Thoughts from a casual gamer

[Kjaamor]

And that, children, is what we call a straw man.

[Sensuki]

That is what you were implying though, so I responded in kind.

 

Lephys has a history of coming into threads late well after the issues have been discussed making large posts with many analogies trying to defend the developer's implementation. Hiro Protagonist II calls him out on it regularly, and I believe he is right.

 

He has ignored pretty much every point I've made and decided to focus on the fact that the Engagement system is passive and my solution is 'active', and started making up some bull**** non-actual gameplay related statements that don't even happen in the IE games or Pillars of Eternity.

 

Even though your two main 'gripes' with the IE games are completely unrelated to the Engagement mechanic, one of which (the blocking stuff in doorways) is actually made easier with the Engagement mechanic, you continue to contest my position on the issue, more recently resorting to undermining and mockery. Perhaps the argument isn't really about the engagement mechanic in the first place, and is about something else. The fact is it probably doesn't really matter what I say, or what arguments I make, you'll try and dispute them anyway.

 

Sorry Lephys, don't have time to re-read those posts and individually address the statements I sharply disagree with at the moment, leaving right now actually, back in a few days.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

I don't get whats wrong with AoO's in a RT game. I have not heard any concrete arguments against this that don't simply boil down to personal preference. Just because RT games have not widely employed AoOs does not automatically make AoOs bad in RT. Also, while NWN was not a shining example of great combat or anything, I don't think its implementation of AoO was terribly bad or that it detracted from the game.

 

Look, I am not saying the current implementation of engagement is optimal or that combat is perfect at present. I do think its OK (plays just fine on normal for the most part) but I also believe that it can and will be better. However, I would be incredibly upset to see OE take the advice of some and just gut the engagement system to try something else. As a backer, I want to see the funds I put forward put to good use. As a gamer, I want to see a good game come out of this. This will not happen if OE starts ripping game systems out before the development cycle gives the systems time to mature. Thats just inefficient.

 

Why don't we do something productive and suggest small fixes that would make the engagement system, combat and the like more enjoyable? Again, nerf engagement attack dmg a bit, tweak enemy movement speed, perhaps look at overall dmg numbers, etc. These are all spreadsheet fixes. They are small. Making these changes can drastically affect gameplay but they do not lengthen development time significantly. Similar suggestions can be made to UI/combat feedback. 

 

Just my two cents.

[Sensuki]

Darn, missed the train, got time for one more reply. Then off to Gorguts.

 

I don't get whats wrong with AoO's in a RT game. I have not heard any concrete arguments against this that don't simply boil down to personal preference. Just because RT games have not widely employed AoOs does not automatically make AoOs bad in RT. Also, while NWN was not a shining example of great combat or anything, I don't think its implementation of AoO was terribly bad or that it detracted from the game.

Attacks of Opportunity exist in turn-based games both to abstract the 'tempo' of melee combat where both combatants make an opposing move to the other one's move and to prevent the unfair situation where the unit that acts first loses in games where AP or moves are shared between movement and attacks.

Neverwinter Nights was the first game (I believe) to port this concept over into real-time and it was a critical failure. The reason is because Attacks of Opportunity as implemented in any RTwP so far are abstract of time itself. The 'tempo' of melee combat exists in real-time/real-time with pause combat because both units can act at the same time and there is no situation where a unit can move freely in melee combat. For any move that a unit can make, units nearby can also make their own movements at the same time. The Attack of Opportunity mechanic is not required because the problems it fixes in turn-based don't exist in real-time.

 

Look, I am not saying the current implementation of engagement is optimal or that combat is perfect at present. I do think its OK (plays just fine on normal for the most part) but I also believe that it can and will be better. However, I would be incredibly upset to see OE take the advice of some and just gut the engagement system to try something else.

There is no implementation of it that is going to work, and there is no implementation of it that does not hamstring the combat feel.
 

As a backer, I want to see the funds I put forward put to good use. As a gamer, I want to see a good game come out of this. This will not happen if OE starts ripping game systems out before the development cycle gives the systems time to mature. Thats just inefficient.

I backed this game for Infinity Engine combat, not Neverwinter Nights 2 combat with an isometric camera (which is what this game is atm). I am not the only backer that has this opinion, there are many of us.
 

