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

[tdphys]

Why not just let the characters who are disengaging grant a largish accuracy bonus (incur a deflection penalty? )  to engaged foes for a few seconds.  If he can get out of range before attacks trigger,  good for him.  If he can't,  boom.   Thus, multiple enemies engaged will have better chance to hit with their cool-downs coming off different times, and one doesn't have to rely on gimmicky off cool-down attacks/animations etc. 

 

The more I think about it,  the more I agree with Sensuki that out of cool-down engagement AOO attack really is a turn-based mechanic, and doesn't fit well thematically and mechanically with real-time pause.  

 

If you wanted to be really nasty,  you could add an instant cool-down (random even?  skill based? )  reduction to the engaged foes when breaking engagement.

 

That being said,  I think the kiting example used against the current engagement is an AI issue and not an engagement one. 

 

(Edit: I know this is similar to MReed's idea, but I thought it could be simpler and not necessitate more UI, just be a understood combat mechanic) 

Edited November 24, 2014 by tdphys

[Shevek]

 

 

Why not just let the characters who are disengaging grant a largish accuracy bonus (incur a deflection penalty? )  to engaged foes for a few seconds.  If he can get out of range before attacks trigger,  good for him.  If he can't,  boom.   Thus, multiple enemies engaged will have better chance to hit with their cool-downs coming off different times, and one doesn't have to rely on gimmicky off cool-down attacks/animations etc.

That would make the ability of some combatants have to engage multiple targets almost meaningless.

[MReed]

To clarify a couple of things in my original proposal:

 

* ""A" forgoes all offensive attacks" really should have been ""A"'s recovery time is paused".

* Any character who has engaged a foe but is engaged by nobody can move towards or around (+- 180 degrees from a vector pointing from the center of the character's avatar and the center of the foes avatar) any foe to which they have engagement without any penalty -- in particular, this means that:

   * The moving character's recovery timer is not paused

   * The movement, does not break their engagements (unless the result of the movement pulls the character out of engagement range of one or more targets -- only possible if the character can engage multiple targets)

 

The purpose of the second is to ensure that in a 1x1 situation the character who moves first is at a disadvantage (his/her movement will break engagement and pause his/her recovery timer, but the movement of his/her foe will do neither of these things).  If this change wasn't made, it would encourage kiting, defeating the whole purpose of the engagement model in the first place.

 

 

@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.

 

The most likely reason for attempting to withdraw is due to damage -- the deflection bonus (& immunity from AOO) is critical to making this a valid option.  As Sensuki has pointed out (and I fully agree with him) the high risk of damage when you attempt to disengage with the current model renders movement in this case impossible, and spending valuable talents for something that will only come into play when you are already in a bad situation, rather than something that will help you all the time is a poor strategic decision.  The deflection bonus also makes sense from a realisim point of view -- if all you are doing is trying to avoid damage and you are retreating from your foes, you should be harder to hit.

 

Instead, I would propose that Graceful Retreat should eliminate the movement penalty and replace it with a +10% movement bonus, increase the deflection bonus to +25%, and allow the recovery timer to run at 50% of its normal pace (so a 3 second recovery would be a 6 second recovery while withdrawing).  It would still be a questionable choice for a talent, but perhaps benefit builds that are designed around flanking attacks.  Note that while I've described it as "fighting withdrawal" in the original proposal, "fighting maneuver" is perhaps more accurate -- you don't have to use this to move away from a foe, so you could use it to reposition to gain flanking attacks (for example).

 

The modified engagement model also synergies nicely with talents / abilities / effects that make it harder for a character to be flanked as well, which provides another path for a player to increase their ability to escape from combat while still being useful in other cases and is passive, so it will be there when you need it (vs, say, Knockdown or stun effects).

[tdphys]

 

Why not just let the characters who are disengaging grant a largish accuracy bonus (incur a deflection penalty? )  to engaged foes for a few seconds.  If he can get out of range before attacks trigger,  good for him.  If he can't,  boom.   Thus, multiple enemies engaged will have better chance to hit with their cool-downs coming off different times, and one doesn't have to rely on gimmicky off cool-down attacks/animations etc.

That would make the ability of some combatants have to engage multiple targets almost meaningless.

 

 

No,  it would mean it could have multiple buffs from multiple disengagements.   A large monster engages 3 PCs,  2 flee,  the monster gets buffed twice and focuses on the remaining PC which receives the wrath.   Thematic and mechanic synergy !!!!

[Shevek]

@MReed

Providing deflection bonuses to retreating and your proposed implementation of Graceful Retreat would gut the mechanic and subvert design goals. I do still like your idea of a snare and giving the ability of characters to tactically withdraw from single targets.

 

Another idea is to just go with a simpler implementation that wouldn't get muddied by issues related to flanking. The idea of tactical retreating would remain.

 

When a character is engaged with one opponent, it is hit with a 10% snare and engagement attacks have a 40% hit chance when tactically retreating.

When a character is engaged with two opponents, it is hit with a 20% snare and engagement attacks have a 60% hit chance when tactically retreating.

When a character is engaged with three or more opponents, it is hit with a 30% snare and engagement attacks have a 80% hit chance when tactically retreating.

 

This would make retreating against 1 enemy feasible but still risky and retreating against multiple a bad idea when not using knockdowns, stuns, etc. The player could reduce these penalties by knocking enemies down or stunning them thus reducing the amount of engaged opponents.

