Thoughts from a casual gamer

[Shevek]

This is all way overblown. Simple mechanical tweaks is all thats needed. Lower engagement attack dmg and add a TINY snare. Eventhough players can conceivably power through a single engaged foe, the system would discourage running around or near groups. The system would reward engagement breaking tactics in certain situations and that increases combat variability. Also, this opens the door to better differentiate and balance encounter design since you can have skillful enemies which may be better at breaking through tank engagement and targetting weaker or injured characters in tougher encounters.

 

There is no need to conjure up long solutions to simple issues. There is no need to remove innovative interesting game mechanics because they are somewhat troubling at higher difficulties in a buggy beta with an undergeared party.

 

Logic, folks. Logic.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Shevek

[Kjaamor]

Agreed that the combat isn't nearly as fun as it could be.

 

Party design issues, in my mind, basically boil down to the fact that at the moment it is very hard to get by without a fighter (I find myself somehow ideologically opposed to Monks and do not use them). There are many reasons for this, but the key one for me is that currently Fighters are the only ones who naturally regenerate Stamina in combat, and while they certain should regenerate Stamina fastest I think that if Barbarians and Paladins at least could regenerate a little, or if there were talents that allowed passive stamina regeneration, the party might not be so hard set.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

This is all way overblown. Simple mechanical tweaks is all thats needed.

 

Agreed a thousand times over. Engagement can be renovated and made ideal in just a few simple bullet points. Fatalistic hyperbole not required.

[Shevek]

Wow, this got crazy while I was gone.

 

So, I was able to find some time last night to play and I used a kind of hybrid of Sensuki tactics and Shevek tactics on Easy. Playing as a barbarian I was able to get through most battles without too much difficulty as long as I micromanaged party actions and used pause more intelligently.

 

I'll concede my initial argument that combat is too difficult. While initially difficult, it became much more manageable after some training videos from those active here on the forums. That said, combat isn't fun. It feels like a series of tedious chores to advance the storyline. Frankly, I don't have any specific ideas on how to make it better. Even though I feel confident enough to try this on harder difficulties, I still prefer playing on Easy. 

 

I guess my preference now, in place on lessening encounter difficulty, would be to reduce the amount of combat management. Shevek did an exceptional job of helping me build a relatively passive party, but it wasn't the party I wanted to play. I want to play a paladin (I know it's broken and I need to wait for it to be fixed), but when the full release comes out I want to have party members with me I like, not the ones I necessarily need. 

 

I'm far less angry with the game now, but I am annoyed that on Easy difficulty I still require an overly specific party build to get through the game. I fully believe that on Easy mode ANY party build should be viable. I realize Shevek will likely take issue with that, but that's what would be the most fun for me.

Well, when they fix Pally auras, you can easily build a passive party around a paladin. That will give you another party build option. Part of the issue is that the game is in beta and has a some balancing and bugs to work out before release.

 

I will say that the only class that I think outright sucks right now is the wizard. The Paladin only sucks due to a bug. The wizard just sucks which is why I killed it off in my playthrough. So far, I have experience with a Fighter, Rogue, Chanter, Barb, Cipher, Ranger and Monk. All those play very well in a passive party. Thats alot of options in my book and you do not need one specific party build (I just offered one possible option). For a beta, thats pretty good. By the time the full game comes out, they will fix pally auras and, hopefully, make the wizard a bit more attractive.

 

I don't have much experience with the Druid, I must admit, but I might give them a go. Plenty of folks seem to like them but they seem pretty active.

[talharbash]

Do you think this is broken?

 

 

I LOL'd.

 

I mean isn't this something you'd spot in the first week of testing? Sometimes I think these betas we are playing are really alpha quality. There's very little testing at all done before firing them off.

Edited November 11, 2014 by talharbash

[Hiro Protagonist II]

All the game needs is Tweaks^TM.

[Namutree]

All the game needs is Tweaks^TM.

The tweak most needed: Make easy mode REALLY EASY. The world will thank OE.

[nipsen]

Huh. Mind blown. So let's just establish that for the first time since the beta started, there is actually a meaningful disagreement around here. One side has the opinion that while a design may not be working as intended, it may very well be possible to get it to work, which might be when we see if the system has any value in practice. 

 

The other side says that if the current implementation is not good, the system should be removed and scrapped, the sooner the better, to avoid draining more development time.

