Disengaging a tank is so simple

[drty]

That was not discussing, you were almost screaming at people trying to help you. You just don't want to accept that the game is designed to be played differently than you imagined and you don't want to conform.

When I play a new game, I try to learn it, understand it and make plans on how to "beat it". I don't come to forums screaming "this is not how it is supposed to work". I might say "I don't find it fun how it is", but that is very different.

 

 

Was I? I just tried to explain that I didn't ask for a help how to "beat a game" - it is not a problem for me to change a party or change a build for my tank. I simply want to make this good game even better by suggesting some ideas, that look reasonable to me.

 

But you may have your opinion about all of this, why not.

Edited October 28, 2015 by drty

[Fenixp]

I really like the idea of engagement system, however it was far too powerful on release and might as well not be there now. I wonder where will Obsidian take it with more patching - to be honest, I kind of preferred it when it was more powerful, but AI could just not deal with that properly. I would like an AI which realizes it is engaged and use synergies to break the engagement, but... Well, AI was never strong suit of Pillars of Eternity.

[AndreaColombo]

I really like the idea of engagement system, however it was far too powerful on release and might as well not be there now.

 

... And I wondered why I could finally enjoy the game without using the IE Mod to disable engagement!

 

Thankfully the mod still offers the option, should the devs have a change of heart

[blinkicide]

A new talent would be OK for that. One that lets you choose which short timed affliction you want to cause with a disengagement attack or something like that. Choose between longer hobbled, mediocre prone and weakened or short stun or whatever. That would give more engagement slots a real purpose and make the whole engagement system way better.

 

The way the game is designed where enemies have access to the same talents we do, means engagements will be that much more threatening when the enemy does engage your priest, wizard, ranger, or whatever.   Perhaps disengages can be strengthened to add a CC attack on disengage, but this means the AI which often gets a lot more units in many fights, will get the same talents to exploit when it inevitably does put a unit in melee against your squishier class.

 

 

Even if you have such CC ready for a moment, you still need a time to cast it, which is rarely (if ever) enough to intercept mobs before they get to your glassy caster, and I don't mean forest trolls which are easily kite-able foes even without slow effects. 

 

 

If forest trolls are easily kitable by your casters without slow effects, then everything should be easily kiteable with slow effects.   You can mass  blind at the start of fights (-2 movement speed, -29 accuracy, -28 reflex) with spells like chill fog or curse of darkness.   You can lay down chill fog before the enemies even move to your front line.  You can lay down wards (priest class) with powerful cc effects before combat even starts.

 

If the enemies can run a nearly straight line to whoever you want to protect, then your formation is probably off.   You should have at least three units spaced apart, to make the line fairly wide.  As you pick up figurines and summon spells, you can really create an army they have to wade through to get to your backline.    E.g. figurine with 3 beetles is like an emergency second back line, and and repeated  disengage attacks from them will bring down a rogue, bruiser fairly quick even on POTD.

 

Finally, some dps have options to be tanky for short periods.  Wizards for instance, have hardened veil + llewen safeguard (+100 defelction),  iron skin, bulwark, and access to extremely powerful summoned melee weapons,  they can easily dispatch or lockdown a few swarm mobs that get past the front line.   Fully buffed, sometimes I teleport them to swap places to save a tank taking too much damage, or to the edge of the front line to fully block a wide hallway.

Edited October 28, 2015 by blinkicide

[Sensuki]

The engagement system is broken. In reality it doesn't do much at all. It does create awkward senseless situations that gives the game an unrefined feel. 

 

1. The way it steers a character into another feels awful when playing. If you have a gap in your line and the enemy is trying to run through it can't because it gets steered into engagement. Hinders the enemy AI in this case and makes the game easier. Happens even if your back is facing the gap which is totally silly.

 

2. The way your character, after getting a command to attack, sometimes will not enegage an enemy that has reach attack range unless you expend an ability to close the gap is awful. This even happens if the enemy has its back turned to you which is again, totally silly.

 

The Melee Engagement system is an absolutely disgraceful system and always has been. It seems that the system, now rather than just having detrimental effects on the gameplay, is also somewhat pointless (I have not played the game since April but the general consensus seems to be that engagement tanking is no longer very useful).

