Stop Right Now Thankyou Very Much

[Seari]

 

a game that was supposed to bring back that familiar feel of the IE games.

Apparently it's all one big misunderstanding.

 

Yeah, clearly this was a kickstarter for a NwN2 sequel.

[archangel979]

 

 

a game that was supposed to bring back that familiar feel of the IE games.

Apparently it's all one big misunderstanding.

 

Yeah, clearly this was a kickstarter for a NwN2 sequel.

 

More like a NWN2/DAO mix.

[GrinningReaper659]

that the only person ever making threads on this topic is Sensuki (check it out, it's true!) and that he keeps spamming the same "proofs" and points to try and get OE to change it just cause he's got some personal issue with it (tell me, where did engagement touch you?) does tend to make that rather easy though.

 

It doesn't matter if only Sensuki or only you or nobody is presenting the argument, doesn't make the point being argued any more or less valid.

 

 

I am well aware he's on a (lonely?) crusade against it and tries to grasp at every tiny inconsequential straw to get Obsidian to remove it.

And here people are saying "Sure, they can improve the AI, but Sensuki will abuse it with engagement again!" conveniently forgetting he does the same without the engagement, and if the AI is improved he can and will still do that, so it's neither an argument for or against engagement, all AI related instead. But feel free to ignore that elephant in the room...

 

The kiting thing was just a bit of amusing irony because the stated purpose, or one of them anyway, of implementing the engagement system was to eliminate kiting. So, it's just amusing that apart from being an annoying system it also didn't do the one thing that was the whole point of its implementation.

 

 

EDIT: It's telling both of you had to resort to petty insults rather than argument my points...

 

Well, some guy explained to me that gravity existed because of how retarded I am, at which point I explained to him that gravity couldn't possibly exist because his argument resorted to a personal attack. In other words, sh*t arguers don't invalidate points just by supporting them.

 

 

Isn't positioning and movement MORE important if there's an area of engagement allowing you to specifically place melee enemies properly or if you improperly place yourself you have to deal with the consequences.

 

I am still amused people reading "positioning is important" when they want to remove an element that does exactly that, and replace it with one where you can just move anywhere you desire during combat, making position frivial, not important.

 

Sure, it's important in that the only viable tactical option now is to not do it. I think that engagement is a cool idea, but if its implementation leads to removing the entire 'feel' of IE style combat, creating a 'no-brainer' combat situation wherein tactical repositioning consistently does more harm than good, and it doesn't even solve the kiting problem it was intended to resolve, then I just really don't see the point.

 

The worst part of it is the support for it. The engagement system encourages static combat and punishes tactical repositioning. So, there are a bunch of people here that will play the game by sending in their party and not bothering to tactically reposition because they don't pay enough attention to combat to do so anyway (their playstyle is being actively encouraged by the mechanics now). Some will move around and suffer engagement attacks w/out realizing or caring, but essentially the point of both of these groups is that the mechanic should be left in because it doesn't bother them at the moment for whatever reason. Removing the engagement would allow them to mindlessly stand still and auto-attack without penalty as they're doing now, but would also allow those that prefer tactical repositioning during combat to do so.

Edited December 8, 2014 by GrinningReaper659

[Sensuki]

The worst part of it is the support for it. The engagement system encourages static combat and punishes tactical repositioning. So, there are a bunch of people here that will play the game by sending in their party and not bothering to tactically reposition because they don't pay enough attention to combat to do so anyway (their playstyle is being actively encouraged by the mechanics now). Some will move around and suffer engagement attacks w/out realizing or caring, but essentially the point of both of these groups is that the mechanic should be left in because it doesn't bother them at the moment for whatever reason. Removing the engagement would allow them to mindlessly stand still and auto-attack without penalty as they're doing now, but would also allow those that prefer tactical repositioning during combat to do so.

Exactly.

[Hormalakh]

And once it's removed Sensuki can just kite them around, as he's also proven already... but apparently that's not exploiting?