There is no need to conjure up long solutions to simple issues. There is no need to remove innovative interesting game mechanics because they are somewhat troubling at higher difficulties in a buggy beta with an undergeared party.

Logic, folks. Logic.

Well... you see - once upon a time, there was a variable in the attribute system that determined the chance to provoke an attack of opportunity (perception). The ability to trigger that attack of opportunity being a trade-off between hitting hard, or accurately, and other variables. If your character had class abilities to increase the engagement limit, perception might become very powerful with the right build. Buffing a fighter at the right time, or using the right abilities for just a fighter was a pretty interesting thing. And which one you would choose would be completely dependent on what sort of build you had.

 

But "perception was a dump-stat", apparently - and thanks to invaluable feedback from the forum, Obsidian essentially scrapped the entire premise. Perception now controls accuracy. Attacks of opportunity is determined by something else, most likely a class table.

 

So in the current build, all characters have high chance of provoking an attack of opportunity, possibly because the base (the non-dumped stat without penalties) gave you a relatively good chance in the first place..? Possibly because of a programming problem that still give characters bonuses based on perception, I don't know..

 

And the characters also hit hard, and hit accurately (since there are only two player variables that affect the hit-roll, it's easy to max that out). In practice, all the characters have been made massively stronger, or given extra ability points. They're very strong compared to before, at least if you max perception and might. Of course - and no surprise there - this did make Obsidian add a flat health bonus to a lot of mobs, so they wouldn't be too easy.

 

Which causes what some of us said before this brilliant solution to "the problem" was implemented in the first place - that the fights become tedious, and actually that the risk of failing is much higher if you don't "manage your resources" with complete and dedicated care, turn after turn. Your aim before the game was changed was to do something semi-clever with the abilities and placement once in a while to change the battle to your favor. Now is to absorb slightly less damage than the enemy (or to switch damage-absorbers at the right time, just as in the IE games - identical, in fact) before the time runs out for both of you.

 

So, this then causes possible fail states for parties that aren't set up right, that can't really be worked around with different tactics (unless you count exploits of the mechanics, which I'm sure we soon will, thanks to invaluable internet opinion). And there are other problems, such as that micro-managing becomes necessary to avoid failing even battles that you could win.

 

The changes done to the game also of course took development time, which we now see how has been a good investment. With the delay, and how the earlier changes obviously made the game better in every way, and caused no other issues to compound at all.

 

In other words, Shevek - Obsidian thinks your logic sucks.

 

--------

 

Anyway. So now the engagement and disengagement mechanic is broken, and invaluable internet feedback suggests it must be removed altogether. But really, why stop with just that? I'm sure there are other things Josh has been doing that invaluable internet feedback will dislike. And that therefore should be removed altogether.

 

What about removing the attack roll and replacing it with a binary switch, for example? It sounds mechanically simpler, so it must be fair when you play the game as well, right? I mean, it's a completely logical way to look at things!

 

Also, I think there should be no skills! ..actually, that already was discussed as well, I guess. Skills now don't meaningfully exist, thanks to invaluable internet opinion.

 

Maybe the system could be improved by removing all attributes in the game? Who needs more than one? I just want to put it out there, and insist that anyone disagreeing should read this 50-page booklet I've written, which proves - by definition - that everyone else is wrong. Maybe there should be trigger-effects like in DOTA? I feel another 50-page booklet of divine gospel and unjustified assumptions coming on.

 

Who knows what will be removed next - so tune in for the next episode of "Obsidian lets random internet feedback trump fundamental game-design, and Josh actually defends it afterwards in person", right here, on the Obsidian forums! Which fundamental feature is going to disappear and cause re-balancing issues and implementation replacements that take months and lead to another release delay? Tune in to the Obsidian forums and be amazed, all day, every day!

[Sensuki]

Hahaha man, you'll never get over the fact that the attribute system changed will you.

[Kjaamor]

*Snip*

 

All right, that was somewhat hysterical but I must admit I nodded and laughed.

[nipsen]

Hahaha man, you'll never get over the fact that the attribute system changed will you.

I'm not thrilled about things like tuning a piano towards the one false note in the entire register either.

 

But no, Sensuki, what I can't get over is that Paradox, as well as Obsidian, and then Josh defended the solution afterwards. That was disappointing.

