Sensuki vs Medreth [Youtube Series]

[Cubiq]

First you position the fighter to maximise the number of enemies he can engage so they do not reach the front line. If you fail to position correctly, then you should be taking disengagement attacks. If you wish to reposition when you already have 3+ enemies engaged, then you can expect to take a battering for repositioning.

Your fighter being dead in the next few seconds is what you can expect if you disengage from 3+ enemies.

 

Of course, the tactics underpinning this is the question of how strong do you need your front-line to be? Will you try with one tank? A tank and an off-tank? A tank and two off-tanks? This was one of the things that the old "What Party Will You Make" threads were born of; the question of how strong or weak you wanted your two lines to be. At no stage in development was it said that one fighter can always hold the entire enemy front-line, and nor should it be this way. The front-line is a line, not a single person. This is what was promised.

Yeah those "What Party Will You Make" threads were before the first beta came out and you'll find you have a lot less choice on who you will have in your party than in IE games because you are locked in place and entirely dependent on your armor and healing to survive damage. (if you don't want to play so that you will need to rest after nearly every encounter)

If they actually fix the AI so that they don't just attack the first thing they see you will absolutely need a fighter as a tank, since he's the only one that can engage at least 3 enemies otherwise most of them will just pass by. You will absolutely need a priest, to heal the damage. You will absolutely need an off-tank or 2 if there are more than 3 melee enemies. And you will "almost" absolutely need a ranged damage dealer, since the combat allows you to do preemptive damage.

If they balance the numbers so that you don't need this kind of composition, then having it will simply be overpowered.

However if they allow tactical retreating, then you have a lot more room on how much healing you get and who takes up all the adds.

 

Of course, they haven't quite delivered as of yet, because the engagement mechanic and clauses need a lot of work. But that is not an argument against it working on a conceptual level, and your point only serves to show its potential.

The potential it has is removing any sort of tactical positioning, like aligning the enemy to hit easier with spells,

the use of actual CC that are already in the game since most will have no effect if you don't move.

And as mentioned above, the diversity in party members.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Cubiq

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Here's the Dagger/Stiletto version

 

 

So what you've demonstrated here is that the strike-zone for engagement attacks is entirely incorrect, as it does not reflect the weapon reach. This is indicative of engagement not working as intended, rather than being a poor mechanic. There is no reason to suspect that a developer with a fetish for medieval combat would want weapons ignoring their reach parameters. To use that as evidence of a design problem rather than a bug is beyond disingenuous, it's false.

 

Otherwise, it's just two skirmishers out-maneuvering a common guard. Engagement provides the reasonable penalty for ignoring the warrior at your flank, and allowing warriors to actually guard. It was a problem in the IE games that enemies could casually waltz by your warriors. The only mechanism for blocking was to obstruct the AI's very poor path-finding. Engagement remedies those deficiencies.

 

I ask you a third time. When and how would that guard applied, "slowing movement speed, stuns, disables..." to meaningfully change the outcome of this fight?

[Sensuki]

Engagement range is working exactly as intended because Engagement range is supposed to be independent of weapon reach. Josh Sawyer's design for Pillars of Eternity is 99% gamist over simulationist.

 

You keep talking in simulationist talk as if this is supposed to be realistic or something - it isn't. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that those attacks have no animation, the characters aren't even facing the enemy that they score the attack against and they can instantly go in and make another attack independent of recovery time if they so wish.

 

@ #3 - You can't stop kiting in a 1v2 situation unless you have an AoE Stun or you have faster movement speed than both of the enemies. However if the guard as a Fighter was able to actually hit back and/or use an Active ability such as a stun, net, or a slow - he would be able to catch up with and attack my Fighter there (if I did not apply those effects to him first).

 

He has a Knock Down and when a target is in range he always uses it first, however he can't get in range of either of my Fighters to cast it there because all Disengagement attacks that score a graze, hit or crit cause a long interrupt (might be 0.75-1s).

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Yeah those "What Party Will You Make" threads were before the first beta came out and you'll find you have a lot less choice on who you will have in your party than in IE games because you are locked in place and entirely dependent on your armor and healing to survive damage. (if you don't want to play so that you will need to rest after nearly every encounter)

 

If they actually fix the AI so that they don't just attack the first thing they see you will absolutely need a fighter as a tank, since he's the only one that can engage at least 3 enemies otherwise most of them will just pass by. You will absolutely need a priest, to heal the damage. You will absolutely need an off-tank or 2 if there are more than 3 melee enemies. And you will "almost" absolutely need a ranged damage dealer, since the combat allows you to do preemptive damage.

