Engagement System Questions

[Anthony Davis]

So I'm not trying to troll anyone here, and I'm not trying to blindly defend Josh, or whoever designed the engagement system...

but I don't get the hate for it.

I use it to lock down enemies all the time to protect other party members. I have it not where Eder can lock down TWO enemies. It seems like what I always wanted in the old IE games when nothing in the world would get a monster off of one of my squishy classes.

Have I been able to use it flawlessly? No, as a matter of fact, the first few hours I was playing on Hard I kept screwing up. But now, I think I have a pretty good system.

I pull with my ranger
PAUSE
I give my tough classes orders to intercept incoming melee enemies
I give my squishy classes orders to either run to a safe spot, or in the case of my priest, run behind my melee classes to buff. This has changed a bit over time as I turned my priest into a tough melee class and Durance into a ranged character.
PAUSE
order my ranged characters and spell casters into positions where they can flank or get behind the enemy.

Obviously it doesn't always work - but it seems to do ok most of the time.

I don't think people who hate it are stupid, so I must be missing something.

Please explain to me what the issues are with it.

I mean to have a discussion. While many devs read the codex, few post here because they don't believe you can have a real discussion without the trolls going ape shit - so they read only.

 

[Infinitron]

Sensuki tuluse Athelas Grunker

Come on, help the man out.

 

[Sensuki]

You don't need the engagement system to lock down two enemies. Even in the Infinity Engine games (Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter in particular) all you had to do was use positioning and movement to facilitate that outcome. I never use the engagement abilities in the game, simply not needed. Can be made up for through positioning.

The engagement system is not helpful in any way to people who can control the battlefield without the 'baby help'. All it does is restrict and/or punish movement in combat after the initial melee has begun, particularly on higher difficulties where there are more enemies.

It removes/penalizes the decision to re-position mid encounter, tactically retreat low characters from the frontline and move about the battlefield, and it does this by "breaking the rules" of real time, by giving enemies an instant attack, free from recovery time with no animation that can proc at the same time as a currently playing animation as long as the attacker has a melee weapon equipped. It's double as dumb regarding multiple engagements - attacking a guy in front of you? Guy behind you you're engaging moves? Poof! disengagement attack when your sword is buried in the other guy's gullet.

AoOs/Disengagement attacks are a turn-based concept that simulate simultaneous actions in a turn-based environment - they occur when it's not your turn and they exist to address issues in games where movement and non-movement actions come from the same resource pool - such as if you spend your entire turn moving next to someone only to have them move away and shoot you in their turn. It translates really horribly into real time. They were awful in the NWN games (sorry), particularly combined with dumb AI and they're just as bad here.

This is a real time game, units act simultaneously. For every action I take, the enemy can act at the same time - disengagement attacks not needed. If I run away I can be followed in real time, I can still be attacked in real time.

They also include an aggro mechanic, which I and a lot of others are not fans of.

So, we made a mod that keeps the thing that people like about it - it keeps the AI targeting backend, so that when you move near enemies it still engages them, but the UI elements are disabled. You can enable "Disable Party Movement Stop on Engagement" so this doesn't happen to your party and you can freely move away without suffering disengagement attacks, all the while not stuffing up the AI because it was designed around the system.

The engagement system has one thing going for it. It makes you think about your initial positioning and it makes initial positioning very important, but all this does to me is pigeonhole me into playing one way. I don't disengage ever, I make sure I have the correct initial positioning and I use abilities that can break engagement if I need to. I won't give enemies a free attack against me and lose health for it.

I'm not playing with the mod at the moment. I'm playing with engagement on, but it doesn't do anything for me.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I pull with my ranger
PAUSE
I give my tough classes orders to intercept incoming melee enemies
I give my squishy classes orders to either run to a safe spot, or in the case of my priest, run behind my melee classes to buff. This has changed a bit over time as I turned my priest into a tough melee class and Durance into a ranged character.
PAUSE
order my ranged characters and spell casters into positions where they can flank or get behind the enemy.

So in other words, you aggro with a ranger, then facetank with a wammo and shoot them to death from safety, like in all the coolest MMORPGs out there. You honestly don't see anything wrong with this design philosophy, and how it forces you into playing this way and this way only?

It seems like what I always wanted in the old IE games when nothing in the world would get a monster off of one of my squishy classes.

Apart from the stuns, the charms, the confusions, the webs, the entangles, the petrifies...

