Stop Right Now Thankyou Very Much

[Clean&Clear]

 

Daily reminder: There is nothing wrong with kiting whatsoever. 

 

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. 

 

 

 

 

The thing that's called "kiting" in (not only) IE games is one of the core elements of playing RTS games.

 

It is a fact that IE games combat felt pretty similar to RTS games, one of the main reasons is the possibility to kite (and the general feel of moving units around during combat).

Kiting isn't wrong, it is a logitimate tactic. As Shrek mentioned, it is the goal of AI to be potent enough to respond to kiting so it's harder to kite properly.

 

If you dislike kiting, it means you dislike one of the core elements that constituted the feel of combat in IE games.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Clean&Clear

[archangel979]

 

Daily reminder: There is nothing wrong with kiting whatsoever.

 

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job.

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Kiting has been in many many games over the years and it is considered one of the more interesting things. In Starcraft 2 zerg banelings owned groups of marines until one of the players started kiting with marines very well. It wasn't stupid, it made the game much more interesting. OK, this was a MP example but still kiting is not stupid.

 

Also it is not needed, even in RTS games kiting is considered an advanced tactic and it is not needed to beat the novice or newbie enemy (it certainly is not needed to beat singleplayer campaigns).

 

Also in BG games, not everyone kites and certainly people don't kite effectively. Kiting is only needed for special plays (all team squishy) and it is good that it exists as it empowers different plays and increases replayability.

[Elerond]

 

 

Daily reminder: There is nothing wrong with kiting whatsoever.

 

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job.

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Kiting has been in many many games over the years and it is considered one of the more interesting things. In Starcraft 2 zerg banelings owned groups of marines until one of the players started kiting with marines very well. It wasn't stupid, it made the game much more interesting. OK, this was a MP example but still kiting is not stupid.

 

Also it is not needed, even in RTS games kiting is considered an advanced tactic and it is not needed to beat the novice or newbie enemy (it certainly is not needed to beat singleplayer campaigns).

 

Also in BG games, not everyone kites and certainly people don't kite effectively. Kiting is only needed for special plays (all team squishy) and it is good that it exists as it empowers different plays and increases replayability.

 

 

Kitting is tactic that is possible because of artificial limits of the game.

 

Kitting is not advance tactic (this is of course my opinion) but quite simple one, it don't demand any great tactical skill to understand why it works or even to realize that one could use it and when to use it.

 

It mainly works in many rts and rpg games, because of different unit moving speeds and how AI moves auto targeting units (it is AI that moves characters in games like BG and most rts, where player only tells where AI should move the characters, etc.). 

 

Kitting is silly tactic (this is of course my opinion) and it usually works because of how AI is programmed to work in the games. But as I said this isn't reason not to use it if it works in the game.

 

And in BG kitting is not most efficient tactics for all the party compositions, which is why not everybody at least not in every encounter use it at least as their main tactic. 

 

PS. I don't really know where you draw your conclusions of things in your first paragraph, especially when silliness/stupidness ever has stopped something to be interesting? 

[Elerond]

 

 

Daily reminder: There is nothing wrong with kiting whatsoever. 

 

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. 

 

 

 

 

The thing that's called "kiting" in (not only) IE games is one of the core elements of playing RTS games.

 

It is a fact that IE games combat felt pretty similar to RTS games, one of the main reasons is the possibility to kite (and the general feel of moving units around during combat).

Kiting isn't wrong, it is a logitimate tactic. As Shrek mentioned, it is the goal of AI to be potent enough to respond to kiting so it's harder to kite properly.

 

If you dislike kiting, it means you dislike one of the core elements that constituted the feel of combat in IE games.

 

 

Kitting may be core element of rts games (I disagree with this notion, but there is no reason to debate this in this thread), because of silly artificial rule sets that they use and how AI works when its kitted in those games. 

 

Kitting is wrong because it is silly tactic that usually works because of artificial constraints and how AI works in said games.

 

Who said I dislike kiting, I said that it is silly tactic, which as itself is reason to disagree with notion that there is nothing wrong in kitting. And I think that kitting should not work as effectively as it works in IE games.  Also I would say that I am absolute fine if rts game or IE style game (for example PoE) uses artificial constraints to block people using kitting and forcing them to use different tactics. 

[Captain Shrek]

Well, silly of not, this is a real life tactical move. Most cavalry archers used it to terrifying effect. Also, in the opinion of most tacticians it is hardly silly. In fact, it makes total sense that you stay out of the enemy range and deal damage from afar. The question is really, WHO can pull it off?