If they balance the numbers so that you don't need this kind of composition, then having it will simply be overpowered.

However if they allow tactical retreating, then you have a lot more room on how much healing you get and who takes up all the adds.

 

 

^This!

That is the very crux of the matter. This is one of the very things that break combat in the PoE BB. Very nice summary of the disease behind the symptoms, and that praise of course also goes to Sensuki for revealing mechanics that is absurd in their shortcomings (invisible attacks... Pfft!), hamper party-building choices and fun party-based combat.

Edited November 7, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sensuki]

Yeah good summary Cubiq

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Engagement range is working exactly as intended because Engagement range is supposed to be independent of weapon reach. Josh Sawyer's design for Pillars of Eternity is 99% gamist over simulationist.

 

You keep talking in simulationist talk as if this is supposed to be realistic or something - it isn't. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that those attacks have no animation, the characters aren't even facing the enemy that they score the attack against and they can instantly go in and make another attack independent of recovery time if they so wish.

 

@ #3 - You can't stop kiting in a 1v2 situation unless you have an AoE Stun or you have faster movement speed than both of the enemies. However if the guard as a Fighter was able to actually hit back and/or use an Active ability such as a stun, net, or a slow - he would be able to catch up with and attack my Fighter there (if I did not apply those effects to him first).

 

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow. That would be such an absurd design, that I find it almost inconceivable. The entire concept of engagement is simulationist. To ignore weapon reach deliberately would be nonsensical. I would need some sort of direct quotation with a link to believe that. I truly hope that you are wrong.

 

To me, engagement only needs tweaked in the following manners:

• The actual engagement attack itself incurs a normal recovery time.
• Engagement attack accuracy is pressured towards grazing.
• Engagement attacks have an enhanced interruption chance.

Again, hope you're wrong about engagement deliberately ignoring weapon reach. If that's deliberate, then engagement needs to go. Otherwise, I think engagement is desirable feature.

[Sensuki]

It's not simulationist man, it's gamist.

 

The fact that the game is real time (with pause) means that you do not have to implement any extra mechanics to simulate units being able to react to one another like you do in turn based. I can move up and attack a guy, he can hit me back. I can run away, he can chase me - in real time. Attacks of Opportunity were added to turn-based games to prevent the guy that acts first from losing against the guy that acts second (ie, guy spends his turn moving to you, and you act second and just move away).

 

Engagement is a gamist concept aiming at giving melee units 'control' over a melee situation via AI targeting clauses and to penalize moving in combat. In real life, a guy cannot hit three different people at once in the blink of an eye without lifting a finger just because they move one step backwards, and in real life you cannot make someone attacking you from behind stay there because 'engagement'.

 

There is no way the designers will make Engagement attacks incur a recovery time, because then any unit in the game that moves by you will trigger your engagement attack, stuff up your current action and then cause you to have to wait to make another one.

 

Don't know what you mean by the second bit.

 

Engagement attacks already interrupt by default (it's built into the attack) and that is partly what's causing the Fighter in the video to be helpless because of it. Disengagement attacks are designed to severely **** you up. And this is one of the byproducts of these design decisions.

 

Moving in melee should not be penalized automatically, you should have to react to it.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[Seari]

The entire concept of engagement is simulationist.

No.

[Namutree]

 

Engagement range is working exactly as intended because Engagement range is supposed to be independent of weapon reach. Josh Sawyer's design for Pillars of Eternity is 99% gamist over simulationist.

 

You keep talking in simulationist talk as if this is supposed to be realistic or something - it isn't. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that those attacks have no animation, the characters aren't even facing the enemy that they score the attack against and they can instantly go in and make another attack independent of recovery time if they so wish.

 

@ #3 - You can't stop kiting in a 1v2 situation unless you have an AoE Stun or you have faster movement speed than both of the enemies. However if the guard as a Fighter was able to actually hit back and/or use an Active ability such as a stun, net, or a slow - he would be able to catch up with and attack my Fighter there (if I did not apply those effects to him first).