 

[Sensuki]

Exactly, Darth Roxor. Crowd control abilities and disables is how proper real-time games handle unit stickiness. The only real-time games that have this stupid mechanic are the Neverwinter games and this (and real-time Blood Bowl, but everyone agrees it's bad apparently).

 

[Grunker]

The engagement system nullifies movement and puts pressure on the poor pathfinding which has trouble enough already. That's the short story, and it's brought to you by a guy who thinks IE-pathfinding is more than good enough. As long as the game's pathfinding can take the shortest route when I click 3- or 4 centimeters away, I'm good. PoE's can't even handle that. Furthermore, the mechanic is loose. You don't kinaesthetically feel the tether between characters, and with so many units in each fight, engangement quickly becomes a web of randomness. Sure, with some concentration I can work it out, but does 'fun' to you imply pausing and going "Okay, that engagement tether goes from there to there, that one goes from there to there, okay here I can move, no wait, I can't" and then unpause, tell your character to move an inch after which the character goes in opposite direction, taking three engagement attacks (or at least you think that's what happened since the feedback is so loose you're not sure) and still not ending up where you wanted?

The result is that any sensible player will make sure that all positioning is done in the first few seconds of combat, so that he won't have to move again. Ever. A player does that, he can ignore all the bullshit. Thus, the system frontloads initial decision-making to the detriment of on-the-fly fighting. My main beef with PoE so far is that I find myself quickly reloading fights if the first 4 or 5 seconds of it don't go as planned - because I know that all decisions I make subsequent to that opening space are much, much less essential as long as the beginning is right.

I don't know if this is less of a problem on normal, but on hard, that's how a smart player plays, in my opinion.

The justification for the system is two-fold:

1) Eliminate kiting.

2) Spawn interesting tactical decisions about when "taking the hit" is worth it to move.

The first goal could be accomplished with a less burdensome system. tuluse and I have suggested "stickiness", the slowing down or locking of characters in place until they use an escape ability or cover enough distance.

The second goal is a moot point, because 75% of the time when you weigh the tactical option and take the risk, the pathfinding bugs out, your character got hit by a blurry effect that stopped his movement right after the engagement, or something similarly uncontrollable which means 90% of the time it's not worth it to risk moving - even if it actually would be if you were sure that the game's controls would allow you to do what you're trying to do.

The system underlines my core issue with combat so far. So much of it is designed by someone who said to himself, every step of the way, "man I would have rather designed a turn-based system." When you take control away from the player (like you do when you make a real-time game as opposed to a turn-based), you need to allow for larger margins of error. Pillars of Eternity by and large wants you to believe you have just as much control over its mechanics as you would have had were the game turn-based.

In essence, engagement makes combat static and stresses all emphasis on initial positioning, making the rest of the fight largely dependant on those few, opening sequences.

EDIT: deleted a large block of text by mistake and can't be arsed to re-write it, but everything important is written above.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Sensuki and Roxor summed it up pretty good, but I would add that disengagement attacks are simply too powerful, on top of the other negatives. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanics, but it feels like whenever I suffer a disengagement attack it hits almost every time and does a ton of damage. AOOs in the NWN games weren't implemented well, but they didn't roflstomp everything in the universe either. They still missed plenty and seemed to do a normal amount of damage. As it is currently, in PoE there's almost never a reason to allow someone to get a disengagement attack in, simply because it's so damaging, which makes it tactically uninteresting. If you get engaged, now you need to kill the engager. There's no calculated risk, maybe it's worth taking the damage so I can reposition kind of thing ever going on, because it's simply too much damage.

 

[Anthony Davis]

You don't need the engagement system to lock down two enemies. Even in the Infinity Engine games (Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter in particular) all you had to do was use positioning and movement to facilitate that outcome.

The engagement system is not helpful in any way to people who can control the battlefield without the 'baby help'. All it does is restrict and/or punish movement in combat after the initial melee has begun, particularly on higher difficulties where there are more enemies.

It removes/penalizes the decision to re-position mid encounter, tactically retreat low characters from the frontline and move about the battlefield, and it does this by "breaking the rules" of real time, by giving enemies an instant attack, free from recovery time with no animation that can proc at the same time as a currently playing animation as long as the attacker has a melee weapon equipped. It's double as dumb regarding multiple engagements - attacking a guy in front of you? Guy behind you you're engaging moves? Poof! disengagement attack when your sword is buried in the other guy's gullet.

