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

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

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)

 

Kickstarter is for risky business. This game is something they didn't feel anyone else would fund. Whether the are delivering what they petitioned for is another thing. I most certainly agree that much of this feels experimental, and perhaps their reach has exceeded their grasp. They are majorly risking their reputation on this game though, so I feel more confident that they will pull it together in the end. They must. It will be very difficult to suffer an embarrassment such as this. Their extended polish time is evidence of them understanding this.

 

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.

 

I don't think rounds belong in a RtwP game. The real-time aspect contradicts even a "hidden" round. If the round is beneficial, then it makes sense to explicitly being a turn-based game. Turns are a vestige of human limitations, they just aren't necessary in this medium. Getting the balance right will be difficult. I agree that it's awkward at the moment. I made an entire thread about it. Every patch though, it has improved. I have no reason to expect that it won't. So long as progress is made, even if slow, I'm going to keep the faith.

[Sensuki]

I actually think the IE rounds work really well. It's not that they are 'rounds', it's the fact that they are a discrete time division easily understandable by the player. It also 'feels good' when you can perform 2-3 attacks in a row and then have a short pause before you can do it again. Feels really fluid.

 

I'm not saying PE should do that, I'm just saying that after playing PE for a month and then going back and playing IWD, the IE round implementation feels really good in comparison.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

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).

 

It's been heartbreak for me in that regard. Spell casting was a major portion of the IE experience for me. Remove it, and I probably would have liked the games, but not held them up on the pedestal that I do. If I had known Mr. Sawyer's resentments, I likely may not have funded. This is not to say that I am remiss in my choice, but PoE spell casting has proven to be a major disappointment for me in that regard. Luckily, worst-case-scenario, modding shall easily redeem all.

[Sensuki]

Unfortunately modding assets (items, spells, abilities, creatures etc) is really difficult/almost impossible. It requires Unity Pro to do and some extra programming to make it work.

 

Bester has managed to modify a spell, but he said it was fairly hard/annoying ... however he thinks he could make a tool to make it easier.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I actually think the IE rounds work really well. It's not that they are 'rounds', it's the fact that they are a discrete time division easily understandable by the player. It also 'feels good' when you can perform 2-3 attacks in a row and then have a short pause before you can do it again. Feels really fluid.

 

I'm not saying PE should do that, I'm just saying that after playing PE for a month and then going back and playing IWD, the IE round implementation feels really good in comparison.

 

Comparatively, no doubt. While there is much to be hammered out with the asynchronous nature of PoE combat, I think that trek would be greatly alleviated if my characters obeyed my commands, lol. It would be much easier to gauge what needs tweaked and in what manner if there were not so much "dissension in the ranks".

[Stun]

kiting and exploiting AIs feels so goddamn retarded.

In a single player game, Exploiting AI simply means you've discovered a way to outsmart the enemy. Nothing wrong with that. But if the developers see this as a problem then the best solution is for them to develop better enemy AI, NOT impose absurd, convoluted alterations to the combat rules.

 

For example, lets take kiting. Kiting happens to be a personal Pet Peeve of Josh's. He, of course, calls it degenerate gameplay. Thus he has decided to build PoE's combat system to specifically address it (ie. draconic engagement mechanics; silly recovery pauses during movement etc.) the problem is that this crap does more than just check-mate Kiting. It also punishes legitimate movement and positioning tactics. This is the soulless, gamey, ham-fisted way to address the so-called 'kiting problem'. And PoE is filled to the gills with exactly this type of convoluted nonsense from the ground up. Name any unusual aspect of POE and I'll show you why it's there.

 

PS: Let me tell you how to fix kiting in a way that won't turn the combat system into crap: Magic. And terrain. and halfway decent AI. Enemy fighter getting bitch-slapped by a mobile archer? Simple, give him a wand of hold person and set his AI to use it when he's being kited. Boss fight rendered too easy because the Boss can be kited? Simple. Give him a haste spell. or better yet, Turn the encounter into a cage match. Give the Boss access to levers that can lock the doors of the room and drop boulders on people who try to hit and run.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Stun

[constantine]

I actually think the IE rounds work really well. It's not that they are 'rounds', it's the fact that they are a discrete time division easily understandable by the player. It also 'feels good' when you can perform 2-3 attacks in a row and then have a short pause before you can do it again. Feels really fluid.

 

I'm not saying PE should do that, I'm just saying that after playing PE for a month and then going back and playing IWD, the IE round implementation feels really good in comparison.

 

Bring back the invisible combat round !

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You can kite and exploit the AI anyway Uomoz, regardless of whether melee engagement is in or not.