 

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's not simulationist man, it's gamist.

 

The fact that the game is real time (with pause) means that you do not have to implement any extra mechanics to simulate units being able to react to one another like you do in turn based. I can move up and attack a guy, he can hit me back. I can run away, he can chase me - in real time. Attacks of Opportunity were added to turn-based games to prevent the guy that acts first from losing against the guy that acts second (ie, guy spends his turn moving to you, and you act second and just move away).

 

Engagement is a gamist concept aiming at giving melee units 'control' over a melee situation via AI targeting clauses and to penalize moving in combat. In real life, a guy cannot hit three different people at once in the blink of an eye without lifting a finger just because they move one step backwards, and in real life you cannot make someone attacking you from behind stay there because 'engagement'.

 

There is no way the designers will make Engagement attacks incur a recovery time, because then any unit in the game that moves by you will trigger your engagement attack, stuff up your current action and then cause you to have to wait to make another one.

 

Don't know what you mean by the second bit.

 

Engagement attacks already interrupt by default (it's built into the attack) and that is partly what's causing the Fighter in the video to be helpless because of it. Disengagement attacks are designed to severely **** you up. And this is one of the byproducts of these design decisions.

 

Moving in melee should not be penalized automatically, you should have to react to it.

 

What I meant by the second bullet, was that engagement attacks should have an accuracy penalty to increase the probability of a miss or graze, rather than hit normally. If it's a split-second opportunist action, then it's not likely to be accurate.

 

I fenced for three years, practiced Kendo for one, and Aikido for six years when I lived in Japan. It is entirely possible to impede the movement of multiple attackers, and even strike one that may be seeking to get past you. If they aren't guarded while moving around me when in striking distance, they will most certainly be hit. That would cause me some defensive problems, but it can be done. Even in a 2v1, if I don't want you walking past me, you're not going to without paying for in some form. At the very least, absent a wide berth--you will be impeded.

 

That degree of simulation isn't possible in a game like this, but there does need to be some incorporated mechanism where a warrior can defend and ward off attackers. I think the concept of engagement satisfies that. If it needs to be simulationist to succeed, than so be it. There will invariably be short-comings, but I believe that overall they can be mitigated and provide tactical enrichment to PoE.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

Engagement range is working exactly as intended because Engagement range is supposed to be independent of weapon reach. Josh Sawyer's design for Pillars of Eternity is 99% gamist over simulationist.

 

You keep talking in simulationist talk as if this is supposed to be realistic or something - it isn't. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that those attacks have no animation, the characters aren't even facing the enemy that they score the attack against and they can instantly go in and make another attack independent of recovery time if they so wish.

 

@ #3 - You can't stop kiting in a 1v2 situation unless you have an AoE Stun or you have faster movement speed than both of the enemies. However if the guard as a Fighter was able to actually hit back and/or use an Active ability such as a stun, net, or a slow - he would be able to catch up with and attack my Fighter there (if I did not apply those effects to him first).

 

 

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow.

 

Yes, yes, lovely drawing. Where's the direct quotation with a link that engagement is deliberately designed to ignore weapon reach?

 

I don't want to be wrong in this, true. Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of this game. Engagement deliberately allowing characters to strike beyond weapon reach is ridiculous. Citation first please. Smug gloating later.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Sensuki]

Posted on Something Awful asking for a direct reply as there is no exact quote, but I have read literally everything on the subject on the internet and that is my understanding how it's supposed to work. Do not know if I'll get an answer though.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

Engagement range is working exactly as intended because Engagement range is supposed to be independent of weapon reach. Josh Sawyer's design for Pillars of Eternity is 99% gamist over simulationist.

 

You keep talking in simulationist talk as if this is supposed to be realistic or something - it isn't. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that those attacks have no animation, the characters aren't even facing the enemy that they score the attack against and they can instantly go in and make another attack independent of recovery time if they so wish.

 

@ #3 - You can't stop kiting in a 1v2 situation unless you have an AoE Stun or you have faster movement speed than both of the enemies. However if the guard as a Fighter was able to actually hit back and/or use an Active ability such as a stun, net, or a slow - he would be able to catch up with and attack my Fighter there (if I did not apply those effects to him first).

 

 

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow.

 

Yes, yes, lovely drawing. Where's the direct quotation with a link that engagement is deliberately designed to ignore weapon reach?

