Sensuki vs Medreth [Youtube Series]

[Shevek]

Lephys:

 

A substantive answer to our posts CANNOT be made because this issue is one of perspective.

 

Situation: Actor A is moving away from Actor B.

 

1. Some feel the burden should be on Actor B to maintain stickiness.

 

2. Others feel the burden should be on Actor A to maintain mobility.

 

The game was designed for option two. Nothing I have seen thus far has convinced me that option two cannot work through the engagement system while still allowing mobility to be a viable, if limited, option. In other words, there is no real reason to rip out existing game systems when these systems can be tuned and improved. The notion that they CANNOT be improved is absolutely ridiculous. Some folks are raising a stink because they take issue with core design decisions. Well, its a bit late for all this if you ask me.

[Lephys]

Lephys:

 

A substantive answer to our posts CANNOT be made because this issue is one of perspective.

I understand that. That's the point I'm trying to make. One isn't better than the other, really, and they both (in concept) accomplish the same thing. But, it's silly to compare what you would do with concept A to what you wouldn't do with concept B, and declare a victor. If you're not going to explore what you would do with concept B, then why even compare them? That's my beef.

 

And, as I've mentioned before, since engagement's already in, why not at least explore the available tuning options and try at least one more iteration before switching to a different core concept that you're going to have to iterate on a few times anyway?

[Shevek]

It really boils down to some folks wanting to move unimpeded and being very willing to slow the movement of enemies using a set of active skills (rather than passively using engagement). This is for gamers that enjoy micromanaging every combat and are more than willing to spend twice as long pausing away through mundane encounters. Some think that would somehow equate into a more tactial overall experience. 

 

In other words, they know engagement can be fixed to meet its ends. They just have a fundamental disagreement with those ends.

 

To my mind, its a bit late to get into a disagreement about design goals. And, certainly, having a fundamental shift in design goals and radically redesigning game systems seems like it what be a poor decision and one that quite frankly is advocated by only one subsect of the audience.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I just... if you fix the engagement system, then it ideally provides plenty of options for actively avoiding, creating, and otherwise interacting with Engagement. I don't understand why "Oh, you want a single, passive mechanic to exist?" somehow means you must also want all of combat to be passive. It's not like the options are between engagement OR active-use debilitating effects.

 

That's what gets me so much in these debates. People argue against unwanted situations that their mind conjures, which are more specific than the actual design concept. It's like saying "Hey, we'll just take a car to get to our destination," and getting the response "No, I HATE loud muscle cars!"

[Sensuki]

Also, for the record, moving isn't a trap choice. Moving without first using some ability is.

Most of the abilities related to Engagement are optional, it's either a class ability or a talent or a spell related to them. Those are all strategical resources and spending a character advancement point on one of those just so you can have the possibility of maybe doing some in melee movement in combat is a complete joke, not to mention most of the abilities are laughably bad - Wild Sprint gives you -20 to Deflection HAHAHA, "yes I want to suffer a critical hit when I get disengaged!"  . It is always better to not invest in those trap choices and just use option 2 - clutch heal melee characters when they get low.

 

The only ability kinda worth using is the Rogue Escape, because it's level 1, per-encounter and it's handy. However it's either bugged or undergone a bit of a nerf because you only seem to go like 2 metres in game now, so I don't cast it anymore in v333.

 

why not change it from how it is, so that it isn't how it is?

people argue against unwanted situations that their mind conjures, which are more specific than the actual design concept.

Did you just seriously accuse me of this? Because this is all you and Shevek have been doing. The situations I have described are real in-game examples and they happen all the time. I have even made videos of some of them. Neither of you have played without Engagement. Shevek has been stating fear of enemies not attacking his desired party members. You have been using similar analogies, as if the AI is a human player.

 

Foe rushes backline Wizard, Fighter blocks him by actively slo- but wait, the Foe STUNS the Fighter, and runs past with a troll face on.

 

In the system with engagement:

 

Foe rushes backline Wizard, Fighter blocks him by engagi- but wait, the Foe STUNS the Fighter and runs past with a troll face on.

