SLOWED RECOVERY WHILE MOVING - NO THANKS

[Shdy314]

It's not a movement speed penalty, it's a recovery penalty which applies to all characters equally. It's not targeted at anyone.

Also PoE does not have the raw caster imbalance disparity of 3e so no incentive for melee needs to be given.

 

I still can't parse your argument from the other stuff you said. Melee people could, at one point, output more raw damage with more safety at certain level breakpoints in 3e. Most people just had nice gms that were afraid to punish the casters fragile egos.

No it's a penalty that affects characters that move. Design a character that doesn't need to and you have no penalty. This is easy enough even you should understand. In fact I know you do because you just bragged about your awesome characters you designed in 3.X that bypassed moving so they wouldn't be stopped from full attacking!

 

The imbalance is not AS severe that's true. But that is a bar so low to clear it's barely worth mentioning. It also does not logically follow that just because casters don't completely own non-casters that melee is "just fine." Why are you focused on casters anyways? I mentioned ranged weapons multiple times now. I also never said it had to be incentivized. I said there had to be a real reason to use melee weapons. What's the reason if devs keep penalizing it?

 

No they objectively cannot. I DMed that stupid system for a long time (and I never had to handle casters with kid gloves) so you are seriously tempting me to go so very very off topic but I am going to resist.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Shdy314

[erragal]

You calling it a bad system doesn't make it bad. You know that right?

 

Using extremist qualitative statements like that to further your narrative is the issue. That persuades no one.

 

It's a system you don't agree with. Many people do agree with it. From that we can conclude it is likely neither inherently good nor inherently bad (like most systems).

 

These talents aren't arbitrary, are they? You only use that word because they legitimize a system you disagree with. They then create more variance in playstyles between individual avatars, not less.

[DigitalCrack]

 

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it?

Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

For me the absence of options punishing excessive running create an optimal way to play that doesn't represent any sort of a fantasy combat scenario.

 

I love the idea of a hyper mobile character being enabled by a series of choices. This makes it a playstyle for those interested while properly representing how superheric it is to actually fight that way.

Like sensuki keeps saying its not the movement that is penalized its the choice to move that is being penalized. And really for no other reason than "we dont want you to choose to move like that in combat". So its not like you can't build a mobile character your just not allowed to play it the way you want.

[Sensuki]

Definitely not. They would be just as bad as Shot on the Run, which you should never take because it gives you basically nothing. Actually didn't they remove that talent ?

[Osvir]

This quote is taken out of context, you can click on the Chat Bubble Icon in the top right corner of the quote to be taken to the original post about right................ here...VV

It's not that you have to specialize in moving to be good at moving. It's that moving and doing something else at the same time is a skill in and of itself. Moving your character doesn't represent ' dodging an arrow ' or ' avoiding a fireball '. It represents your character repositioning wholesale several yards in order to have a new tactical position.

If you are making that decision what it means is your original position is untenable. If you pick your original positions better then you shouldn't have to move as often.

1) Just wanted to say that. Make your Rogue get focused/targeted by several enemies. Cast Fireball ontop of the Rogue and all the enemies. Do Escape with Rogue. It's extremely satisfactory when it hits right :D

2) I can attest that, I move more in combat when I haven't prepared, when I stumble into an encounter. Then my entire combat phase is more active in moving around. When I spot an enemy and prepare ahead, they pretty much just stand still statically. I.E: I have to react and adjust my tactics if I get surprised by an encounter, whilst preparing ahead, I can become an iron wall. Makes sense, doesn't it? I feel that combat is dynamic in this way, and lots of things happen during combat which allows reactivity, which allows for mobility and me switching/changing my tactics (Which is why I don't have much problem with recovery rate penalties when moving).

I fought the Beetles right before that little island where you can go into the Dyrford Ruins. I deliberately moved around a bit to see how much it affected my advantage and disadvantage and... well... not much at all. I considered that "My character will lose some recovery time by moving over there but, it's a better position so it is a win situation for me" (I'm playing on Path of the Damned also).

It also helps if you have different weapon sets, most of my characters have a ranged and melee, and re-positioning myself happens often due to it.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Osvir

[Tartantyco]

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it?

 

Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

 

First off, that argument is a non-starter. At that point, you could just make a sandbox and tell everyone to make up their own rules. The only functionality of unrestricted movement of the kind that the IE games have, is for the player to abuse AI behavior with it. In general, supporting design choices that allow for exploitative behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

 

Secondly, the argument that this further promotes static combat, or that the game promotes static combat, has not even been conceded. As I have already stated, as have many others, I don't play PoE statically. I have never felt that any battle I play would have gone so much better if I was more static. I think that static play styles are perfectly functional and viable. I don't think that they are any more or less functional or viable than other builds.