 

I don't want to be wrong in this, true. Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of this game. Engagement deliberately allowing characters to strike beyond weapon reach is ridiculous. Citation first please. Smug gloating later.

 

This is from update #44: Rules of Melee Engagement:

 

Proof that engagement isn't meant to be simultionist-

Melee engagement is a solution to two common problems in the Infinity Engine games: melee characters' inability to control an area and ranged characters' ability to "kite" melee characters. In the Infinity Engine games, melee characters could be quite powerful in toe-to-toe combat, but many opponents found ways to foil those characters with little difficulty. Fast characters could easily rush around a slower melee character with impunity and ranged characters could backpedal perpetually out of reach. Note that 'realism' or anything like that was never mentioned.

 

There is no proof that weapon range wasn't supposed to affect disengagement, but such an idea was never mentioned. Also such an idea hasn't been implemented. This suggests that it was never intended. Until further notice, we should be talking about engagement as though weapon range isn't a factor; as this is most likely the case.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

This is from update #44: Rules of Melee Engagement:

 

Proof that engagement isn't meant to be simultionist-

Melee engagement is a solution to two common problems in the Infinity Engine games: melee characters' inability to control an area and ranged characters' ability to "kite" melee characters. In the Infinity Engine games, melee characters could be quite powerful in toe-to-toe combat, but many opponents found ways to foil those characters with little difficulty. Fast characters could easily rush around a slower melee character with impunity and ranged characters could backpedal perpetually out of reach. Note that 'realism' or anything like that was never mentioned.

 

There is no proof that weapon range wasn't supposed to affect disengagement, but such an idea was never mentioned. Also such an idea hasn't been implemented. This suggests that it was never intended. Until further notice, we should be talking about engagement as though weapon range isn't a factor; as this is most likely the case.

 

Right, the intention was to create a mechanism where enemies could not freely waltz around warriors. That's all this statement provides. This is known. In a game where tactics are exalted (one of the three Pillars), why would they deliberately toss out or ignore weapon reach for a mechanic about tactical positioning? Your citation and following argument are not persuasive that engagement is intended to function outside of weapon reach.

 

Every mechanic, desirable or otherwise, suggests that positioning is a significant factor in PoE combat. The questionable choice to have moment delay cool-downs, engagement itself, various class abilities circumventing engagement, weapon reach. These are all things were positioning is mechanically significant. To deliberately ignore weapon reach in a mechanic purposefully created to create tactical movement considerations would be beyond bizarre.

[Sensuki]

Tactics are not exalted, they are penalized. PE's combat is more about initial strategy and execution. There is little room for tactics, actually. Certainly not tactical movement in combat.

 

The only positioning that matters at all is the initial positioning. That is _terrible_ and so much worse than the Infinity Engine games.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[Kjaamor]

First you position the fighter to maximise the number of enemies he can engage so they do not reach the front line. If you fail to position correctly, then you should be taking disengagement attacks. If you wish to reposition when you already have 3+ enemies engaged, then you can expect to take a battering for repositioning.

 

Your fighter being dead in the next few seconds is what you can expect if you disengage from 3+ enemies.

 

That's right, that's what I said. Good to see that quotes can be used to show recognition rather than just counter-arguments.

 

 

Yeah those "What Party Will You Make" threads were before the first beta came out and you'll find you have a lot less choice on who you will have in your party than in IE games because you are locked in place and entirely dependent on your armor and healing to survive damage. (if you don't want to play so that you will need to rest after nearly every encounter)

If they actually fix the AI so that they don't just attack the first thing they see you will absolutely need a fighter as a tank, since he's the only one that can engage at least 3 enemies otherwise most of them will just pass by. You will absolutely need a priest, to heal the damage. You will absolutely need an off-tank or 2 if there are more than 3 melee enemies. And you will "almost" absolutely need a ranged damage dealer, since the combat allows you to do preemptive damage.

If they balance the numbers so that you don't need this kind of composition, then having it will simply be overpowered.

However if they allow tactical retreating, then you have a lot more room on how much healing you get and who takes up all the adds.

 

Of course you're not entirely dependent upon your armor and healing, you have your multitude of abilities AND the disengagement mechanic. What you lose is the ability to kite (and, in IWD terms, counter-kite).