Again, nerf engagement attack dmg a bit

lol

Edited November 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

1. Your opinions about "combat feel" are not concrete reasons to change a fundamental game system. You simply stating that AoO in NWN was a failure does not make it true either. Declarative statements are not definitive facts.

2. Again, I hear no rationale from you. You say no implentation will work as if your declaration alone is all thats needed. Ive done some tests on hard. With a full custom party with okish non-enchanted gear, combat felt pretty good to me. Should feel even better with endurance draining weapons, enchanted rings and stat boosting armor. Now, I am not saying that my perception of combat feels trumps yours or anyone else's but your statements do not contain sufficient concrete observation to make me question my own viewpoints on the matter.

3. If you backed this for an IE game you missed that this was inspired by the IE games not an IE clone. They repeatedly mentioned changes to combat (the loss of rounds, etc). They were fairly upfront about changes to the IE formula.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[archangel979]

While I agree with Sensuki that AoO in real time game is not needed and should be done with AI instead in PnP it had more than one use.

Its primary use was to balance (or make more realistic) ranged combat and spellcasting when someone with a sword is next to you and trying to murder you. Melee person has an advantage in this situation and AoO was added to mechanically represent that advantage.

 

Engagement does not even work to do this, at least in IE games if you held a ranged weapon all melee would get a +4 to attack and you had -4 to attack with ranged weapon if you tried to attack them back. Wizards spells could all be easily interrupted with any damage.

[Shevek]

AoOs are not just to penalize using ranged in melee. They are also used to limit unrealistic movement past and near combat. One thing I dont consider a legitimate tactic is doing donuts in the middle of battle while popping potions and recovering health. Yet Ive seen folks try to pawn that off as "tactical retreat and potion use" or some foolishness.

 

If you are running around in circles popping potions both of those actions should be eliciting some kind of penalty on you. If Im in an actual sword fight, I would need to free a hand to start drinking a coke much less to drink a coke and turn my back on an enemy to start movibg around.

 

Similarly, you shouldnt be able to skirt around enemies to hit the one you want while another is in the way. Again, that kind of movement past armed melee opponents should have immediate consequences.

 

Sensuki's alternatives he listed earlier is more active skills like stuns. Personally, that does mot seem like a good solution to me. This sounds like more pausing. This game has enough active skill use as it is.

 

AoOs have a legitimate SET of functions. AoOs can work and in my estimation are almost working now. They just need to be tuned a bit.

 

Edit: I would point point that this games implementation of AoOs is fairly tame since it requires engagement. Most other AoO implementations require only proximity.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[Doppelschwert]

 

There's a lot of pointless talking and superfluous examples in that post, have you even read a single post of mine on this topic before? You could save yourself a lot of time by just saying "yes I prefer automatic mechanics that don't require me to do anything".

 

In every single RT game that isn't a Neverwinter Nights, stickiness is either handled through aggro mechanics, or status effects and disables. Guess which is more fun and tactical? It's the latter.

 

No RT game uses mechanics that give free invisible attacks, because that is just a laughable concept.

 

See, you make so many references to your interpretations of the maths, and write these long-winded papers and suggestions, but ultimately it is posts like these that make up your argument. "Guess which is more fun? That's right, it's the one I prefer. Case closed."

 

I know it's the internet, but there seems to be an increasing amount of posts from many parties that are set out like they're factual analysis, and are in fact no different from all the other opinion-based posts here on the forums, however well-typed they might be.

 

 

 

1. Your opinions about "combat feel" are not concrete reasons to change a fundamental game system. You simply stating that AoO in NWN was a failure does not make it true either. Declarative statements are not definitive facts.

2. Again, I hear no rationale from you. You say no implentation will work as if your declaration alone is all thats needed. Ive done some tests on hard. With a full custom party with okish non-enchanted gear, combat felt pretty good to me. Should feel even better with endurance draining weapons, enchanted rings and stat boosting armor. Now, I am not saying that my perception of combat feels trumps yours or anyone else's but your statements do not contain sufficient concrete observation to make me question my own viewpoints on the matter.

3. If you backed this for an IE game you missed that this was inspired by the IE games not an IE clone. They repeatedly mentioned changes to combat (the loss of rounds, etc). They were fairly upfront about changes to the IE formula.

