that no matter how much some people bash D&D in cRPG, there is no real replacement. D&D works. 

OE would be wise to modify their system even more to how D&D works. 

[archangel979]

It would be interesting if they slowed enemies down by a lot (I guess maybe even the player party in combat) and see what difference that makes. Like you say, it's staggering how fast some mobs zoom between the game auto-pausing at start of combat, and me pausing not even a second later.

 

Again, I know the slow-mode is there but it should feel more manageable at regular speeds.

Slow mode does not help much as it slows down everything. They need to reduce attack and move speed as well as damage of everything and give casters more spells to compensate for lower damage

[anameforobsidian]

I very strongly disagree with the idea that the only kind of tactical movement is one where everyone runs in circles like unfettered idiots.  

 

For one thing, manipulating enemy AI is not the same thing as engaging in intentional positioning.  A smart enemy would either break off pursuit, or break out a ranged weapon and start attacking from afar.

 

It also shows an extreme lack of verisimilitude.  Armies that fled the battlefield in a disorderly fashion frequently got cut down by enemies for a very good reason, it's easy to shoot or stab someone in the back.  The WC3 video didn't show great feats of intelligence or skill; we wouldn't praise the intelligence of someone that stood in front of a panicked rhinoceros in any situation that remotely mirrored the real world.

 

Then, the fact that a choice is unpalatable does not mean that it is less interesting or intelligent.  To hear fans of the Witcher talk, only choices that are unpalatable are intelligent.  In the Infinity Engine games kiting the most powerful melee opponent is always the right choice until you're reasonably sure of winning.  Sure it requires skill, but skill is not the same thing as intelligence.  Choosing to run through risking penalties, run around, or engage an enemy is more interesting than constantly running around them.  Sure the AI or mob speed might be off, but that's not the same thing as an inherent problem with 

 

Finally, I think there's a significant danger of groupthink on the forum.  It's always the same ten to twenty people talking about the same ten issues, and eventually the group reaches a consensus that may or may not be shared by other players.  Of course, I can't speak to the actual quality of the beta, but eventually you have to wonder whether the issues raised in the backer forums are representative of problems in the game or individual issues.

[Sensuki]

I very strongly disagree with the idea that the only kind of tactical movement is one where everyone runs in circles like unfettered idiots.  

 

For one thing, manipulating enemy AI is not the same thing as engaging in intentional positioning.  A smart enemy would either break off pursuit, or break out a ranged weapon and start attacking from afar.

 

It also shows an extreme lack of verisimilitude.  Armies that fled the battlefield in a disorderly fashion frequently got cut down by enemies for a very good reason, it's easy to shoot or stab someone in the back.  The WC3 video didn't show great feats of intelligence or skill; we wouldn't praise the intelligence of someone that stood in front of a panicked rhinoceros in any situation that remotely mirrored the real world.

 

Then, the fact that a choice is unpalatable does not mean that it is less interesting or intelligent.  To hear fans of the Witcher talk, only choices that are unpalatable are intelligent.  In the Infinity Engine games kiting the most powerful melee opponent is always the right choice until you're reasonably sure of winning.  Sure it requires skill, but skill is not the same thing as intelligence.  Choosing to run through risking penalties, run around, or engage an enemy is more interesting than constantly running around them.  Sure the AI or mob speed might be off, but that's not the same thing as an inherent problem with 

 

Finally, I think there's a significant danger of groupthink on the forum.  It's always the same ten to twenty people talking about the same ten issues, and eventually the group reaches a consensus that may or may not be shared by other players.  Of course, I can't speak to the actual quality of the beta, but eventually you have to wonder whether the issues raised in the backer forums are representative of problems in the game or individual issues.

 

Kiting single enemies is something that occurs in every RTS ever, and kiting always occurs in RTS style games when one side has more units than the other. That is how you minimize damage to your units. However, in the Infinity Engine games most fights (not all) start out as group versus group and depending on which game you are playing (play style varies A LOT depending on whether you're playing BG1/IWD1 and BG2/IWD2 IMO). In most fights, you send your Fighters/Rangers/Paladins etc in first to tank the damage, and then drop Cleric and Wizard spells on top of them. Sometimes you assign different units to attack different enemies in 1 vs 1 situations and sometimes you dogpile the same unit to take it down as quick as possible.

 

Most of the time when I play I usually spread my front line out a bit so that damage is being spread evenly across the party and is a bit more manageable. In the IE games characters can use potions to heal themselves, which gives them some independence in combat. In Pillars of Eternity, characters might have a self-healing ability, but if that character is taking too much damage, and you haven't set your Priest aside to solely drop healing spells only then you can't micro your character away from the front line because they will die from multiple disengagement attacks - that's stupid. It removes the option to tactically retreat so that you can safely heal that character. This was an integral part of the gameplay in all of the Infinity Engine games.

 

The IE games already provided the means to control unit aggro, through straight up positioning and movement. If you want enemies to attack your Fighter, move your Fighter forward and the enemies will attack him - use pre-positioning so that the Fighter is the forward-most character in the formation or move him to intercept the oncoming enemies and snag them. Most of the time due to the way the Infinity Engine games AI clauses worked, the enemies would stop and engage the Fighter, if they didn't, you could move the Fighter and block their path which would usually cause them to give up on their desired target and attack the Fighter.

 

It baffles me that some people (perhaps even the devs themselves?) thought that this was an issue, because the AI clauses in the IE games were perfectly serviceable for the purposes of player units snagging enemy units. If you failed to stop enemies from reaching your backline then that was your own fault. You shouldn't need a Melee Engagement system to do it for you.