 

Have you tried the IE mod and playing without engagement? It improves combat quite a bit (although not enough for me to consider playing the game again). I was the person who designed the No Engagement mod for the IE mod but I'm not sure if it's still being actively updated.

 

Check out how broken it used to be: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69602-stop-right-now-thankyou-very-much/

Edited October 29, 2015 by Sensuki

[AndreaColombo]

^ it is, thankfully.

[archangel979]

 

I really like the idea of engagement system, however it was far too powerful on release and might as well not be there now.

 

... And I wondered why I could finally enjoy the game without using the IE Mod to disable engagement!

 

Thankfully the mod still offers the option, should the devs have a change of heart

 

Actually it is still the same, only thing that changed is AI now will break it, take the hit and go after your squishies. Before as soon as enemy got engaged it stayed there until it died no matter how dangerous disengaging would be (except for a few enemies like Vampires).

 

It is still better to use the mod and play the game like it was supposed to be (like IE games).

[Boeroer]

I like the idea of engagement and disengagement attacks because it opens up another way besides DPS and CC to influence combat. It's just not very useful at the moment because it's just doing some little bonus damage if you break it. Nearly all enemies just shrug off one single attack. That's not very threatening. Having the chance to apply some short CC effect (you would still have to overcome the corresponding defense of course) on the other hand could be very useful even if your base damage is whimpy. I would like it if there where some more talents like Hold the Line and Defender or Gracefil Retreat that concentrate on (dis)engagement. But not only adding engagement slots and giving more defense against disengagement attacks, but also adding more dmg or/and some affliction. Something like "painful disengagement attacks" (can add weakened), "powerful dis. attacks" (adds 20% damage), "crippling dis. attacks" and so on. I mean there's also Interrupting Blows which is very special and is only really useful if you plan a certain build - so why not allow builds around disengagement attacks? That would enrich combat and make it more interesting. Another plus: Graceful Retreat, Hold the Line and Defender would become talents that are not a complete waste. Same with items and spells that give bonus defense against disengagement attacks.

[Sensuki]

Free, invisible, instant attacks that can occur while units are mid-swing attacking a different unit are completely retarded in a real-time game.

[Fenixp]

Sensuki: As opposed to a turn-based game, in which they're fine for reasons? :-P Nah, the idea is sound, regardless of whether you like the execution or not, and it's an elegant attempt to fix problems I've had with IE combat (always hated kiting - and yes, you can sort of kite in Pillars as well, but it's a lot more difficult). It's also a nice attempt to replace some aggro mechanics. As it stands, the system needs work, but thanks to its existence I've already enjoyed combat in Pillars of Eternity a lot more than in Infinity Engine games. Now I would never want to belittle the immense amount of experimentation and research you have put into how engagement works in Pillars, but I do believe dropping it would be a mistake and take away some of the game's individuality.

[Guest 4ward]

if you didn't like to kite, then you just could do without. Some set encounters didn't make sense to kite, think of the beholders for example.

[Fenixp]

I didn't, but enemies just turning around and leaving in the middle of an engagement were extremely impolite.

[Guest 4ward]

yes, imagine that! They were impolite but you expect enemy AI to be smart ?

i'd just like to add something and then i'm done with it. People who favour this engagement system, also next to kiting have in the past brought up reasons like controlling the battlefield. Did you need to control the battlefield in the old games, really? Do you need to control the battlefield ahgainst a lich? Or control the battlefield against 6 gibberlings? Of course, in a game like PoE, where having 15+ units is more like standard procedure i can see how controlling the battlefiled is important, thing is a game like BG2 you don't have to do that. Another thing which was also brought up in earlier times is the need to protect casters. Just that casters could very well protect themselves by casting spells in BG2 for example, they weren't innocent bunnies waiting to get slaughtered. They also could move away and with time running down while they did so, they could then cast another spell. You hate movement and/or casting spells ?

[Boeroer]

No, I just like the idea that you can't turn your back to an enemy and walk away without consequences. And that you can't just run through a gap between two enemies when one of them or both are not fully occupied.