 

I totally agree with this, and I think it's good that sensuki is called out on that for once. It's totally fine to argue by one's opinion in the end, as everyone does, but one might just admit it. He's not arguing for an objectively better game as that is not possible, just for one that would be more fun to him. Which is fine, as everyone here does this, but that's all there is to it.

[archangel979]

AoOs are not just to penalize using ranged in melee. They are also used to limit unrealistic movement past and near combat. One thing I dont consider a legitimate tactic is doing donuts in the middle of battle while popping potions and recovering health. Yet Ive seen folks try to pawn that off as "tactical retreat and potion use" or some foolishness.

 

If you are running around in circles popping potions both of those actions should be eliciting some kind of penalty on you. If Im in an actual sword fight, I would need to free a hand to start drinking a coke much less to drink a coke and turn my back on an enemy to start movibg around.

 

Similarly, you shouldnt be able to skirt around enemies to hit the one you want while another is in the way. Again, that kind of movement past armed melee opponents should have immediate consequences.

 

Sensuki's alternatives he listed earlier is more active skills like stuns. Personally, that does mot seem like a good solution to me. This sounds like more pausing. This game has enough active skill use as it is.

 

AoOs have a legitimate SET of functions. AoOs can work and in my estimation are almost working now. They just need to be tuned a bit.

 

Edit: I would point point that this games implementation of AoOs is fairly tame since it requires engagement. Most other AoO implementations require only proximity.

If the movies show us something they show us that you are totally wrong. Heroes in movies all the time get past obstacles and get to their wanted target without getting murdered by the obstacle.

If you are using your free hand example I want to use my use the shield to push them aside example. Or do a roll on the ground to get to other side (which is actually realistic: I did Ninjutsu for a few months and that was a standard dodge of a sword attack to create a good chance for a flanking counterattack)

All of these are not options in these games and as such a middle ground needs to be used.

 

Engagement mechanics need to have a gamist and simulationist reason to exist. It is a bad gamist reason to not let combat movement have a important part in battles. Xcom biggest fun is doing good movement to positions of good cover or flanks, so was in ToEE and in Blackguards and Expeditions: Conquistadors and so was in IE games where I would always move my guys to block doors and limit enemy engagement area so minimize amount of attack on my guys at same time). Moving back to heal is a valid gamist reason to make combat more tactical. In IE games often enemies would follow and I would lose formation and more enemies would get into attack positions so it wasn't without its cost.

Edited November 13, 2014 by archangel979

[Shevek]

1. Even in movies, when an enemy engages you, you do not simply run past. Enemies, when engaged, stop and face eachother.

 

2. Ninjitsu huh? Sorry, just dont see the relevance. Rogues can do your special ninja move in this game btw. But thats part of what makes then rogues. See the engagement system even adds to class differentiation and balance.

 

3. Moving prior to engaging the enemy is fine. But once its on you cant up and decide to stroll away from a dude swinging an axe at you - unless you can legitimately break engagement first.

 

4. I dont mind a move to heal so long as engagement is, once again, legitimately broken by a stun or a groin kick or something. You cant just call time out to run behind a rock and open up a coke.

 

Again, the system has both gamist and simulationist reasons to exist. It has solid mechanics. In my testing, it feels solid but could use a slight tuning dmg wise.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[redneckdevil]

As someone who cant really get into the mechanics of the old isometric view games but played them because wanted to learn the stories, ......im enjoying the whole package.

 

I think its because i have a point of view on 2 major things.

 

1. It says its a pause real time game but once i found out the slowmo and speedup buttons, i cant remember the last time i used pause. Before i found those buttons, combat was really hectic! Once i found those buttons and realized i didnt NEED to use ALL the abilities that refreshed each combat and it seems positioning and throwing away the wand off the wizard and giving him a range weapon instead (because i found most of the dmg i was taking was from the aoe blast of that damn wand he automatically comes stocked with), combat has become kore enjoyable for me, myself who didnt like the combat of bg and pst but did like fallouts.