The AI doesn't play like that. A Human player might, but the AI doesn't. The Fighter won't use Knockdown to break Engagement because he is almost always engaged by more than one unit. If a player does that, he's an idiot.

 

All you have been doing the whole time is quoting one thing I say, and then going on and on about your point, and then making an unnecessary analogy for it.

 

I think Engagement is flawed at the conceptual level and no implementation of it will be good enough for me. I fight for it's removal because I will not put up with the stale combat that it promotes. It is a turn-based mechanic implemented in real-time combat. I will not waste advancement points just to possibly enable me to facilitate movement in melee, because the optimal choice is always not to do that. You guys probably don't move in combat in other games (even the IE games), and if your play style is just stand still and twiddle your thumbs, then yeah the current situation probably favors you. Shevek cowers in fear of pausing and micromanagement, about actually having to do something other than move his unit to engage an enemy to manipulate enemy AI targeting. More importantly, for every single change they make to the system - there will be exploits (because of the conceptual and design flaw) and I look forward to finding them and using them to my advantage.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

Man, you really need to learn to speak more respectfully. I cannot respect anyone's opinion when they call people retarded, cowards, unskilled, etc.

 

Right now, you have gone from a guy that I kinda thought had some interesting ideas for the game (some which I agreed with and some which I didnt) to a dude that is using this forum to forward his own agenda, promote himself and tear down anyone who disagrees with him.

 

Engagement has its own design goals. It can be fixed to meet its goals within the original game design. That much has become clear. Fyi, all those ridiculous insults of yours against those that defend those goals apply to the folks that designed the system as well. Think about that as you rant and rave.

[Karkarov]

Man, you really need to learn to speak more respectfully. I cannot respect anyone's opinion when they call people retarded, cowards, unskilled, etc.

 

Right now, you have gone from a guy that I kinda thought had some interesting ideas for the game (some which I agreed with and some which I didnt) to a dude that is using this forum to forward his own agenda, promote himself and tear down anyone who disagrees with him.

 

Engagement has its own design goals. It can be fixed to meet its goals within the original game design. That much has become clear. Fyi, all those ridiculous insults of yours against those that defend those goals apply to the folks that designed the system as well. Think about that as you rant and rave.

In all fairness Shevek many of your responses have been just as below the belt as Sensuki.  The forums in general have gotten a bit more ... rough... than they really should be over the last month or so.  Hopefully people will cool their jets a bit when the next build hits.

[Shevek]

You know, I dont name people in youtube vids. While I may decry gameplay styles, I try very hard not to insult people themselves. I dont always succeed but I make a real effort to put discussion of the game at the center.

 

I have not called anyone a retard or a coward.

[Sensuki]

Pretty sure I keep most of my comments gameplay related. You and others get way more personal I named you in a youtube video to denounce your ideas about gameplay. Can quote mine if I have to.

 

Right now, you have gone from a guy that I kinda thought had some interesting ideas for the game (some which I agreed with and some which I didnt) to a dude that is using this forum to forward his own agenda, promote himself and tear down anyone who disagrees with him.

Hah, yo're just mad because I had a go at some of your opinions on youtube, and that's where it got personal for you. You repetitively attack my character instead of my gameplay opinions, because that's about all you can do.

[Shevek]

I dunno man, I can readily pull up video or quotes where you used CoD4 competative play experience or copious IWD play seemingliy claiming that your professed greater skill renders your opinion weghtier than others. You claim folks are cowards since they do not play like you. You claim folks have mental disfunction since they do think like you.

 

While I admit to decrying virtually unrestricted mobility in combat, I have not called those that perfer mobility in combat retarded cowards whose opinions mean nothing since they cant stand up to my years of FPS gaming experience. That has been you, man.

 

A well reasoned response that addresses the game is one thing. A personal attack is another. Maybe we can try to put the ideas, rather than the individuals, at the center as we move forward.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

Engagement has its own design goals. It can be fixed to meet its goals within the original game design. That much has become clear. 

