Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since we will get an awesome improved AI, I hope we will be able to, for example, put characters in shield-wall formation, lock it, and be able to "turn" the line in way to keep enemies in front of the formation (unless they manage to break it or move behind).

 

There are many historical formations that provide different benefits as well as weak points. I just think it would be so much fun.

 

Moreover, I am certain this would add a new tactical layer to RTwP mechanics, and provide further differentiation from Turn-based titles.

 

 

Thanks for reading! :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some version of this would be pretty great, but it would require a goodly bit of support programming to make it really stand out.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've brought this up a few times. Greater granularity for formations, ability to lock them, or restrain them within constraints. Ability to have multi-stage formations.

 

For me this would be the killer feature for this medium. It would take crpgs to the next level.

 

I honestly don't think it would be that hard, but It would put additional strain on designing AI to counter-act formations in a realistic manner. But really I think disengagement costs would largely mitigate any need to overdo it on enemy AI. As long as they they can establish the proper path-finding to both navigate your formation while retaining they're own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've brought this up a few times. Greater granularity for formations, ability to lock them, or restrain them within constraints. Ability to have multi-stage formations.

 

For me this would be the killer feature for this medium. It would take crpgs to the next level.

 

I honestly don't think it would be that hard, but It would put additional strain on designing AI to counter-act formations in a realistic manner. But really I think disengagement costs would largely mitigate any need to overdo it on enemy AI. As long as they they can establish the proper path-finding to both navigate your formation while retaining they're own.

Yes, I am totally on the same page.

It would really innovate this combat system. Simple, intuitive, tactical, deep, fitting RTwP.

 

Sorry to have missed your post(s). Hopefully having the same suggestion coming from different people will bring this aspect to the attention of the developers! :)

 

Little edit: Maybe you could link your topics here, so that anybody browsing this discussion could gain a wider perspective about this feature?

Edited by Hariwulf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pillars of Eternity: Tactics

 

Engage in battle with large formations, monsters, and special characters. Massed cannonades, phalanxes, shield walls, equip and train troops, dragons, engines of war, devastating soul rituals, armies of raised undead...


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pillars of Eternity: Tactics

 

Engage in battle with large formations, monsters, and special characters. Massed cannonades, phalanxes, shield walls, equip and train troops, dragons, engines of war, devastating soul rituals, armies of raised undead...

Or play Total War Warhammer :p

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have small group skirmish/brawl "tactics" tbh. Jump on tables, fight from stairs, fight around tables etc which I think are closer to this size of battle groups. Shield walls and such aren't more suited for larger scale battles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've brought this up a few times. Greater granularity for formations, ability to lock them, or restrain them within constraints. Ability to have multi-stage formations.

 

For me this would be the killer feature for this medium. It would take crpgs to the next level.

 

I honestly don't think it would be that hard, but It would put additional strain on designing AI to counter-act formations in a realistic manner. But really I think disengagement costs would largely mitigate any need to overdo it on enemy AI. As long as they they can establish the proper path-finding to both navigate your formation while retaining they're own.

Yes, I am totally on the same page.

It would really innovate this combat system. Simple, intuitive, tactical, deep, fitting RTwP.

 

Sorry to have missed your post(s). Hopefully having the same suggestion coming from different people will bring this aspect to the attention of the developers! :)

 

Little edit: Maybe you could link your topics here, so that anybody browsing this discussion could gain a wider perspective about this feature?

 

 

Well, I never made a thread. The posts are just scattered. But it's really the key thing I want to see for the entire medium. It's the number one thing I was always wishing for in PoE1.

 

I'm ecstatic over the ideas others are seeking the same thing! In my mind it's become the key way forward for the infinity-like crpg medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. The fact that Pillars of Eternity doesn't have tactical formations makes me want to play Total War instead :) But Total War is not a RPG.

 

In Infinity Engine games I was able to more or less keep my group in formation by turning group AI off, waiting for the enemies to come to me and then turning AI on. It was very crude of course, but worked for me. However, PoE doesn't have a hotkey to switch AI for the entire group, so I can't do that.