 

You do not need an absolute party. A combination of Monks, Paladins and Barbarians bred for purpose will tank in lieu of the fighter. A Chanter will heal in place of a priest (no word on Druids yet). And just about any combination of classes can fulfill the role of your ranged damage dealer.

 

Of course, as you say, a Fighter+Priest+Ranger (actually my practical experience says not the Ranger, but I'll hop on board for sake of the point) combination will be optimal and all other builds sub-optimal. That's how party-based RPGs have run for decades and that's fine. If I choose to run with a Paladin as my lead tank, you better believe I know that he is going to be less optimised for the task than a similarly-built Fighter would be.

 

The potential it has is removing any sort of tactical positioning, like aligning the enemy to hit easier with spells,

the use of actual CC that are already in the game since most will have no effect if you don't move.

And as mentioned above, the diversity in party members.

 

1. Good initial tactical positioning of the tank matters, because they will be the centre point around which the rest of the battle occurs. From there, you tactically position other characters as necessary, setting up choke points and positioning as necessary.

2. CC in this game appears to be absolutely in its infancy, but CC has to be worth something without kiting.

3. No correlation.

 

 

^This!

That is the very crux of the matter. This is one of the very things that break combat in the PoE BB. Very nice summary of the disease behind the symptoms, and that praise of course also goes to Sensuki for revealing mechanics that is absurd in their shortcomings (invisible attacks... Pfft!), hamper party-building choices and fun party-based combat.

 

 

Yeah good summary Cubiq

 

[Sensuki]

That's right, that's what I said.

And it's ****ing retarded.

 

Of course you're not entirely dependent upon your armor and healing, you have your multitude of abilities AND the disengagement mechanic. What you lose is the ability to kite (and, in IWD terms, counter-kite).

 

Enemies do not disengage. They never do and never will because it is pointless for them to do so. The disengagement mechanic is only relevant to players UNLESS you exploit it like I have in my video. Outside of those instances you will never score a disengagement attack on an enemy.

 

This creates banal standstill gameplay where no one moves and all you do is sit there and click abilities, that is horrible combat style in a real time game. The only games that have combat that bad are usually RPGs because people are forgiving of terrible combat in RPGs. You will never see anything that stupid in any other type of real time game that puts any emphasis on good combat at all.

 

You do not need an absolute party. A combination of Monks, Paladins and Barbarians bred for purpose will tank in lieu of the fighter. A Chanter will heal in place of a priest (no word on Druids yet). And just about any combination of classes can fulfill the role of your ranged damage dealer.

 

You're talking theoretics not actualities. The situation Cubiq described is a possible concern if targeting clauses are improved and targeting reacquisition is added, because if targeting clauses are designed around Engagement, these classes can only engage one enemy and are thus much worse than the Fighter at taking aggro. Currently though all you need to do is make sure your tank attacks first, and you're set (which is pretty dumb in the first place).

Barbarians are only good at tanking IF they are being healed. Chanter's passive healing is very minimal and possibly not working as intended as I uncovered a strange default value for Ancient Memory when I was looking at the ability file in Unity today.

 

Good initial tactical positioning of the tank matters, because they will be the centre point around which the rest of the battle occurs. From there, you tactically position other characters as necessary, setting up choke points and positioning as necessary.

 

initial positioning is not tactical positioning, it is strategical positioning. Nothing that happens before the fight is tactical. Initial positioning should be (and is) important in both the Infinity Engine games and Pillars of Eternity, however controlling the position of the tank in the Infinity Engine games (more important depending on which game you are playing) is also a part of the equation as combat is more freeform and there is movement in combat. This is not part of the equation in Pillars of Eternity due to the Melee Engagement system and thus makes the combat less interesting and less fun.

 

CC in this game appears to be absolutely in its infancy, but CC has to be worth something without kiting.

 

This has nothing to do with Melee Engagement. CC in Pillars of Eternity comes in the form of status effects and nearly all of those status effects do something to Attributes and Derived stats. Those are all valuable without even mentioning kiting. However anything that slows movement speed doesn't matter because no one moves in melee - that was Cubiq's point.

 

3. No correlation.

 

I disagree, and I believe it does.