 

And finally if you really want to see it as a dedicated play style then the default state of its use must be penalized. Think of it as follows: A Mongol warrior in Genghis Khan's army spent an entire lifetime in the steppes and most of that in horseback. So he puts a HUGE amount of dedication in his skills. That can be translated as buying a talent or two by the PC to achieve the same benefit. Compare this to a European knight; if he tries the same tactic he would fail miserably because of the lack of relevant training. This is what should be the PC like without these talents. 

[Elerond]

 

 

Daily reminder: There is nothing wrong with kiting whatsoever. 

 

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. 

 

 

Well, you are wrong then. Kiting does not work because AI is bad. Kiting works because it is a good tactic. What AI fails at is to respond to it. In fact, I would ENCOURAGE kiting by adding special talents and skills (tumble). By default, Kiting should have penalties i.e. moving and hitting gives you a penalty to attack roll etc. ,

 

 

Kitting is good tactic only because of how AI works and how games rule restrict things, which in my opinion make it silly tactic and often too effective tactic. I would just make kitting awkward to use (by adding more enemies in encounters, making them faster and lowering speed, damage and accuracy of moving ranged characters) and not offer any or few special talents or skills to make it less awkward.  

[Captain Shrek]

Now you are just talking in circles:

 

Once again, Kiting is NOT a good tactic because of the AI. It is a good tactic because it serves you while harming the opponent. It is a valid play style. As I and many others pointed out earlier, the AI is BAD at responding it, further breaking this style of playing. This does not mean that kiting must be eliminated but rather that AI needs to be fixed. What is with these Bathesda lovers! 

 

Soemthing is broken? Remove it!!! 

 

It can be fixed damnit!

[Elerond]

Well, silly of not, this is a real life tactical move. Most cavalry archers used it to terrifying effect. Also, in the opinion of most tacticians it is hardly silly. In fact, it makes total sense that you stay out of the enemy range and deal damage from afar. The question is really, WHO can pull it off?

 

And finally if you really want to see it as a dedicated play style then the default state of its use must be penalized. Think of it as follows: A Mongol warrior in Genghis Khan's army spent an entire lifetime in the steppes and most of that in horseback. So he puts a HUGE amount of dedication in his skills. That can be translated as buying a talent or two by the PC to achieve the same benefit. Compare this to a European knight; if he tries the same tactic he would fail miserably because of the lack of relevant training. This is what should be the PC like without these talents. 

 

Cavalry archers didn't use kitting but tactics which they ride as close to enemy as possible before they can attack you and shoot them and then ride away, which is said to be effective tactic although it has it's own disadvantages as Seljuk's cavalry found out in Battle of Dorylaeum.

[Elerond]

Now you are just talking in circles:

 

Once again, Kiting is NOT a good tactic because of the AI. It is a good tactic because it serves you while harming the opponent. It is a valid play style. As I and many others pointed out earlier, the AI is BAD at responding it, further breaking this style of playing. This does not mean that kiting must be eliminated but rather that AI needs to be fixed. What is with these Bathesda lovers! 

 

Soemthing is broken? Remove it!!! 

 

It can be fixed damnit!

 

But if enemy don't act certain way and rule system don't put in certain restrictions it would not work in first place.

 

In Bethesda's games (TES and Fallout 3) you can use kitting as tactic.

 

I would say more like "something exist because of artificial things copy it for infinity as it is so cool!!!!!!!"

 

If game (rule set) don't need it to be good it don't necessary need to be added say I.

[MReed]

Kiting = "Moving one or more units that are of the same or nearly the same speed as their opponents continuously in such a way that foes are guaranteed to receive far more damage than they inflict."

 

It is not kiting when you use units that are (by design) faster than the opponents forces in this way -- assuming that the game is properly balanced, these fast units should have disadvantages that make the "fast v. slow" question a controversial subject.  If this isn't the case, then there is a balance issue, but preventing kiting won't really address the problem.

 

Kiting against a human opponent may or may not be a legitimate tactic -- it is illegitimate if there is no units / combination of units of roughly similar cost that can counter it.

