SLOWED RECOVERY WHILE MOVING - NO THANKS

[Sensuki]

WHY IS ALL RECOVERY TIME NOW SLOWED WHILE MOVING ??????????????

DO YOU GUYS JUST HATE TACTICAL MOVEMENT IN COMBAT? WHO MADE THIS DECISION?

I fought hard to get recovery time pause removed from the game, and had to suffer slowed ranged recovery while moving (which I'm not a fan of anyway) and now for some retarded reason, all movement now slows recovery time - giving even MORE penalty to moving in combat and putting MORE emphasis on having to put your close characters together, which is dumb. 

There is already enough reason to use positioning as it is because pretty much everything else in the game demands it - all this does is hurt the gameplay. I want to move my units around - I and many others play these games like an RTS and you are basically designing the game so that penalizes my preferred style of play.

Can you please stop trying to force people to play a certain way? Because it's not fun.

 

I know it's not a bug because I checked the code, and there is this part of the update method in CharacterStats

if ((this.m_recoveryTimer > 0f) && !this.HasStatusEffectThatPausesRecoveryTimer())
            {
                if (this.IsMoving)
                {
                    float movingRecoveryMult = AttackData.Instance.MovingRecoveryMult;
                    if (((this.m_equipment != null) && (this.m_equipment.PrimaryAttack != null)) && (this.m_equipment.PrimaryAttack is AttackRanged))
                    {
                        movingRecoveryMult += this.RangedMovingRecoveryReductionPct;
                    }
                    this.m_recoveryTimer -= Time.deltaTime * movingRecoveryMult;
                }
                else
                {
                    this.m_recoveryTimer -= Time.deltaTime;

It's pretty simple for me to remove that line from the code, but there's probably others out there that would like to have their say on this subject as well. 

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Veevoir]

Isn't engagement and resulting free "lol you moved" attacks not enough to penalize those who actually want to bring some tactics in the game? This has to happen too?

It locks the game even further into engaging everything with tank or two and then proceed to beat the crap out of it. And even much, much deeper into ranged>>> melee (ranged won't suffer additional penalty for switching targets while melee needs to get to the target and suffer extra recovery in the process*).

This is bad.

_{*I really hope there won;t be an additional penalty for switching ranged targets, don't get ideas !!}

 

[MoonWolf]

I'm sure that with this well thought counter argument. The Image with rioters with pitchforks and general tone you will convince a lot of people that you have something meaningfull to add to this instad of "I DON'T LIKE IT".

 

Good job. RPG Codex: doesn't scale to your level. Instead just shouts angrily about things it doesn't like.

 

The idea that there is a cost to movement is not exactly bad. In fact its a good idea. And when it comes to engament attacks ( which i'm sure are going to come up) every class has ways to help them disengage.

 

I'm just going to go out and say slowed recovery during movement is a good idea. Moving untill your recovery is over, shooting and then moving again should come with a downside.

[Striped_Wolf]

Isnt this mainly a way to punish ranged characters for kiting away in the few cases where they actually do get targeted?
 

Also, are talents like sprint/charge affected by this?

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Striped_Wolf

[Sensuki]

I'm sure that with this well thought counter argument. The Image with rioters with pitchforks and general tone you will convince a lot of people that you have something meaningfull to add to this instad of "I DON'T LIKE IT".

 

Good job. RPG Codex: doesn't scale to your level. Instead just shouts angrily about things it doesn't like.

Hey, you can take prejudice against the pitchfork image all you like, I use it for style. Plus this decision makes me bloody angry.

 

This game already penalizes movement enough with the engagement system, and the ranged recovery penalty. It's like hey guise - stand still, that's the correct way to play because we really wish this was a turn based game, but it has to be RTwP because we promised an Infinity Engine game.

 

There is zero reason to add a recovery penalty for moving. What does it accomplish? Nothing. All it simply does is penalize builds that favor mobility, and if you want to play 'optimally' you have to put your characters in a retarded clump.

 

The game used to have completely paused recovery while moving - were you one of the people that didn't care about that? (I assume so).

 

Isnt this mainly a way to punish ranged characters for kiting away in the few cases where they actually do get targeted?

Ranged characters are already penalized for moving because there is already a ranged movement recovery penalty and it it stacks with the general movement recovery mult - you can see it in the formula in the code i posted. That alone is retarded in itself, but I actually made that suggestion just to get paused recovery while moving removed from the game. You don't need either, as ranged weapons have a long recovery time anyway and there is basically no reason to move while ranged except to get in range of a new target.

 

Have you actually seen people kiting with ranged weapons? I know I haven't. I've been the only person doing kiting videos and I run a single ranged character around in circles while five ranged characters stand completely still and pulverize everyone.