 

Use sleep icons all you like but the fact is, the system is creating some serious problems, removing it literally makes the game flow much better and actually start to feel like playing an Infinity Engine game. Maybe you don't want that style of combat (as not every backer enjoyed the IE combat or the fact that it facilitated tactical movement), but many of us do. Both Cubiq and Captain Shrek (who is not necessarily against the Engagement mechanic) both agree that my mod does make it feel more like playing an Infinity Engine game.

 

I will get more people to try my mod and see what they think as well. I don't understand why people are being so defensive about the mechanic, it's clearly broken and there are clearly better solutions to sticky melee characters. 

 

The way it seems people who are against the mechanic play the game doesn't seem like it will be affected by the removal of the mechanic - the targeting clauses will still be there, your initial positioning of your fighter will still matter and you will be able to stand still in combat if you want.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[Captain Shrek]

Guys. I have had a revelation. Just leave the game mechanics as it is. Just. LEAVE. IT. ALONE. Remove two HP bars maybe and remove graze ad DT. LEAVE. THE. REST. ALONE.

 

You will not believe how much you will appreciate this one day in your dotage, as you lay thinking in your comfy armchair inside old people's home: "Captain Shrek said leave the combat mechanics alone and I listened. Now I know I did not fail in my life." 

 

At this point, combat is just exactly the hassle free simplified ENGAGEMENT that I expect from RTwP. I am willing to forgive all, yeah, even the global cooldowns and no healing magic and horrible stealth and ridiculously named attributes and the utter lack of skills for being able to peacefully exploring the story. 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Tactics are not exalted, they are penalized. PE's combat is more about initial strategy and execution. There is little room for tactics, actually. Certainly not tactical movement in combat.

 

The only positioning that matters at all is the initial positioning. That is _terrible_ and so much worse than the Infinity Engine games.

 

This is devolving into sophistry. See: Exalted. Tactical combat is one of the three major design goals of this game. Opinions on the implementation of that goal vary. Movement: Wild Sprint, Escape, Grimiore Slam, Flagellant's Path, Stalker's Link,  Master's Call, Rooting Pain, etcetera. Dissatisfaction with implementation is an entirely different matter than design intentions.

 

IE Games:

• Superfluous party formations.
• Inability to screen/defend another character.
• Kiting disproportionately favored.

The inability of warriors to impede attackers or guard other party members was almost non-existent in the IE games. This was a problem. It was a common complaint. It was a deficiency of the AD&D rule set and its adaption to the digital format. Kiting was also a significant dilemma, as there were exceedingly few mechanisms for most enemies to combat it. Even with vastly improved AI through mods like Sword Coast Strategems, formation was superfluous and kiting was still extraordinarily advantageous.

 

Enter Engagement. Is the implementation perfect? No! Does it resolve very legitimate problems with IE combat? Conceptually it does, but the implementation (again) is to be desired. Should babies be discarded with dirty bath water? That's why I have several times mentioned several tweaks which can resolve the current engagement system's offenses.

 

Current Engagement Problems

• Radii is irrespective of weapon range......I concede that point. I took a look at the official wiki to find answers, and I did. It's pointless and illogical. I gave them more credit than was deserved evidently. I apologize for that.
• Accuracy bonus to engagement attacks.
• Damage bonus to engagement attacks.
• No recovery time for disengagement attacks.
• Allow recovery while moving. (I understand that's not explicitly an engagement mechanic, but it is of the same vein.)

Those points are easily solvable. Just do the very opposite--restrict it to weapon reach, input an accuracy penalty, remove the damage bonus, give the disengagement attack a normal recovery, and allow recovery while moving. There needs to be a mechanic to automatically address moving around combatants. It was a problem in the IE games, and no amount of AI could address it. Engagement, with modifications, can.

 

Engagement Improvements

• Disengagement attacks respect weapon reach.
• Disengagement attacks are made at an accuracy penalty.
• No damage bonus to disengagement attacks.
• Disengagement attacks suffer normal recovery.
• Recovery may occur while simultaneously moving.

To those whom hate engagement, if those changes were made, would you find the mechanic agreeable?

 

PS: The avatar change will remain for the month of November. Enjoy it.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Namutree]

 

This is from update #44: Rules of Melee Engagement:

 

Proof that engagement isn't meant to be simultionist-

Melee engagement is a solution to two common problems in the Infinity Engine games: melee characters' inability to control an area and ranged characters' ability to "kite" melee characters. In the Infinity Engine games, melee characters could be quite powerful in toe-to-toe combat, but many opponents found ways to foil those characters with little difficulty. Fast characters could easily rush around a slower melee character with impunity and ranged characters could backpedal perpetually out of reach. Note that 'realism' or anything like that was never mentioned.