 

Anyone want to fill me in on the major part of the fandom being against this? So far I only have seen Sensuki going about it, making 30+ threads about it, having most post in them himself, and still not getting the majority in all these threads to back them. I, personally, am very happy Obsidian doesn't bow to one incredibly loud single person.  If they removed stuff left and right because just one person has some personal vendetta with it, not much of the game would be left, would there be now?

 

And, seriously here people... the "proof" a system needs to be removed is because the AI can't handle it yet? Might aswell throw all systems off the table. Why have bots at in games? Heck, why have the game itself, if the AI can't handle I'm sure we just need to remove it.

 

As for the "It must play like DoTA"... nope... It must play like you control 6 DoTA's at the same time. Can't handle that in realtime? That's okay, we've got pause for that. It's not just there for ****s and giggles you know. Use it before we take it out since the AI doesn't use it!

 

This is wrong. Sensuki and I have been discussing engagement for weeks now and many of the arguments put forth are ones that Sensuki and I talked about together. To say that Sensuki is the only one arguing for the removal of engagement is specious.

 

I held back from making an opinion about engagement for months while I gave Obsidian the opportunity to fix this mechanic way back when the beta first started. Yes, these arguments about engagement being anti-tactical are that old. I thought that if they had a chance to fix the system with enough time, that it wouldn't be too much of a big problem.  

 

But time passed and new bugs and exploits continued to pour forth from this ill-devised mechanic. Finally at v364, I decided enough is enough. Too much time and energy had been put into a thoroughly flawed and broken system. I then spoke for a few days against this mechanic and put forth a few arguments and then I talked to sensuki about my arguments. Sensuki has done a lot of the heavy lifting and produced these videos, but other backers have made plenty of contributions in arguing against this mechanic.

[Hormalakh]

Oh, I did... that the only person ever making threads on this topic is Sensuki (check it out, it's true!) ...

 

 

Thread "Engagement Mechanics - Problems and Solutions" was started by Namutree.

"Raz's Perspective: A Dissertation on Engagement mechanics" was started by Razsuis.

"Engagement Questions" started by tdphys.

... and so on and so forth.

 

We have now established that you cannot read. Please try again after finishing elementary school. We'll wait. Promise.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Hormalakh

[gogocactus]

I would like to object towards Hassat Hunter's claim that Sensuki is the only one arguing against engagement and that he rehashed the same arguments over and over.

 

Neither Sensuki nor Hormalakh are the only ones arguing against engagement, as has been made clear by Hormalakh above. I'm very appreciative of Sensuki's and Hormalakh's efforts to improve this game and would just like to point out that they make very valid points in regards to the engagement mechanic.

 

Furthermore, as Grinning Reaper pointed out the worst part about the people arguing in favor of engagement is that in doing so, they don't make qualitative statements about the nature of the engagement mechanic itself but rather about their style of playing which is characterised by a distinct lack of attention to the strategical aspects of combat.

 

That said, I'd like to suggest not turning this thread into a discussion between those who are in favour of Sensuki's appeal against engagement and those not in favour, but rather to keep focusing on discussions about the engagement mechanic itself. I am sure that that will increase the chance of the developers actually using the information in this thread to improve the game.

[Hassat Hunter]

@ Minsc; It *is* quite telling. For an apparent issue that a large part of the community has, it's odd that only a single person actually makes threads about them. That while several other things (like UI) have many different users starting topics. It would make sense if there was a guided all-compassing topic (like the romance discussion) to keep the forum cleaner, but that's not the case here.

So, I will once again ask; If this is a problem for the majority of the players why are there only Sensuki topics about the subject?

 

That's an AI-issue, not related to the mechanic itself. As soon as they just add "if in engagement circle, stop and attack said person"... or if they really want to kill the guy (is mage or so) they use one of their abilities to break engagement, and then lock their target in *their* engagement circle. We'll have to see how the system works with proper AI before straightwardly cutting it out since the AI at this state is at basic. You'll never get advancement if anything if you simply cut it out at the first sight of issue rather than improving upon it. This is true for more areas than just engagement.