 

I also removed all recovery movement penalties and Melee Engagement in an earlier patch and tested it and kiting with ranged was absolutely horrible - this is just overcompensation.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Striped_Wolf]

Sometimes I get the feeling they are implementing these features as a 'dirty' way to sidestep better AI.
But I shouldnt pass out judgements until Ive sat down with the release build for a few hours.
 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Striped_Wolf

[Tartantyco]

Welcome to another edition of "Why doesn't this game play exactly the way I want it to?"

[Veevoir]

Welcome to another edition of "Why doesn't this game play exactly the way I want it to?"

Or to be more exact, another edition of "Why there are less and less ways to play the game?"

[Sensuki]

Well, for anyone like me and veevoir, we can simply remove that code, no problem but I honestly am baffled at the decision to be honest. 

[mutonizer]

Hmm...

 

While I agree that total recovery lock-down while moving was bad, some kind of recovery penalty kinda makes sense to me. I mean, running around like a madman while there's a fight going on should come, I think, with some drawbacks. I'm critical enough when they make change that makes no sense and feel completely artificial but gotta say, this one's kinda logical (whatever that means): fast re-positioning is a tactical choice and to be a choice, there needs to be benefits and costs. Heck I'd go even further personally, with DEF penalties added on top (though maybe a REF bonus as well) but that's just me

 

Of course, all that could be solved with a walking stance that wouldn't carry drawbacks (but you move slower of course), but heh, apparently people like being able to run around at full speed in battle for some reason.

[Veevoir]

But fast re-positioning is already penalized - by engagement mechanics. And we have talents and skills to circumvent that in game.

This change makes investing in those useless - why would I want to disengage and move if I risk both attack of opportunity and additional penalties for doing so?
What is worse - this almost exclusively penalizes melee. Ranged doesn't need to move and if they do - there are bigger problems than recovery, like reload.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Veevoir

[Sensuki]

The cost of moving is moving itself, how bloody hard is that to understand for some RPG players. 

If you're using fast weapons, any movement at all is lost actions because recovery time is quick.

If you're using a 2Her or 1H single you've got a bloody long enough recovery time anyway, especially in armor.

 

And yeah on top of that, there's the engagement mechanics. May as well just use a max might/max dex Arquebus I guess? Interrupts don't reset reload animation time. No penalty for fighting in melee ... cool - way to have the opposite intended effect lmao

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Tartantyco]

Except it isn't. In the IE games it is often a substantial bonus by avoiding damage, cycling characters, and exploiting AI behavior, and the same would be true in PoE without the engagement mechanic. I think you just have to fundamentally re-evaluate how you play the game, Sensuki.

[Luckmann]

What is it with the war on dynamic combat in this game? I just don't see why Sawyer would think that it's a good idea to look down combat in every possible way. What is it that makes these mechanics fun to play with, or even realistic in the context of the game or universe? What is it that is interesting about a static, immobile battlefield where you are instantly penalized for making any tactical adjustments whatsoever?

I'm just not seeing it.

[AndreaColombo]

I'm with Sensuki on this one.

 

No reason to penalize movement beyond engagement, which I'm already not a fan of. This is RTwP (in case you missed that particular class, RTwP is a good thing) - deal with it.

 

If the IE mod removes it, that's one more feature from the mod I'll be using from day one.

[Sensuki]

Except it isn't. In the IE games it is often a substantial bonus by avoiding damage, cycling characters, and exploiting AI behavior, and the same would be true in PoE without the engagement mechanic. I think you just have to fundamentally re-evaluate how you play the game, Sensuki.

If you've seen any of my videos, you'll see that the way I play Icewind Dale and the way I play Pillars of Eternity is completely different because I've adapted to the required style of play for Pillars of Eternity. The recovery time mult does not stop you from doing anything it just makes several decisions worse, and stacks the game more to one particular style of play which is the insanely boring stealth pre-positioning, mass per-encounter alpha-strikes followed by standing still in combat. Combat after the first wave could try and be less banal without having bullcrap like this added on top of it.

 

This is not a turn-based game - it's an Infinity Engine style RTwp RPG. Infinity Engine style RTwP RPG.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[mutonizer]

The cost of moving is moving itself, how bloody hard is that to understand for some RPG players.

You can't include moving as a cost when it's used as a benefit. Unless you're forced to move (because of incoming AE, etc), then it's your tactical choice, therefore a benefit.

And it's hard to understand because it doesn't make any lick of sense to be able to reload and swing without penalties when you're running around at full speed.

 

And yeah on top of that, there's the engagement mechanics. May as well just use a max might/max dex Arquebus I guess? Interrupts don't reset reload animation time. No penalty for fighting in melee ... cool - way to have the opposite intended effect lmao

If you're (you as a generic you, not you, you) gonna min/max anyway, you'll always go for the most abusing system you can find so if it's not that, it's gonna be something else, forever and ever. Can't design a rule system around that kind of playstyle nor even take it into consideration. You go with an idea within your vision for most "reasonable" situations, try to polish the extremes according to feedback, and see what comes out.