 

Kiting against a computer opponent is almost never legitimate -- it is very hard (all but impossible) to design an AI that can properly address kiting on the part of the player.  The vast majority of "solutions" (and I use that term very loosely) involve encounter design (surround the party --  no way to kite because there are foes in all directions!), monster design (give all foes the ability to teleport / move much faster than the player's units -- if the foes units can instantly get into melee range, then kiting is impossible!).  Note that the intent of these "solutions" is to prevent kiting, not to allow it to occur in a balanced way.

 

In PoE, the primary anti-kiting mechanisms currently being used is increased recovery time for ranged characters while moving and the time it takes for the ranged attack animination to play.  Nominally, engagement is also part of the "anti-kiting" toolkit (once the foe catches up with the ranged character, engagement will ensure that the ranged character can't move away), but in practice the first two mechanisms satisfactorily address the problem, leaving engagement as "overkill".

 

Some people consider kiting to be a proper tactic even against an AI foe that cannot deal with it properly, and that is certainly a legitimate opinion.  However, if Obsidian includes kiting as a valid tactic in the game, then Obsidian will have to balance the encounters in the game under the assumption that 100% of the player base will be kiting (otherwise, the combat will be far, far, to easy for kiters).  Doing this means that those opposed to kiting will be obliged to use it to complete the game, which will reduce their sanctification with the game.  Since there appear to be more players opposed to kiting then in favor of it...

[Lephys]

Well, silly of not, this is a real life tactical move. Most cavalry archers used it to terrifying effect.

Most cavalry archers don't use it on foot, against another humanoid running full-speed at them, somehow without ever actually reaching them and getting to attack (or better yet, against things like friggin' bears).

 

I'm pretty sure that's where the "kiting is problematic!" idea comes from. It's not that the very act of kiting, itself, is bad or cheap or lame. It's just that, it really shouldn't be very effective unless you're a group of cavalry archers on a battlefield (or some similar situation). If you could kite enemies for like 2 hits at a time in a game like PoE, I wouldn't be all "OH NOES! KILL IT!". It's not that you can do it that's the problem. It's that it works, and keeps on working, for way too long, and against enemies it shouldn't in situations it shouldn't simply by alternating movement and attack commands.

 

It's the extent. It's the same reason anything gets called OP. Factors are out of whack. If you could toggle between AoE attacks and single-target attacks with a given Fighter, for example, but they both did the same damage, the AoE would be problematic. Not because it's AoE. But because of the specific factor values, and the extent to which it is effective, relative to all other tactics (based on cost, etc.).

 

Anywho, as far as kiting goes in PoE, I think someone brought up the possibility of simply having ranged attacks always require a "draw-and-aim" phase, that lasts a second or so. Thus, IF you could slow a foe down to make up for that stopping time, and/or increase your own movement speed, etc, then you could kite stuff to death with ease. In which case, you would've earned that ease by spending limited combat resources, etc, and by setting up that situation yourself. Not passively moving away and attacking at the beginning of every "round," and just automatically staying out of range of everything, because game code.

 

I'm fairly certain that's what 90% of people mean when they grumble about kiting, or talk about it being a problem.

 

I would argue for just more active stuns/holds abilities than a passive engagement mechanic. It's the same deal really, but I get to choose who gets stunned/engaged and who doesn't.

 

Actually, why not make "engage" an active ability that you have to trigger? I don't have an issue with "engage" being something that my player or the computer has to use, but - especially now that it has a cooldown - let me choose who to use it on and who not to. I need it against ranged fools, not melee xaurips. So let me choose when to enable it so that I can be more tactical with my engagement. And let the computer do the same thing.

An excellent suggestion. I think something similar could be achieved with a passive mechanic, but it definitely would still need tweaking. 30 seconds is way too long, methinks. The purpose of a cooldown to whatever mechanic (be it active OR passive) is simply to make sure you can't instantly-re-engage, and/or nullify your target's opportunity to get away. I think something like 5 seconds, give or take, is plenty, really. If you can't break engagement and get somewhere else you need to be within 5 seconds, I think you picked a bad time to break engagement.

 

Also, along the lines of more passive possibilities, you could pick talents and such that allow for a range of passive free-disengagement chances (mini-stuns, etc.). Again, just things that would allow you to get away from your opponent. Just for example, if you could have a 10% chance to on hits (or just crits, even), then you could passively break engagement with some frequency. That's not including any limited engagement "escape" type abilities you might have, or active, full-on Knockdown and the like. So, it'd be a trade-off. Do you use something like Knockdown to get past this enemy right now, or do you wait until you get an opportunity to passively disengage with a mini-daze/stun?