 

Melee Engagement doesn't prevent kiting, you can still kite enemies around in Pillars of Eternity - nothing will prevent that. When you have more party members than enemy units remaining, you will be able to kite units around with or without the Melee Engagement system. What you won't successfully be able to do is retreat units from the front line to safely heal them like you could in the IE games - I think this is an integral part of the IE games gameplay and I used it frequently in my recent IWD playthrough, the link I have provided previously in the thread.

 

The Melee Engagement system is not needed to make enemy units attack your front line, it's not the Melee Engagement system that forces them to do that - it's the Enemy AI targeting clauses. That's all that's necessary.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Starwars]

I don't think the forum "groupthink" is that much of a problem. If OEI wanted to, they could send out a poll or something to *all* the backers if they wanted input on something specific. I'm sure they're well aware that they've gotten to know many people on this forum and what preferences they have. It's up to OEI to evaluate what is being said and discussed and see if they feel they need to change something. As long as points are being made in the discussions, then I think it's worthwhile for OEI to read through. 

 

Personally I quite like the melee engagement mechanic, or at least the idea of it, but either the combat is too fast or I am not a good enough player to really work with it at the moment. Especially not with the faster enemies.

[Cubiq]

Finally, I think there's a significant danger of groupthink on the forum.  It's always the same ten to twenty people talking about the same ten issues, and eventually the group reaches a consensus that may or may not be shared by other players.  Of course, I can't speak to the actual quality of the beta, but eventually you have to wonder whether the issues raised in the backer forums are representative of problems in the game or individual issues.

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.

[Sensuki]

Personally I quite like the melee engagement mechanic, or at least the idea of it, but either the combat is too fast or I am not a good enough player to really work with it at the moment. Especially not with the faster enemies.

There's two parts to the Melee Engagement system.

 

1 - There's an AI clause that forces your units, and enemy units to attack eachother when engaged, and cancel their current actions

2 - If you move (at all), you suffer a disengagement attack from the units you are engaged by

 

Enemies will not disengage you unless you force them to with a spell of some sort (I haven't tried to yet). Disengagement attacks are only really something that the player has to deal with. This prevents you from retreating units from the front line, most of the time if you try and re-position in melee at all, your character will just die. It removes the option of any sort of tactical positioning in combat whatsoever. The only positioning you get to do is the pre-determined positioning before melee happens.

 

What the important thing is for players is that the enemies attack their front line characters. This already happened in the IE games most of the time, and if it didn't, you could manipulate the enemy AI to make them attack you through unit movement and micromanagement.

 

I want to be able to move my characters around in combat, I want to be able to move them back from the front line for a heal. That is how it should be IMO and that's one of the things I think is sorely missing from the game at the moment.

 

I have modded Engagement out of the game and tested it (and so has Cubiq), if you don't try and run from combat it plays out exactly the same, but it gives you the option to retreat units back safely if you wish ... well ... the Enemy AI targeting clauses are still fairly primitive and they don't act like the IE games. Enemies only change targets when engaged, there's no other clause that forces them to re-evaluate who they are attacking AFAIK. Most of the clauses are related to who to attack at the start of combat. 

 

If enemies had the same AI targeting as the IE games, then it would be sweet. Because that's one of the things that makes it real, real easy to kite - when enemies do not re-evaluate their targeting.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

To me the most glaring issue about combat is the completely OTT visual effects. 

 

I was in the inn today trying to pick a fight with everyone. 

 

Then this happened:

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's supposed to be some kind of spider web. It's completely opaque and follows your characters around (and before you ask, no this is not my own sloppy MS paint job )

 

Not only is this completely unappealing visually (ahem, to say the least), it masks absolutely everything around it and makes it impossible to tell what's going on in combat. 

 

EDIT: Actually, looking at it this image, there are so many things that are wrong visually. For instance look at the two (or is it more?? I can't tell) enemies that are still inside the room on the left side :

• It's impossible to tell them apart from the decor, it looks like they're inside the walls or something.
• You can't really tell where the doorframe is
• All the textures around them are semi-transparent. Look at the wall with the square painting on it. The brick wall texture blends into the painting.

 

NwN2 spell visuals, yay!

[Captain Shrek]

One thing they could do to make attack resolutions less extreme is normalize miss and crits to

 

natural roll 96-100 = crit

natural roll 01-05 = miss

 

 

 

This is something I suggested way back.  Right now crits are broken as every point in accuracy is potentially a percent increase in Crit chance.

Also, melee engangement is pretty much a forced mechanics that should be replaced with AoOs. The latter reminds me; the single biggest issue in NWN2 was party AI. That problem seems to have been carrier over here. In NWN2 party members would balatantly ignore set commands and run headlong into AoOs. Worse still they would also start casting spells, especially self nukers of the highest level while being in AoO zone, thus either losing the spells or nuking their own party.

 

Unfortunately, someone on the developer team seems to ignore the real problem (AI) instead coming up with agro  mechanics for cRPGs. This is really a bad idea, as it really pigeonholes the char roles while forcing a degerate gameplay.

[Sensuki]

There should be no AoO's they are unnecessary. If you want to attack someone moving next to you - target them yourself.

[Captain Shrek]

There should be no AoO's they are unnecessary. If you want to attack someone moving next to you - target them yourself.

 

Hmm.

 

I kinda agree with qualifications. I think that AoOs serve an important tactical purpose in that they regulate how the chars move and arrange themseleves on the tactical map. That way there is an added need for attention without it being overtly there.

 

Removing AoOs would take away the tactical part of moving around outside of time economy. As in, the shortest path to your target might not be the best one in all cases.