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

[archangel979]

Movement speed is like Usain Bolt on crack. And they wear armor, weapons and should be on guard.

 

Movement speed seems to be the biggest offender. I must say I really dislike how you need to pause the game every 0,25 seconds. 

 

I don't like slide-show style games and because of how combat is it certainly feels like it.

If you want this to go away movement speed is not only thing they need to slow down. Damage per attack needs to go down as well. And other things probably. 

Edited October 27, 2014 by archangel979

[Malekith]

PrimeJunta, on 27 Oct 2014 - 4:12 PM, said:PrimeJunta, on 27 Oct 2014 - 4:12 PM, said:PrimeJunta, on 27 Oct 2014 - 4:12 PM, said:

 

Sensuki, on 26 Oct 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:Sensuki, on 26 Oct 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:Sensuki, on 26 Oct 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

No I'm not. The idea is to retreat from the front line away from your attackers, not two metres back so they can still hit you. Like you can in the IE games.

 

That is exactly what I think you should not be able to do with impunity and without use of special abilities, IE games be damned.

 

You should be in trouble if you get engaged in melee by something that's better in melee than you are. Inherently squishy units should have ways of dealing with these situations—like, y'know, magic for spellcasters and Escape for rogues.

 

But what you want creates the problem several people have mentioned, that the best tactic in all situations (and the best party) is the one with one melee tank to engage-slow down the opposition while the other five naked glass canons oblitarate them from a distance.

 

PrimeJunta, on 27 Oct 2014 - 4:12 PM, said:PrimeJunta, on 27 Oct 2014 - 4:12 PM, said:

 

Sensuki, on 26 Oct 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:Sensuki, on 26 Oct 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

No I'm not. The idea is to retreat from the front line away from your attackers, not two metres back so they can still hit you. Like you can in the IE games.

 

Let's drop this topic for now; I'm in full agreement with your priority list. If it still feels bad after those are taken care of, I'm willing to reconsider my position.

Ok, i also agree with Sensuki's list and that the engagement mechanic isn't the most glaring issue. But even if all these things are fixed, and combat feels good, i still think emgagement will be a problem, just not a critical one.

Ranged has an inherently advantage to melee anyway, that it can damage melee units without them being able to hit back, with the balancing factor that if and when a melee unit manages to come close enough to hit, it's superior to the ranged unit.

Adding a whole mechanic designed to oppose melee units coming close to the ranged ones, in addition to CC and immobilizing spells, makes melee a dump choice.

It's no coincedence that most people i have seen in PoE play with 4-5 ranged units and 1-2 at most melee.

Meanwhile in the "unbalanced" IE games, people used way less spells and bows than here.

Even in BG1 with it's bows of deathly destruction, most people used 2 ranged characters at most. At least there having one tank(fighter) and 5 snipers was recogniced as a cheese tactic- easy mode tactic. In PoE seems the norm, with having the snipers naked being optimal adding insult to injury

Edited October 27, 2014 by Malekith

[IndiraLightfoot]

Malekith: Great post.

 

And yeah, the engagement mechanic is problematic, bit not a big prio atm. I reckon we need a new test build for combat soon - in like a week or so, because combat is easy to test. They can use the beta testers pretty intensively for that vital aspect of PoE.

[Sensuki]

Yeah in PE I use 3 melee max, as the BB Rogue is more effective against humans with melee weapons, but better against beetles with the Arbalest (because of their high DT). One tank is not enough for Hard, two is usually good.

[PrimeJunta]

But what you want creates the problem several people have mentioned, that the best tactic in all situations (and the best party) is the one with one melee tank to engage-slow down the opposition while the other five naked glass canons oblitarate them from a distance.

 

The solution to that is better AI and more interesting mixes of enemies. If they have naked glass cannons too and use them to target yours, things will get a lot more interesting.

[Sarex]

There shouldn't be glass cannons period. The fact that there are builds in this game that can be classified as such, makes me lose faith in it.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I think the DT system (well, the Armor system in general) is causing some of the issues with the numbers. Due to the fact that starting armor alone scales DT to 12, per-hit damage has to be very high to compensate and takes the designers outside their familiar design territory (D&D numbers). The balancing appears to be random, and by trial and error, rather than some pre-defined mathematics.