[Katarack21]

There is nothing wrong with kiting in a single-player game. You play however the heck you feel like, and ignore everybody who tries to tell you how you "should" play. Personally, I never kited in an IE game. Never felt the need to. Then again, I didn't play through IWD 2.

[archangel979]

Some people consider kiting to be a proper tactic even against an AI foe that cannot deal with it properly, and that is certainly a legitimate opinion.  However, if Obsidian includes kiting as a valid tactic in the game, then Obsidian will have to balance the encounters in the game under the assumption that 100% of the player base will be kiting (otherwise, the combat will be far, far, to easy for kiters).  Doing this means that those opposed to kiting will be obliged to use it to complete the game, which will reduce their sanctification with the game.  Since there appear to be more players opposed to kiting then in favor of it...

I don't agree with this. As I said, kiting is an advanced technique that not everyone uses. I been watching any BG1 stream I could on Twitch in last few months and any newbie I ran into didn't kite. They just let melee run up to their ranged and don't do anything about it (not even switch to a melee weapon).

I tend to kite with ranged specialized characters (like my Archer in IWDEE) but sometimes I just switch to a melee weapon because I cba to do it always. It takes much more effort and lot more pausing to kite often.

[MReed]

I tend to kite with ranged specialized characters (like my Archer in IWDEE) but sometimes I just switch to a melee weapon because I cba to do it always. It takes much more effort and lot more pausing to kite often.

 

I don't agree with this. As I said, kiting is an advanced technique that not everyone uses. I been watching any BG1 stream I could on Twitch in last few months and any newbie I ran into didn't kite. They just let melee run up to their ranged and don't do anything about it (not even switch to a melee weapon).

 

First, a side note -- not all encounters support kiting to begin with (you need a fair amount of space to run around in).

 

I should have been more clear in my original post -- there are 3 strategies that developers can take when faced with an exploit:

 

1) Remove / nerf the exploit -- this is almost always the first and preferred option.

2) Balance the game as if the exploit did not exist -- players who discover and use the exploit will have a much easier experience than the designers intended.

3) Balance the game under the assumption that the exploit will be used by players -- players who do not discover / choose not to use the exploit will have a much harder game than the designers intended.

 

The Infinity Engine games use strategy #1 (via encounter design, fast foes, most foes have ranged attacks) and #2, which is fairly common -- there are a number of encounters that are meant to be very difficult which can be rendered trivial by use of kiting.  Any "boss fight" where the opponent lacks a ranged attack falls into this category, for example.

 

An example where the Infinity Engine games use strategy #3 is rest spam -- the encounters are balanced with the assumption that the player's characters will be fully healed with all resources available for all encounters.  That doesn't mean that the game is impossible if you rest less frequently -- it just means that the difficulty level is increased.

 

PoE attempts to remove / minimize both of these exploits -- kiting in the ways that we have discussed in this thread, and rest spamming by introducing camping supplies (to reduce the amount of resting) and adding stamina v. health (to force resting at more predictable intervals).

[Osvir]

Now you are just talking in circles:

 

Once again, Kiting is NOT a good tactic because of the AI. It is a good tactic because it serves you while harming the opponent. It is a valid play style. As I and many others pointed out earlier, the AI is BAD at responding it, further breaking this style of playing. This does not mean that kiting must be eliminated but rather that AI needs to be fixed. What is with these Bathesda lovers! 

 

Soemthing is broken? Remove it!!! 

 

It can be fixed damnit!

Of course! But I think it requires a lot of attention, and now we're only talking about kiting as a thing, lots of stuff follows. How should they react to you kiting? How do you react to the enemy kiting? 

 

Guerilla tactics, hiding behind stuff, taking cover, flanking, ambushing, circling around. One enemy attacks, another one runs further away, attacks, and then they take turns, cycling each others attacks in sync. 1 attack, 2 run away, 2 attack, 1 run away etc.etc.. If the AI notices you are starting to kite, maybe they could react by circling, or disappearing away from you, only to appear later behind you. Or an enemy seemingly fleeing, but appearing on 2-3 maps later trying to ambush you, and have stalked you, or even gotten more friends to attack you.

 

Having enemies flee combat, and disappear out of the map (e.g. despawn) doesn't have to mean they are "gone", it could mean backup, more incoming enemies, a bandit camp is abstracted as being close by. Maybe Medreth has a large caravan close by, and he's only part of the scouting group.