 

2. Im of the mindset and i maybe TOTALLY wrong, but im thinking the whole reason why trash is so "difficult" is because its a beta and we are testing out abilities and whatnot that trash maynot have in final game but other creatures which they dont want to spoil will. Such as they may have creatures with abilities or defenses that they want tested but dont want to put the actual creature there and so they just tweek trash with said abilities or stats for us to go against and gather data that way without spoiling it for us.

 

But again as someone who isnt well versed and doesnt have a very long history at all with top down games, i ha ent found the combat that difficult once i learned not to pause, position is key, and know what ur abilities are and know and realize u dont have to use everything every single encounter. Sometimes its ok to wail on with white dmg the fight and use only a portion.

 

Blah well thats my opionion and everyone is free to disagree

[archangel979]

1. Even in movies, when an enemy engages you, you do not simply run past. Enemies, when engaged, stop and face eachother.

 

2. Ninjitsu huh? Sorry, just dont see the relevance. Rogues can do your special ninja move in this game btw. But thats part of what makes then rogues. See the engagement system even adds to class differentiation and balance.

 

3. Moving prior to engaging the enemy is fine. But once its on you cant up and decide to stroll away from a dude swinging an axe at you - unless you can legitimately break engagement first.

 

4. I dont mind a move to heal so long as engagement is, once again, legitimately broken by a stun or a groin kick or something. You cant just call time out to run behind a rock and open up a coke.

 

Again, the system has both gamist and simulationist reasons to exist. It has solid mechanics. In my testing, it feels solid but could use a slight tuning dmg wise.

1. The hero character either dispatches henchman fast or just ignores them. They use many moves to do that and PoE cannot have all these animations. So you can simulate it by not having engagement be so punishing.

2. The relevance was that I was not talking out of my butt and that there are real life moves designed to go through those blocking you. After doing the roll you can as easily run past the person and go attack someone else. If that person then decides to follow you or attack someone else it not a question of engagement anymore but question of AI in PoE. And it is not a hard move, you will not be doing it with heavy armor but a trained warrior could do it in any other armor or he could use a shield or just unbalance his enemy long enough to pass through. Currently PoE does not offer any options but to suffer terrible, terrible damage that kills any movement.

3. Nobody said anything about strolling away. It is very possible to move in melee while facing your target without giving any benefits to that target. It could be done that moving out of melee engagement slows down the movement of your guy until he can exit it. 1v1 you should not be able to exit it (you could not in IE games as AI would just continue following you) but that is why you got allies that wil sue their engagement with the person chasing you to help you.

4. Using potions should not be an instant action anyways, while you drink them enemy should get an attack or two in. There should be a bonus to that attack during your drinking action just like I would give a bonus to attack vs someone using a ranged weapon or currently casting a spell. But his has nothing to do with engagement mechanic. If you manage to break engagement with help of allies you can do whatever your want after that (including drinking potions behind a rock).

 

BTW, I am not promoting removal of engagement (although I don't consider it necessary in a real time game), but making it so tactical movement is a valid choice for all characters and not just those that have special actions.

[archangel979]

Let me add a bit more about engagement. With current implementation if I see anyone go for my archers or mages I will move them instantly away before engagement can be enabled. Than that will result in lots of pausing while I play the kiting game. It will be stupid.

Why would I do that? Because in IE games when a melee guy comes closer to my mage or archer I can let him do that for a short while. If things become tough I can move one of my melee guys to help without a crazy penalty (except he will bring those attacking him with him) and I can try to run away with the mage to force the enemy to continue attacking the melee guy.

 

In PoE melee guy will be stuck in engagement and mage will be stuck as well if he lets enemy start it. So my ranged will be running around like a headless chicken the whole fight until melee is free to come and help them. Not a fun concept or gameplay.

[Shevek]

Seems to me that engagement is promoting sensible tactics. I will put out a gameplay vid on hard tonight or tomorrow. I do not pause much at all and combat feels very fluid.

 

Also, you are never stuck in engagement. You can always move and eat at attack then let the tank step in. You can also use any number if abilities to break engagement or lessen the efficacy of engagement attacks.

 

Edit: I use 3 ranged characters and I never run around like a headless anything.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[Mr. Magniloquent]

There is no implementation of it that is going to work, and there is no implementation of it that does not hamstring the combat feel.

