Suggestions for PoE From here on in

[Sensuki]

It is indeed a cop out to have that opinion IMO.

[constantine]

Engagement is fine. They are working on adding better visual feedback to it and that will be huge. Game feels great now and will get better once they make things like engagement more visually obvious.

 

Already combat feels damn good and all it took was a few small tweaks. There is value in small purposeful changes. Large systems changes that entail ripping out systems would water down the games design and may lead to unforseen problems as a result.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

If engagement's problem was the lack of visual.

[Shevek]

I dont doubt that there are minor issues with the implementation that a rare few know how to abuse. That being said that is a single problem with the mechanic. Does it stand to reason that an entire mechanic should be removed rather than addressing a handful of abuses? Is engagement so open to this sort of abuse that it must be removed? Are the devs completely incapable of addressing these issues in a timely manner? Nothing I have seen suggests that. If the devs took the axe to every feature or ability that someone had abused up to this point, this game would be streamlined down to Guantlet.

[Tale]

Cut the personal bickering. There is an ignore feature, make use of it if you can't help yourself.

[constantine]

I could almost understand this incessant complaining (though not agree with it) when many people took issue with the combat. Now that its playing so well and numerous folks have recounted how much they are enjoying the game, this is just being obtuse and obstructionist.

 

I have no doubt that the feedback from their internal testers, who are not working towards their own agenda, is overwhelmingly positive at this point. The dev team itself noted that combat is feeling pretty good.

 

When things are working and feeling good, the last thing you do is start ripping out core systems with 6 months left to release.

 

For the love of god you think tweaking combat speed solved everything ?

 

I can't believe you people.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

....and like I said at the start of this thread: It's for suggestions that can be changed until the game is about to ship.....

 

Good luck with that. That's what my wizard thread was for. It denigrated immediately and only took 6 pages for me not merely succumb to, but lead the riot.

[ctn2003]

how about this i want the guys plat mail up stairs for killing him! its not fair! it looks pretty cool but when i kill him i get NOTHING D:D:D: ARG

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

This is a thread for giving suggestions to tweak, change or improve stuff that within reason can indeed be tweaked, changed or improved until the game will be released in spring 2015.

 

Therefore, I propose to set aside perhaps the biggest controversy in the beta forums, namely this:

 

 

 

 

"...add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale" -- I'd say it's pretty fair to state that this isn't the case at the moment. The fact that people find the current combat fun does not fulfill this promise, because they promised "the fun, intense combat ... of Icewind Dale." This is much more specific than just promising fun, intense combat. Those saying that it's okay that the combat feels more like DA combat or NWN2 combat are missing the point that while it may be fun for you, it's not acceptable in that it doesn't fulfill this specific promise.

 

In essence, plenty of backers - thousands of them - will interpret that Kickstarter like GrinningReaper659 did: PoE will have the combat of IWD.

As much as I'd love to have a new game made with that very combat, it isn't going to happen in PoE, and most likely not in its expansion either.

Also, if I play the devil's advocate for a sec, it only says "the intense combat of IWD", which certainly emphasizes the intensity of combat, and not the combat mechanics, per se. I and hordes of others will have to wait until a game with BG/IWD-like combat will appear - perhaps Serpent of the Staglands will be the first? 

 

I don't see my interpretation as a minority intepretation, and I don't think that expecting them to follow through on this promise should be abandoned. So, in your mind, they might as well have said "the fun, intense combat of Neverwinter Nights" or "the fun, intense combat of World of Warcraft" as name-dropping Icewind Dale apparently can be completely divorced from the promise? Is this not a problem in your eyes Indira? I mean, I think that you like the combat (which is fine), but that doesn't make it okay to just give a pass on not coming through with what they said...

 

If "of Icewind Dale" means absolutely nothing and could have been replaced with "of [insert any game with combat here]" or removed altogether, then it shouldn't have been said in the first place. I'm all about mixing things up and trying to improve on the IE experience, I was a vocal supporter of the removal of combat XP as I didn't feel that removing it took anything away from that experience (and they certainly never promised combat XP during the KS campaign, in fact they essentially stated it wouldn't be in during the campaign); but this is different specifically because they said it would be included. The only ambiguous part of this is defining what exactly constitutes IWD combat, but it's certainly a more narrow definition than "any combat that could be considered tactical," right?