 

This change makes investing in those useless - why would I want to disengage and move if I risk both attack of opportunity and additional penalties for doing so?

Because if you're a tank surrounded with critters with nasty raw damage poison on hit, and you need to re-position to prevent an ally from getting gibbed, you want to make damn sure you don't get hit by everything on the way.

 

What is worse - this almost exclusively penalizes melee. Ranged doesn't need to move and if they do - there are bigger problems than recovery, like reload.

My ranged dudes are the ones moving around the most usually. Caster getting into conal position, healer getting in there, bow chanter coming in close to cast invocation. Any delay for these situations can be critical so that makes positioning more important.

For melees, doesn't matter much because half a second delay in attack is not that big deal usually, unless you want to land a stun/interrupt or something.

[Sensuki]

You can't include moving as a cost when it's used as a benefit. Unless you're forced to move (because of incoming AE, etc), then it's your tactical choice, therefore a benefit.

And it's hard to understand because it doesn't make any lick of sense to be able to reload and swing without penalties when you're running around at full speed.

This isn't about ranged characters, this is about melee characters. If you want to know how easy reloading is while moving with a bow - check this out

 

If you're (you as a generic you, not you, you) gonna min/max anyway, you'll always go for the most abusing system you can find so if it's not that, it's gonna be something else, forever and ever. Can't design a rule system around that kind of playstyle nor even take it into consideration. You go with an idea within your vision for most "reasonable" situations, try to polish the extremes according to feedback, and see what comes out.

I'm fighting against this because it's not fun, not because of the opposite effects it may have on kiting melee characters.

 

Because if you're a tank surrounded with critters with nasty raw damage poison on hit, and you need to re-position to prevent an ally from getting gibbed, you want to make damn sure you don't get hit by everything on the way.

You already get hit by disengagement attacks from every character you're surrounded by, as well as whatever AoE and ranged attacks are coming at you. All of that can interrupt you as well.

 

For melees, doesn't matter much because half a second delay in attack is not that big deal usually, unless you want to land a stun/interrupt or something.

Yes it is. It penalizes the mobile melee characters, and it promotes a certain style of play - which is pulling enemies into a clump of your guys together and penalizes different initial positioning setups. banalsh1tboring.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Luckmann]

I'm with Sensuki on this one.

 

No reason to penalize movement beyond engagement, which I'm already not a fan of. This is RTwP (in case you missed that particular class, RTwP is a good thing) - deal with it.

 

If the IE mod removes it, that's one more feature from the mod I'll be using from day one.

 

I really, really, really hope that Sawyer is taken off as lead for any expansion or sequel, and replaced with someone that actually wants to make a RTwP game. I've been a bit harsh in my critique of Sawyer before, for several reasons, but I think a lot of issues really just boil down to that he really wants to do a turn-based game, which he's very quick to mention at any given chance, and after playing Divinity: Original Sin, I'd love to see what can be done with a turn-based game of this or that style (I've always considered Jagged Alliance 2 the epitome of turn-based gameplay, but D:OS has a completely different approach that also works, while I have an incredibly low opinion of most other turn-based games, at least when it comes to that aspect of the gameplay).

 

I think both we and Sawyer would all be a lot happier if he got to do a turn-based game and they got someone that wants to work with real-time tactical games to work on the Pillars series. Because this **** clearly isn't working out.

[Osvir]

I can think of two things to mitigate the slowed recovery time effects of moving around:
A) Fast Runner - Lowers the time it takes to get from Point A to Point B (Thus, lowers the time you are moving/lowers the time you have slowed recovery)
B) Shot on the Run - Lowers Ranged Recovery time by 25% or something.

In essence: I don't have a problem with it, but thanks for the heads up still, it'll be something I'll consider in my positioning, movement and strategy/tactics in combat (I view it as another ingredient to consider). I don't see how it takes away from any tactics whatsoever.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Osvir

[Sensuki]

Shot on the Run was created to deal with the ranged move recovery mult that was added into the game in v301/v333 I forget which.

 

Fast Runner doesn't decrease your recovery time.

 

Basically what they've done Osvir is add a flat penalty for everyone when moving regardless of what talents you pick.

 

I'm not playing with it. Just more bad design decisions we have to rip out of the game on release day.

[Tartantyco]

If your battles in PoE are static, then it's because of the way you are playing the game. At most, I might have three party members who remain mostly static, with the rest moving around to stop flanking enemies, flank the enemy themselves, engage priority targets, or position themselves to better use their abilities. If I want to get out of an engagement, there's loads of abilities that help me do that.

