Playing DA:I Cleared My Doubts About Engagement Mechanics In PoE

[Sensuki]

The system does not need an overhaul. Its nearly where it needs to be.

 

"Nothing could be further from the truth"

[Shevek]

Sensuki, give it a rest man.

[Namutree]

The system does not need an overhaul. Its nearly where it needs to be. 

 

No it isn't.

[Shevek]

We can make declarative statements until we are blue in the face but saying something 100x doesnt make it true or add weight to our arguments. Lets have some meaningful discussion folks. We paid cash for beta access and to be a meaningful part of these boards. Lets use our access wisely.

[Sensuki]

You just made a declarative statement, which I quoted. Let me re-quote what you said

 

 

 

The system does not need an overhaul. Its nearly where it needs to be.

 

You can make this declarative statement until you are blue in the face but saying something 100x doesnt make it true or add weight to your arguments.

[Namutree]

 

The system does not need an overhaul. Its nearly where it needs to be. 

 

No it isn't.

 

Heck I'll go further and prove it:

 

A) The mechanic is easily abused see the video where Sensuki uses the mechanic to kite more effectively than was ever possible in the IE games.

 

B) It's not even close to achieving one of it's primary purposes. That purpose being to prevent kiting. As noted earlier, it was meant to combat kiting; not make kiting easier.

 

C) It's presented very poorly. No animations; just invisible damage.

 

D) It limits movement to an extreme degree. This makes combat much, much less tactical.

 

E) It allows for trap talents and abilities.

 

F) It makes the game much harder to understand for newbies.

 

EDIT: I could go on, but I think that's enough.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Namutree

[Shevek]

That quote was part of a larger statement where I explained my thinking. You casually ignored my rationale and presented that statement in isolation. Now you are attempting to make a false comparison by equating your one sentence post to a one sentence excerpt for a longer post of mine.

 

This sort of thing does not lead to real discussion. You are once again baiting and looking to derail any and all board discussion about game systems you do not like on a design level.

[Sensuki]

Actually I'm pretty sure that's what you're trying to do regarding sensible removal of broken features, because you happen to like it.

[Shevek]

A) The mechanic is easily abused see the video where Sensuki uses the mechanic to kite more effectively than was ever possible in the IE games.

Just because it has been abused easily does mot mean it cant be fixed easily.

 

B) It's not even close to achieving one of it's primary purposes. That purpose being to prevent kiting. As noted earlier, it was meant to combat kiting; not make kiting easier.

Same issue as A. These are not separate arguments. You are listing things twice.

 

"C) It's presented very poorly. No animations; just invisible damage.

Devs have acknowledged the need for more visible UI feedback. I made similar statements about the need of improved UI feedback across the board (not just for engagement). So, this is not an issue limited to engagement.

 

D) It limits movement to an extreme degree. This makes combat much, much less tactical

Opinion.

 

E) It allows for trap talents and abilities.

Many talents are traps that have nothing to do with engagement. Talent balancing is a separate issue.

 

F) It makes the game much harder to understand for newbies.

Newbs like Waffle have stated they are comfortable with the system and it will be easier for them to get when they start at level 1.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Shevek

[Shevek]

Actually I'm pretty sure that's what you're trying to do regarding sensible removal of broken features, because you happen to like it.

"Nothing could be further from the truth"

 

Seriously man, just stop baiting.

[Shallow]

Whether engagement needs to be removed or not depends on what kind of tactics you like, regardless of whether it needs to be removed the AI is complete crap and that's the real issue here, regardless of whether engagement stays or not AI also needs mostly the same additions, the only difference an engagement AI and an engagement having AI need is the AI without engagement being more willing to attack the first thing they see and more willing to attack something else when that seems logical.

[Sensuki]

Seriously man, just stop baiting.

How about you stop posting, and thus advocating the watering down of the game.

[Shevek]

Lol

[Namutree]

 

E) It allows for trap talents and abilities.

Many talents are traps that have nothing to do with engagement. Talent balancing is a separate issue.

No it isn't. Balancing talents will be much harder with engagement working as it currently does.

 

 

 

A) The mechanic is easily abused see the video where Sensuki uses the mechanic to kite more effectively than was ever possible in the IE games.

