EI Mod and my opinions

[PrimeJunta]

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

 

"Tank" at least has been in current use since 1994 or longer.

 

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29#Origin ]

[Matt516]

Inverse spread of DR and Deflection is a bad idea because then you just find the mathematical optimum for survivability and put everyone in that. Since Deflection lowers your chances of getting crit and hit, it may actually be straight-up better than DR at a certain point. 16 DR means nothing if you're constantly getting crit by everything.

 

And yes, I know that Deflection only helps against some attacks whereas DR helps against all. I still don't think trading DR for Deflection is a good idea. You're trading survivability for survivability, which is silly. The current system of trading survivability for combat speed is interesting because there's actually a choice there. The speed penalties just need to be tweaked a bit, maybe to encourage less all-or-nothing armor tactics by making the armors on the edges (as in, clothes and plate) offer worse tradeoffs.

 

You'd do this by making the speed penalties very low at first, so you don't have to pay much to get a little DR, but then having them ramp up higher as armor gets heavier. This was suggested (not by me) in another thread a few days ago, though I can't for the life of me remember where. In any case, I think that's a much better solution than trying to make all armor give similar amounts of survivability, just in different ways. That turns it into a numbers game. And as much as I love numbers, forcing your players to be math whizzes to play your game is bad game design. Tradeoffs should be intuitive and easy to make decisions on with decent heuristics. Let spreadsheets remain the realm of the math geeks and minmaxers. Don't make everyone use them. ;P

[Luckmann]

 

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

 

"Tank" at least has been in current use since 1994 or longer.

 

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29#Origin ]

 

 

That's not really.. relevant to what he asked, though. A term can have existed in one context and established in another, and not have been popularized until a third. I never read any real discussions involving these firm roles until the popularization of MMO:s, and certainly not in the discussions relation to the IE games. Whether some people knew the terms or not.. I have no idea. But it certainly didn't come up often enough to be noticeable.

[Tanred]

 

 

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

 

"Tank" at least has been in current use since 1994 or longer.

 

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29#Origin ]

 

 

That's not really.. relevant to what he asked, though. A term can have existed in one context and established in another, and not have been popularized until a third. I never read any real discussions involving these firm roles until the popularization of MMO:s, and certainly not in the discussions relation to the IE games. Whether some people knew the terms or not.. I have no idea. But it certainly didn't come up often enough to be noticeable.

 

The term 'tank' was widely used on ironworks and sorcerer's place forums back in the day when BG2 was released. Funny enough, that's where I've heard of it for the first time.

[Monte Carlo]

'Tank' and (more commonly) 'meat-shield' have been around since BG1 at least, yeah.

[Horrorscope]

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

 

 

Just wanted to say thanks for making the mod. I have the game on not to update, because I rather have your mod working and wait for an update then have PoEt's update and your mod not working with latest version yet. Yes it is that good. And here is where you have the thank you post with the lousy "but you still had to ask for something, didn't you?" remark. If there is a way to turn off autosaves, that is about the only thing now that feels cumbersome to me in game. Transitions.

 

And to Obsidian, if transition speed has anything to do with rumored "lots of sold junk" in vedors inventory, then have it go away after 24 hours or I'd even take a toggle to have it not be able to be bought back and never have them display what I sold them back for sale.

 

Thanks again!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Horrorscope

[Sensuki]

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

Cheers for continuing the work, and I've PMed you regarding the AI issue. I vigorously tested the AI / Pathfinding during the beta and several issues I reported never got fixed by Obsidian.

[PrimeJunta]

Memory is a fuzzy thing but I seem to recall 'tank' being used when discussing BatMUD back in the late 80's even.

 

Edit: can't have been late 80's at BatMUD was only started in 1990. So must've been very early '90's. Might be I'm thinking of some other MUD though. It was before I went to the army which was in late 1990... AberMUD? TinyMUD?

Edited April 15, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Yeah someone on Something Awful told me that terms like tank etc have been around since MUDs.

[Maximvs]

I like the engagement system. It's realistic. And yes, you can make the game in 120 hours rather than 60 if you stealth all the time and scout all the time as well. This is also realistic.

[zombo]

 

Okay, clarifying the situation - Bester (the main guy) and Sensuki (the other main guy) are both frustrated with the game, and have left. I dunno about the other other main guy. I think that's everyone.