 

As a backer, I want to see the funds I put forward put to good use. As a gamer, I want to see a good game come out of this. This will not happen if OE starts ripping game systems out before the development cycle gives the systems time to mature. Thats just inefficient.

I backed this game for Infinity Engine combat, not Neverwinter Nights 2 combat with an isometric camera (which is what this game is atm). I am not the only backer that has this opinion, there are many of us.

 

Again, nerf engagement attack dmg a bit

lol

1. Unabashed opinion stated as fact.
2. You claim to speak for the nameless masses very often. Invoking some nameless majority as supporting you is not an argument, let alone a factual one.
3. Not an argument. Everything that is wrong with engagement can be addressed by changing the bonuses it grants.

Problem: Engagement operates outside of weapon reach.

Solution: Restrain it to weapon reach, like very other attack.

 

Problem: Disengagement attacks inflict too much damage.

Solution: Remove the damage and accuracy bonuses.

 

Problem: Disengagement attacks can be exploited through kiting--the very thing they were supposed to inhibit.

Solution: Have disengagement attacks incur a recovery time, as per normal combat.

 

There it is. Done. Solved. Every problem with engagement resolved. Maybe that's not good enough though. Perhaps Obsidian should instead remove engagement, totally rebuild their AI to account for its absence, conceptualize, construct, debug, and balance an entire slew of ad-hoc abilities for creating "stickiness", generate new AI for the deployment of these abilities, all the while not increasing the amount of pausing required of the player through the active use of these new hypothetical abilities? Would that work out better, do you think?

 

[Kjaamor]

That is what you were implying though, so I responded in kind.

 

Lephys has a history of coming into threads late well after the issues have been discussed making large posts with many analogies trying to defend the developer's implementation. Hiro Protagonist II calls him out on it regularly, and I believe he is right.

 

He has ignored pretty much every point I've made and decided to focus on the fact that the Engagement system is passive and my solution is 'active', and started making up some bull**** non-actual gameplay related statements that don't even happen in the IE games or Pillars of Eternity.

 

Even though your two main 'gripes' with the IE games are completely unrelated to the Engagement mechanic, one of which (the blocking stuff in doorways) is actually made easier with the Engagement mechanic, you continue to contest my position on the issue, more recently resorting to undermining and mockery. Perhaps the argument isn't really about the engagement mechanic in the first place, and is about something else. The fact is it probably doesn't really matter what I say, or what arguments I make, you'll try and dispute them anyway.

 

Sorry Lephys, don't have time to re-read those posts and individually address the statements I sharply disagree with at the moment, leaving right now actually, back in a few days.

 

It wasn't. I'm not bringing Lephys into the conversation at all. I've done my own part in calling out the manner of his discussion in the past and am not defending him here.

 

I'm simply pointing out that you suggest and defend the elements that make your overall ideas and anti-ideas work, but when asked why your overall ideas should be embraced you quickly revert back to the "It's obviously better" and have next to no argument for why. That's fine unless you're making your arguments out to be objective or as if they result from a higher knowledge base than others on the forums, which you frequently do.

 

On the subject at hand, I do not mind blocking when it is done in the context of fighting, just when it is in the context of pathfinding. The enemy are trying and may eventually get through the PoE blocker, they are trying and will never get past the IE one. Engagement is a system that attempts to resolve those issues, amongst others. That you do not recognise them as issues is fine, but that is your opinion and no amount of graphs or length of word document will change that.

 

If I have become more mocking of late, it is because I have become exasperated with opinion being stated as if it were fact.

 

In the past I have supported your position on countless issues. In the last week I have supported your points on at least two different topics. To suggest that this argument is somehow personal, unrelated to the subject matter, or that I am simply incapable of processing your points is to have arrogance for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

Anyway, hope you enjoyed your gig.

[Cubiq]

Problem: Disengagement attacks inflict too much damage.

Solution: Remove the damage and accuracy bonuses.

No, you didn't really fix anything with this.

With that much damage it still makes moving around for tactical repositioning ALWAYS a bad idea.

You're going to have to waste a heal every time you do it.

 

And i already explained 3 pages back why you can't balance the mechanic by making the damage lower.

