Thoughts from a casual gamer

[IndiraLightfoot]

Not sure if you are serious... Are you being sarcastic? Its hard to tell with text. So needing any tactics AT ALL is too much? That means theres a problem? What? I think its funny that folks are advocating for more pointless encounters that are totally devoid of challenge.

I was serious, but I seem to have misunderstood something important - I didn't realize you were discussing Hard difficulty. I was trying to stay true to the topic at hand. My reply is about Easy difficulty and trash mobs. If these are that frustrating and "tactics-dependent", something is indeed wrong. I agree with Lord Wafflebum. Thrash mobs on that difficulty should be more or less "devoid of challenge".

Edited November 10, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Shevek]

Every non-named encounter shouldnt be the equivalent of a pack of gibberlings even on easy. That being said the vid I made clearly shows that non -named fights are very easy on NORMAL with only rudimentary tactics so long as I build for passive play. The key is in how you build your party. If you build for active play then no matter the difficulty you should be expected to play actively. Choices should always matter in cRPGs no matter the difficulty. Folk seem to suggest that easy should be easy to roll through with passive autoattacking even if the player builds for active ability use. Well, I disagree there.

[Sensuki]

Went to the Stormwall Gorge for the first time today, what damage do Elder Lions do on other difficulties? They're hitting my BB Fighter for 75 damage a hit (normal hit, not a crit) and he's in Plate Armor. WAT.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[constantine]

Most of the topics on this forum are very in-depth and probably the most helpful for tweaking the game. My problem is that I care very little for the nitty-gritty of the game mechanics, and I'm feeling that those of us that just want to enjoy a game are being overlooked.

 

I think of myself more as a casual gamer. I almost always play on the easiest difficulty. I like a little challenge to my games, but not frustratingly so. This is my major annoyance with PoE as it stands.

 

I straight up hate the combat. I'm not annoyed, irritated, or even loathe it. I HATE it. It is so jarringly difficult (on EASY setting!) that it just tanks my enjoyment hard. Let me explain why.

 

I've found it pretty easy to get immersed in the world. By the time I've talked to everyone and seen everything in town I'm pumped to set off and go accomplish things. That's where I end up rage quitting the game. It takes all of about 45 seconds for my party to get wiped out by beetles. Frakking beetles. It's beyond ridiculous. My very first encounter on easy difficulty and I'm the victim of one of the most one sided battles I've ever experienced.

 

On the difficulty I want to play I don't feel I should have to pay excruciating detail to damage mechanics, what weapons do and don't work on what enemies, flawless tactics and wise use of spells and abilities. This was a huge issue for me in v278, and it feels even worse in v333. I don't know what it was like in v301, because unfortunately it seems being at work is my new hobby.

 

My hope is that someone takes notice of this and tweaks a difficulty setting for folks like me. I have enough analysis and planning to do at work; I have neither the time or patience for it in what is supposed to be my relaxing activities. 

 

I am not a casual gamer, but quite the contrary, I want PoE to be challenging, punishing & HARD.

 

That doesn't mean I don't feel for you. EASY should be well, easy. Maybe they can even add a CASUAL difficulty setting with even less challenging combat for people interested in nothing more than the story.

 

Right now, even I hate combat. Because it's complicating without reason, it breaks immersion instead of doing the opposite, it's not fun, it's ugly, it hurts my eyes, it killed my grandma.

 

It's a complete failure. I hope it gets fixed, if only for the hype I had for this game for the past 2 years.

Edited November 10, 2014 by constantine

[Sensuki]

PE was meant to require a bit more player input by default. On hard though it only requires pausing and re-issuing of commands and doesn't really promote making many tactical decisions other than what ability to use. Once you've entered the fray, you're locked in. 

 

If Melee Engagement was removed and per-hit damage tuned down, then it would be much better, and feel a bit more like an IE game. Then I would actually be able to apply mid-combat tactics, rather than just standing there assigning actions. Currently there's not enough time to make use of most of the party buffs, and the game pretty much always promotes doing raw damage all of the time because if you don't, you'll lose the health attrition war very quickly (on Hard difficulty).