 

No, I don't want to stand still. I just want that if I decide to retreat I need to prepare for it. Either by having the right skills active, the right spells cast, or just the right time so I can still escape alive rather than dead. There's nothing tactical about retreating if it's simply "select all" > "click other side of the map"... you've retreated! I want tactical re-positioning to be *actually* tactical. Something I need to plan for and execute properly for it to be effective. There's nothing tactical about just moving my players all over the field to the most muchkin position I can imagine.

But I suppose my definition of tactical is wrong, right? Cause obviously tactical can't mean having to actually plan a retreat before you can execute it properly rather than simply running blindly away from the warrior at 1HP and expecting to survive without even having the warrior be affected by something, right?

Please stop using tactical wrong already.

 

@ Hor;

Did all of these threads incite for the removal of engagement... or fixing them?

I checked them, and they are all for fixing. Heck, the 3rd listed isn't even about discussing the engagement system, it's just a question from a gamer how it exactly works.

But do go ahead and make my point for me unwittingly... I'll be here when you find another post that actually counters my argument, rather than just searching 'engagement' and posting everything you find unknowing of my point or those threads OP's content.

 

 

[Sensuki]

 

 

For an apparent issue that a large part of the community has, it's odd that only a single person actually makes threads about them.

 

I have made one thread about it - this one, but discussed it in many other threads.

 

 

 

That's an AI-issue, not related to the mechanic itself.

 

Really? So you read all of the OP and decided it was an AI issue, when Obsidian have stated that they are changing two aspects of the mechanic itself not related to the AI - see here

 

 

 

I just want that if I decide to retreat I need to prepare for it. Something I need to plan for and execute properly for it to be effective.

 

Preparing and planning is not tactics, preparing is a part of strategy. Tactics and strategy are two different things.

 

 

 

Either by having the right skills active, the right spells cast, or just the right time so I can still escape alive rather than dead.

 

I love it when the people that argue for this system speak abstract of the game in idealisms. This is what you are doing here. Have you actually even played the beta? 

 

 

 

There's nothing tactical about retreating if it's simply "select all" > "click other side of the map"... you've retreated!

 

You can do that with or without the Engagement system.

 

 

 

There's nothing tactical about just moving my players all over the field to the most muchkin position I can imagine.

 

You can do that with the Engagement system.

 

 

 

But I suppose my definition of tactical is wrong, right?

 

Yes it is.

 

 

 

Cause obviously tactical can't mean having to actually plan a retreat before you can execute it properly rather than simply running blindly away from the warrior at 1HP and expecting to survive without even having the warrior be affected by something, right?

 

No it doesn't, actually.

 

I quote myself

 

 

 

Tactics essentially boils down to in the moment decision making. The identification that you need to make a choice, how quickly you decide what you’re going to do, and how effectively you carry out that decision. Strategy on the other hand is more about your planning and decision making before you undertake an activity.

[MReed]

@ Minsc; It *is* quite telling. For an apparent issue that a large part of the community has, it's odd that only a single person actually makes threads about them. That while several other things (like UI) have many different users starting topics. It would make sense if there was a guided all-compassing topic (like the romance discussion) to keep the forum cleaner, but that's not the case here.

So, I will once again ask; If this is a problem for the majority of the players why are there only Sensuki topics about the subject?

 

Why would others who oppose engagement post to threads when Sensuki is making the same points that we would have made, but in a much, much better way (with gameplay examples and so forth)?  And why would we post to try to rebut arguments when Sensuki (the person who made the arguments in the first place) is highly likely to rebut on his own?  And why would we make "Me too" posts when there is that handy "Like This" button on every post where we can indicate our agreement with the points being made without having to clutter the thread with posts with zero information content?

 

Gee, I wonder...

 

For the record, though:  I oppose engagement, although my reasons are slightly different than Sensuki's.  His opposition is based on how it changes the feel of combat for the player -- my opposition is based on the fact that it encourages (and likely outright forces) a primitive, simplistic AI for foes.  But in any case, we both feel that engagement is bad, although I'd be willing to accept a massively nerfed version based around snare effects (rather than damage).

