Sensuki vs Medreth [Youtube Series]

[Sensuki]

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

You're the one who feels the necessity to keep posting in the thread, even when not part of the discussion. 90% of your forum replies since I posted that video reply have been butthurt replies to me

 

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

No they won't be. You tell me what's better - something that gives you something against a disengagement attack, or something that gives you a Deflection bonus ?

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

Sensuki, I just love talking with you, man. Good luck with your mod.

[Sensuki]

Aw man, shucks, don't leave. Every time you reply it bumps the thread to the top which means more youtube views. No such thing as bad publicity.

[Namutree]

 

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

No they won't be. You tell me what's better - something that gives you something against a disengagement attack, or something that gives you a Deflection bonus ?

 

The deflection bonus for sure, well wait; how much of a deflection bonus?

 

What if the disengagement ability also gave a deflection bonus, but not as much as the purely deflection bonus ability.

[Shevek]

You got it.

[Namutree]

Mad? No.

 

 

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

You're the one who feels the necessity to keep posting in the thread, even when not part of the discussion. 90% of your forum replies since I posted that video reply have been butthurt replies to me

 

 

Sensuki, I just love talking with you, man. Good luck with your mod.

 

Aw man, shucks, don't leave. Every time you reply it bumps the thread to the top which means more youtube views. No such thing as bad publicity.

You guys are getting along well.

[Sensuki]

Yeah well, I kind of expected he'd act like that after I targeted a video at some of his ridiculous opinions, but whatever. Had to be done.

 

What if the disengagement ability also gave a deflection bonus, but not as much as the purely deflection bonus ability.

Well they won't design abilities like that. There'll be abilities that do something against Disengagement attacks, and abilities that give Deflection. The Deflection bonus will probably be smaller, but it will be relevant on every Deflection attack which will be like 80% of attacks in the game. Abilities/Talents/Spells that give you bonuses against disengagement attacks only do something if you provoke them.

 

I could simply just play a bit more regimented and not provoke disengagement attacks and put my character advancement points into things that give me relevant bonuses more often. Even when something gives you a bonus against a disengagement attack you still had to invest in something specifically for it, and you lose health after moving. In my book - that's a worthless investment.

 

To me that's boring gameplay though, so I'll be modding it out of the game. Will probably release my Engagement removal mod soonish for others to try as well, see if they also think it feels more Infinity Engine.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

Yeah well, I kind of expected he'd act like that after I targeted a video at some of his ridiculous opinions, but whatever. Had to be done.

 

What if the disengagement ability also gave a deflection bonus, but not as much as the purely deflection bonus ability.

Well they won't design abilities like that. There'll be abilities that do something against Disengagement attacks, and abilities that give Deflection. 

Well that should change. Right now disengagement abilities are humorously weak. If they make the error of keeping engagement; they should at least make the disengagement abilities worth using.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Namutree

[Shevek]

Nam, you trying to address issues with a game system to ensure it can meet its design goals. Sensuki is advocating changing design goals, ripping out existing game systems, and installing new game systems to fit design goals that he believes better suit the game.

[Sensuki]

 

I'm not going to waste my time making suggestions fixing a bad & broken system. Feel free to do that all you like though. If I hadn't mentioned this topic at all, you wouldn't have even given it a thought, you woulda just said "it's fine".

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

Youtube videos in my honor and now memes.

 

I'm gushing.

[Sensuki]

Every time you reply you're bumping the thread back to the top, which is only better for me ^^

[Shevek]

Bumpity bump bump bump

[Namutree]

Bumpity bump bump bump

Very insightful.

 

This thread has become the arbiter of gentlemen like discussion of important issues. Saving the Wizard Class thread; you could learn from us...

[Sensuki]

I'm not too worried about Wizards, I can modify my own spells to make them better. I care more about the stuff that will be a pain in the ass to fix with mods.

[Namutree]

I'm not too worried about Wizards, I can modify my own spells to make them better. I care more about the stuff that will be a pain in the ass to fix with mods.

A reasonable line of logic.