[Sensuki]

Paradox don't have a say. You keep mentioning them for some reason. I don't think the current solution is perfect either (and I liked attributes affecting interrupt like you did).

 

Anyway. So now the engagement and disengagement mechanic is broken, and invaluable internet feedback suggests it must be removed altogether. But really, why stop with just that? I'm sure there are other things Josh has been doing that invaluable internet feedback will dislike. And that therefore should be removed altogether.

No, just Melee Engagement as it makes combat feel nothing like the Infinity Engine games and reduces tactical depth. The previous skill system should be brought back because the current one is terrible, as well.

 

I made a post the other day about some other stuff I thought was causing some issues but Josh had some fairly good answers for them so I won't be pursuing most of those ideas anymore. I don't think there is a good answer to Melee Engagement at all. This is pretty much recovery time paused while moving again - people said "don't remove it, it prevents kiting!", well surprise - the game plays much better with it removed, and it will be the same here too.

 

I guess my preference now, in place on lessening encounter difficulty, would be to reduce the amount of combat management.

Reducing monster movement speed and reducing/balancing per-hit damage and class endurance values will probably alleviate some of that, as then it will be less important to perfectly micro your party all the time. There's also several cheap tactics you can use with certain classes to make combat a laugh. Casting Withdraw on the Fighter after he has aggro'd everyone is one, as he won't take any damage and you can finish enemies off without having to heal the Fighter.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[Lord Wafflebum]

@Shevek:

I hope you're right. Although I suspect there's a good chance since it feels like the beta is suffering from a woeful lack of balance, although I have no data to actually back that up. 

 

@Whomever, probably Sensuki or Shevek:

I've noticed the discussion of engagement now in a few threads. Any chance one of you guys could explain what it is and why it's bad (or not)? Also, feel free to explain it like you're talking to a child. It actually helps being talked down to a little when it comes to this game's mechanics. I think I've seen Sensuki mention that it seems to be a major contributing factor to the combat tedium.

[Rumsteak]

Anyway. So now the engagement and disengagement mechanic is broken, and invaluable internet feedback suggests it must be removed altogether. But really, why stop with just that? I'm sure there are other things Josh has been doing that invaluable internet feedback will dislike. And that therefore should be removed altogether.

 

What about removing the attack roll and replacing it with a binary switch, for example? It sounds mechanically simpler, so it must be fair when you play the game as well, right? I mean, it's a completely logical way to look at things!

 

Also, I think there should be no skills! ..actually, that already was discussed as well, I guess. Skills now don't meaningfully exist, thanks to invaluable internet opinion.

 

Maybe the system could be improved by removing all attributes in the game? Who needs more than one? I just want to put it out there, and insist that anyone disagreeing should read this 50-page booklet I've written, which proves - by definition - that everyone else is wrong. Maybe there should be trigger-effects like in DOTA? I feel another 50-page booklet of divine gospel and unjustified assumptions coming on.

 

Who knows what will be removed next - so tune in for the next episode of "Obsidian lets random internet feedback trump fundamental game-design, and Josh actually defends it afterwards in person", right here, on the Obsidian forums! Which fundamental feature is going to disappear and cause re-balancing issues and implementation replacements that take months and lead to another release delay? Tune in to the Obsidian forums and be amazed, all day, every day!

 

This was hilarious! This could also sound grim but I would not worry that much. Making games is hard and not for everyone, but it's been Obsidian current employees' job for a long time. I think they handle external input pretty well with a good balance of not being very active on the forums, but still a little because in such a giant brainstorming there may be ideas they regard as good. Obviously in the way they talk and scarcely communicate we can see that these guys are professionals not devoid of critical mind. I don't think they're yes men. They are just experimenting and fooling around by removing or adding mechanics and making adjustments, which is good. Sometimes these adjustments fortuitously concur with some opinions on the forum, sometimes not, and sometimes they take some feedback into account, depending of what they think is best. For example Josh said that they already had some kind of attribute reshaping in mind: they just happened to apply it when (and maybe because) the forum was talking about it. This was just a minor reshaping and there will undoubtedly be more to come. What has been removed may come back and vice versa. Whatever. Just wait and see until the final release, and for people who can, keep continuously giving feedback because this may improve the game. We can armchair-criticize them all we want (because we are bored waiting for the game!) and do a lot of noise but at the end of the day they'll release something good. It's in their interest.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rumsteak

[Sensuki]