 

There is no proof that weapon range wasn't supposed to affect disengagement, but such an idea was never mentioned. Also such an idea hasn't been implemented. This suggests that it was never intended. Until further notice, we should be talking about engagement as though weapon range isn't a factor; as this is most likely the case.

 

Right, the intention was to create a mechanism where enemies could not freely waltz around warriors. That's all this statement provides. This is known. In a game where tactics are exalted (one of the three Pillars), why would they deliberately toss out or ignore weapon reach for a mechanic about tactical positioning? Your citation and following argument are not persuasive that engagement is intended to function outside of weapon reach.

 

Every mechanic, desirable or otherwise, suggests that positioning is a significant factor in PoE combat. The questionable choice to have moment delay cool-downs, engagement itself, various class abilities circumventing engagement, weapon reach. These are all things were positioning is mechanically significant. To deliberately ignore weapon reach in a mechanic purposefully created to create tactical movement considerations would be beyond bizarre.

 

My first point was that they weren't going for simulation. The update doesn't talk of realism or the game making sense; only that they thought that gameplay would be better with engagement than without it. So no; engagement is not a 'simulation' feature.

 

The second point is that weapon reach is NEVER MENTIONED. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. Weapon reach affecting disengagement has never been implemented. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. There is no reason whatsoever to think weapon range is ever going to be a factor in disengagement attacks.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

My first point was that they weren't going for simulation. The update doesn't talk of realism or the game making sense; only that they thought that gameplay would be better with engagement than without it. So no; engagement is not a 'simulation' feature.

 

The second point is that weapon reach is NEVER MENTIONED. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. Weapon reach affecting disengagement has never been implemented. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. There is no reason whatsoever to think weapon range is ever going to be a factor in disengagement attacks.

 

We had no reason to suspect that they would modify attributes either. Did their initial problems mean that attributes should be struck from the game? See my above post.

[Sensuki]

Opinions on the implementation of that goal vary. Movement: [Abilities to do with Engagement]

Yeah that's right. They have a few badly designed abilities that are supposed to offer extremely limited movement that is resistant to or free from disengagement attacks. Big ****ing whoop. Why on earth would I want to pick most of those? The cost is simply not worth it.

 

It's like in the first three patches with Recovery time paused while moving - if you want to move in combat you're going to have to pay dearly for it. What a complete joke. Luckily they took my advice and tried playing the game without it. Surprise! They found it felt better.

 

IE Games:

Superfluous party formations.

Then they must be superfluous in Pillars of Eternity as well?

 

Inability to screen/defend another character.

Anyone who fails to screen/defend characters is just bad at the game. It's not difficult at all. If you want to learn how to do it, I have a full IWD playthrough.

 

Kiting disproportionately favored.

Not even close. If you have to kite to win you're pretty bad, OR it does allow you to make something out of nothing if you're in a tight spot. Nothing wrong with that.

 

The inability of warriors to impede attackers or guard other party members was almost non-existent in the IE games. This was a problem. It was a common complaint. It was a deficiency of the AD&D rule set and its adaption to the digital format. Kiting was also a significant dilemma, as there were exceedingly few mechanisms for most enemies to combat it. Even with vastly improved AI through mods like Sword Coast Strategems, formation was superfluous and kiting was still extraordinarily advantageous.

This is bull****, all you had to do was move your units around a bit.

 

Enter Engagement. Is the implementation perfect? No! Does it resolve very legitimate problems with IE combat? Conceptually it does, but the implementation (again) is to be desired.

The conceptual stage is where Melee Engagement fails, because half of the problem that is described in the Melee Engagement update AND by people making the same complaints you are is that you simply didn't understand how to manipulate the enemy AI targeting clauses.

 

The Melee Engagement system offers you nothing. What you want if it is to 'control' combat, is for enemies to attack you when you send melee units in. That has nothing to do with the Engagement system, it has everything to do with the Targeting Clauses in the AIController class in the game code. You will not benefit from Melee Engagement, only enemies will.