That is boring.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

Maybe the should add Story difficulty where party members are immune to damage like IWDEE has :D

[Shevek]

I am not convinced that the only way to address issues arising from engagement is to remove it altogether. Seems to me that a reduction in engagement attack dmg would allow more mobility while still penalizing running around in circles to pop potions (which should be penalized).

 

I could even see engagement applying a minor snare and a reduction in engagement attack dmg to the lower end (mostly grazes). That would meet design goals of allowing melee to hold the line without needing to exploit chokepoints or bad ai pathfinding. It would also not penalize the occaisonal tactical retreat since it would give you more time to break engagement as you back the injured character off. It seems to me that would the player time to react and increase rhe value/use of engagement breaking abilities.

[Sensuki]

I am. I have already offered alternatives. It won't affect the way you play because enemies will still act the same way. If you want to just stand there and auto attack, that's your perogative.

[Shevek]

I just think with engagement we have ability to turn an apparent flaw into a significant strength. The game needs ways to promote reactivity during combat according to you. If engagement attacks didnt do as much dmg but still served at holding the line, players would see incentives in using a wider array of abilities mid combat to break engagement before backing the injured character off.

 

The lower engagement attack dmg down to mostly graze level and giving engagement a minor snare, that keeps engagement relevant while giving characters ample reaction time to break it.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Shevek

[Cubiq]

I just think with engagement we have ability to turn an apparent flaw into a significant strength. The game needs ways to promote reactivity during combat according to you. If engagement attacks didnt do as much dmg but still served at holding the line, players would see incentives in using a wider array of abilities mid combat to break engagement before backing the injured character off.

 

The lower engagement attack dmg down to mostly graze level and giving engagement a minor snare, that keeps engagement relevant while giving characters ample reaction time to break it.

I don't think that's really going to change much.

You're still going to brute force through it.

So instead of using the heals on your weaker character you're then just going to use them on your tank instead now.

This is assuming they make heals weaker or made back line character even weaker so that you can't just heal through the damage and dps them down.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Cubiq

[Sensuki]

I just think with engagement we have ability to turn an apparent flaw into a significant strength.

 

There's nothing good about the system in the first place. It is flawed at the design level.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

I disagree. I don't see a flaw on a design level other than maybe the amount of dmg the engagement attacks do. I actually think the IE games were far too forgiving and let players exploit bad ai/pathfinding when they let players disengage and run around popping potions whenever they got themselves in trouble. I also think there is something to be said for a system that doesn't force the player to exploit choke points (doorways, etc) just to protect its ranged characters an enemy dog pile.

[Sensuki]

Bull****. The point I have been making is that because the player can do those things, encounters should be designed with those facts in mind, as they often were in many of the IE game encounters. I enjoyed the modded IWD fights where I literally had to swap aggro because none of my party could withstand the damage output from Yxunomei or Belhifet alone.

It's no less dirty than you're luring of single enemies tactic, either.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

I am not saying you shouldnt be able to disengage. I am saying that you shouldnt be able to do it easily. Again, this offers another dimension in how you create a party. You may consider abilities simply for their utility in breaking engagement. Similarly, this would add an element of reactivity to combat. You would still be able to disengage and spread damage around but it would not be as simple and kiting the enemy around while you pop potions until it gets bored and attacked something else. I think this is how the devs want it to work now but the damage is too high ffrom disengagement to allow you to simultaneously move away as you attempt to break engagement.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Shevek

[Sensuki]

It's got nothing to do with a party. The game is real time, enemies can chase you, enemies can still target you with stuff and enemies can hit you with ranged weapons. Better interaction with moving targets is needed though, like in WC3. Like I said classes could be given abilities to maintain stickiness. The current system is just plain wrong as it implies that movement and actions should come from the same resource pool due to cargo cult turn-based AP design - news flash - real-time is not like that, and there are also better implementations of actions in TB as well.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shevek]

Listen, this kind of high level commentary over what might be better than engagement is all well and good but, frankly, I have not heard CONCRETE reasons as why simple mechanical tweaks can't make the engagement system more of an asset. I just find it odd that the assumption is that there is no way to utilize engagement in a positive manner. That kind of absolutist statement must be wrong. While I have my own issues with the game (like the lack of combat xp or the current state of the skill system), I certainly don't believe that a team of seasoned devs have implemented systems which are completely without hope of success.