Just because it has been abused easily does mot mean it cant be fixed easily.

 

Fixing it would require an overhaul. That thing you said it doesn't need. The fact it can be abused isn't a glitch; it's the result of the way the mechanic functions. Engagement would need to be altered at a fundamental level in order to be fixed. Whether or not that overhaul will be easy is unknown to me, but it would be an overhaul none the less.

 

 

 

F) It makes the game much harder to understand for newbies.

Newbs like Waffle have stated they are comfortable with the system and it will be easier for them to get when they start at level 1.

 

Waffle was informed as to how it works. Just wait for the newb who tries to run away while engaged and gets wrecked for seemingly no reason. 

 

 

Seriously man, just stop baiting.

How about you stop posting, and thus advocating the watering down of the game.

 

I strongly disagree with his position on engagement, but he's entitled to his opinion.

[Shallow]

 

Seriously man, just stop baiting.

How about you stop posting, and thus advocating the watering down of the game.

 

Technically, seeing as he isn't proposing a change here he can't possibly be suggesting watering the game down, he's suggestion leaving this exact instance more or less exactly as watered down as it is, however much or little that may be.

[wanderon]

You guys do realize that when a thread turns into a bickering session between a couple of individuals it's pretty unlikely anyone from the devs side is likely to try to weed through the back and forth to determine if there is any real value in anything being said? - of course you do... nevermind...

[Gairnulf]

Sorry for being a lazy mf, but does anyone have a quote from a developer saying they are satisfied with the AI and they don't plan to improve it until release? Because I can't seem to understand this whole argument spanning a few threads where one guy says "the AI sucks", the other giy says "no, it's just fine", as if it has reached some finalized state. To the best of my knowledge, the combat AI is not up for review yet. Or am I mistaken?

[Shevek]

No it isn't. Balancing talents will be much harder with engagement working as it currently does.

On what facts do you base this assertion? I do not see how this is the case.

 

Fixing it would require an overhaul. That thing you said it doesn't need.

The term overhaul suggests massive systems changes. I do not think that is necessary. I am talking about a few numbers changes mainly. I have not seen anything that suggests such changes would not have a meaningful impact.

 

Waffle was informed as to how it works.

I will grant you that but he himself stated that he doesnt think casuals will have an issue if they start from level 1.

[Shevek]

Sorry for being a lazy mf, but does anyone have a quote from a developer saying they are satisfied with the AI and they don't plan to improve it until release? Because I can't seem to understand this whole argument spanning a few threads where one guy says "the AI sucks", the other giy says "no, it's just fine", as if it has reached some finalized state. To the best of my knowledge, the combat AI is not up for review yet. Or am I mistaken?

I think everyone is looking to OE to improve the AI. The disagreement stems from opinions on core combat design mechanics.

[Namutree]

 

No it isn't. Balancing talents will be much harder with engagement working as it currently does.

On what facts do you base this assertion? I do not see how this is the case.

The more variables and mechanics you have; the harder balance is to achieve.

 

 

 

Fixing it would require an overhaul. That thing you said it doesn't need.

The term overhaul suggests massive systems changes. I do not think that is necessary. I am talking about a few numbers changes mainly. I have not seen anything that suggests such changes would not have a meaningful impact.

How would moving some numbers around prevent someone from being kited via engagement? Did you see the video where Sensuki landed a bunch of disengagement attacks over and over? The way engagement is handled needs to change, or else we can just do it over and over and over and over without penalty.

 

 

 

Waffle was informed as to how it works.

I will grant you that but he himself stated that he doesnt think casuals will have an issue if they start from level 1.

 

He's wrong. They will. They'll get hit, want to retreat, get pwned by disengagement; then get pissed. Many will be like, "WTF!? I'm not allowed to move in combat!? This is dumb!"

[Shevek]

The more variables and mechanics you have; the harder balance is to achieve.

Thats awfully vague. I just dont see the presence or lack of engagement as being enough to sabotage talent balance. It just sounds like hyperbole to me.

 

How would moving some numbers around prevent someone from being kited via engagement?