So a disengagement attack could be a kick with the boot or a hit with the ellbow or whatever - maybe that's why it is invisible But a proper animation would also be nice.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Boeroer

[Fenixp]

Seriously tho, when all is said and done, Infinity Engine games worked just fine without engagement system. Those games had their annoyances which engagement system fixed for me, but they were perfectly playable even without it. There is no reason to add anything resembling engagement into them. However, during my life, I have spent hundreds of hours playing games running under Infinity Engine and while I kind of enjoyed their combat, I am very glad to see an attempt at something which works slightly differently. There's already 5 games using pretty much exactly the same combat system, we don't really need a sixth one, and engagement mechanics come with their own challenges which I greatly enjoy overcoming - even movement around the battlefield is not guaranteed any longer and needs to be calculated and weighted. When a character is running out of endurance, you can't just run away and know that AI will get stuck on another melee character along the way - even that situation presents you with a little puzzle to solve. Engagement mechanics are quite simply a different approach to combat, and I'm not going to complain about a game presenting me with new situations.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Fenixp

[Boeroer]

Well said.

[aweigh0101]

how hard would it be to modify one of the existing Defensive disengagement talents and add a status effect on its properties?

i'm thinking something like opening the ability asset file (i assume inside assetbundles folder) in either the Unity editor or the Modding Framework tool (that isn't being updated anymore, sadly) and basically... uh... copy/pasting the code from an ability like Deep Wounds(as an EXAMPLE) and adding it to the disengagement talent then recompiling.

am i talking out my ass or is something like this doable?

[Boeroer]

Of course it is. It's even no big problem to create a new talent for that. Then nobody has to be annoyed since you could just ignore that talent. The question is if the devs like the idea or not.

[aweigh0101]

they are definitely tuned into what the modding community does from what i've seen so far, case in point being the fighter mod someone made leading to the fighter changes.

besides that i'm certain sawyer has all sorts of ideas concerning engagement considering it's his baby and i'm certain he is well aware of the flaws (and merits) in the mechanic. it is no coincidence that each successive patch has belittled the engagement mechanic in favor of striving to design more interesting combat encounters (TWM encounters; plus 2.0 enemies intentionally breaking engagement constantly).

it's good to see the dev team is self-aware enough to realize when they should "let go" of something if it just ain't working as expected; i assume PoE 2 will either feature a drastically different engagement mechanic, or none at all.

as things stand right now playing 2.02 PoE is ESSENTIALLY the same as playing it with engagement disabled.

[Guest 4ward]

@Boeroer, i admit i can't really fully get behind the concept that if a situation occurs where changing targets is a tactical disadvantage for me i, on top of that, need to be punished with loss of hp.

[Boeroer]

That's what +defense against disengagement attacks is for.

 

And nobody said that every stupid mob has to have these special talents that boost disengagement attacks. I just think that these mechanics would make fights more interesting and it would be fun (at least for me) to try out builds that delve in this special area. I tried it - but at the moment it's just neither fish nor fowl. So I just ignore engagement most of the time - which is a pity.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Boeroer

[Sensuki]

Sensuki: As opposed to a turn-based game, in which they're fine for reasons? :-P Nah, the idea is sound, regardless of whether you like the execution or not, and it's an elegant attempt to fix problems I've had with IE combat (always hated kiting - and yes, you can sort of kite in Pillars as well, but it's a lot more difficult). It's also a nice attempt to replace some aggro mechanics. As it stands, the system needs work, but thanks to its existence I've already enjoyed combat in Pillars of Eternity a lot more than in Infinity Engine games. Now I would never want to belittle the immense amount of experimentation and research you have put into how engagement works in Pillars, but I do believe dropping it would be a mistake and take away some of the game's individuality.

 

It is actually fine in a turn-based game that uses shared action points for movement and non-movement actions and addresses the problem whereby one unit may spend their AP making a full move to get in range of another unit, only to have that unit simply move away on their turn. The AoO allows a unit to act when it's not their turn. In real-time gameplay this makes zero sense because all units act simultaneously, if you try and run away, that same unit can attack you and follow you in real time.