 

You misunderstand. On the contrary, I'm claiming a pretty huge chunk of the backers agree with you, even I do.

My devil's advocate-comment was just a way of saving face on Obsidian's behalf.

But I still fail to see why Josh & Co would change their entire combat system to one quite similar to IWD's in a matter of mere months. It just won't happen.

 

And Sensuki's quite right - we all have an agenda. Mine is pretty open: I backed OE and the rest of their gang on this project for the great writing and then in order for the following games:

-NWN2 MotB

-NWN2 SoZ

-NWN2 OC

-F:NV

-ToEE

-IWD2

-Kotor2

 

I haven't even played Arcanum. But seeing the NWN2 series and the BG series as CRPG pinnacles, when I saw OE doing a KS, I had much more NWN2 in mind than BG. Still, and I really mean this, I would have preferred the BG combat over NWN2's - since it is pretty stationary and in some aspects (the lack of any RTS-connections) simple. NWN2 is all about the builds and scope and plenty of great story-telling. In essence, PoE would be better off with a carbon copy of BG's combat, but since I enjoyed the shyte out of NWN2, I can accept Josh & Co settling for something more-NWN2-like. That's my agenda.

-

Edited November 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Osvir]

@The Engagement Discussion on page 1/@Hormalakh:
- If Sensuki would release his "No Engagement Mod" then use that, there you have one solution.

"You don't like the Engagement Mechanic? Turn it off", there isn't much more to say about it. Obsidian could use it as well, make it an On/Off Switch in the Options. Allow Players to choose whether they want Engagement or not. The solution could be as easy as choosing between "Easy" or "Hard". But I don't think Obsidian should spend time and resources on it, if they think it's a waste of time. I like the Engagement mechanic, but I think the Disengagement mechanic needs some improvements.

So, disengagement:

Personally, I think Disengagement should only trigger if you high-tail it 180 degrees and run away, or even running 120-180 degrees away. Adjacent targets should be engaged and switching between two adjacent targets should not prompt a disengagement attack, and "Hold the Line" should allow the Character to Engage 1 more creature and switch targets without getting a Disengage attack.

Anything within 0-90, or 0-120 degrees, should not prompt a disengage attack, and anything above should call for a Disengagement Check, with a failure state and a success state.

In Dead State, if you move 1 tile away from the target, your character is still facing the target, this is something I also think would benefit the Engagement Mechanic.

If you are engaged with 1 target, and then pressing behind you, you don't turn around and run away, but rather walk backwards still facing your opponent (and not disengage or get attacked for it). Dead State doesn't have a "disengagement" system though, but still, you continue to face your opponent even when moving away from it. In Pillars of Eternity you turn around 180 degrees and get whacked for it.

I dunno if this makes any sense but:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdvw3cij7d4xkdg/Namnl%C3%B6s.jpg?dl=0

© = Character
1, 2, 3 = Monsters

EDIT: The blue/Engaged circle = "Facing Direction" /EDIT

1 and 2 are engaged and won't prompt a disengagement attack, but turning around to fight #3 would cause a disengagement attack. If there was a 4th monster next to 2 or 1, the Character would get a disengagement attack from the target that gets bumped outside of the engagement radius. Hold the Line could extend the radius/degrees. Monsters/Enemies would also have the same thing, so they could switch between adjacent targets.

If the Character and monsters have some sort of "Facing" value, then you should also be able to do minor movements near the target(s) you are engaged with. Sensuki mentions that "moving one pixel creates disengagement attacks", and that's a bit poor in my opinion as well, and perhaps it could be improved upon so that the Character can move within the engagement circle (with "Facing") a bit. "Two swordsmen, circling each other, staring each other down" samurai style.