@Whomever, probably Sensuki

I've noticed the discussion of engagement now in a few threads. Any chance one of you guys could explain what it is and why it's bad (or not)? Also, feel free to explain it like you're talking to a child. It actually helps being talked down to a little when it comes to this game's mechanics. I think I've seen Sensuki mention that it seems to be a major contributing factor to the combat tedium.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69133-sensuki-vs-medreth-youtube-series/page-5?do=findComment&comment=1532583

 

Read this thread, start from that post and work your way down, you'll probably catch a fair few of my points from there. Then there's also a bunch of posts further back in this one.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

The fundamental position of me and Sensuki - or at very least between me and Sensuki - is that I believe that kiting in the IE games was a poor mechanic that should be ironed out, while he believes that it is one of the defining aspects of the IE games and something that PoE owes itself to emulate. We both believe in reasonable movement within combat, we both believe that at present the engagement system is broken.

 

Potential improvements to the system have been offered in other threads, but this is besides the point. My position on the matter is that anti-solutions - that is refusing to innovate and simply copying the IE games verbatim rather than trying to fix their issues and improve upon them - should not be lauded and that PoE has to be assessed ultimately on its own merits and not judged by simply how closely it replicates the IE games. Sensuki might like what ultimately boils down to an IWD mod, you might like it, and hell I would almost certainly love it, but the press and general public would tear it apart and that severely limits the scope for future party-based RPGs. I've no mind to wait another ten years for them after this.

Sorry I missed this post previously. You have neglected to mention that I have offered a solution to the issue of melee stickiness, it just doesn't involve a Melee Engagement system. That's the only difference really. You like the idea of an arbitrary automatic system. I want a system that uses passive, modal and active abilities to facilitate it and doesn't 'break the rules' of real-time - I want something that actually works as demonstrated by other real-time games that aren't NWNs.

 

The press and the general public would not tear it apart - if anything they would be more annoyed by the Engagement system because it is goes against how people normally play isometric RT games, and honestly who cares about them. Infinity Engine players are a large portion of the backers. If the game is good, people will buy it and enjoy it. Games are ****ing compromised all the time because they are dumbed down for the press and the masses.

 

I've seen quite a few people (inc YunikoYokai5 and one of the press guys) try and retreat from melee, their character gets killed and they have no idea why.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

I think you guys are wasting too much time on this now. OE does not even care at the moment and Sawyer does not see any problems (as he told Sensuki). Lets all have happy holidays and come back next year to see how PoE stands then.

Either they will change stuff or not, no going around in circles on forum will change that.

 

At this point I can only have blind faith that eventually it will all work out and be good on release.

Edited November 11, 2014 by archangel979

[Sensuki]

Arguing about things is often quite healthy. Arguing with other backers has only helped me strengthen my argument. My activism has influenced change before, and it is likely that it will do so again - provided that I give good constructive criticism with detailed examples, which is what I intend to do. Unless a staffer comes in and bans me out of annoyance, I am going to keep doing it all the way through.

 

Josh was talking about other things (not Melee Engagement), I sent him some quickfire/budding thoughts on some of the systems and he gave some pretty good answers. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but he did have a few good points - and demonstrated that he does have a bit of a plan to reign in the weapon balancing and things like that.

 

I didn't talk about that because I know that it would have been suicide on the issue to not come in with a very solid argument.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

Yes, but you guys have almost 10 pages of same stuff. It is completely pointless to waste anyone's time reading this with same arguments and same info.

All the while those that are important to read and understand it (OE) don't think there is a problem or don't plan to do anything about it at the time. They trust their QA department more than their beta backers.

 

So lets just let OE continue digging their own hole and hope they find a gold chest in it instead of not being to exit it anymore.

[Sensuki]

It was your choice to read the discussion, if you are not interested in it then go read something else.

 

You will also not dictate to me when and how I give feedback on the game.

 

Every post about the issue (for or against) has been helpful IMO and it is raising more and more awareness.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[Quantics]

Sensuki (and others), in your opinion what are the bad things about Infinity Engine games that PoE could/should do better?

 

 

I'm genuinely asking. Many of your posts are about how 'this or this should be the same as in the IE games', but surely there are are some aspects of the game mechanics that you don't like there as well.