 

Thirdly, this change that Sensuki is so up in arms about is one that I haven't even noticed, and it sure as hell hasn't had any impact on how I play the game. I don't care whether this change stays or goes, but this constant hyperbole about unmoving battlefields, and especially this framing of anyone not accepting that opinion as people who want static combat, is just pure garbage. People in this thread aren't really supporting the change, as much as they are opposing the insane framing of the discussion.

[erragal]

 

It's not a movement speed penalty, it's a recovery penalty which applies to all characters equally. It's not targeted at anyone.

 

Also PoE does not have the raw caster imbalance disparity of 3e so no incentive for melee needs to be given.

I still can't parse your argument from the other stuff you said. Melee people could, at one point, output more raw damage with more safety at certain level breakpoints in 3e. Most people just had nice gms that were afraid to punish the casters fragile egos.

 

No it's a penalty that affects characters that move. Design a character that doesn't need to and you have no penalty. This is easy enough even you should understand. In fact I know you do because you just bragged about your awesome characters you designed in 3.X that bypassed moving so they wouldn't be stopped from full attacking!

 

The imbalance is not AS severe that's true. But that is a bar so low to clear it's barely worth mentioning. It also does not logically follow that just because casters don't completely own non-casters that melee is "just fine." Why are you focused on casters anyways? I mentioned ranged weapons multiple times now. I also never said it had to be incentivized. I said there had to be a real reason to use melee weapons. What's the reason if devs keep penalizing it?

 

No they objectively cannot. I DMed that stupid system for a long time (and I never had to handle casters with kid gloves) so you are seriously tempting me to go so very very off topic but I am going to resist.

Why are implying that casters don't need to move? If anything melee characters should need less drastic repositioning once they achieve engagement in this game. Casters are significantly squish and really don't want to get engaged upon or directly attacked. It affects one type of melee build that shouldnt exist at all because it's an exploitative way to play.

 

And as for your dm skills: you were soft, and lacking creativity. Unbalanced parties shouldnt work prior to level 8\9 spells and even then can be taken advantage of. All your bluster and system bitterness just tells me you let the rules play you.

[Sensuki]

First off, that argument is a non-starter. At that point, you could just make a sandbox and tell everyone to make up their own rules. The only functionality of unrestricted movement of the kind that the IE games have, is for the player to abuse AI behavior with it. In general, supporting design choices that allow for exploitative behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

Oh come on - the recovery penalty makes it easier to kite because the melee enemies that you are kiting have their recovery slowed while they are moving. That's one of the (many) reasons why this is a silly mechanic.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Striped_Wolf]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the balance of opinion on this thread is not going to change his commitment to modding out the stuff he doesn't like

 

*Engagement attack*

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi4SGhB0uko

[Shdy314]

 I don't care whether this change stays or goes

Then stop arguing about it. If you don't even notice it and you don't care then let it be changed. You won't notice anyways. I've already tried to explain that if you want to make the argument that "you didn't even notice it" then it cannot by your own argument be creating any sort of meaningful decisions for you to take into account during combat. So it's useless to have added it back.

[Shdy314]

Why are implying that casters don't need to move? If anything melee characters should need less drastic repositioning once they achieve engagement in this game. Casters are significantly squish and really don't want to get engaged upon or directly attacked. It affects one type of melee build that shouldnt exist at all because it's an exploitative way to play.

And as for your dm skills: you were soft, and lacking creativity. Unbalanced parties shouldnt work prior to level 8\9 spells and even then can be taken advantage of. All your bluster and system bitterness just tells me you let the rules play you.

Because they don't. Plenty of spells don't have friendly fire and the ones that do are part of the opening volley.

 

You started off really strong at attempting to get me to go way off topic but then as usual you shot your own foot off.

 

 

 All your bluster and system bitterness just tells me you let the rules play you.

Wait? If I used the idiotic rules as presented you said melee fighters own at levels 8-14. Now you say if casters pwned I let the rules play me. So what you really meant all along is that good DMs throw their fighter player's bones like houserules and extra magic items so they don't feel so useless. Well that's ridiculous. You can shell out a bunch of money for a book and then rule zero to your heart's content but I expect systems I can use if I pay money for something.

Im not bitter. I didn't design the system. I don't bother running it anymore. It's actually a very fun system if you make sure to play a caster.

If it's bluster I have the majority of the DnD fanbase behind me so I guess we're just not all as smart as you. HEHEHE yeah that seems likely.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it?

 

Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

First off, that argument is a non-starter. At that point, you could just make a sandbox and tell everyone to make up their own rules. The only functionality of unrestricted movement of the kind that the IE games have, is for the player to abuse AI behavior with it. In general, supporting design choices that allow for exploitative behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

 

Secondly, the argument that this further promotes static combat, or that the game promotes static combat, has not even been conceded. As I have already stated, as have many others, I don't play PoE statically. I have never felt that any battle I play would have gone so much better if I was more static. I think that static play styles are perfectly functional and viable. I don't think that they are any more or less functional or viable than other builds.