This could prompt some interesting plays as well, if you have 2 characters targeting 1 enemy from the front, one of them could begin circling the opponent (within the engagement radius) and flank them (without getting a disengage attack on them). And the AI could employ this strategy as well.

- Artifical Intelligence: This is something that's optimized at the very last/latest stage of development, isn't it? Probably good to talk about and give out pointers about it at any point in time, but chances are that it won't be much improved until 1 month-ish before release. The IE strategy/AI Mod was released long after the games were released, why? Because it's easiest to adjust these values when the product is as stable and feature complete as possible. I don't really have much to say at this point about it though.

- Combat Animations: Should have more "omphf" in it in my opinion. The BB Priest with her 2-handed mace, swings it like a toothpick. There's no build up, no acceleration, no "way of the blade" (or "way of the mace") in it. It looks wonky. Characters should lift their weapons, before swinging, and then it should accelerate as they swing their weapon (juxtapose it, go grab a stick and swing it in mid-air a bit). Right now it looks as if combat is on amphetamine, or adrenaline, and that it should lay off the heavy stuff and go to a rehab.

Currently it looks as if the animation plays from 90% to 100% of the recovery time, naturally, this makes the animation speed play quite fast as it has a very short window to play. If the build-up of a spell cast or attack animation begins instead at 50%, or 75% (starts to lift a sword/mace/axe w/e) and then begins to accelerate at 90%-95% (downwards swing, horizontal swing), it'd look better I think, and the pacing wouldn't be as hectic as it can feel at the moment.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Osvir

[Osvir]

I dunno if this makes any sense but:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdvw3cij7d4xkdg/Namnl%C3%B6s.jpg?dl=0

Here's more explanatory messy stuff:

- https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7uzum9ae3ny35u/engagey.jpg?dl=0

- https://www.dropbox.com/s/tm4pvdmrooo1mlv/engagey2.jpg?dl=0 (Facing "3" = Disengagement from "1" = Now Flanked)

- https://www.dropbox.com/s/xmh8kz8mjvx6k6g/engagey3.jpg?dl=0

 

Essentially, a sort of vision radius/cone-thing and importance of directional facing.

 

Perhaps a Disengagement "Attack" isn't necessary, because "Flank" is a thing... getting attacked and flanked might be a bit overboard *shrug*

 

"Flanked" gives a penalty in itself (no?), both tactically and strategically, so maybe the "Disengagement Attack" isn't that important hm, but I dunno, I'm just reflecting/brainstorming.

 

 

If you are engaged with 1 target, and then pressing behind you, you don't turn around and run away, but rather walk backwards still facing your opponent (and not disengage or get attacked for it). Dead State doesn't have a "disengagement" system though, but still, you continue to face your opponent even when moving away from it. In Pillars of Eternity you turn around 180 degrees and get whacked for it.

More visual mess stuff examples about "Facing":

- https://www.dropbox.com/s/mx4s96hptp733ev/facing.jpg?dl=0

- https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gj5f0yb0o9sgfg/facing2.jpg?dl=0

Edited November 29, 2014 by Osvir

[Starwars]

-Can we get rid of the "recommended" thingies on the stats at character creation? I don't want Obsidianparent to watch over me while I'm playing the game.

 

-I would like it if we could exit areas from any part of the "edge of the map", not just at the transition markers.

 

-Again, I want to open doors before going into a building. It's worth repeating.

 

-The Grimoire feels a bit weird to use to me. Most annoying thing is that it doesn't have the "right-click to get details" control scheme that's mostly used everywhere else, at least not when you're looking at the spells currently in your Grimoire.

 

-I know it's not finished yet, but it'd be great to have a "silent" option for the voice-sets when creating your character.

 

-Walking toggle would be nice.

[Osvir]

(1) -Can we get rid of the "recommended" thingies on the stats at character creation? I don't want Obsidianparent to watch over me while I'm playing the game.

 

(2) -Again, I want to open doors before going into a building. It's worth repeating.