[Chilloutman]

 

And I will say it again, there is nothing tactical about free movement without consequences.

Movement is never free unless you can attack while moving.

 

If Enemy wizard cast firewall behinde your characters and you want to retreat (and take damage from that aoe firewall) will you call it not tactical? Because its completly same principle - danger zone you should avoid

Sorry, your example isn't even in the same league. Firewall is an active cast, so the wizard has to spend his "turn" on it (and a spell slot) and even then it may expire before the party retreats. Disengagement attacks are passive procs that just pop out of nowhere for zero resources spent (time, casting slots, etc.) every time when a very simple condition is met.

 

Summary: disengagement attacks are reusable indefinitely with no negative consequences whatsoever and the whole mechanic is a very definition of anti-tactical crap.

 

And there you are wrong, diengagement attack have it cost, and you even mentioned it. If you get into engagement - it cost you attack if you want to use your character in some other place e.g. moving away, not to mention time it takes to move into position, its very similiar to mage casting spell.

[Void3dge]

Abusable? No. It just leads to less fun and makes games boring and without challenge.

 

Abusing a system in a solo gane is up to the player. If he do so and spoil the challenge, then the problem comes from the player in the first place.

 

In IE games there was an abuse that would lead to a stupid game. You could fight mages by waiting by stairs to another level, wait until the mage started casting a spell and click to exit to another level. Then come back and repeat the process until the mage has spent all spells

 

I noticed this trick in BG2 while fighting lichs in Athkatla :D

So what ? Again, nobody points a gun against the head of the player to force him to abuse the system...

[archangel979]

 

Abusable? No. It just leads to less fun and makes games boring and without challenge.

 

Abusing a system in a solo gane is up to the player. If he do so and spoil the challenge, then the problem comes from the player in the first place.

 

In IE games there was an abuse that would lead to a stupid game. You could fight mages by waiting by stairs to another level, wait until the mage started casting a spell and click to exit to another level. Then come back and repeat the process until the mage has spent all spells

 

I noticed this trick in BG2 while fighting lichs in Athkatla :D

So what ? Again, nobody points a gun against the head of the player to force him to abuse the system...

 

In that case you don't have a problem if developers put a "I win button!" as an ability for all classes. After all, it is a player that chooses to use or not use it.

[Gfted1]

In that case you don't have a problem if developers put a "I win button!" as an ability for all classes. After all, it is a player that chooses to use or not use it.

The "I win" button existed in every IE game in the form of a console command that will kill any targeted enemy. Was you game broken by its existence?

[prodigydancer]

The "I win" button existed in every IE game in the form of a console command that will kill any targeted enemy. Was you game broken by its existence?

Indeed. The real problem with engagement is not that it's exploitable. It's bad because it breaks otherwise viable playstyles and doesn't give us anything in return. The stand-your-ground-no-matter-what-happens playstyle does not depend on engagement in any way.

Edited December 8, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Kjaamor]

Indeed. The real problem with engagement is not that it's exploitable. It's bad because it breaks otherwise viable playstyles and doesn't give us anything in return. The stand-your-ground-no-matter-what-happens playstyle does not depend on engagement in any way.

 

That, like so many of the complaints about and praises for engagement, depends upon the AI targeting.

 

Without environmental bottlenecks, if the AI is smart enough to realise that it should be focusing its efforts against the character behind the stand-your-ground character, then some form of engagement matters immensely to the playstyle.

[Sensuki]

No it doesn't, only the AI targeting part of the system does. That part can exist without the disengagement attacks.

[Grotesque]

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

[Quadrone]

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

 

C.) The Developers

[Grotesque]

 

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

 

C.) The Developers

 

the same developers that nerfed the engagement system after the same "obsessed"TM guy showed them that is gamebreaking and easily abused?   because I am at a point where I think the current engagement system in its present form would have made the release. 

 

The same developers that proudly played their game for a few days just before this fiasco, identifying some problems&tweaks but failing to see this obnoxious abusable system?

[PIP-Clownboy]

 

In that case you don't have a problem if developers put a "I win button!" as an ability for all classes. After all, it is a player that chooses to use or not use it.