 

There is the distinct possibility that people who know what they're doing will be able to update it for future patch releases. And by distinct possibility, I mean, "people who aren't me know exactly how to do it."

That sucks. Sensuki was the dude who spent a ****load of time betaing PoE and if he walked away that doesn't look too good,

 

True, but some people are never happy. If he beta'd, he had a good idea about how the game was going to run. To be unhappy now is just silly. His prerogative, but still makes no sense.

[Sensuki]

I like the engagement system. It's realistic.

You think free invisible instant attack with no animation that can occur at the same time as a character is physically attacking a different unit or in the middle of an attack animation/casting a spell/doing something else as long as they have a melee weapon equipped is realistic? Or that if you attack somebody they always have to stop and attack you?

 

 

[zombo]

 

 

 Tank & Spank pwns all.

 

Pretty much. Scout, tank and spank.

 

Playing on hard, and auto-attacking. Quite often not using GM's spells which I could. Just letting them use their ranged weapons. It's also funny seeing mobs circle your tank, round and round ignoring your other characters as the mob tries to get in but can't because your tank already had a few mobs on him. So the mob goes ring around a rosey until an opening presents itself when another mob in melee dies.

 

Perhaps a modder will mod in some enemy AI scripts.

 

 

I've seen plenty of mobs do this even when there's an opening, just sorta stacking up in a bundle of 4-5 enemies, only 2 of which is attacking the tank. I think ties into the whole pathing and mapping issue, though, not just the AI being bad and the combat shallow. There's been so many places where I can see that my party members would fit, but can't actually walk at all. But in some cases, there's big open areas and the enemy just doesn't path around eachother to get to me.

 

And as much as I enjoy murdering them with AoE:s when they make themselves such easy targets, you're still right, I most often actually do not even feel that I need to use the spells, AoE or otherwise.

 

Yup. I think it's more the pathfinding than AI when it comes to wandering enemies during fights.

[Prime-Mover]

 

I like the engagement system. It's realistic.

You think free invisible instant attack with no animation that can occur at the same time as a character is physically attacking a different unit or in the middle of an attack animation/casting a spell/doing something else as long as they have a melee weapon equipped is realistic? Or that if you attack somebody they always have to stop and attack you?

 

 

 

Clearly he/she is referring to the principle of the matter, not the graphical representation itself.

[Maximvs]

Yes I do. 

 

 

I like the engagement system. It's realistic.

You think free invisible instant attack with no animation that can occur at the same time as a character is physically attacking a different unit or in the middle of an attack animation/casting a spell/doing something else as long as they have a melee weapon equipped is realistic? Or that if you attack somebody they always have to stop and attack you?

 

 

 

Yes I do. Pick up some foam swords, try a 2 v 1 fight, you ll see how quickly you die. One free attack is nothing compared to a realistic fight. Also, the engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan in mind, not blindly rush in and then fix your own mistakes, which means more strategy. And the engagement system also works both ways, to hinder enemies as well.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Maximvs

[Matt516]

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

 

Awesome, man! (or woman)

 

Glad to see that A) IE mod will still be updated and B) that it's now venturing into the realm of improving the AI. Have you given any thought to tweaking the scripts to make some enemies (as in, the ones who are smart enough to know better) not rush into chokepoint killzones and beat their heads fruitlessly against Eder's plated abs any more? As in, to actually hang back and force the player to come to them in some cases (no reason the player should get to benefit from what are admittedly very good defensive tactics in every fight)?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76242-how-to-fix-the-doorway-chokepoint-dominant-strategy/

Edited April 15, 2015 by Matt516

[Luckmann]

Yes I do. 

 

 

I like the engagement system. It's realistic.

You think free invisible instant attack with no animation that can occur at the same time as a character is physically attacking a different unit or in the middle of an attack animation/casting a spell/doing something else as long as they have a melee weapon equipped is realistic? Or that if you attack somebody they always have to stop and attack you?

 

 

 

Yes I do. Pick up some foam swords, try a 2 v 1 fight, you ll see how quickly you die. One free attack is nothing compared to a realistic fight. Also, the engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan in mind, not blindly rush in and then fix your own mistakes, which means more strategy. And the engagement system also works both ways, to hinder enemies as well.