 

I don't quite know what you're trying to say with your "herp-derp RTwP" comments, but that is pretty irrelevant to the issue. And again, it's inspired by, not a clone of, the IE games. I played those games just as much as anyone else here, that argument just isn't going to cut it. You don't get to define what an IE game is for everyone else.

[Zack Fair]

I'm sure that with this well thought counter argument. The Image with rioters with pitchforks and general tone you will convince a lot of people that you have something meaningfull to add to this instad of "I DON'T LIKE IT".

 

Good job. RPG Codex: doesn't scale to your level. Instead just shouts angrily about things it doesn't like.

 

 

Oh shut up. He told his reasons in the post, so why don't you just learn to read before complaining about the Codex or Sensuki.

[Sensuki]

You don't get to define what an IE game is for everyone else.

And neither do you.

 

I am stating my opinion, and there are people here (as evident in the thread) that agree with me.

 

My battles are not completely static, but the game promotes playing statically. If you're asking me how I play you probably haven't watched me play either game. There's already enough penalties to movement as is, adding more is just hilariously bad IMO.

 

Most of the developers prefer turn-based combat, and play P&P. A lot of the decisions they make cannot help be influenced by thinking of how things work in either of these styles of game. IMO for real-time gameplay you should design around the benefits of the style - and in my opinion this is the exact opposite.

 

Out of EVERYTHING in the game - combat feel is the thing I feel the most strongly about, and this is a smack right in the jaw in that regard.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

In essence: I don't have a problem with it, but thanks for the heads up still, it'll be something I'll consider in my positioning, movement and strategy/tactics in combat (I view it as another ingredient to consider). I don't see how it takes away from any tactics whatsoever.

It reduces the tactical depth because it makes moving increasingly disadvantageous. And it's already incredibly disadvantageous, due to the current Engagement mechanics. The game is already 90% positioning before combat starts, and there's very little reactivity or adaptation going on.

 

While I can understand the sentiment that "it's another variable to consider", that assumes that there will be situations where you will want to move. But in the current game, even without this, you really, really don't want to move. This just adds to that to really cement the static combat.

 

In order for there to be a tradeoff, there first has to be something to trade. And there just isn't. You properly position yourself in Stealth, BLITZKRIEG, and then you lump all your melee and all the enemy melee together in a large, static, unmoving blob, and then you all stand there until the encounter is over or until you *have* to move (such as when all other opponents are dead and you're taking down the stragglers in the back).

 

In the IE games, there were lots of movement going on, and you had to take decisions based on what happened, what the enemies did, "Oh crap they ran past me up and they're wailing on Imoen all of a sudden", and so on. That just doesn't happen in PoE. I'm not lauding the IE games for an amazing tactical depth here, I'm just using it as an example as something that was objectively better in this instance.

 

You already depend so much on pre-battle positioning in PoE and you already have so little incentive to even consider moving. The combat is already incredibly static and the melee almost completely immobile. And there's already way too little reactivity.

 

I think that Sensuki's frustration isn't necessarily with this one mechanic, but rather that it just detracts even further on tactical play, especially when taking the other pre-existing mechanics (which are already detracting from tactical depth in other or similar ways).

 

And neither do you.

 

I am stating my opinion, and there are people here (as evident in the thread) that agree with me.

 

My battles are not completely static, but the game promotes playing statically. If you're asking me how I play you probably haven't watched me play either game. There's already enough penalties to movement as is, adding more is just hilariously bad IMO.

 

Most of the developers prefer turn-based combat, and play P&P. A lot of the decisions they make cannot help be influenced by thinking of how things work in either of these styles of game. IMO for real-time gameplay you should design around the benefits of the style - and in my opinion this is the exact opposite.

 

Out of EVERYTHING in the game - combat feel is the thing I feel the most strongly about, and this is a smack right in the jaw in that regard.

 

I think it's flabbergasting that the IE games, a series actually molded after turn-based PnP, in many ways outclasses and outperforms a stand-alone title made, with it's rules custom-tailored, for the expressed purpose of playing in real-time.

 

I'm not saying that the IE games were necessary better in all ways, when push comes to shove, but as you say, here we have something that has the chance to be entirely designed around the benefits of the style, having those potential benefits be thrown to the wind in order to make something play more like a turn-based game. It's very strange.

 

I really like turn-based. I really do. Always have. But let's not pretend that there's not some really big wonkyness going on that can't be rectified with the turn-based format. And now there's a chance to make something that is actually reactive, tactical and strategical in ways turn-based just can't really do, and it's forced into a very odd mould.

 

This decision is just bizarre. It's not the first decision that's bizarre and it's not the first decision to be bad, and many other decisions are at least explainable by "We didn't have time to make it right, maybe in a sequel or expansion". Honestly much of that is just life. But this decision is certainly the most bizarre that I've seen yet, I think.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Luckmann