 

The system does not even remotely address the main form of kiting that occurs in all real-time games with ranged units, and that is where a single unit kites one or more enemies while party ranged units shoot the enemies that are chasing the kiting unit. All it mostly does is punish actual proper tactical decision making in combat such as aggro switching and tactical retreating from the frontline, which are an inherent part of RTWP RTS-style gameplay - actively identifying and addressing problems that arise in combat and using movement and positioning in real-time to solve it. The developers of this game are not fluent in real-time or RTS gameplay they are self-proclaimed tabletop and turn-based fans and this system was created because that is all they know and that is them applying their influences incorrectly.

 

Kiting, or retreating is an action that should have to be actively addressed in real-time, and that is done through use of crowd-control. It's not that difficult to stop a unit from moving by applying a disable on them. Not through some bull**** automatic passive system that breaks the rules of real-time gameplay. 

 

Engagement isn't really a new system, it's simply a take on the AoO mechanics that were implemented in the Neverwinter Nights games, a system that should never have been ported to real-time, and was laughably bad in both of those games.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Sensuki

[AndreaColombo]

I'm with Sensuki on this one (but this was never mystery since beta days.)

 

I love this game, but when it was released I just couldn't enjoy combat without disabling engagement through the IE mod. I thought I had a change of heart post 2.0 but I realize now that I can play with engagement because it is mostly inconsequential.

 

 

As for kiting, I've always seen it as a legitimate play style. If you want to prevent it, make enemy A.I. smart enough to recognize when it's being kited and act upon it. Engagement seems like an artificial solution (and it doesn't really fix the "issue" anyway; but then again, as I said, I don't consider it an issue to begin with.)

Edited October 29, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[Sensuki]

Kiting is mostly an AI and encounter design problem. Kiting will exist in all real-time games where there are different movement speeds and/or ranged combat. It is a core part of multiplayer RTS gameplay.

This is an axonometric real-time with pause RPG with RTS-style camera, controls and map layout that has ranged combat and different unit movement speeds. Instead of trying to think of intelligent solutions the developers simply said "We don't like this style of gameplay because we are tabletop & turn-based players, let's try and punish it".

 

Originally in the beta, creatures all had faster movement speeds than the party - that's how much they didn't want you to be able to run away. That had a negative effect on the gameplay in the beta as all units would simply just rush at each other into this massive cluster in the middle of the screen and it didn't feel right.

If they really, really didn't want people to run away then the most sensible thing to do would have just been to use common sense and have in combat movement endurance or something where units slow down after running for a period of time  

The key element of real-time with pause combat gameplay is that unlike turn-based combat, it is up to the player to process a higher amount of information at once (due to simultaneous resolution of actions), identify problems and come up with solutions in game time (with a bit of real-time pressure that is mostly nullified by the pause function). Identifying that you need to make in combat positional changes or movements is actively thinking and doing exactly that, and so is reacting to units making those actions. This is IMO where the fun in RTWP gameplay lies - identifying problems, making decisions and implementing your solutions in real-time.

In turn-based, combat follows a set discrete structure and the game determines when the player needs to make choices, rather than the player actively identifying it themselves. Decision making in turn-based is about making a decision with incomplete information - you do not know what actions enemies will take on their turn, you have to try and predict what they're going to do and perform your actions based on that. In real-time (with pause) gameplay you are reacting to actions in real-time as they are made.

Engagement is a system that actively punishes the player for making natural decisions, and you can see that this caught out many, many new players. Every youtube video I watched of the game, the casual gamer was getting destroyed by disengagement attacks - it was punishing them for using common sense. 

Imagine if the system design had actually taken this into account and designed it so that you had to actually react rather than being all about planning and opening and then spamming a neverending set of per-encounter abilities with virtually zero tactical consideration. Then combat might have actually been somewhat enjoyable, and less rote. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Sensuki

[wanderon]

No, I just like the idea that you can't turn your back to an enemy and walk away without consequences. And that you can't just run through a gap between two enemies when one of them or both are not fully occupied.

So a disengagement attack could be a kick with the boot or a hit with the ellbow or whatever - maybe that's why it is invisible But a proper animation would also be nice.

 

Maybe with a little zinger in a text bubble over the damage doers head like "Gotcha" - "how do you like me now" - "not on my watch" or the ever popular " tag you're it" !!