I would like to work with Matt516 further on the numbers when he has time, and I would also like to do some combat comparisons to some of the Infinity Engine fights and explore what the differences are. One issue I can see is that higher active ability use is required in PE at the moment, and Priests and Wizards still have D&D style spell numbers per day - currently this doesn't scale very well for the Adventuring Day, you'll be out of spells after a few encounters just like Baldur's Gate 1.

 

Ubiquitous DT is a major accounting nightmare. I've been trying to find some systemic way to deal with it, but haven't found a good solution other than operating on an assumed average of DT being omnipresent. At least as pertains to spell quantity and damage, I've sent some pivot tables over to Matt with regards to rebalancing the wizard. I can send them to you as well if you'd like.

[Quantics]

There shouldn't be glass cannons period. The fact that there are builds in this game that can be classified as such, makes me lose faith in it.

 

Why? People can play like they want to.

 

Just because you can play a glass cannon doesn't mean it's the best build...

Edited October 27, 2014 by Quantics

[Captain Shrek]

Did I add remove DT to my list of unnecessary things? 

 

*update*

 

 

1) Two HP pools are unintuitive and unnecessary. 

2) The combat pacing needs severe readjustment. Slowing down action speed would help. 

3) The run speed of enemies is too fast. 

4) The Graze system needs to go.

5) The critical hit chance needs to be independent of accuracy. 

6) AI needs to be more sensible in party as they cancel commands without notice or reason. 

7) Remove DT. Keep armor DR. or vice versa. But not both. In fact, as I see it, DR is totally superior to DT no matter how you cut it. DT is the sole reason that makes Graze a necessity and the other way round. Removing one will ease removing the other. They serve no real tactical purpose other than being passive numbers. 

[Sensuki]

Flat DR would make it super easy to balance the numbers. Super easy.

[Seari]

Did I add remove DT to my list of unnecessary things? 

 

*update*

 

 

1) Two HP pools are unintuitive and unnecessary. 

2) The combat pacing needs severe readjustment. Slowing down action speed would help. 

3) The run speed of enemies is too fast. 

4) The Graze system needs to go.

5) The critical hit chance needs to be independent of accuracy. 

6) AI needs to be more sensible in party as they cancel commands without notice or reason. 

7) Remove DT. Keep armor DR. or vice versa. But not both. In fact, as I see it, DR is totally superior to DT no matter how you cut it. DT is the sole reason that makes Graze a necessity and the other way round. Removing one will ease removing the other. They serve no real tactical purpose other than being passive numbers. 

This would be ideal. I have a feeling Obsidian have a hard time letting go of ****ty mechanics/ideas, but let us hope.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Just because you can play a glass cannon doesn't mean it's the best build...

 

We'll just have to wait and see. There's been a lot of 'theory' over the last couple of years stating 'what ifs' and 'you won't be able to do that due to X enemy doing this' scenarios.

 

The reality over the last couple of months playing the beta (for me) is I give a gun to my Rogue as Sensuki points out to get the sneak attack off in the first couple of seconds while my BB Fighter is up front tanking. I then send my Rogue in with melee weapons to flank enemies, not caring if they're hugging them as they go around provoking AoO's because I know the enemy won't attack my Rogue and position the Rogue for sneak attacks. Or I already have my Rogue positioned when my Fighter aggro's enemies (Medreth fight).

 

The rest of my glass cannons clean up wholesale and they can stay outside of a room to do it as I've pointed out before. And with party friendly AoE's, it's even easier to have that lone Fighter being dog piled or creating a choke point while your glass cannons are hitting the enemies with those AoE's. And you just have your priest throw the occasional high level heal spell from a distance to keep your Fighter standing.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sarex]

Why? People can play like they want to.

 

Just because you can play a glass cannon doesn't mean it's the best build...

 

Sure, I'm a big proponent of "make a system and let others do with it what they want", but this isn't the system we were "promised". This stinks of modern systems that have 4 molds, mage/damage dealer/tank/support. There are enough games already that do this system and I doubt that Obs will do much better then them.

 

As for glass canon not being the best build, well I have seen nothing yet that proves otherwise.

[prodigydancer]

There shouldn't be glass cannons period.