 

Yep and I even showed a screenshot where I had enemies attacking each other and you receive xp, bestiary pages and updated kills as if you had killed them. That's 12 enemies dead including the boss of that level with one critter for you to go back and kill. Thinking more about this, I think you should be able to have enemies attack each other and for you to be rewarded. I did overcome that obstacle and not exactly sure if I did exploit the A.I. as the designers intended. Without knowing if the designers didn't intend to have enemies attack each other, it's technically not an exploit.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[prodigydancer]

Unfortunately modding assets (items, spells, abilities, creatures etc) is really difficult/almost impossible. It requires Unity Pro to do and some extra programming to make it work.

And this is yet another reason why Unity is a disappointment at best. Unreal Engine is clearly superior and now with UDK being open and free for non-commercial use (which includes moddng) I don't understand why developers even bother with Unity.

 

And it's not a PoE-exclusive problem. inXile promised to release a modding toolkit for WL2 but I think they've abandoned the idea by now. In fact I predict that none of the three major Kickstater CRPGs (WL2, PoE and TToN) will ever be really moddable without a lot of pain.

Edited October 30, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Namutree]

 

 

I don't think rounds belong in a RtwP game. The real-time aspect contradicts even a "hidden" round. If the round is beneficial, then it makes sense to explicitly being a turn-based game.

That's odd considering the best RtwP games had rounds. Also no, rounds are not enough to warrant it being turn based.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Correlation is not causation.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Sensuki]

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.

HAHAHAH. Nearly spat out my drink when I read this, serial powergamer - amazing. Kudos 

 

 

 

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.

 

Bester is working on some changes to selection circles and stuff to make them more like the IE games at my request, when they're done I'll post the mod in the forums. Currently he has been able to give NPCs blue selection circles when Colorblind mode is off so that they are a different color to the party (Phew!).

Edited October 30, 2014 by Sensuki

[Cubiq]

Bester is working on some changes to selection circles and stuff to make them more like the IE games at my request.

Haha i think they actually went too far with it.

They even have the same bugs as in bg2.

I noticed the bug where the circle around your party member turns in to a destination circle (the one with 4 arrows  pointing to the center of the circle) and you can't get rid of it.

That annoyed me to no end.

[Sensuki]

Yeah I found that ironic as well. NCarver said it's a known issue and they know when/why it happens.

[Sensuki]

Btw

 

 

Gonna see if we can change the blue to the IE light blue though because tbh I don't think it looks very good. I understand that it's required for colorblind users though, so we'll see if we can keep both.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

Yeah, those blue circles look horrible. I never really appreciated how good the light blue circles looked in the IE games until now.

[Karkarov]

Btw

 

 

Gonna see if we can change the blue to the IE light blue though because tbh I don't think it looks very good. I understand that it's required for colorblind users though, so we'll see if we can keep both.

You know all they need to try to do is put in some options when they get to the final polish stages so you can pick your own colors.  Tons of games do it these days, I know it can be done in Unity.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

Oh I know, but the green NPC selection circles are pissing me off so I thought I'd do something about it. At best we will have saved them a little bit of time by doing some of the work (99% thanks to Bester, too).

Edited October 30, 2014 by Sensuki

[erragal]

"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."

 

I didn't make an assumption. I actually gave you a practical deconstruction of -how- you show your motivations to be selfish. Using anecdotal evidence of other people supporting you doesn't change your intentions. I had individuals liking my post and posting in favor of me as well. It's irrelevant to the information presented.

 

Your first statement in this quotation contains no content. It's a circular postulation complete with melodramatic emoticon designed for affect. Please become more of an adult.

 

 

 

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 have what the world of psychology calls "Cognitive dissonance". When presented with a collection of information that you disagree with you ignore the evidence that would require a reevaluation of your position and instead construct alternate explanations that allow for your position to exist.

 

My argument has nothing to do with 'preferring automation'. I play plenty of games that have absolutely no automation at all and require intensive manual input to accomplish the goals.  If you had paid attention to the information presented with an eye towards resolving differences as opposed to staunchly maintaining your position (The problems with being an ideologue) you would have comprehended that my issue is a philisophical one based on the concept of what an RPG is.

 

So I will reiterate: A system which has no way to force a melee engagement with a numerical system as opposed to relying on 'tricking' the AI into being sticky is not adequately representing the characteristics of a skilled melee combatant. Being that the goal of an RPG is to create an abstraction of a complex scenario that is not related to the players ability to manipulate the situation it is relevant to find new ways to accomplish this goal.

