Engagement and Disengagement suggestion / request.

[Maydawn]

Heya

 

So, I started a fresh game on Path of the Damned difficulty, and I have to say, it's really challenging and fun. Really have to focus on tactics in combat, and it's a nice change after playing on hard and steamrolling everything

 

But, I have an issue with the melee engagement system. Don't get me wrong, I think it makes sense and I love it. I just think it's missing a key feature that would make sense both in game mechanics and "realism".

 

While engaged in melee with an enemy, I'd love it if I could "sidestep", walk backwards slowly, or turn the enemy without getting disengagement attacks. I think it's reasonable to imagine that you're fighting someone, and you sidestep a bit without to turn around completely and face in the other direction. It's happened quite a lot when I want to keep the enemy in the same position, just move a little bit to the side or to the back to allow flanking, or clearing the doorway to let other party members through.

 

I think disengagement attacks should only occur if leaving a certain range of the enemy, or clicking too far away from him. I tried to watch the combat in the game more closely, and I don't think there are animations for it, but still hoping it gets heard and added to the game

[Nerdwing]

Agreed 100%.  A sound suggestion.

[View619]

I'm hoping that the reason disengagement attacks trigger when you move even a step away from the opponent is due to a bug and isn't by design. Although, judging by the way the AI will re-position while engaged to switch targets  and avoid disengagement attacks,(literally slide across the ground while hugging the engaged unit), I'm worried that it's intentional.

 

There needs to be an actual zone of control though, and this needs to be visible to the player outside of expert mode. The red cursor alone does not give enough feedback to allow for re-positioning of front-line units safely.

Edited April 12, 2015 by View619

[Sensuki]

Juse use the No Engagement part of the IE mod, it keeps the Engagement AI but removes disengagement attacks. Problem solved.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/pillarsofeternity/mods/1/?

[Awathorn]

If you engage one enemy with two companions, and then move one of your companions, does he suffer diseng. attack? If so, that is just stupid, and should be changed. This would create a nice tactical addition.

 

Engagement is not so bad as I though it would be, but needs some work. 

 

Also, it is hard to be tactical when pathfinding is so bad, formations are messed up and companions are so stupid. 

[Serdan]

If you engage one enemy with two companions, and then move one of your companions, does he suffer diseng. attack? If so, that is just stupid, and should be changed. This would create a nice tactical addition.

Depends on the engagement limit of that enemy. The same is true of your own peeps.

EDIT: You can move a companion away if the enemy has the Flanked debuff. I'll have to test it to see exactly how this works, but it's something to keep in mind.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Serdan

[Maydawn]

Juse use the No Engagement part of the IE mod, it keeps the Engagement AI but removes disengagement attacks. Problem solved.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/pillarsofeternity/mods/1/?

 

I'm guessing you misunderstood me. I don't want it removed completely

I think it makes sense, and I love the fact it's in the game. I can't imagine a wizard trying to run away from an enemy without getting a massive axe to the back of his skull ;p

But I think a fight should be able to backtrack a bit while engaging to allow better positioning

 

If you engage one enemy with two companions, and then move one of your companions, does he suffer diseng. attack? If so, that is just stupid, and should be changed. This would create a nice tactical addition.

 

Engagement is not so bad as I though it would be, but needs some work. 

 

Also, it is hard to be tactical when pathfinding is so bad, formations are messed up and companions are so stupid. 

 

You only get disengagement attacks from the enemy currently engaging you. The red arrow indicates who and how many of your party members that enemy is engaging. Since starting Path of the Damned, I try my best to maximize to use flanking mechanics on enemies, -10 deflection isn't a minor boost

Edited April 12, 2015 by Maydawn

[Luckmann]

The most frustrating part of Engagement to me is that it's impossible to slowly move backwards to pull the enemy (not turn around, run away, and get stabbed in the back) and impossible to reposition along the side of an opponent, to allow allies the space needed; you can't even move left or right.

