Stop Right Now Thankyou Very Much

[Shevek]

@ prodigydancer

 

Dude, give the baiting a rest. Both "sides" have given substantive arguments. We just disagree. There is no need to go after the "crowd" you disagree with.

 

In any case, the issue is pretty much dead until the next patch. Why dont we keep an open mind as we try the system out with the abuse fixes and ui adjustments?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Shevek

[prodigydancer]

I don't think so, they just want to keep the system. For some insane reason they think it's good lol

Well, yes. But ironically the fixes mentioned by Josh all amount to deemphasizing the role of engagement. They're going to remove abilities that increase range and, if I understand correctly, add some sort of internal cooldown.

 

When you feel that an obvious solution to something is having less of it you need to stop and think if the better solution is having none of it.

 

P.S. I seem to remember some heated discussions just recently re. the attribute system for instance. So what's happened? Is it perfect now of has everyone simply give up?

Edited December 7, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Sensuki]

Yes you're right. Regardless of what they do, I will be modding it out of the game, but I'll keep testing/trying to break it as well.

[constantine]

I'm pleased with the announced changes to engagement.

 

 

 

I don't think so, they just want to keep the system. For some insane reason they think it's good lol

Well, yes. But ironically the fixes mentioned by Josh all amount to deemphasizing the role of engagement. They're going to remove abilities that increase range and, if I understand correctly, add some sort of internal cooldown.

 

When you feel that an obvious solution to something is having less of it you need to stop and think if the better solution is having none of it.

 

This is what I've always wanted- less of it. The closer it gets to D&D's 'Attack of Opportunity', the better for me.

 

Now all I hope is that Sensuki won't manage to abuse it once more.

[Void3dge]

I doesn't matter if it is abusable or unbalanced. PoE is not DotA or SC2, it's a solo game...

[Sarex]

Any system is abusable given enough time to tinker with it, no matter how much it is improved.

[ctn2003]

+1 to that

[Malekith]

constantine, on 07 Dec 2014 - 10:21 PM, said:

I'm pleased with the announced changes to engagement.

 

prodigydancer, on 07 Dec 2014 - 8:03 PM, said:

 

Sensuki, on 07 Dec 2014 - 7:53 PM, said:

I don't think so, they just want to keep the system. For some insane reason they think it's good lol

Well, yes. But ironically the fixes mentioned by Josh all amount to deemphasizing the role of engagement. They're going to remove abilities that increase range and, if I understand correctly, add some sort of internal cooldown.

 

When you feel that an obvious solution to something is having less of it you need to stop and think if the better solution is having none of it.

 

This is what I've always wanted- less of it. The closer it gets to D&D's 'Attack of Opportunity', the better for me.

 

Now all I hope is that Sensuki won't manage to abuse it once more.

 

What i hope is that they find that the only way to fix engagement is for it to be toned down to the point of being completely irrelevant.

[Hassat Hunter]

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!

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'd like to see engagement changed, but not removed. I don't like the it operating outside of weapon reach, the damage nor the accuracy bonus. I can live with the free attack and zero recovery time--even if that's arguably the greatest culprit of it being exploitable.

[Sensuki]

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

Melee Engagement doesn't address kiting. It's technically one of the things it's supposed to do. I made those videos to try and get Obsidian to improve the AI Targeting.

 

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.

That was one of the angles I used (although it was more it's a very complicated problem, not necessarily the AI can't handle it - that was more related to the solution of making the AI check for Engagement circles and make decisions about when to ignore them), the real reason it should be removed is because it removes pretty much all tactical movement from the game after combat begins, thus making it boring. I have several quotes stating that the combat in this game was intended to be tactical, but instead some idiot called Tamerlane got his wish granted instead.

 

As for the "It must play like DoTA"... nope...

Who said that? Certainly wasn't me.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[prodigydancer]

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

Congratulations on not reading any of the topic-related threads before posting. There's no better way to make a complete *** of yourself.