 

Stand Ground mode option would work even better. And the best thing is what OP proposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the more input AI has in combat, the less interesting it is for me to play, so i don‘t favour formations since ultimately there‘s less input from the player. Micromanaging my guys in combat is what i like. Formations don‘t add tactical depth, rather they take away from it. Group them in a formation and watch the enemy launch a disabler on your entire party – what is this good for? And if you allow for moving aoe-s to counter that then that‘s lame. It goes in the direction of asking for ‚creation of zones‘, ‚control of battlefield‘ and – lately – ‚levelling the field‘ that fans of turn-based combat and/or fans who dislike micromanaging in rtwp-s are asking for so that designers introduce systems into gameplay that IMO are detrimental to rtwp-s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the more input AI has in combat, the less interesting it is for me to play, so i don‘t favour formations since ultimately there‘s less input from the player. Micromanaging my guys in combat is what i like. Formations don‘t add tactical depth, rather they take away from it. Group them in a formation and watch the enemy launch a disabler on your entire party – what is this good for? And if you allow for moving aoe-s to counter that then that‘s lame. It goes in the direction of asking for ‚creation of zones‘, ‚control of battlefield‘ and – lately – ‚levelling the field‘ that fans of turn-based combat and/or fans who dislike micromanaging in rtwp-s are asking for so that designers introduce systems into gameplay that IMO are detrimental to rtwp-s..

 

Putting in formation your party is basic strategy. AI have very little to do with this anyway, besides not breaking formation to chase enemies, which is in my opinion far more "AI-centric" behavior. If you don't like the idea to say to your guys "stand in line and hold it", then don't use such option. Having the choice to put your team in a, let's say, shield-wall and being able to move or turn the formation without breaking it, is what we want and are asking for. Enemies CAN break it, f.ex. a successful cipher's mental control would certainly break it, or, 2 enemies can try to surround us in way to get to our back, or disable us, and that's fine too. More tactics, more depth.

Me, and many others, have experienced many cases in which we had to disable AI totally in way to keep a formation, or move it. What we ask is a way for the game to recognize what I want to do and allow me to do it without giving me a headache. Or is decide where my party members stand on the map too much cheesy for you? Because we can do it already, it's only extremely annoying.

 

Turn based rpg combat don't usually allow formations. Besides, I never ever liked turn based, so don't worry about that. We have formations for travelling, we want to be able to use formations in combat, if wanted.

Edited by Hariwulf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Formations are really a way of giving more detailed instructions down to the characters. Like "move in lock-step." If it's all "set and go" then the AI should abuse the fact you're not adjusting your formation. It's really about getting your team to behave together with shared instructions, rather than losing control. Micro-managing every single character to move in stutter-step is not exactly what I'd call tactical depth. I can't possible see how formations would take away from tactical depth.

 

Further, adding in formations opens up a whole host of new possibilities with enemy AI behavior and the flow of battles. Plus formations are always optional so you can have chaotic battles with guerrilla soldiers or thief, or more structured battles against guards. It's just so enriching, if you're thinking it's all mindless setup and go, then you're imagining the most lazy implementation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea the OP has is pretty cool, but I feel it's already in the game to the extend it needs to be. The formation mechanic already gives you alot of freedom, and melee engagement makes is sorta possible to wall up. I think that if OE makes a shield wall stronger than good positioning with engagement, it will be either too easy, or the encounter designs will have to feature a **** ton of invisible, or teleporting foes that will result in broken keyboards, sleeping on the couch, or worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea the OP has is pretty cool, but I feel it's already in the game to the extend it needs to be. The formation mechanic already gives you alot of freedom, and melee engagement makes is sorta possible to wall up. I think that if OE makes a shield wall stronger than good positioning with engagement, it will be either too easy, or the encounter designs will have to feature a **** ton of invisible, or teleporting foes that will result in broken keyboards, sleeping on the couch, or worse. 

 

The current system just groups up your party for movement, the party behaves like a bunch of children going out of their way to get "their" seat in the back of mom's minivan. Ideally you could set a non-combat travel formation that breaks into a new formation at the start of combat. Then further have formations which could honor any symmetry in that formation and thus not having to rotate/criss-cross the formation when merely trying to move backwards. To drive this formations could be based on roles where companions are assigned to roles which place them in formation. E.g. Melee up from, healing and range out back.

 

Going further you'd want rules to have somewhat plastic formations, and rigid ones. Adding rules over when to switch between range and melee. Even the ability to insert and remove a "free-floating" party member in and out of an established line.

 

As it stands, there is can be a lot of quick-pausing and fiddling with individual positioning just to maintain a formation. Personally I want there to be more depth both in risk and reward over positioning, engagement, disengagement, etc. All of which I think would make the combat far more dynamic and interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...