 

There's one difference between how the game plays when Melee Engagement exists and when it does not when you play the game the 'Captain Shrek' or 'Mr Magniloquent' way, and that is that when you move a unit to attack another unit who is moving, they will ignore you if they have already acquired a target. All Obsidian have to do to fix this is to make enemies attack their melee attacker, and it will act the same as it does now.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I need no instruction on the IE games. My mod list for the Baldur's Gate series alone quadruples the installation size and requires hours to install even on modern machines. I have mastered every aspect of the IE games, please do not condescend.

 

Formations were superfluous in the IE games because they were porous. Outside of doorways and poor path-finding, any enemy could waltz through anywhere. Other than a spell, there were no mechanisms to shield weaker characters. Most enemies did not have any sort of ranged attack nor spell casting ability that could defend against kiting. These were deficiencies of those games, not merely from a player perspective, but a designer perspective.

 

Engagement is an attempt to resolve these issues. It can work. It is presently less than desirable for reasons above, which you ignore. That does not mean that it has no place or cannot provide tactical value in a true RTwP environment. Keeping engagement, but handling its existing range, accuracy, damage, and recovery modifiers in well....the completely opposite fashion would make this mechanic shine.

 

At this point, I'm just going to take Captain Shrek's advice and "exit stage left". I've said all I can on this subject.

[Namutree]

I need no instruction on the IE games. My mod list for the Baldur's Gate series alone quadruples the installation size and requires hours to install even on modern machines. I have mastered every aspect of the IE games, please do not condescend.

 

Maybe the mods are giving you a different impression of the IE games than what they really were.

[Sensuki]

I need no instruction on the IE games. My mod list for the Baldur's Gate series alone quadruples the installation size and requires hours to install even on modern machines. I have mastered every aspect of the IE games, please do not condescend.

If you've mastered every aspect of the IE games I don't think you would be claiming that enemy targeting was hard to manipulate.

 

Formations were superfluous in the IE games because they were porous. Outside of doorways and poor path-finding, any enemy could waltz through anywhere.

What? The actual party formations as in the ones that you use to move characters in the game world are not superfluous. I would always have my tanks first, Priests etc in the middle and my Thief and Wizard in the last two slots. However I only used the one formation (not the default one, the staggered version of it) and that meant that my Fighters/etc were pretty much always targeted by enemies first.

 

I would have understood if different formations were cut and there was just one default one, but it was something Obsidian promised during the kickstarter, because I think Josh liked them.

 

Enemies could not waltz in anywhere if you actually used TACTICAL POSITIONING and moved your party members in response to what the enemies were doing. It is evident that you clearly do not want to have to do this.

 

Other than a spell, there were no mechanisms to shield weaker characters. Most enemies did not have any sort of ranged attack nor spell casting ability that could defend against kiting. These were deficiencies of those games, not merely from a player perspective, but a designer perspective.

Icewind Dale 1 and 2 had heaps of enemy archer groups. BG2 was packed full of spellcasters and enemies that had at least one ability, such as the Umber Hulk Confusion, which was a gaze spell. You can't really kite Umber Hulks around. You can kite a mummy or a zombie, sure. Many enemies were also immune to ranged weapons FOR A REASON - to prevent kiting :D But Josh doesn't like immunities. In PE though, if you want slow enemies to be resistant to ranged just put the Piercing DT through the roof - problem solved.

 

Engagement is an attempt to resolve these issues. It can work. It is presently less than desirable for reasons above, which you ignore. That does not mean that it has no place or cannot provide tactical value in a true RTwP environment. Keeping engagement, but handling its existing range, accuracy, damage, and recovery modifiers in well....the completely opposite fashion would make this mechanic shine.

 

At this point, I'm just going to take Captain Shrek's advice and "exit stage left". I've said all I can on this subject.

Yes it's an attempt to solve some issues that were really not an issue in the Infinity Engine games, and a very lazy one at that. I think that they probably would have gone with MMO Aggro mechanics if they had their first choice, but the backers complained about the prospect of that during the Kickstarter, so they went with a D&D style system just because D&D. However this is a real-time game, not a turn-based game and Attack of Opportunity mechanics will not work here. Obsidian need to drop the mechanic in favor of sticky mechanics that actually work in real-time, and that will in turn actually enable tactical movement in combat rather than remove it.