That could be addressed via AI or some modest changes to the mechanic. Theyve been listed before and all make more sense than ripping out the mechanic.

 

He's wrong. They will.

I trust his first hand opinion. Edited November 23, 2014 by Shevek

[Sensuki]

Oh yeah? I'd love to see you explain that.

[Namutree]

 

How would moving some numbers around prevent someone from being kited via engagement?

That could be addressed via AI (outside of the mechanic)

 

The irony... THE IRONY!!! Also, no; that wouldn't work.

 

 

 

How would moving some numbers around prevent someone from being kited via engagement?

some modest changes to the mrchanic. 

I guess it depends on what you mean by modest.

 

 

Theyve been listed before and all make more sense than ripping out the mechanic.

 

Maybe. It all depends on what you think it adds to the game vs what it takes away. I realize that it can be fixed so that it isn't game breaking (it likely will be fixed if the mechanic is kept), but it would be easier AND in my opinion better if it was just cut.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Namutree

[MReed]

I believe I have a solution that will satisfy all parties (except myself) in this discussion:

 

When a fighter A is engaged by one or more foes (X, Y, Z), it can still move without incurring AOO's by executing a "fighting withdrawal" if:

* "A" is not flanked

* "A" drops all of his/her engagements

* "A" forgoes all offensive attacks (this is normal when moving anyway)

* "A" accepts a 25% movement penalty

* "A" gets a minor (10%) deflection bonus to all attacks from targets that have engagement with him/her.

 

This sort of movement would be the default when a character is engaged by someone else and a movement order is given.  An <alt>+click (or similar) would be required to invoke normal movement in this case.

 

if the character is flanked, he/she would adopt the orientation that minimizes the number of flankers and accept the AOOs from the remainder.  The UI should warn the player when this will occur -- the most obvious way is to turn the mouse cursor red (instead of the normal white) when a movement order would result in unavoidable AOOs.

 

Scenario:

 

The PC's party consists of:

 

Fighter A

Fighter B

Healer C

 

There is one foe, Z (which can hold engagements with up to three people at once)

 

At the start of the combat:

 

A is engaged with Z

Z is engaged with A

B is engaged with no-one

C is engaged with no-one

 

A is damaged and would prefer to withdraw.  To prepare for this withdrawal B moves up to the front lines and establishes engagement with Z.

 

State:

 

A is engaged with Z

B is engaged with Z

Z is engaged with A

Z is engaged with B

C is engaged with no-one

 

A left clicks near C and starts a fighting withdrawal.  Since there is only one foe, there is no difficulty in ensuring that he/she is not flanked, so all the conditions are met.

 

State:

 

A is withdrawing, so can no longer engage with anyone

B is engaged with Z

Z is engaged with A (but getting no benefits, due to the fighting withdrawal)

Z is engaged with B

C is engaged with no-one

 

Z attempts to pursue -- since Z is still engaged (by B), he/she must also execute a fighting withdrawal.  Again, with a single foe there are no flanking concerns.

 

A is withdrawing

B is engaged with Z (but getting no benefits)

Z is withdrawing

C is engaged with no-one

 

A is no longer engaged by anyone -- therefore, the restrictions imposed by a tactical withdrawal no longer apply, and he/she can move full speed.

 

A is moving normally (toward C)

B is engaged with Z (but getting no benefits)

Z is withdrawing

C is engaged with no-one

 

A can now easily out-run Z (as Z is still suffering form the 25 % movement penalty).  B, not being engaged by anyone, can easily keep Z within range, making normal attacks against a foe that cannot strike back.  Z will be obliged to stop pursuing A and attack B, which is the desired result.

 

Obviously, this is a very simple scenario -- but it should make movement in combat a reasonable option once again.

[Shevek]

@MReed

 

I like the snare (I recommended a snare on engaged targets a while ago but this implementation would be better). I like that you still take AoOs from flankers.

 

I would remove the 10% deflection bonus. Also, I think that avoiding AoOs completely right off the bat while backing away seems too good. I would give AoOs a 50% miss chance and up that to 75% to 100% (somewhere around there) with Graceful Retreat when backing away. That way the player has to invest for that mobility.

 

The UI recommendations you made are very good as well.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Shevek