 

Thirdly, this change that Sensuki is so up in arms about is one that I haven't even noticed, and it sure as hell hasn't had any impact on how I play the game. I don't care whether this change stays or goes, but this constant hyperbole about unmoving battlefields, and especially this framing of anyone not accepting that opinion as people who want static combat, is just pure garbage. People in this thread aren't really supporting the change, as much as they are opposing the insane framing of the discussion.

What's considered "exploitive" is opinion honestly like how for me it only falls under that if its a literal glitch or bug being utilized for the purpose of beating encounters. Not creative battle tactics the are allowable through game mechanics. So basically disagreeing on the basis that's its exploitive, or could be, is pointless since its defined differently by everyone. Plus removing the recovery penalty wouldnt even cause the exploitive behavior your afraid of anyway since they already have systems in place aside from the recovery penalty. Which is really why sensuki and other want it gone cause its redundant and unnecessary.

 

 

 

Of course sensuki is gonna come off that way when people in this thread are basically saying "this wouldn't really affect me, but why shouldn't you have to suffer?"

[Tartantyco]

 

First off, that argument is a non-starter. At that point, you could just make a sandbox and tell everyone to make up their own rules. The only functionality of unrestricted movement of the kind that the IE games have, is for the player to abuse AI behavior with it. In general, supporting design choices that allow for exploitative behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

Oh come on - the recovery penalty makes it easier to kite because the melee enemies that you are kiting have their recovery slowed while they are moving. That's one of the (many) reasons why this is a silly mechanic.

 

Did you forget that the engagement/disengagement mechanic exists while writing this reply?

 

Then stop arguing about it. If you don't even notice it and you don't care then let it be changed. You won't notice anyways. I've already tried to explain that if you want to make the argument that "you didn't even notice it" then it cannot by your own argument be creating any sort of meaningful decisions for you to take into account during combat. So it's useless to have added it back.

 

As I said, in the post you just quoted, I wasn't arguing about it. So...

[Baleros]

 

 I don't care whether this change stays or goes

Then stop arguing about it. If you don't even notice it and you don't care then let it be changed. You won't notice anyways. I've already tried to explain that if you want to make the argument that "you didn't even notice it" then it cannot by your own argument be creating any sort of meaningful decisions for you to take into account during combat. So it's useless to have added it back.

 

Oh right, taking things out of context and then attacking them are really going to help meaningful discussion.

[Sensuki]

Did you forget that the engagement/disengagement mechanic exists while writing this reply?

Do you have the beta?

 

In previous builds, you could kite neutral NPCs by cancelling your attack animation after the hit frame before engagement started to avoid engagement in melee. I reported that as a bug and it was fixed. Now, I just use a guy with a ranged weapon, a Monk with Fast Runner and whatever their speed ability is called - they're super quick. Just run them around in circles while 5 guys with guns stand off to the side without moving and pound the guys that you're kiting every time they come past.

 

Ranger Wolf Animal Companion is also stupidly faster than anything else - perfect for kiting. You can start with a ranged shot from someone else but have the Wolf be the closest, so the enemy AI aggros to it.

 

Neither Engagement, not slowed recovery stop kiting. It only makes it worse for melee enemies being kited.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Shdy314]

 

 

Secondly, the argument that this further promotes static combat, or that the game promotes static combat, has not even been conceded. As I have already stated, as have many others, I don't play PoE statically. I have never felt that any battle I play would have gone so much better if I was more static.

Please forgive me. Im sure you can understand how I might have gotten that mistaken impression.

[Tartantyco]

What's considered "exploitive" is opinion honestly like how for me it only falls under that if its a literal glitch or bug being utilized for the purpose of beating encounters. Not creative battle tactics the are allowable through game mechanics. So basically disagreeing on the basis that's its exploitive, or could be, is pointless since its defined differently by everyone. Plus removing the recovery penalty wouldnt even cause the exploitive behavior your afraid of anyway since they already have systems in place aside from the recovery penalty. Which is really why sensuki and other want it gone cause its redundant and unnecessary.

 

Again, I wasn't arguing for this particular change. Neither was I suggesting that this change fixes exploits. I was arguing against the assumptions made by Sensuki(That the game supposedly promotes static combat) and the logic of your argument.

[Sensuki]

To engage enemies you have to stand still. Movement is penalized in melee if you're engaged. Recovery time is now penalized if you move. It's quite simple really. All of these things make movement based tactics not really worth it unless you absolutely have to. It's not a choice. It only removes it.

[Lord Wafflebum]

Considering the tone of this thread, I can't at blame blame them if they don't, but I would love to hear from a dev why this was added (I noticed it too, ya'll).