 

An enemy that runs out at location X, Y (let's say, directly west from the Church/Temple of Berath door/entrance), could be programmed to "run" out of the map, circling the trees to the south of the Temple, and then re-appearing directly South of the Party spawn point in the Backer Beta, thus appearing behind you to flank you.

 

AI could walk out of map, but the Player could not. This would give AI much more versatility, I think.

 

EDIT:

 

Returning to a question I placed on the board earlier:

 

How would you play against the Adventuring Party if you were Medreth's group? What would you do to attempt to defeat the Party?

Edited December 17, 2014 by Osvir

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Returning to a question I placed on the board earlier:

 

How would you play against the Adventuring Party if you were Medreth's group? What would you do to attempt to defeat the Party?

^That is a cool question!

 

Although I love the IE games and the NWN/2-games, the NPC baddies standing there in certain convo first-then fight-situs are pretty bad and hugely unfair. DA:I have done away with a lot of that, actually, and it becomes much more challenging even with pausing and tactical view.

 

Obviously Medreth and his gang are nuts. They just stand there, frozen in place, allowing our party to surround them, even breathe down their necks, until a certain sentence triggers them to react. In short, they start off with a huge disadvantage, especially in a town near resting facilities and shops.

Instead, Medreth could stand there, seemingly alone, and do all of the talking, and as soon as the trigger sentence flies off, he throws a smoke bomb and then immediately attacks and retreat, all the while his goons begin shooting the party from all angles with arrows and bullets. Later, if the party seem hurt enough - they'll approach with weapons drawn and release the boar on them. Good luck, adventure party!

[Osvir]

Oh! I like that smoke bomb scenario! :D

Another thought popped up...

1st: You encounter Medreth and his followers like they are, gain the quest.

 

2nd: When you do the transition into an area, Medreth's group could become "smaller" or re-positioned.

 

3rd: When you return to Medreth to tell him how it went with Nyfre, you could see less dudes standing around him, or they have placed themselves elsewhere. One might be leaning over the southern stone wall, on the bridge, overlooking the river, just chilling.

One might be leaning towards a tree near the Temple.

This would/could simulate that Medreth doesn't quite trust you, and is unsure whether you will perform the task for him or not, and when you return his repositioning of his dudes is to allow for better flanking or attack opportunities, if you would choose to betray him.

If the group would be smaller, it could be abstracted as some of the cowled followers are in hiding nearby, and when the fight begins they spawn in a favorable positioning.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Osvir

[IndiraLightfoot]

Very nice ideas, Osvir!

 

I reckon, encounter design is one aspect of the IE games, which really could improve. As much as people are legitimately asking for combat being built on RTS template inspiration, the huge chunk of frozen baddies, convo-first, then dogpile them unawares make those wishes slightly bizarre. You would never ever see such combat scenarios or encounters in a RTS game, that's for sure.

 

IWD2 had a few cool encounter designs, ToEE as well, also the NWN2 games had a few rare places where it got interesting. Now, imagine a CRPG where every encounter is like that - varied, interesting, challenging, surprising. *Drool*

[archangel979]

 

Returning to a question I placed on the board earlier:

 

How would you play against the Adventuring Party if you were Medreth's group? What would you do to attempt to defeat the Party?

^That is a cool question!

 

Although I love the IE games and the NWN/2-games, the NPC baddies standing there in certain convo first-then fight-situs are pretty bad and hugely unfair. DA:I have done away with a lot of that, actually, and it becomes much more challenging even with pausing and tactical view.

 

Obviously Medreth and his gang are nuts. They just stand there, frozen in place, allowing our party to surround them, even breathe down their necks, until a certain sentence triggers them to react. In short, they start off with a huge disadvantage, especially in a town near resting facilities and shops.

Instead, Medreth could stand there, seemingly alone, and do all of the talking, and as soon as the trigger sentence flies off, he throws a smoke bomb and then immediately attacks and retreat, all the while his goons begin shooting the party from all angles with arrows and bullets. Later, if the party seem hurt enough - they'll approach with weapons drawn and release the boar on them. Good luck, adventure party!

 

BG games have plenty of these guys that were not hostile until you initiated the conversation with them. You could do whatever before talking and then start combat.

[IndiraLightfoot]

archangel979: Precisely, that's my point.