Because you either make the engagement pointless on normal or you didn't fix anything on Path of the Damned

Also being able to disengage without the use of abilities makes combat even less tactical than it's "trying" to be now.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Problem: Disengagement attacks inflict too much damage.

Solution: Remove the damage and accuracy bonuses.

No, you didn't really fix anything with this.

With that much damage it still makes moving around for tactical repositioning ALWAYS a bad idea.

You're going to have to waste a heal every time you do it.

 

And i already explained 3 pages back why you can't balance the mechanic by making the damage lower.

Because you either make the engagement pointless on normal or you didn't fix anything on Path of the Damned

Also being able to disengage without the use of abilities makes combat even less tactical than it's "trying" to be now.

 

While I haven't listed it here, I actually in the past have always encouraged that disengagement attacks get an accuracy penalty, to pressure them towards being grazes. It's not listed here, so I understand why you replied in that manner.

 

Engagement has much more to do with than dealing damage. It (theoretically) allows melee character to catch kiting ranged attackers, improves warrior ability to block and protect other classes (very necessary, since buffs are completely nerfed by design), and imposes a damage penalty on ignoring a combatant. It serves many functions. That disengagement provides an interrupt is the most important of them. If nearly all of the mechanisms where disengagement attacks operate outside of normal combat removed, engagement would largely act as a brief movement inhibition. Movement would still be possible and practical, but using the disengagement abilities would be an asset rather than a necessity.

 

*Edit. I also don't think using Path of the Damned is a good context for balancing the systems of this game. It's a kind of bonus punitive mode that is designed to be well...punitive. Anything that misbehaves in that mode is pretty ignorable in my opinion.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Cubiq]

While I haven't listed it here, I actually in the past have always encouraged that disengagement attacks get an accuracy bonus, to pressure then towards being grazes. It's not listed here, so I understand why you replied in that manner.

 

Engagement has much more to do with than dealing damage. It (theoretically) allows melee character to catch kiting ranged attackers, improves warrior ability to block and protect other classes (very necessary, since buffs are completely nerfed by design), and imposes a damage penalty on ignoring a combatant. It serves many functions. That disengagement provides an interrupt is the most important of them. If nearly all of the mechanisms where disengagement attacks operate outside of normal combat removed, engagement would largely act as a brief movement inhibition. Movement would still be possible and practical, but using the disengagement abilities would be an asset rather than a necessity.

Sounds like one of the most annoying abilities i would ever encounter in the game to be honest.

It's there just to prevent you from moving. Since you gave it an accuracy bonus that would mean it would nearly alway hit right? Then wouldn't it be easier to just to disallow all movement until all the enemies surrounding you are CCed? Yes, it would work and all i can retort with is, i really dislike it. I think turn based games would have more movement than this. (i think they do so now as well with the current mechanic to be honest)

 

Also didn't you suggest giving it a cooldown, in the upper post?

So won't people who play on normal just walk away, get staggered by the disengagement attack, and then walk away again while it's on cooldown.

A graze is hardly bad on normal difficulty.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Cubiq

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Sounds like one of the most annoying abilities i would ever encounter in the game to be honest.

It's there just to prevent you from moving. Since you gave it an accuracy bonus that would mean it would nearly alway hit right? Then wouldn't it be easier to just to disallow all movement until all the enemies surrounding you are CCed? Yes, it would work and all i can retort with is, i really dislike it. I think turn based games would have more movement than this. (i think they do so now as well with the current mechanic to be honest)

 

Also didn't you suggest giving it a cooldown, in the upper post?

So won't people who play on normal just walk away, get staggered by the disengagement attack, and then walk away again while it's on cooldown.

A graze is hardly bad on normal difficulty.

 

Hahaha. That was a typo! I did edit that to a penalty rather than a bonus. The total changes I would make to disengagement attacks would be thus:

• Respect weapon reach.
• Remove damage bonus and accuracy bonus.
• Incur accuracy penalty.
• Incur normal recovery time.