 

Disengagement is already punishing enough (on every difficulty level) and more punishment for movement in combat is unwarranted, I think. It's a really unfortunate implementation. I didn't realize exactly why my recoveries were taking so long until I saw Sensuki's post. A lot of stuff makes sense now. 

 

As for the argument of "it's more realistic," realistic combat would make gameplay truly awful. Every critical hit would be insta-death. Most normal hits would be insta-death. Other than against heavily armored characters, every single hit would either mean death or being so badly injured you could no longer fight. True realism in a game would make it the least fun game ever made.

[Striped_Wolf]

 

First off, that argument is a non-starter. At that point, you could just make a sandbox and tell everyone to make up their own rules. The only functionality of unrestricted movement of the kind that the IE games have, is for the player to abuse AI behavior with it. In general, supporting design choices that allow for exploitative behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

Oh come on - the recovery penalty makes it easier to kite because the melee enemies that you are kiting have their recovery slowed while they are moving. That's one of the (many) reasons why this is a silly mechanic.

 

That is indeed a problem. But again, that is an issue with the AI.

 

If not engaged, enemies should be reevaluating targets every few seconds (slightly randomized).

Edited March 19, 2015 by Striped_Wolf

[Tartantyco]

To engage enemies you have to stand still. Movement is penalized in melee if you're engaged. Recovery time is now penalized if you move. It's quite simple really. All of these things make movement based tactics not really worth it unless you absolutely have to. It's not a choice. It only removes it.

 

The definition you're using for "movement based tactics" here is wafer thin.

[erragal]

Considering the tone of this thread, I can't at blame blame them if they don't, but I would love to hear from a dev why this was added (I noticed it too, ya'll).

 

Disengagement is already punishing enough (on every difficulty level) and more punishment for movement in combat is unwarranted, I think. It's a really unfortunate implementation. I didn't realize exactly why my recoveries were taking so long until I saw Sensuki's post. A lot of stuff makes sense now. 

 

As for the argument of "it's more realistic," realistic combat would make gameplay truly awful. Every critical hit would be insta-death. Most normal hits would be insta-death. Other than against heavily armored characters, every single hit would either mean death or being so badly injured you could no longer fight. True realism in a game would make it the least fun game ever made.

Your last point is why there's endurance/health. Their abstraction layer is actually that most attacks aren't causing physical damage but exertion /weariness/fatigue. Taking raw health damage is actually really dangerous with perma death on.

 

But perhaps that is the misconception overall: this game is aiming to be more simulationist than the original ie games actually were and it doesn't sit well with some people.

[Sensuki]

It's not an AI problem - if they can't see / detect your other characters and you keep the character they're chasing close to them. AI programming is difficult and in the majority of cases, the most sensible thing for melee AI to do is attack the closest unit - especially with the Engagement system.

 

this game is aiming to be more simulationist than the original ie games actually were and it doesn't sit well with some people.

That's the first time I've heard ANYONE accuse Pillars of Eternity of being simulationist. Are you really sure you've played the game?

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[mutonizer]

As for the argument of "it's more realistic," realistic combat would make gameplay truly awful. Every critical hit would be insta-death. Most normal hits would be insta-death. Other than against heavily armored characters, every single hit would either mean death or being so badly injured you could no longer fight. True realism in a game would make it the least fun game ever made.

Or the most fun ever made (told you there were billions kinds of fun) but the whole experience would need to be tailored completely differently and it couldn't be some kind of "you're the one!" story, that's for sure

 

Hardcore low-tech GURPS all the way baby!

[erragal]

It's not an AI problem - if they can't see / detect your other characters and you keep the character they're chasing close to them. AI programming is difficult and in the majority of cases, the most sensible thing for melee AI to do is attack the closest unit - especially with the Engagement system.

this game is aiming to be more simulationist than the original ie games actually were and it doesn't sit well with some people.

That's the first time I've heard ANYONE accuse Pillars of Eternity of being simulationist. Are you really sure you've played the game?

Are you in love with hyperbole? Do you normally throw out other people's modifier words to twist their sentences into a narrative that allows you to try and attack their credibility?

 

More. More. More.

 

>

 

And it is, factually, more of a simulation of fantasy combat scenarios than IE.

 

As an rpg it is never actually a simulation. That makes no sense...the entire point is to represent complex minutiae with numbers. I'm really concerned that you still don't grasp abstraction layer yet. Please open your mind to new ideas, stop living in the past. It's almost frightening how neurotic your social interaction style is.

 

Do you want to voice chat me? Do you need an irl friend to calm you down? Did you get bit by too many spiders as a kid? I can't fathom why you take something so innocuous, non confrontational, and factual and attempt to construct a conflict out of it.

 

I'm really worried about you.