On what basis do you claim that engagement can be fixed to meet it's goals within the original game design. One of it's main goals was to prevent kiting; at this point we already know that not only does engagement not prevent kiting, but can actually be used as a tool for kiting. Is there some new evidence that is can be fixed that I'm not aware of?

 

Your final line "That much has become clear." Suggests to me that some new information has come to light or something. If so, please tell me.

[Namutree]

In all fairness Shevek many of your responses have been just as below the belt as Sensuki.  The forums in general have gotten a bit more ... rough... than they really should be over the last month or so.  Hopefully people will cool their jets a bit when the next build hits.

 

 

I haven't been all that civil myself either. I'm gonna try to take it a bit easier.

[Shevek]

Nam, it became clear when Sensuki, engagement's most vocal detrator, said...

 

I think Engagement is flawed at the conceptual level and no implementation of it will be good enough for me.

This is as clear as it gets around here.

 

Engagement is nearly where it needs to be now to meet its design goals and can easily be made better by release. It can be fixed. The issue some have is at a core design level. That is a different conversation that requires the use of different verbage. Its not a fix that some folks want. They advocate removal because in their mind the only fix is removal. In other words, they want a shift in design.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Shevek

[Sensuki]

Cry me a river Shevek

[Shevek]

Lol

[Lephys]

Most of the abilities related to Engagement are optional, it's either a class ability or a talent or a spell related to them. Those are all strategical resources and spending a character advancement point on one of those just so you can have the possibility of maybe doing some in melee movement in combat is a complete joke, not to mention most of the abilities are laughably bad - Wild Sprint gives you -20 to Deflection HAHAHA, "yes I want to suffer a critical hit when I get disengaged!"  . It is always better to not invest in those trap choices and just use option 2 - clutch heal melee characters when they get low.

 

The only ability kinda worth using is the Rogue Escape, because it's level 1, per-encounter and it's handy. However it's either bugged or undergone a bit of a nerf because you only seem to go like 2 metres in game now, so I don't cast it anymore in v333.

Okay... here's the problem. I'm arguing the concept, and you're countering with the happenstancical current state of the code, without regard for what the concept should be.

 

Let me ask this:

 

What's the difference between an implementation that doesn't yet match the concept, and a bug? Hardly anything. "Yeah, when you click on this guy, it's supposed to start a conversation. Instead, it teleports your party to the waterfront." Do we see that and say "OMG, there's no reason to talk to people, because talking gets you teleported to the waterfront"? No. We say "Oh, better fix that so it does what it's supposed to do."

 

So, what I'm saying regarding engagement is, the choice to move, in the engagement concept, is not a bad choice. The choice to move in the current implementation is. Those options are a joke to spend your points on as things currently stand. Guess what... people think combat's too fast, so they slowed it down. They didn't remove combat speed and go with something else.

 

It's called tuning. Any specifics that aren't strictly required for the concept's goal are completely expendable. The concept of engagement does not require unlimited free instant animation-less attacks. Nor does it require that there be a bunch of trap-choices in the game in the form of disengagement options.

 

So, no, I'm not telling you "lolz, I was talking about this, so you have to be talking about that too, and I somehow won something here." This is not intended to be hostile in any way, just to clarify. I'm simply trying to point out that I'm really not concerned with arguing what engagement does or doesn't do if it isn't in the interest of at least conceptually improving/optimizing it into something that would actually work in the game. I realize that you're pointing out oodles of perfectly valid problems with the current state of the engagement system. But, when I say something like "moving isn't a trap choice," what I mean is, the decision to move does come with the option to disengage first, as opposed to the system literally preventing you from doing so and restricting you from any movement at all, ever. And the reason I point that out is because, if you can disengage then move, then how you are allowed to do that needs to be adjusted, obviously.

 

If enemies were all critting way to frequently, you'd adjust the crit range. "Oh, hey, a default 20% is kind of high, it turns out... let's move it down to 5." So, when I see "Hey, it's almost ridiculous to actually outfit your character with viable disengagement options," I immediately thing "that should be remedied." Not "Clearly we should cut out engagement's heart with a spoon and feed it to harpies."