 

Graceful Retreat could reduce hit chance of engagement attacks by a flat 30% (snare would remain or maybe be reduced by a flat 10%). The chanter disengagement song can have a lesser effect that would stack (reduce the hit chance of engagement attacks by a flat 15 or 20%) yet similar effect and affect all party members. Bam, stickiness kept, can retreat against single targets especially when built for mobility, running from multiple foes a bad idea (as it should be), and disengagement tactics still useful against multiple opponents (players would be rewarded for knocking a guy down and doing a tactical retreat against the other).

Edited November 24, 2014 by Shevek

[Sensuki]

[MReed]

I don't think "gut" is the right word -- as I pointed out, in a 1x1 engagement, the player would not be able to successfully escape.  True, they wouldn't take an AOOs, but they would still take normal attacks and be unable to attack in response.  Even with a minor (10%) deflection bonus, they are still going to die, it will just take a little longer.

 

Now, even a half-way competent player will rarely be flanked (the AI, almost certainly, won't flank the player except by accident), but the player is still required to bring up a second party member to gain engagement (against all foes for the person who is trying to retreat) and suffer normal attacks while attempting to withdraw, and withdraw in a direction that doesn't result in any of the foes ending up in flanking position.  I suspect that these conditions will be unachievable during many practical play scenarios, especially when it is the fighter (tank) trying to disengage, which would be the most common scenario.

 

I agree that it nerfs the engagement metric quite firmly, and it strongly favors the player (because the AI, almost certainly, won't be able to exploit any of the new features except by accident), but it leaves enough of the engagement mechanic in place to achieve its primary goal, of deterring certain forms of kiting (to the degree that it can achieve this goal, which is a wholly seperate discussion).

Edited November 24, 2014 by MReed

[Shevek]

@MReed:

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the extent to which engagement could/should be nerfed.

[Lephys]

I'm still very much focused on the "tradeoff" factor for engagement. I like the idea of "proper" disengagement costing you recovery time, etc. Because, I definitely agree that movement should be an option in combat. But, really, switching targets willy-nilly doesn't need to be. Even the current engagement system doesn't restrict movement in combat, though. It restricts movement once engaged. In other words, you can still take advantage of any abilities that allow you to control or restrict enemy movement, in order to move AROUND those enemies and engage with the enemies of your choosing. Not only that, but, if you take advantage of further engagement, you can prevent multiple enemies from ganging up on a person.

 

So, yeah, also REALLY in favor of the severity of "improper" disengagement stemming from there being more than one enemy around. In fact, I think that may be the single biggest problem right now with engagement... the fact that, if you're just facing someone 1-on-1, it's highly punishing to disengage, unless you use one of your few abilities that lets you basically do so for free, which I'm not even sure should really happen, as, in a tactical environment, everything should have some kind of cost, or where's the choice?. I realize that there's a choice if it's a spell or some other form of limited ability set, in which one slot is taken up by that particular freebie ability. But, if not, there's no real choice. It's just a get-out-of-jail-free card, with "jail" being really, really common.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Lephys

[Namutree]

I realize that there's a choice if it's a spell or some other form of limited ability set, in which one slot is taken up by that particular freebie ability. But, if not, there's no real choice. It's just a get-out-of-jail-free card, with "jail" being really, really common.

I love references to monopoly. Fun fact about monopoly; nearly everyone plays the game wrong by leaving out auctions.

[Lord Wafflebum]

Lol, my ears are burning.

 

1) I'm looking forward to the day that Shevek and Sensuki become best friends. 

 

2) @Namutree: I've seen no compelling argument for my alleged wrongness. Altho Sensuki more often than not has good arguments for his positions I still haven't seen an argument from him that suggests it's any worse than not ideal. I don't like how engagement works currently, but I also am nowhere near convinced it needs to be scrapped entirely. To be fair, there's a high likelihood I may have missed his breakdown of why it cannot function as intended. 

 

Besides, my only personal interest is how the game plays on Easy. Since Sensuki and Shevek stepped in and took care of making a beta tutorial for peeps like me, I can play the game without getting hulk-mad. How it plays on hard or PotD I doubt I will ever try it. Engagement mechanics very well may be glaringly bad. I've always stated that from my perspective engagment seems like it will be fine.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Lord Wafflebum

[Guest 4ward]

for me the 'snare' wouldn't work. When i want to disengage i'd like to simply click and move out immediately. If AoO is to stay, then i'd like graceful retreat to actually mean something and the AoO not be calculated as a standard attack but as an opportunity. If you invested in graceful retreat then AoOs should rarely occur or be grazes and only in very rare occasions hits. People who prefer it to be that AoOs are punishing and/or are happy with melee guys not moving simply don't invest in that talent but invest in a talent that e.g. gives deflection on standard attacks.

[Seari]

I'm glad you guys aren't actual game developers, I mean seriously, some of these ideas...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm glad you guys aren't actual game developers, I mean seriously, some of these ideas...

We should have a mode where you can press a button and combat gets auto-won. **** them tactics.

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

I'm glad you guys aren't actual game developers, I mean seriously, some of these ideas...

We should have a mode where you can press a button and combat gets auto-won. **** them tactics.

 

I'd be liar if I said I wouldn't use that.

[Lephys]

I'm glad you guys aren't actual game developers, I mean seriously, some of these ideas...

Could you maybe cite something specific, and, you know... actually be productive in the thread?

 

"Oh, man! Some of the words that people type on forums! HAH!"

 

I'm just going to start responding with that, to everything, ever. Because then the world will be a better place.

[Gairnulf]

Something I just discovered in the new beta build - when a beetle buries itself underground and then emerges next to one of your characters, if you pause just before it has finished emerging, you can run away from it before the engagement connection between you has been established.