AoOs/Disengagement attacks are a turn-based concept that simulate simultaneous actions in a turn-based environment - they occur when it's not your turn and they exist to address issues in games where movement and non-movement actions come from the same resource pool - such as if you spend your entire turn moving next to someone only to have them move away and shoot you in their turn. It translates really horribly into real time. They were awful in the NWN games (sorry), particularly combined with dumb AI and they're just as bad here.

They also include an aggro mechanic, which I and a lot of others are not fans of.

So, we made a mod that keeps the thing that people like about it - it keeps the AI targeting backend, so that when you move near enemies it still engages them, but the UI elements are disabled. You can disable "Disable Party Movement Stop on Engagement" so this doesn't happen to your party and you can freely move away without suffering disengagement attacks, all the while not stuffing up the AI because it was designed around the system.

The engagement system has one thing going for it. It makes you think about your initial positioning and it makes initial positioning very important, but all this does to me is pigeonhole me into playing one way. I don't disengage ever, I make sure I have the correct initial positioning and I use abilities that can break engagement if I need to. I won't give enemies a free attack against me and lose health for it.

I'm not playing with the mod at the moment. I'm playing with engagement on, but it doesn't do anything for me.

Your first point is mostly bullshit. Yes you COULD position fighters in the way of enemies, but it was not reliable at all. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. It was more successful if you had a door or something to funnel enemies THROUGH, but if you didn't, prepare to micro manage the hell out of the fight keeping your squishes running for their lives.


I sort of agree with your second point. Breaking engagement is supposed to have penalties. I get that desire from the design, and I agree with it. My problem with it is that the enemy will never break engagement with my characters, or at least I have never seen it - so my characters are the only one who get hit by the free attack. This does not feel like a problem with the "lockdown" portion of the engagement mechanic, but the free attack part. BTW, the AoO in IWD games was bullshit too then to by your own "instant attack" argument as well - not that I remember enemies ever letting themselves get AoO'd.... again a penalty that only players usually paid.


I don't agree with your 3rd point as it is written. RtwP games, the IE games including NWN, are simulationg turn based mechanics. Everyone is on the same 6 second round. Not to change the point, but there is plenty of other messed up shit in the 2nd edition IE games, for example, you could shoot bows and other ranged weapons, point blank, into enemies without penalty. I'm not seeing how that combat system is superior.


What aggro mechanic? Not being sarcastic, this statement, "They also include an aggro mechanic, which I and a lot of others are not fans of." Does not tell me what game you are talking about and does not explain the mechanic.


I *DO* disengage, sometimes without penalty, sometimes with. If I see a character is about to go down, and I can't heal, but the only way another character can engage (usually because of room and position) I will take a chance and break engagement because that character is probably going to go down anyway. When I start my next play through, I fully intend to take abilities that allow me to disengage with my squisher classes, it seems way too helpful.


Thank you for answering my post. I don't agree completely with your points, but I think I do understand better.

 

[Makagulfazel]

While I doubt Obsidian's instant, costless free attack is the best solution, I enjoy that I am penalized for allowing an enemy to engage one of my squishy characters. If you turn your back in real-time, the careful consideration of your enemy's next attack should be thrown out of the window; they can now effortlessly take a jab at you. However, there should be some cost to the attack, whether it fails or not.
This system feels less float-y to me when compared to the IE games. It just seems logical to me that there is a penalty for retreating when within an enemy's reach, rather than skating away while brandishing your middle finger. The opponent should receive the advantage, not your party members.

If you get engaged, now you need to kill the engager..

Or knock prone, stun, paralyze, etc.

 

[Seari]

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT

 

[Infinitron]

Anthony Davis Some people ITT are editing and re-editing their posts (like that one you just replied to) so take a second look occasionally

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

The system is underlines my core issue with combat so far. So much of it is designed by someone who said to himself, every step of the way, "man I would have rather designed a turn-based system." When you take control away from the player (like you do when you make a real-time game as opposed to a turn-based), you need to allow for larger margins of error. Pillars of Eternity by and large wants you to believe you have just as much control over its mechanics as you would have had were the game turn-based.

So very, very much this. Between engagement and per encounter abilities the core mechanics of the combat seem implemented straight from a turn based game. PoE feels like a RTwP system that wishes it was turnbased, which, in the end, provides all the disadvantages of RTwP that TB fanatics despise but none of the benefits that made combat in the IE games satisfying. Worst of both worlds, if you will.