[Grotesque]

the proof that after 4982 posts one can still have zero insight and talk out of his bottom.

[Chilloutman]

That was one of the angles I used (although it was more it's a very complicated problem, not necessarily the AI can't handle it - that was more related to the solution of making the AI check for Engagement circles and make decisions about when to ignore them), the real reason it should be removed is because it removes pretty much all tactical movement from the game after combat begins, thus making it boring. I have several quotes stating that the combat in this game was intended to be tactical, but instead some idiot called Tamerlane got his wish granted instead.

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

[archangel979]

I doesn't matter if it is abusable or unbalanced. PoE is not DotA or SC2, it's a solo game...

Unbalanced is OK if that unbalance leads to interesting gameplay like it did in IE games.

 

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

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.

 

Similar to this, PoE should not let players abuse engagement to get free attacks and super easy fights

Edited December 8, 2014 by archangel979

[Hassat Hunter]

Congratulations on not reading any of the topic-related threads before posting. There's no better way to make a complete *** of yourself.

 

Oh, I did... 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.

 

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...

 

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

Edited December 8, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Sensuki]

"Sure, they can improve the AI, but Sensuki will abuse it with engagement again!" conveniently forgetting he does the same without the engagement

This makes no sense. It's like an inside out version of "Kiting exists with or without engagement".

 

There are some people here who actually care about tactical movement and positioning in combat, if your favourite game is Knights of the Old Republic 2, then you're probably not going to be one of those people.

 

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

This statement is untrue, and you are not only getting that wrong, but the definition of tactics as well.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

[Sensuki]

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.

Only initial positioning. It puts all the emphasis of movement into strategical movement (planned movement) and movement in the combat opening. After the opening, combat becomes a stand still. Every video that showcases combat in Pillars of Eternity demonstrates this. It is banal/boring gameplay.

 

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.

Actually no, it doesn't make position frivial, it opens everything right up. The Engagement system removes many elements of tactical movement and positioning that the Infinity Engine games had. Even the simplest action such as shuffling a character to the side so you could fit another melee character in the pathfinding space is met with a disengagement attack, which is quite laughable.

 

If you really need a video demonstrating all of the things the Engagement system removes or makes pointless, I'll make one.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[Chilloutman]

 

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.

Only initial positioning. It puts all the emphasis of movement into strategical movement (planned movement) and movement in the combat opening. After the opening, combat becomes a stand still. Every video that showcases combat in Pillars of Eternity demonstrates this. It is banal/boring gameplay.

 

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.

Actually no, it doesn't make position frivial, it opens everything right up. The Engagement system removes many elements of tactical movement and positioning that the Infinity Engine games had. Even the simplest action such as shuffling a character to the side so you could fit another melee character in the pathfinding space is met with a disengagement attack, which is quite laughable.

 

If you really need a video demonstrating all of the things the Engagement system removes or makes pointless, I'll make one.

 

Sure you can, and I believe there are people who could create video where its demonstrated where it can be used tacticaly - you know where is will, there is way

[prodigydancer]

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.

Edited December 8, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Guest 4ward]

the hatred towards combat that was in games like IWD or BG2 on this forum just never ceases to amaze me. And all that on the forum of Pillars of Eternity, a game that was supposed to bring back that familiar feel of the IE games. Suddenly, BG2 combat is the worst that ever existed, suddenly a mechanic/system is the saviour. Wow, just wow!

[Sensuki]

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

Prodigydancer has a point, if that is your opinion then you obviously haven't read any of mine.

 

Sure you can, and I believe there are people who could create video where its demonstrated where it can be used tacticaly - you know where is will, there is way

Make a video where what can be used tactically? You are being unclear. I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'd rather you say it.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[TheisEjsing]

Haha, this has turned into quite the funny thread! Other people's words are only useful to the extend, that I can quote them to further my next argument or solidify my point! 

[prodigydancer]

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

Apparently it's all one big misunderstanding.