[Pidesco]

One would think that discussing gameplay design in a game developer forum wouldn't devolve into childish bickering. I'll pretend that said bickering didn't happen for a while longer and hope that the people involved can take a hint.

[Kjaamor]

I'm not too worried about Wizards, I can modify my own spells to make them better. I care more about the stuff that will be a pain in the ass to fix with mods.

 

At a risk of quietly wading into a ****storm before immediately wading back out, I find it absolutely appalling that by far and away the most vocal person on gameplay mechanics in the beta forums is a guy who has already decided that he will mod enough of the game on release as to re-balance it entirely until it plays more like a game he feels he would rather be playing.

 

What is this I don't even.

[Sensuki]

Lol at people getting so cut over a disagreement over engagement mechanics that they resort to attacking personal character and argument tactics. Basically everyone who disagrees with me on engagement mechanics has done that hahah 

 

e: I'm quite sure Josh is coming up with a reasonable improvement to Wizards on his own, he seems to understand the problems. Spells are easy to mod as well - so it's no issue.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Karkarov]

One would think that discussing gameplay design in a game developer forum wouldn't devolve into childish bickering. I'll pretend that said bickering didn't happen for a while longer and hope that the people involved can take a hint.

I will be honest, I wish you wouldn't.  This thread has devolved to the point where no civil and reasonable discourse about the actual subject of engagement issues and what can be done about them is possible.

[Cubiq]

I disagree since i think Sensuki still hit the nail on the head with this post, but everyone is focused is on the flame war:

 

I could simply just play a bit more regimented and not provoke disengagement attacks and put my character advancement points into things that give me relevant bonuses more often. Even when something gives you a bonus against a disengagement attack you still had to invest in something specifically for it, and you lose health after moving. In my book - that's a worthless investment.

This is currently my biggest problem with the engagement mechanic atm, and i think it's a valid one.

 

The mechanic is balanced for you to be able to stand face to face with all enemies without requiring to move, so why would you move?

To save someone from the back line?

Then I will argue that if you're currently trying to save your character with any type of CC abilities, or by eating disengagement attacks, then you're doing it wrong.

Not only will you most likely use more resources to do it, but most of them have a chance to fail.

You will get through the fight much better if you initially just heal through the damage and dps enemies down.

Which makes healing from the beginning the most secure option with the least amount of wasted resources.

There's really no tactic in this, it's just a mmo tank and spank mechanic with heal spamming.

 

This needs to be fixed 1 way or another.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Cubiq

[Lephys]

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.

Fair enough. You're entitled to believe that, and I have no proof that you're wrong. But I also have no proof that you're right. That, and, while I realize that what I want it to be might stray a bit from what they want it to be, I'm trying to go by how it was presented as a concept in the original Melee Engagement Update. All I recall being mentioned as issues it was meant to fix are foes blazing past your melee peeps and laughing all the way, and ludicrous kiting. Nowhere in any of that do I see "we don't want anyone to be able to move." So, *shrug*... maybe they don't want anyone to move at all, and that's their goal? But, if it is, they certainly didn't state that very clearly.

 

That, and I'm more worried about how the goal "should" be accomplished, and less worried about what the devs simply want to do for no reason at all. Because, I trust that they are actually applying reason to their decision-making process. If they aren't, then there wouldn't be much point in any of this at all, because we'll just end up with the game they arbitrarily desire to code, and hardly anything'll make sense. "We want Fighters to have jetpacks. There's no reason for them to. We just want it."

 

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.

A fair point. This speaks to the possibility that they may want to just forgo the "chance to not suffer horribly for disengaging" stuff and focus on the "you definitely get to disengage in some form or fashion" stuff. And/or various other tweaks to the system. Again, that's kind of the point. No one's telling you to stop having problems with the current implementation. I'm just saying "Yeah, that's a problem... what if it weren't?" And, again, if you'd rather not bother going down that road, then that's fine. But I don't think that means there's anything wrong with myself or anyone else choosing to do so.

 

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.

Yeah, with-or-without engagement, I'd still like the AI to be as improved as it can be. But, especially with. Regardless of whether or not it's technically the fault of engagement, or the fault of AI, I don't want a game in which AI doesn't react to engagement, for example.