 

Also, honestly, engagement has been given a fair amount of dev time and has talents, abilities and UI elements dedicated to it. Wouldn't it be more efficient to discuss how to improve the system rather than toss the baby out with the bathwater and waste all the dev time that went into it?

[Nonek]

Successful non damaging attack to disengage? A kick, slam or somesuch to break engagement? Just spitballing.

[nipsen]

I just find it odd that the assumption is that there is no way to utilize engagement in a positive manner. That kind of absolutist statement must be wrong. While I have my own issues with the game (like the lack of combat xp or the current state of the skill system), I certainly don't believe that a team of seasoned devs have implemented systems which are completely without hope of success.

 

Also, honestly, engagement has been given a fair amount of dev time and has talents, abilities and UI elements dedicated to it. Wouldn't it be more efficient to discuss how to improve the system rather than toss the baby out with the bathwater and waste all the dev time that went into it?

I find your sneaky insinuation about how a beta-tester does not intuitively know.. well.. everything, including how to design games from the bottom up, very insulting, Shevek.

 

So I suggest you moderate your clearly abusive tone, and explain yourself in a more erudite and rational manner - or I will be forced to spam the report button, until I methodically and rationally wear down the mouse-buttons.

[Cubiq]

I find your sneaky insinuation about how a beta-tester does not intuitively know.. well.. everything, including how to design games from the bottom up, very insulting, Shevek.

 

So I suggest you moderate your clearly abusive tone, and explain yourself in a more erudite and rational manner - or I will be forced to spam the report button, until I methodically and rationally wear down the mouse-buttons.

Shevek actually has a argument.

You're here just for your personal vendetta vs Sensuki.

Please kindly **** off.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Cubiq

[Sensuki]

Listen, this kind of high level commentary over what might be better than engagement is all well and good but, frankly, I have not heard CONCRETE reasons as why simple mechanical tweaks can't make the engagement system more of an asset.

 

Will probably have something on that soonish, but the fact is it's like anything really - religion or politics for instance, fair chance that once you made your mind up originally you're not going to change it.

 

Keep trolling nipsen

 

Also, honestly, engagement has been given a fair amount of dev time and has talents, abilities and UI elements dedicated to it. Wouldn't it be more efficient to discuss how to improve the system rather than toss the baby out with the bathwater and waste all the dev time that went into it?

No, because it has serious problems even at the design level. Josh said (in a quote from about a year ago) that if they can't get it working properly they will probably cut it. Why waste even more time on a broken system when you can spend that time on better things ?

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki

[forgottenlor]

Having not Beta tested, I still don't understand how you can say, Sensuki, that the engagement system is flawed on a design level, especially since you yourself say you supported it before you saw how it was implemented. You have problems with being unable to disengage, pull back and heal characters. I would argue there are a lot of RPGs where this isn't an option (the entire Might and Magic and Wizardry series, for example, or early Disciples). But even if it is desirable to make this an option, then I don't see how the engagement system can't be changed to allow this to a certain degree. There are many games that have some sort of engagement system, and on a theoretical level it adds a lot more tactics. I also think giving classes some sort of ability to disengage (through talents, spells, (or what not) would add even more variety to the system. Throwing out the whole thing seems like a waste.

[YunikoYokai5]

(Gah! My wireless mouse acted up and I accidentally liked something while flailing and button mashing to make it work. How do you unlike?!)

 

I hope they do something to the combat, I still need to research different team styles/builds. I tend to just go for a balanced all-round team if I can. Still a little terrified to take on Medreth, even when I finally decide to try the monk. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

YunikoYokai5: Have you tried clicking the like, and thereby unliking it?

[Cubiq]

I also think giving classes some sort of ability to disengage (through talents, spells, (or what not) would add even more variety to the system.

Yeah i agree it does, but i feel a LOT would need to change, like increasing the reliability of CC and the speed of it's execution.

I just don't feel like you have much of a chance at the moment at using abilities to help disengage, since a lot of them are hit dependent as well.

It's easier to just heal the damage.

However increasing the reliability of CC can also backfire as your own tank or back line character can get CCed easier.