[MReed]

Interesting line of discussion, but... Taken too far it leads to another hated (well, at least in my opinion) mechanic:  Encounters where "stupidity is the only option" for player placement (ex: the Gromier encounter near the beginning of BG2:TOB).  This occurs any time the designer forces the player (and opponents) into a per-arranged formation prior to starting the encounter, most commonly via a cutscene.  This also covers situations where enemies spawn in behind / around the party despite the fact that the areas in question have been previously cleared (barring special abilities, such as teleportation, which should be rare).

 

In rare cases this make a small amount of sense -- if the character in the game would have no reason to expect an ambush, then forcing the characters to per-selected locations prevents the player from using meta-knowledge (based on reloading the game) to their advantage.  That's a pretty rare circumstance, though.

 

It would be interesting, though, to see the NPCs respond to the positioning of the player's characters, in real-time, prior to the player initiating dialog with Meredith.  Perhaps this could be handled with several (3-4) pre-selected formations for the NPCs, and they switch between them based on the position of the PCs.  What would be the exact criteria for switching to an alternate set of positions would be difficult to come up with, though -- simple proximity likely wouldn't be enough, as it would strongly favor ranged parties. 

 

But, yeah, I'd agree that any tactic that a human player could respond to effectively is a legitimate tactic if the AI can be designed to do the same  The last part is the hard part, though.

[Osvir]

It would be interesting, though, to see the NPCs respond to the positioning of the player's characters, in real-time, prior to the player initiating dialog with Meredith. 

Or have dialogue not pause the game, and characters in the background moving depending on your C&C in dialogue.

 

But I think it would require some (lots really) of even more dialogue writing a la:

 

*Medreth looks to one of his followers, nods, as if signaling a command. He then looks back to you, smile gone, and readying his blade*

 

And whilst reading that you could see the followers position themselves in real time, but combat "state" won't start until you click "Done/Finished/Close". So if you'd click fast you could abstract it as "reacting quickly & counter-attacking", which I think many would do naturally (out of sheer fear of getting attacked whilst the dialogue window is up, until learning that combat never starts until pressing "X", in such a situation).

 

I think it would require tons of work though. I can already see bugs where the party is in dialogue window and getting attacked by some external source and you can't react to it.

 

to see the NPCs respond to the positioning of the player's characters, in real-time

 

As in, having fixed positioning, and drawing to set "Player is closing in" positionings? It could get wonky too, "I am 5 squares away, now I'm 4 squares away, now I'm 5 squares away" and snickering and giggling about how Medreth's followers are walking back and forth, confused and seemingly delirious from my character's presence (if you know how "Regions/Triggers" in map development/editing are in Editors like WarCraft 3's WarEdit, you'll understand what I mean).

Edited December 17, 2014 by Osvir

[constantine]

I'm sorry but I can't feel sorry for those of you who can't kite in Pillars of Eternity.

 

 

As for pre-combat placement, I guess nothing can be done about it. Those who will use it, they will use it.

[Malekith]

constantine, on 17 Dec 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:constantine, on 17 Dec 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I can't feel sorry for those of you who can't kite in Pillars of Eternity.

 

Who says you can't? So far Sensuki has proven you can kite just fine, and i don't expect Josh to be able to prevent it. Engagement only works if the opponent manages to come right beside you. Nothink stops you from having the character the AI is targeting running in circles, while the rest of the team shower them with arrows,summoning creatures and casting spells.

Same deal with the "no pre-buffing" rule. Having buffs only in combat is irrelevant. Nothing stops me from engaging combat with my rogue while the rest of the party is far away, and once combat starts i have the rogue run away while the rest of the party buffs itself. How is that different from pre buffing? I could go on and on.

Long story short, Obsidian should design the game so the most logical way to play it is fun, without care about those who will try to abuse the system because you know what? You can't do **** to stop them.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Malekith

[MReed]

 

It would be interesting, though, to see the NPCs respond to the positioning of the player's characters, in real-time, prior to the player initiating dialog with Meredith. 

Or have dialogue not pause the game, and characters in the background moving depending on your C&C in dialogue.

 

 

If the NPCs can move and the PCs cannot (during dialog), then that's not fair -- and, in fact, this happens all the time.  We call it a cutscene...   It is certainly possible to have a UI that supports movement of both NPCs and players during dialog (for example, NWN 1&2), but using that functionality to setup an encounter will (as you pointed out) result in players hurrying through the conversation / aborting the conversation / ignoring the conversation, all of which are bad.