 

I have no love for the Engagement system as a whole, despite my first enthusiasm, I no longer think that it can be saved. But the fact that you can't even do the most basic, most reasonable of actions in combat is infuriating and frustrating.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Luckmann

[Zahar]

I like the engagement system, but it does need some fine tunning. It's indeed very hard to use melee DPS characters because dancing around the enemy without a disengagement attack requires too much micronanagement - and some luck, since enemies DO move while engaged sometimes.

[NathanH]

In passing, why isn't there a portrait notification of engagement? I know there's the red lines in the main screen, but they can easily get lost in a big melee with lots of effects. There should be a chain or lock or something displayed on the portrait of any engaged character.

Edited April 12, 2015 by NathanH

[Caerdon]

I like engagement in principle, but I also think it should definitely be tuned a bit. You should be able to close in without getting murdered, and circling around the opponent should be possible. And I really don't think engagement attack needs such huge bonuses.

 

Engagement serves a purpose: you can't just dance through the enemy's line - but it shouldn't hamper dynamic positioning as much as it does right now.

 

I do want the mechanic to stay though - just give it some tweaks.

[Maydawn]

When browsing through the forums, especially in topics I started or praticipated in, I keep wondering if these messages reach the devs. At the time of posting this, this has reached page 3 of the forum. I know they're busy, but it would be lovely to get some sort of acknoledgement on topics with suggestions / feature requests. I love Obsidian, I love the fact they keep working on this, but it feels like these forums need a bit more attentions. I very rarely see a dev response, and it's usually in the tech support forum <.<

[anameforobsidian]

The engagement system could use a shift move, like 4e has.

[Daemonjax]

While engaged in melee with an enemy, I'd love it if I could "sidestep", walk backwards slowly, or turn the enemy without getting disengagement attacks...

 

I think disengagement attacks should only occur if leaving a certain range of the enemy, or clicking too far away from him. I tried to watch the combat in the game more closely, and I don't think there are animations for it, but still hoping it gets heard and added to the game

 

You're asking for the eqivalent to D&D 3.5's 5-foot steps to disengage.

 

I don't see how that would work in a non-turn-based game without stepping all over some existing spells and abilities which facilitate disengagement.

[PrimeJunta]

+1 on this suggestion. A "safe zone" within which movement is allowed would be nice.

 

It might be tricky to implement though, as it adds a whole new layer of complication to the engagement. For example suppose you're trying to pull an enemy by moving slowly backwards. What if he doesn't follow you? Should the AI be forced to follow you? If so, should the AI also be able to move back, and if that's the case, should you be forced to follow?

 

I believe one of the reasons engagement is in the game is that it's an easy state for the AI to track. Complicating it could have unintentended consequences elsewhere. 

 

I still like the idea though.

[Maydawn]

+1 on this suggestion. A "safe zone" within which movement is allowed would be nice.

 

It might be tricky to implement though, as it adds a whole new layer of complication to the engagement. For example suppose you're trying to pull an enemy by moving slowly backwards. What if he doesn't follow you? Should the AI be forced to follow you? If so, should the AI also be able to move back, and if that's the case, should you be forced to follow?

 

I believe one of the reasons engagement is in the game is that it's an easy state for the AI to track. Complicating it could have unintentended consequences elsewhere. 

 

I still like the idea though.

 

I'm know nothing about programming, but I think it can be based on the mouse cursor distance when clicked from the character position, with a small aoe circle "safezone" like you siad. If you click inside the safezone, the character will move according to where to clicked, if clicked a bit to his right, he'd sidestep right, if to his back, he'll backpeddle, and so on. If clicked outside, the character will turn and run like normal, incurring disengagement attacks as normal with all the bonuses / penalties with it

[anameforobsidian]

 

While engaged in melee with an enemy, I'd love it if I could "sidestep", walk backwards slowly, or turn the enemy without getting disengagement attacks...