 

As someone that has been in actual street fights.. yeah, no. You don't turn around and try to run away from someone with a weapon with any kind of reach unless you're fast as hell, but not only is it possible, but the fact that we turn and run at full speed, and then get Engagement attacks on us, has no basis whatsoever in reality.

 

You can't even move forward or jump to the side without trigger Disengagement attacks, let alone back away slowly or reposition. Saying it is realistic to get instant, super-charged, invisible attacks on someone that moves during a fight is completely ridiculous.

 

The Engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan. That plan is "My tank runs first and glues everyone to him, and then the rest of us picks everyone off at a distance". Stop pretending that it adds some kind of meaningful depth, all it does is penalize movement and makes sure that everyone gets stuck in an immobile cluster, as well as playing up the importance of pre-combat positioning.

 

 

I once saw this tiny guy jump up straight past two kevlar-clad robocops, shouting KRRIEEEEEEEEEEEG, and then continued to run across a field with the two policemen chasing him. It was a diversionary tactic to stop the officers from attacking other people. He was, in a fashion, a designated dodge-based tank. And they sure as hell didn't get any instant, invisible, action recovery-free, super-charged club attacks on him.

 

Edited April 15, 2015 by Luckmann

[NoQuitt]

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

 

 

Well this is exciting news! Good work and thank you.

Edited April 15, 2015 by NoQuitt

[Maximvs]

Well, I can agree that the disengagement system is a bit too harsh when we consider one on one fights. And what you say is only applicable to indoor, dungeon fights, not outdoor ones where space is abundant. If you send in one tank he'll get surrounded and the rest will bypass him to attack your weak casters. 

[View619]

Well, I can agree that the disengagement system is a bit too harsh when we consider one on one fights. And what you say is only applicable to indoor, dungeon fights, not outdoor ones where space is abundant. If you send in one tank he'll get surrounded and the rest will bypass him to attack your weak casters. 

 

The rest will attempt to mob the tank, ignoring your back-line unless somebody engages.

[Ohioastro]

...which can be fixed in the AI, and has nothing to do with the existence of an engagement system.

[View619]

...which can be fixed in the AI, and has nothing to do with the existence of an engagement system.

 

Notice that I was addressing the fact that, in the current version of the game, enemy units will attempt to mob the tank regardless of whether they can reach it. Engaging with another unit will force that enemy to re-focus.

Edited April 15, 2015 by View619

[Yonjuro]

Yes I do. Pick up some foam swords, try a 2 v 1 fight, you ll see how quickly you die. One free attack is nothing compared to a realistic fight. Also, the engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan in mind, not blindly rush in and then fix your own mistakes, which means more strategy....

 

 Quite the reverse. If you have 2 (or multiple) opponents, that is exactly when you need to keep moving to get your opponents to interfere with each other.

 

(Hint: your lack of movement is why you keep dying so quickly when you do the experiment you mentioned.)

(Hint 2: moving doesn't mean you turn your back on your opponents.)

[Ink Blot]

 

Well, I can agree that the disengagement system is a bit too harsh when we consider one on one fights. And what you say is only applicable to indoor, dungeon fights, not outdoor ones where space is abundant. If you send in one tank he'll get surrounded and the rest will bypass him to attack your weak casters. 

 

The rest will attempt to mob the tank, ignoring your back-line unless somebody engages.

 

That's not been my experience. Anything not engaging my tank/fighter just bypasses them and makes a beeline right for my Cipher. Every time. My Cipher has more knockouts on her record sheet than any other party member.

[View619]

 

 

Well, I can agree that the disengagement system is a bit too harsh when we consider one on one fights. And what you say is only applicable to indoor, dungeon fights, not outdoor ones where space is abundant. If you send in one tank he'll get surrounded and the rest will bypass him to attack your weak casters. 

 

The rest will attempt to mob the tank, ignoring your back-line unless somebody engages.

 

That's not been my experience. Anything not engaging my tank/fighter just bypasses them and makes a beeline right for my Cipher. Every time. My Cipher has more knockouts on her record sheet than any other party member.

 

 

You haven't experienced enemies running circles around a crowd that surrounds your 1 or 2 tanks because they can't engage, instead of targeting a different unit?