Essentially, it would give a warrior a free but inaccurate chance to interrupt and potentially damage any passerby. So yes, it would function like you say. Kiting characters could be caught, rushing characters could be inhibited, etc. Grazing damage is often trivial in my opinion, but it does add up. So while it wouldn't paralyze movement, it would eliminate silly chases or waltzing by opponent shenanigans.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Shevek]

Honestly I dont think engagement is bad right now on hard. It hits a bit too hard but its manageable. With gear appropo to the level, it may even be just right. I could see nerfing the damage a bit but I just do not see massive issues with the current implementation. Mags implementation above would work but I would be against the accuracy penalty. Chanter has a song that does that already.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[Cubiq]

Hahaha. That was a typo! I did edit that to a penalty rather than a bonus. The total changes I would make to disengagement attacks would be thus:

• Respect weapon reach.
• Remove damage bonus and accuracy bonus.
• Incur accuracy penalty.
• Incur normal recovery time.

Essentially, it would give a warrior a free but inaccurate chance to interrupt and potentially damage any passerby. So yes, it would function like you say. Kiting characters could be caught, rushing characters could be inhibited, etc. Grazing damage is often trivial in my opinion, but it does add up. So while it wouldn't paralyze movement, it would eliminate silly chases or waltzing by opponent shenanigans.

 

You again removed the point where you turn disengagement hits in to grazes so i'm confused if they are in or not.

And do the attacks have lower or normal accuracy?

I have a fever so i'll just end it here.

 

So you will do absolutely everything just so that someone somewhere, won't win by kiting, even watching everyone standing still mauling at each other and spamming healing at the back, even though sensuk's mod with abilities can prevent that.

You don't need to create a massive list of abilities, since the majority are already in the game, you just don't notice them since you usually can't move. Also a lot of enemies have higher running speed.

I think you mentioned that this could cause more pausing, but if you look at IE games and PoE you can see that you need to pause more here so i don't think that's really the case.

 

The combat isn't fun, and i don't see how this will really fix it.

It will certainly be even more annoying if i have to watch my tank make stagger animations every time i try to move him for better spell positioning.

Also how will this prevent the enemy from trying to walk right past your character then? I assume that the AI won't change?

So combat will still be dictated by the first 2-3 seconds of gameplay?

I won't even go in to it again how it's not even worth using abilities at the moment to try and save someone, rather than just heal through the damage and dps them down.

 

I've tried Sensuk's mod and i feel combat is so much smoother with it and even fun at some times.

I'll just leave it to Sensuki to finish his mod and release it.

The only problem is that the AI isn't programmed for it and will appear quite dumb and unable to switch targets efficiently.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Cubiq

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Hahaha. That was a typo! I did edit that to a penalty rather than a bonus. The total changes I would make to disengagement attacks would be thus:

• Respect weapon reach.
• Remove damage bonus and accuracy bonus.
• Incur accuracy penalty.
• Incur normal recovery time.

Essentially, it would give a warrior a free but inaccurate chance to interrupt and potentially damage any passerby. So yes, it would function like you say. Kiting characters could be caught, rushing characters could be inhibited, etc. Grazing damage is often trivial in my opinion, but it does add up. So while it wouldn't paralyze movement, it would eliminate silly chases or waltzing by opponent shenanigans.

 

The combat isn't fun, and i don't see how this will really fix it.

 

That's really what it comes down to. Combat isn't as fun as it should be, but engagement is far from even the #1 reason why that's the case. It just one of many contributors. My thoughts are similar to Shevek's in that I feel the engagement problem is a bit overstated even in its currently broken form.

 

If done properly, I think engagement will not only cease being a problem, but an enhancement. I also find it much more realistic and conceptually preferable than any alternatives--even its absence.

[Shevek]

Fun is such a vague and subjective thing. How much will the fun of the system be affected by proper gear, a more comprehensive talent list and a more refined ui? The fun of combat is an extremely subjective thing that is heavily impacted by a multitude of factors not just one.

 

Also, I am finding it pretty fun. Everyone has their own idea of fun. One person should not declare something unfun as if they speak for all. Could it be better? Sure, everything in this life can improve. I still say the current implementation is quite decent and plays well with a decently geared party. I made a full party of custom guys that had fine armor and weapons (comparable gear to BB Npcs) and I rather enjoyed my run thru Dyrford.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shevek

[Cubiq]

Then i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Like i said i tried Sensuki's mod and the combat actually became fun at times, so i do believe that the engagement has a lot to do with it.

And i guess i can only hope others will feel as well when it's done.