 

I think disengagement attacks should only occur if leaving a certain range of the enemy, or clicking too far away from him. I tried to watch the combat in the game more closely, and I don't think there are animations for it, but still hoping it gets heard and added to the game

 

You're asking for the eqivalent to D&D 3.5's 5-foot steps to disengage.

 

I don't see how that would work in a non-turn-based game without stepping all over some existing spells and abilities which facilitate disengagement.

 

A significantly slowed movement with high defense against engagement.  It would only work if enemies were occupied, and is far less of an escape button than rogue / barb abilities.

Edited April 13, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[Daemonjax]

 

 

While engaged in melee with an enemy, I'd love it if I could "sidestep", walk backwards slowly, or turn the enemy without getting disengagement attacks...

 

I think disengagement attacks should only occur if leaving a certain range of the enemy, or clicking too far away from him. I tried to watch the combat in the game more closely, and I don't think there are animations for it, but still hoping it gets heard and added to the game

 

You're asking for the eqivalent to D&D 3.5's 5-foot steps to disengage.

 

I don't see how that would work in a non-turn-based game without stepping all over some existing spells and abilities which facilitate disengagement.

 

A significantly slowed movement with high defense against engagement.  It would only work if enemies were occupied, and is far less of an escape button than rogue / barb abilities.

 

 

But there's talents which give a bonus for disengaging already.

[hyperlord1337]

In passing, why isn't there a portrait notification of engagement? I know there's the red lines in the main screen, but they can easily get lost in a big melee with lots of effects. There should be a chain or lock or something displayed on the portrait of any engaged character.

 

Good idea! A lot better than just removing things you can't handle ...

I remember character portrais (im Baldur's Gate) 2/3 full of icons because of buffs and effects. I can handle that ;-)

[Sensuki]

I don't know why people think that slowly moving back is acceptable because if you slowly move away from anything, that's making you an easy target to hit. Sounds like a bit of "this is how it is in D&D" to me.

 

Since AoOs/Disengagement are a turn-based mechanic, the implementation I always liked the most was "Withdraw". Giving up your non-movement action to be able to make a fast/long retreat move.

 

I don't really care what happens, just posting because I'm bored but that's the mechanic I found that made the most sense in turn-based anyway.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Sensuki

[Maydawn]

I don't know why people think that slowly moving back is acceptable because if you slowly move away from anything, that's making you an easy target to hit. Sounds like a bit of "this is how it is in D&D" to me.

 

In a sword fight, do people stand completely still ? Doesn't it make sense to be able to move or "steer" the fight to a more comfortable position for one of the fighters ? It has nothing to do with D&D. it's unreasonable to have to be complete still because of engagement, and it doesn't make sense gameplay wise and "realism" wise. Even if it doesn't make sense in any way, it adds nothing to the game, just subtracts an element of tactics and positioning. Standstill fights are just boring

[Sensuki]

I think Attacks of Opportunity are unreasonable in real-time.

 

Who says that when you move in game that your character is dropping their guard?

[Giantevilhead]

I think a simple way they could improve the engagement system is if they made it so that clicking once to move a character allows them to slowly move away without suffering disengagement attack(s) but double clicking to move tells them to run and suffer the disengagement attack.

 

Also, disengagement isn't a turn based mechanic. There are RTS games where units have directional armor, so they'd have stronger armor in the front but weaker armor on the sides and back. When they retreat, they can be ordered to turn and go at full speed but expose their weaker back armor or remain facing the enemy but move at a slower speed.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Giantevilhead

[Sensuki]

There are RTS games where units have directional armor, so they'd have stronger armor in the front but weaker armor on the sides and back. When they retreat, they can be ordered to turn and go at full speed but expose their weaker back armor or remain facing the enemy but move at a slower speed.

Yes, and that actually makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is a free attack that breaks the rules of real-time.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Sensuki