 

Adding additional techniques and scenarios to allow for melee characters to disengage is certainly viable to further polish the system. For one there are a number of disables and knockbacks that can allow for safe disengagement. I don't see -anything- wrong about having a significant punishment for disengaging from melee engagement without the proper training or outside assistance. A bookish professor isn't going to 'escape' from a trained MMA fighter in combat.

 

This is why I continue to push you to examine your viewpoint as an ideology rather than a considered objective ideation. If the goal is to design a game that better abstracts a complex fantasy combat scenario than it's actually BETTER for melee combat to be so dangerous. The 'micro movement' within combat is represented by the ability for people to automatically dodge/parry/block attacks. 

 

You have an ideological construct in your head that has created a vision for what -you- have determined to be the ideal gameplay experience rather than envisioning the goals of a fantasy RPG combat system from the ground up. You give off the impression of someone obsessed with one particular permutation of these systems rather than the history of these systems as they've progressed.

 

 

 

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.

 

Derisive laughter on the internet? Do you often attempted to dehumanize people in order to progress your point of view? Have you ever considered the type of person it makes you that when confronted with an opposing point of view you feel a need to attempt to insult someone for their particular point of view? Is that the type of person you would like to be? I'd reccommend you reevaluate your choices in the way you present yourself. Attempting to bully people is a sign of low moral character. You may think it's 'how the internet works' but the strength of being a better person is the ability to separate yourself from the 'normal' way of doing things and choosing the 'better' way of doing things. 

 

As stated multiple times in my original post and already here: manual input isn't an issue for me. I believe that a sticky numerically based melee engagement is a better system for representing the nature of combat. If you run from someone you are opening yourself to serious harm. Adding more mechanics and ways to successfully disengage is a necessity but someone completely untrained in physical hand to hand combat shouldn't have a way to personally extricate from those situations.

 

 

 

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.

 

This is something we can discuss for once.

 

Without mentioning IE or any past game can you actually explain what you consider to be objectively poor for gameplay purposes by punishing the player for turning their back on a melee opponent?

 

From my perspective and your consistent messaging within this thread you are mostly concerned that the current system leaves little option for micro movement to allow you to 'game' combats and constantly move people around. It severely limits the ability to 'kite'. The ability to have to use supportive knockbacks/cc's in order to free up a character's mobility and reposition that person is a far more tactical setup. 

 

There seems to be a confusion on your part that 'real time with pause' must mean 'freedom of movement'. Certainly repositioning should be important but melee should be a dangerous place. You can still reposition by pausing as an enemy is doing their charge maneuver, to avoid an enemy spell (either mid cast or even while the projectile is firing), to avoid a melee enemy GETTING into position. The ONLY scenario you continually bring up is one in which you're SUPPOSED to be punished for getting into. Being a low health character in melee range SHOULD be a bad scenario; that is a near failure state which it's important to have. Having the ability to correct failure states with a mechanic that has no connection to the abilities of the characters doesn't reflect on the goals of an RPG combat system. That is not abstracted...it's what we call 'gaming the system'.

 

 

 

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 play RTS games. Being able to move to avoid the punishment of melee positioning is a flaw. It reduces tactical gameplay and increases micro gameplay.

 

Now a scenario where it could be more balanced is if you significantly slowed down the tempo of combat and added significant turning time to the game. This would more reflect the positioning changes in a game like Dawn of War 2 where melee units can be caught out of position if they're engaged in melee but reactivity to ranged special attacks is a must to survive combat scenarios. 

 

 

 

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

 

Evaluate how much you've -attempted- to contribute. Five thousand posts? You know what they say about broken clocks.

 

Presentation and basic consideration are important even under the veil of anonimity in order to maintain basic humanity.  Throwing in the cliche 'reeks of vitriol' doesn't make something true; It's odd that you are both trying to position yourself as the 'uncaring badboy of the forum' but decrying me for 'vitriol' at the same time. Bit of a contradiction there. Challenging an immature, intentionally antagonistic person does not constitute vitriol in any form.

 

And for your benefit: you should change evocative to provocative.

Edited October 30, 2014 by erragal

[erragal]

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 

 

 

That's why I linked a different thread where a similar discussion of this issue occured between two posters sans the hostile, arrogant tone. I don't agree that melee engagement is perfect by any means...but taking all of his energy and drive towards -polishing- the mechanics and brainstorming new ideas as to how to make it work would be more beneficial than staunchly focusing on an idea based on a preconceived notion.