[Sensuki]

It really depends which game you are talking about. Most of the things that I think are bad about the Infinity Engine games don't have too much to do with the actual gameplay itself, because the gameplay is quite good. And by gameplay I don't mean character systems. Some people often confuse those together (like Shevek does).

Most of PE's improvements on the IE games have been non-gameplay related, or related to dialogue or graphics. Josh's reputation & disposition system is really nice. PE checks attributes and skills more often than the IE games. There's more 'life' in the areas due to 2D and 3D animations. The journal system is a bit better and the extra pages like the glossary are a good idea, it could still use a bit of improvement I think although it's not something I've looked into. The Character Art is quite good, as far as 'art style' goes I don't prefer it one way or the other but it is technically superior to the IE games in most ways (the IE games had a different model for warrior, priest, thief and mage which helped to distinguish characters a bit more, and it was way easier to tell the difference between male and female models - which I prefer). You can finely resize the height of the dialogue window (and log) rather than being locked at two sizes. 

I have little doubt that the Stronghold will be pretty awesome too, probably better than any of the BG2 Strongholds.

The IE games still beat PE in many areas outside of gameplay too though: UI uniformity, area map, inventory, HUD, control uniformity, character movement, pathfinding (currently anyway), AI, art 'quality', smoothness, Spell FX (while not better quality they are infinitely more practical, and they have different casting FX for different spells and way more per-unit FX and no overuse of AoE stuff on the screen), much of the modelling in the environment art is superior to the PE modelling - in IWD, IWD2 and BG2. I've yet to see any of the PE modelling top some of the nicest interiors that IWD or BG2 had. IE games had better music as well.

I admire the fact that they are trying to improve on the IE game formula, but they're failing in their attempts in most of the gameplay related areas specifically.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

As much as I love BG1+2, (and PST, IWD1+2 not as much), there were indeed plenty of things that were bad:

-Pathfinding

-The lack of item comparisons

-Inventory at times (although the invo shuffle is almost meditative in its own right)

-More items should have been stackable

-BG2: Too linear, I preferred the sense of a more open world in BG1

-BG2: Some of the maps were not very interesting (although very lovely graphically). Once again, I preferred, the  relative vastness of the BG1 outdoors

-I love all D&D except the 4th ed (which is tolerable), but still in my book: 3.5 > 3.0 > AD&D

-I actually prefer NWN2's AoO over the BG-games lack of it

-It would have been nice for clearer UI feedback when it came to spellcasting and what area it would affect (but on the other hand, surprises are cool)

-Level 1 and 2 are far too RNG gods-dependent, which is the price to pay for turning D&D into a computer game

-High level fights can become a bit dull and repetitive at times, not to mention too long in duration

-It would have been cool if combat in IE had been terrain dependent, with elevation taken into account, etc

-The fog of war and several weird abuses relating to that was not good (I'd like to see a CRPG with a line of sight system á la CoH2)

-The variety of weapons and items vis-à-vis class and alignment was far too small and punishing in the non-EE versions

-There should have been more ability checks, class checks, race checks, etc, for role-playing reasons

-Overall, the IE games didn't give enough sense of being lived in (Ultima VII did that much better, for instance)

-Multiclassing could have been improved

-As always, when certain classes went past level 9 or so, the character building ceased to be fun and eventful enough

-Thieves were in some respects a broken class (of course, disregarding IWD2 with 3.0 D&D

 

I could go on and on and on for pages. There are oodles of stuff that were bad in the IE games, but they were certainly brilliant, anyways.

For PoE, I simply presumed that the seasoned Obsids would take the best stuff from the IE games and then create something even better.

[Seari]

-Multiclassing could have been improved

I disagree with most of your points, but can you elaborate on this one.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I simply mean that multiclassing in AD&D, and in part in 3.0 D&D, isn't nearly as fun as that in 3.5 - which I adore. The best multi-classing system ever.

 

I'm probably an odd fella here, but I actually hold the NWN2 series as my all time favourite CRPG (much thanks to MotB, sure), and BG1+2 as the second best. I wouldn't be here on these very forums if it weren't for the fact that I reckon Obsidian made a magical CRPG that I have enjoyed thousands of hours in. The OC alone, I've played dozens of times - not kidding. So, yeah, I am a big fan of something that many people just shrug off as a bug-infested mediocre CRPG. However, to me, it was a pinnacle.

 

*Runs away and takes cover in fear of getting bombarded by stones Monty Python style*