Because this game will be magically different from all other CRPGs. Come on. As long as attribute X gives you more offensive potential than attribute Y (which gives you more defensive potential), there will be tanks and there will be glass cannon builds. It's an oversimplification of course because you usually have to min/max more than two stats but the end result is the same.

 

The fact that there are builds in this game that can be classified as such, makes me lose faith in it.

Why? Obsidian promised to make all stats equally attractive and they're trying their best. But they cannot make powergaming via min/maxing stats impossible without adding many artificial barriers which I guarantee you won't like.

Edited October 27, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Shevek]

Fixing melee engagement is easy. Simply make it a very low impact snare. Have the radius of the snare be dependent on weapon size and the rate of the snare depedent on level/size difference and/or talents. That way your front line can hold things in place somewhat but may still need knockdowns and crap.

 

Also, currently, disengagement attacks do more damage than regular attacks (I think). Flip it around. Make all AoO into grazes. You still need to worry about diving through a group of enemies but skirting around one shouldnt be as crazy.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Shevek

[Hormalakh]

 

 

Tactical Unit Movement.

 

**** automation.

 

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Tactical Unit Movement.

 

**** automation.

 

 

Agree.

[Sensuki]

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.

[Captain Shrek]

Please just mod out melee engagement. It sucks. Period. 

[Sensuki]

I have. Do you want the mod? I'll PM it to you

[constantine]

It's very possible that besides everyone's best effort, combat will be the worst aspect of PoE, turning this game into yet another Alpha Protocol.

 

Obsidian people need to re-do combat mechanics from scratch, or implement some core changes in the least, to have the chance to fix this.

 

Copy-paste mechanisms from the IE games (since they re the inspiration) like 'hidden combat round' and simplify rules governing 'successful hit-dmg dealt'.

 

It's never too late.

[Namutree]

It's very possible that besides everyone's best effort, combat will be the worst aspect of PoE, turning this game into yet another Alpha Protocol.

 

Obsidian people need to re-do combat mechanics from scratch, or implement some core changes in the least, to have the chance to fix this.

 

Copy-paste mechanisms from the IE games (since they re the inspiration) like 'hidden combat round' and simplify rules governing 'successful hit-dmg dealt'.

 

It's never too late.

You've got the right idea.

[prodigydancer]

It's never too late.

Wishful thinking. At this point going back to the drawing board is virtually impossible and not just due to the budget constraints. E.g. if you change the combat system radically you also need to redesign encounters. And then you find out that your existing maps don't work with your new encounter design.

 

I think that rather than asking for a complete redesign (that would yield unpredictable results anyway) you guys should support Sensuki's efforts and maybe do some number crunching of your own. Asking for substantial but evolutionary tweaks with numbers at hand that prove your opinion will more likely persuade the developers that just saying that the whole system is irredeemable. This kind of whining will get you nowhere.

Edited October 29, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

It's very possible that besides everyone's best effort, combat will be the worst aspect of PoE, turning this game into yet another Alpha Protocol.

 

Obsidian people need to re-do combat mechanics from scratch, or implement some core changes in the least, to have the chance to fix this.

 

Copy-paste mechanisms from the IE games (since they re the inspiration) like 'hidden combat round' and simplify rules governing 'successful hit-dmg dealt'.

 

It's never too late.

You've got the right idea.

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Namutree]

 That's the heart of the kickstarter purpose--to foster risk and endeavors that might not otherwise come forth.

 

Not this kickstarter. Poe was supposed to be like an IE game. This was project based on nostalgia; not innovation. 

 

 

 

 

No way. That's regressive.

Being regressive is good when the "progress" you've made is bad.

 

 

The concepts are all solid, it's just an issue of degree. 

The concepts are not solid. The concepts of the IE games were solid; these new ones are inferior.

 

 

but that doesn't mean Obsidian should shrink away from the boldness to do something potentially great.

Greatness isn't even in the cards anymore. Obsidian will be lucky to make something good. I suspect we'll get something average. That's okay; I'm not excited about poe. I'm eager for poe2; it has much more potential. 

 

 

 

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.

Perhaps, but they make the game better. As for engagement; it isn't necessary. The best crpgs don't have it.

 

 

Best if Obsidian doesn't listen to you and doesn't keep obviously bad mechanics.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Namutree