 

 

More importantly is that while passion and ideas are really important it's just as valuable that the forums be welcoming to all ideas. While you say 'the devs won't let one person create all the ideas' there's a tipping point where high volume argumentative posters with little objectivity shift the voice of the forum. It's not whether the devs will listen to him or not it's the people he's bullying out of ideas or just going 'wtf I don't want to deal with that guy'. Slowly the only ideas the devs have to persue revolve around that. It's damaging towards casual people that want more information about the game as well. This has nothing to do with the professionalism of OE but a broader sociological fact of online communities.  I mean I was a contributing member to the old EJ forums and what made that place great was that attitudes like this got moderated just as heavily as bad information.

 

I appreciate your point of view and my goal is not to stifle true feedback but that I see the signs of someone who is warping other positions and using seedy argument tactics to belittle others and force his ideological points across.

[erragal]

 

 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.

 

 

Drakensang: The River of Time has a superior combat system to the IE games. It's missing a lot of the -character- of those games but from a mechanical balance and fluidity standpoint it accomplishes all of the goals of the IE games.

 

I think the biggest issue with those games is western players dislike of the Dark Eye system particularly its' relatively low magic world. Even the strongest combat spells are more supportive than game changing.  This is a flavor issue though and should not change an objective evaluation of the mechanical implementation of an abstracted RPG combat.

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

Most people backed this project, because it supposed to be a IE games succesor, so naturally we will head towards that direction. Make combat at least as good as IE games did, and then try to make it better... 

 

Looking at beta, it's clear that most things that Obsidian came up with aren't good, that's why most people started to suggest changes in the IE games direction. There's not enough time to try completely new ideas, in my opinion we should make combat at least as good as IE games did.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Gladiuss8@gmail.com

[Guest 4ward]

the intelligent guy will give in earlier ...

i’m just wondering if knockback has been introduced because of the engagement mechanic or vice versa. I understand it’s a cool thing, something like the celestial fury katana in BG2, where Valygar (or Haer Dalis) would go bam, bam, stun, bam, bam, stun. Just that BG2 countered this with paralyze, level drain etc.

[Stun]

Drakensang: The River of Time has a superior combat system to the IE games. It's missing a lot of the -character- of those games but from a mechanical balance and fluidity standpoint it accomplishes all of the goals of the IE games.

LOL

 

Gonna have to vehemently disagree with that. Drakensang: River of Time's combat is virtually a clone of Dragon Age Origin's- That is to say, it's alright. Easy to learn and master. It's Visceral, and, as you say, 'mechanically balanced'. But it lacks All semblance of depth. It's not dynamic at all. For anyone expecting the cerebral combat experience that BG2 or IWD2 offers, D:RoT's combat is NOT the way to go. it doesn't have any.

 

 

I think the biggest issue with those games is western players dislike of the Dark Eye system particularly its' relatively low magic world. Even the strongest combat spells are more supportive than game changing. This is a flavor issue though and should not change an objective evaluation of the mechanical implementation of an abstracted RPG combat.

A flavor issue? WTF! You can't just shoo away the fundamental importance of the magic system when you're discussing combat. I'd argue that magic makes or breaks the entire experience. This is a FANTASY RPG, not some medieval dueling simulator. Edited October 30, 2014 by Stun

[Captain Shrek]

 

Drakensang: The River of Time has a superior combat system to the IE games. It's missing a lot of the -character- of those games but from a mechanical balance and fluidity standpoint it accomplishes all of the goals of the IE games.

LOL

 

Gonna have to vehemently disagree with that. Drakensang: River of Time's combat is virtually a clone of Dragon Age Origin's- That is to say, it's alright. Easy to learn and master. It's Visceral, and, as you say, 'mechanically balanced'. But it lacks All semblance of depth. It's not dynamic at all. For anyone expecting the cerebral combat experience that BG2 or IWD2 offers, D:RoT's combat is NOT the way to go. it doesn't have any.

 

 

I think the biggest issue with those games is western players dislike of the Dark Eye system particularly its' relatively low magic world. Even the strongest combat spells are more supportive than game changing. This is a flavor issue though and should not change an objective evaluation of the mechanical implementation of an abstracted RPG combat.

A flavor issue? WTF! You can't just shoo away the fundamental importance of the magic system when you're discussing combat. I'd argue that magic makes or breaks the entire experience. This is a FANTASY RPG, not some medieval dueling simulator.

 

 

 

Wtf on both of you.

 

Erregal: Drakensang is a German system. It *is* quintessentially 'western'. Also, it is tremendously popular over here. 

 

Stun, you have never played Drakensang:ROT have you?

Edited October 30, 2014 by Captain Shrek