The "I win" button existed in every IE game in the form of a console command that will kill any targeted enemy. Was you game broken by its existence?

 

 

Also known as the improved haste button

[Quadrone]

 

 

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

 

C.) The Developers

 

the same developers that nerfed the engagement system after the same "obsessed"TM guy showed them that is gamebreaking and easily abused?   because I am at a point where I think the current engagement system in its present form would have made the release. 

 

The same developers that proudly played their game for a few days just before this fiasco, identifying some problems&tweaks but failing to see this obnoxious abusable system?

 

 

The developers that move to make corrections to the system after a way of abuse was pointed out to them during the games beta phase.

Part of which may or may not have made it into the game from internal testing on its own, given time.

[MReed]

The developers that move to make corrections to the system after a way of abuse was pointed out to them during the games beta phase.

Part of which may or may not have made it into the game from internal testing on its own, given time.

 

 

Ah, the old "Sainted developers (praise be unto their names) are all knowing and would never, ever, under any circumstances make an error of judgement".  Two observations:

 

1) This argument is, quite obviously, not going to convince anyone to change their position on engagement (pro or con).

2) While some (heretical, mind you) actually do believe that the sainted developers (PBUTN) might make judgement errors, especially with a feature that they have invested a significant amount of resources in and represents a major innovation in the way RTwP games are made, nobody disagrees with one simple fact:  The sainted developers (PBUTN) are most certainly omnipotent -- no amount of feedback from this forum can force them to change their beloved engagement model against their will.

 

Given that you aren't actually arguing in favor of the merits the engagement model -- merely defending the honor of the sainted developers [PBUTN] -- and the sainted developers (PBUTN) are hardly likely to pay attention to the concerns of mere mortals, it is unclear to me why you are posting in this thread.  Can you explain?

[Malekith]

Quadrone, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:Quadrone, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:

 

Grotesque, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:Grotesque, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

 

C.) The Developers

 

Given that Obsidian has yet to develop a single game with good gameplay, i can't say i trust them blind.

As far as narrative/writing goes yes, i have blind faith in them. And PoE will be the best game of the decade because of that. As far as gameplay mechanics work? Not so much.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Malekith

[Quadrone]

 

The developers that move to make corrections to the system after a way of abuse was pointed out to them during the games beta phase.

Part of which may or may not have made it into the game from internal testing on its own, given time.

 

 

Ah, the old "Sainted developers (praise be unto their names) are all knowing and would never, ever, under any circumstances make an error of judgement".  Two observations:

 

1) This argument is, quite obviously, not going to convince anyone to change their position on engagement (pro or con).

2) While some (heretical, mind you) actually do believe that the sainted developers (PBUTN) might make judgement errors, especially with a feature that they have invested a significant amount of resources in and represents a major innovation in the way RTwP games are made, nobody disagrees with one simple fact:  The sainted developers (PBUTN) are most certainly omnipotent -- no amount of feedback from this forum can force them to change their beloved engagement model against their will.

 

Given that you aren't actually arguing in favor of the merits the engagement model -- merely defending the honor of the sainted developers [PBUTN] -- and the sainted developers (PBUTN) are hardly likely to pay attention to the concerns of mere mortals, it is unclear to me why you are posting in this thread.  Can you explain?

 

 

Are you upset?

 

 

Quadrone, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:Quadrone, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:

 

Grotesque, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:Grotesque, on 08 Dec 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:

For all who don't have access to the beta:

 

who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? a guy who obsessivly  dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta

 

or

 

an arrogant involuntary troll spewing half-truths and who blatantly tells us that the aforementioned PoE beta obsessed guy is the only one that thinks that engagement system is broken and the only one bitchin' about it.

 

C.) The Developers

 

Given that Obsidian has yet to develop a single game with good gameplay, i can't say i trust them blind.

 

 

And you don't have to. I was pointing out that I trust neither of two random forum goers with the ultimate solution to engagement (or anything else). But I hope that the Devs make some informed choices based on the feedback they are getting here and elsewhere.