 

I'm sorry if that's crazy. I can obviously only see it from my perspective. But, I'm also not trying to get you to like this, or say "Yes, I should be spending all my time worrying with this." No, your alternate system is perfectly valid. However, until such a choice is made to not-fix engagement, I don't see either choice supercedes the other. I'm not pointing out ways to fix engagement in an effort to stifle any and all arguments you have in favor of Active Ability Stickiness. So, I just think maybe you could try to recognize the validity of the attempt to course-correct the engagement design, whether you, yourself, deem your own time worthy of that attempt or not.

 

Why does everything on this forum have to devolve into the friggin' Thunderdome of points? I think all our valid points should be allowed to have a party together, with a disco ball, and lasers, maybe a bouncy castle.

 

I guess if they can't, then worst-case scenario, we just need two different threads. One for "Hey, what if we went with this system," and one for "Hey, what if we tried to fix engagement?". Boom. Everyone wins, as I don't see the two discussions as mutually exclusive. They're simply hypotheticals until we know what Obsidian's going to do.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Sensuki]

I don't think the concept itself is going to work, especially based on what the developers want Melee Engagement to be, not what you want it to be.

 

It could be made less lethal, but as long as I have to spend character advancement points on abilities that *might* let me move in combat without further spending strategical resources (Health), then nope, I'm not going to. I'm going to ignore those abilities and play optimally (not moving in melee) and on release I'm going to mod out Engagement and change the abilities that are related to it.

 

I am going to fight for things that make this easier to play with - better AI targeting so that the AI isn't dumb as a doorknob like they are now, and they actually change targets after acquiring one, and maybe better attack animation interaction with moving targets. That would require instantly blending into attack animation as soon as destination reached, currently there's a 'stop' animation which slows attacking down.

[Shevek]

Character advancement choices that allow greater mobility is nothing new to rpgs.

 

Edit: But, hey, I applaud you dedicating yourself to helping out the mod scene and working for improved AI.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

Character advancement choices that allow greater mobility is nothing new to rpgs.

Uh...Okay? You have a point I'm sure, but it escapes me. I'm not trying to be snarky. I honestly don't get your point. I feel so foolish.

[Sensuki]

None of those abilities are worth the investment and don't offer any mobility at all (other than Rogue escape). Most of the similar types of abilities that are offered here are pulled from turn-based RPGs.

 

This is not a turn-based game, and I will not be restricted by draconian turn-based style rules.

 

Still mad Shevek?

 

Uh...Okay? You have a point I'm sure, but it escapes me. I'm not trying to be snarky. I honestly don't get your point. I feel so foolish.

He's still qqing over the fact that I called him out in a youtube video. Was more butthurt than I thought he would be actually. Even posted on the codex about it.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

HEY! I have an idea! Why don't OE give the player more disengagement abilities and make them a bit better. Maybe they can have some slight secondary effect.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Namutree

[Shevek]

Mad? No.

[Sensuki]

"Nothing could be further from the truth"

 

HEY! I have an idea! Why don't OE give the player more disengagement abilities and make them a bit better. Maybe they can have some slight secondary effect.

Feel free to pick them, I won't be. I'll be picking stuff that is actually useful in combat. Why pick abilities that might let you have a lessening effect on a disengagement attack (or several) when you can just stand still and win anyway ?

 

I find that boring though, so I'm removing it on release. Didn't pay for Neverwinter Nights 2/DA:O combat brought to you by Unity.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

Did you learn these trolling skills during your competitive CoD4 play?

Edited November 21, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

"Nothing could be further from the truth"

 

HEY! I have an idea! Why don't OE give the player more disengagement abilities and make them a bit better. Maybe they can have some slight secondary effect.

Feel free to pick them, I won't be. I'll be picking stuff that is actually useful in combat. 

Well, if they are improved they might become useful in combat.