 

(1) Look at ze optionz @Starwars. I dunno which one, but I made a Path of the Damned/Expert/Trial of Iron game, and the "hand-holding" was gone. Dunno if it was difficulty or if it was something in the options (I clicked/removed everything that were related to UI+Helper tools).

 

(2) Instead of having the (Door Icon) on top of a door, make the entire door into an (Icon), and when you hover your mouse-pointer over it, it'd have a "slightly open state", or it'd get an "slightly open state" when you click it @Obsidian.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Osvir

[Infinitron]

Osvir:

 

In Blackguards, engagement/attack of opportunity works in precisely the opposite way. You will not get a disengagement attack for retreating 180 degrees away from an opponent, but you will if you try to slide by/walk around an opponent.

 

I would say that that probably makes more sense, since the stated goal of the engagement mechanic is to stop characters from walking past you. If they're retreating away from you, they're not getting past you!

Edited November 29, 2014 by Infinitron

[Osvir]

But if you are punching in my general direction and I decide to derp and turn around, I'm going to get hit in the back of my head, hard (because I presume you're strong for some reason ). However, if I am constantly facing you, and you are facing me, we could kiss! Haha xD

Jokes aside, it'd be a fight, and just because I take a side step, circling you, "tumbling", it wouldn't mean neither you or me would stop facing each other.

It wouldn't mean either you or me get some sort of advantage or disadvantage against each other for that matter either. Boxing, MMA, Samurai, any seasoned Fighter would tell you that one of the most important things EVER in fighting is "NEVER take your eyes away from your opponent!". I saw a documentary about some MMA fighter, and they punched him, and filmed it in slow motion. His eyes were constantly, 100%, in slow-motion, facing the direction from where the hit came from.

The point: Turning around = Stupid move. Circling around = Facing.

[Infinitron]

Movement is abstracted to some degree. I would say that when a character turns around and retreats in melee, we can imagine that he's actually walking backwards, face towards the enemy, at first.

[Osvir]

Yeah, that's true. But then, wherein is the "breaking point"? Moving to the side... disengaged? Or... moving backwards... disengaged? One thing I wanted to highlight with these two is...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mx4s96hptp733ev/facing.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gj5f0yb0o9sgfg/facing2.jpg?dl=0

 

In "facing.jpg" you click "within" an engagement circle (there should've been 1 more circle, one that is around both targets, an "in-battle" or "engaged" engagement circle), and thus you are still inside the "Engagement" (still facing the opponent). In other words: No disengagement attacks.

In "facing2.jpg" you click "outside" an engagement circle (in essence the same thing as pressing "Run" in a jRPG), this should then take into account a Disengagement "Check" or "Dice Roll" or whatnot, did you succeed in running away, or did you get whacked in your head? It shouldn't matter whether you are trying to run backwards, to the side, or trying to run past the opponent, if you leave the "circle", you're giving up "ground" and you are probably leaving the "circle" because it is a losing battle.

In a wrestler's ring, the one who falls outside is penalized (or outright defeated? Can't remember the rules).

Also: How does Blackguards explain "moving to the side"?

Returning to my previous example, if you and I are fighting/LARPing, where is it that one does wrong and loses any form of advantage? Because, if we are constantly facing each other, is it when I walk backwards that I am most vurnerable? Or when I am circling around you? When is it that I am at most of a disadvantage in a fight, technically?

It comes down to skill (Specialization/Technique), experience (Level), in the end, and human error (RNG), no?

Edited November 29, 2014 by Osvir

[Infinitron]

You're overthinking it. It's a game mechanic for stopping circles from going past other circles

[Osvir]

*shrug* Probably, but interesting, deep, and intruiging mechanics won't appear out of thin air. Some amount of thought/discussion needs to be put into it, and the more thought is put into it, the more deep it can potentially become, admittedly, who knows if for the better or worse? Speculation/Analysing/Theory doesn't mean anything in Practice. But Theory creates material/resources/ideas/inspiration

 

Also: How does Blackguards explain "moving to the side"?

[GrinningReaper659]

-Can we get rid of the "recommended" thingies on the stats at character creation? I don't want Obsidianparent to watch over me while I'm playing the game.