Also i really hate it if you just brute force the disengagement mechanic. If you lower the damage so you can just walk away from it then why have it there in the first place. It's certainly not going to stop kiting, as already shown by Sensuki.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Cubiq

[Sensuki]

Having not Beta tested, I still don't understand how you can say, Sensuki, that the engagement system is flawed on a design level, especially since you yourself say you supported it before you saw how it was implemented. You have problems with being unable to disengage, pull back and heal characters. I would argue there are a lot of RPGs where this isn't an option (the entire Might and Magic and Wizardry series, for example, or early Disciples). But even if it is desirable to make this an option, then I don't see how the engagement system can't be changed to allow this to a certain degree. There are many games that have some sort of engagement system, and on a theoretical level it adds a lot more tactics. I also think giving classes some sort of ability to disengage (through talents, spells, (or what not) would add even more variety to the system. Throwing out the whole thing seems like a waste.

I pretty much supported it blindly. I believed what the developers were telling me. It's like when they said that the round system in the IE game was bad. I was like "Hah, yeah that is dumb" but after actually having compared the combat in the IE games and PE, the flow of the IE combat is so much better than PE, due to the way the per-unit round system works - it's actually insanely well implemented. So, well done Bioware - I took that system for granted the whole time.

 

Melee Engagement has been broken the whole time, in the first version (v257) you could actually move around a little bit in combat, the Engagement attacks didn't trigger until you were a certain range away, so it was kind of unclear how they worked. They changed it in v301 to be more "snappy" and by that, it means that if you move a single pixel at all when you're in melee, you get hit with a disengagement attack. It's invisible, there's no cooldown on it, and the character that it procced for can also drop an attack on top of it at the same time. There are still several bugs with it, and it is very badly exploitable at the moment.

 

I knew things were wrong with the combat in v278, and I knew that it didn't really feel like playing an Infinity Engine game, so that's why I went back and did my IWD play through. Going back and playing Icewind Dale wad so much more enjoyable and fun than the Pillars of Eternity combat and during my playthrough I realized what was felt different between the games and what Pillars of Eternity was doing wrong. I doubt that many others here have A/B compared PE and an IE game to how they feel, some people are probably talking about experiences they had years and years ago. In several of my suggestion videos and bug reports I A/B compare features in PE and the IE games to showcase how they are different and what PE does wrong.

 

That caused me to make a mod removing the Engagement system to see what it felt like without it, and yep - it's much better. Combat flows much more like an Infinity Engine game. I sent my mod to Cubiq and he agreed. Captain Shrek also said it felt more like playing Icewind Dale as well, and he's not even necessarily against the Engagement system. I know from experience that AoOs in Neverwinter Nights and NWN2 were laughably bad, and here is no different, if not even worse. It caused me to think about what is wrong with the system at a conceptual level and that's because it's a turn-based mechanic that has been ported over into real-time, and it's not really a good turn-based mechanic either, because I think that split action points for movement and non-movement actions a superior system.

 

The Engagement system without the disengagement attacks is essentially an MMO Aggro mechanic, and I don't like those either, and both of these systems prevent me from doing things I enjoy doing in combat and they severely limit tactical movement in combat. I gravitate towards such games outside of RPGs - FPS, RTS, MOBA. There aren't many RTwP RPGs that I know of - there's a 90s X-COM game I think, Darklands, the IE games, Bioware's Aurora engine games, DAO, the Kotor series, NWN2, 7.62mm High Caliber and the Dungeon Siege series (at least the earlier ones anyway, I've only played the first one). Maybe some JRPGs too. RPGs usually have better character progression than other games but usually they have worse combat.

 

Out of those the ones that have the best combat are the IE games and 7.62mm High Caliber. DS1 was okay, but it had more stagnant combat than the IE games which is probably one of the reasons why I didn't like it. I think the key to making the PE combat more fun is to open up movement in melee. Combined with proper AI targeting and fixing the interaction with attacking moving units, I think it will make the game feel a lot better. It already does with my mod.

 

Some people will be against this because they like stagnant stand-still combat, but I think this is what set the Infinity Engine game combat apart from the non-isometric titles that weren't using an RTS-y engine. I also don't think that if the system was changed to how I see it working that combat would be any different for them, because they are not affected by disengagement attacks because unless you abuse it like in my video, the player will never score them against the AI. Some people are opposing it for ideological or conservative reasons.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sensuki