 

-I would like it if we could exit areas from any part of the "edge of the map", not just at the transition markers.

 

-Again, I want to open doors before going into a building. It's worth repeating.

 

-The Grimoire feels a bit weird to use to me. Most annoying thing is that it doesn't have the "right-click to get details" control scheme that's mostly used everywhere else, at least not when you're looking at the spells currently in your Grimoire.

 

-I know it's not finished yet, but it'd be great to have a "silent" option for the voice-sets when creating your character.

 

-Walking toggle would be nice.

Emphasis mine.

 

All of this; except for the first one as someone mentioned that expert mode disables it anyway so as I'll likely never even see it, I really don't have a problem with inexperienced CRPGers having a suggestion to work with.

 

Emphasis on exiting from any edge of map and opening/closing doors seperately from entering/exiting (hopefully such things are possible to implement). This would go a long way for advancing the general IE "feels" I'd think.

[Starwars]

I didn't know that Expert mode turned it off, that's good. But there should be a toggle also in that case as with the other options you can turn off and on for customization..

[Trodat]

@Starwars: I think that was the plan, but they are busy with other stuff.

[Lephys]

For the love of god you think tweaking combat speed solved everything ?

 

I can't believe you people.

Methinks the point is more "behold the effects of but a single factor tweak, then imagine how easily so many other factors could be tweaked, as well as the results such tweaks would produce."

 

Many here tend to refuse to separate causes and effects. Kind of a "great, you changed that, now THIS happens. Better just undo everything." Instead of "Now this occurs, time to address THAT now," and go on down the list until everything (ideally, but probably just mostly everything, realistically) has been tackled.

 

I don't know why that's a crazy concept.

 

Engagement, for example, isn't a problem simply because it makes something occur when people attack one another in melee range. It's a problem because of the specific values of factors involved with it. It doesn't need to be removed because it has some problems, any more than attacking needs to be removed, all together, simply because damage numbers are out of balance currently.

[Lephys]

Emphasis on exiting from any edge of map and opening/closing doors seperately from entering/exiting (hopefully such things are possible to implement). This would go a long way for advancing the general IE "feels" I'd think.

You already can exit from edge of map (wherever you can reach), at least in the village. You simply can't get to the edge of the map in most places. But, there's not just one stationary spot for the transition markers. They move along the edge of the screen, depending on where your mouse-cursor meets it.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be silly, here. If people would rather just be able to have the ability to exit from literally any point on the edge of the map (instead of just the areas where your characters aren't blocked from reaching the edge in any way), then that's understandable. I just wanted to make sure people knew that (at least in 333) there weren't just specific, static locations in which there were "leave the map" markers to click on.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Lephys

[Justinian]

 

Emphasis on exiting from any edge of map and opening/closing doors seperately from entering/exiting (hopefully such things are possible to implement). This would go a long way for advancing the general IE "feels" I'd think.

You already can exit from edge of map (wherever you can reach), at least in the village. You simply can't get to the edge of the map in most places. But, there's not just one stationary spot for the transition markers. They move along the edge of the screen, depending on where your mouse-cursor meets it.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be silly, here. If people would rather just be able to have the ability to exit from literally any point on the edge of the map (instead of just the areas where your characters aren't blocked from reaching the edge in any way), then that's understandable. I just wanted to make sure people knew that (at least in 333) there weren't just specific, static locations in which there were "leave the map" markers to click on.

 

 

This is incorrect. There are single stationary icons that need to be clicked to leave the map.

[Sensuki]

@The Engagement Discussion on page 1/@Hormalakh:

- If Sensuki would release his "No Engagement Mod" then use that, there you have one solution.

 

"You don't like the Engagement Mechanic? Turn it off", there isn't much more to say about it.

Not quite. It won't be as good as it could be without some changes to how attack animations interact with moving targets and AI tweaks. Changes to abilities would also be nice, but I suppose I can mod those on my own.

 

I will be releasing the mod this patch most likely because it is now more playable with target re-acquisition. People can see for themselves how it plays.