I'm not a turn-based uber alles kind of guy (I think RTwP, when done well, is extremely enjoyable), but if you're going to make a system that so very much wishes it was turn based, just make it turn based, please.

 

[tuluse]

Sensuki

Total War games have something like the engagement system.


Anthony Davis

I have less problems with the system than it's most vocal opponents, but playing early in the game and in the beta it just leads to outcomes that aren't fun. Using front line characters to control who can burst through and get the mages is nice, but I can think of a few ways I'd rather see it done. As Grunker said, actual "stickiness" which is what people asked for by name and was interpreted into engagement.

Imagine every class has a percentage they reduce nearby opponent speed by let's say 50% for fighters. Then adjust that with an attribute so maxed out engage attribute + fighter would be something like 75% speed reduction, and adjust it with a defensive attribute. So you could make characters designed to get through the stickiness. Then some abilities to avoid it or reduce effects.

This would have the same effect (keeping enemies from running after mages as they please). It would be *more* deterministic which seems to be a Josh goal. It would be more clear what is happening, and it would involve character building just as much.

You could also make minor positioning adjustments without worrying about eating attacks. This is *supposed* to be possible in the engagement system, but it is very finicky (is there a button to hold down so characters will move as close as they can to where you are clicking without dis-engaging? I haven't found one but it would help).


My main problem with the system though, is how harshly it punishes running away. If things go against you in a combat, well your mages are locked down in engagement and it's likely you cannot get away. You just sit there waiting to die. Especially combined with the reduced randomness compared to d&d you can't even really hope for a few great rolls to save your butt.

I've also had ring-around-the-rosey happen to me. Enemy spider was engaged by one character and chased by another. It did 3 loops around the character it was engaged with my 2nd character chasing it. While my 3rd was pelting it with wand attacks. Felt like good old IE let me tell you—yet looked even sillier.

 

[Grunker]

Anthony Davis Some people ITT are editing and re-editing their posts (like that one you just replied to) so take a second look occasionally

Yeah sorry I deleted a lot of text and even though I said I couldn't be arsed I put some of it back it. Specifically this:

The result is that any sensible player will make sure that all positioning is done in the first few seconds of combat, so that he won't have to move again. Ever. A player does that, he can ignore all the bullshit. Thus, the system frontloads initial decision-making to the detriment of on-the-fly fighting. My main beef with PoE so far is that I find myself quickly reloading fights if the first 4 or 5 seconds of it don't go as planned - because I know that all decisions I make subsequent to that opening space are much, much less essential as long as the beginning is right.

Won't edit again.

By the way I still think the combat is fun and I like most of what I've played so far.

 

[Grunker]

Also though I agree with Sensuki that most real time games use movement abilities and crowd control to eliminate kiting, the point with my suggestion (and tuluse's if I may be so bold) is that it keeps the spirit of the engagement mechanic without its issues. I see the appeal of the mechanic. It's a fundamental system instead of complex web of abilities based on movement and CC.

You could also do zones of control - slow auras. You could even make them less effective projected from a character's back than from his front (incentivizing rogues to attack peeps from behind: melee without the full disadvantage of the zone of control). I dunno, I just don't like the way the current system incentivizes me to frontload my combat gauge on the opening seconds.

 

[Gord]

I'd love to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, but since I've only played for a few hours and with only one melee character, I can't really say that I feel anyway particular about the engagement system yet.
However, I do get the impression that most arguments made for or against the principle existence of it boil down to personal taste, not much more.

If there's one thing I do foresee that could get problematic eventually, it's the difficulty associated with breaking an engagement - esp. if a weaker character is caught up, it seems almost impossible to do anything about it. I think that this could be addressed better, e.g. through some form of support skill.

You could also make minor positioning adjustments without worrying about eating attacks. This is *supposed* to be possible in the engagement system, but it is very finicky (is there a button to hold down so characters will move as close as they can to where you are clicking without dis-engaging? I haven't found one but it would help).

This doesn't sound terribly difficult to fix, e.g. by requiring a character to move a minimum distance radially before a disengagement is triggered.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony Davis Some people ITT are editing and re-editing their posts (like that one you just replied to) so take a second look occasionally

Well, I was already replying to it...


I think some people in this thread have good "half" points, so to speak.

I do agree that the disengagement attacks hit too hard, but to be honest, I didn't even NOTICE them on Normal. I didn't notice them till I played on Hard Mode or Path of the Damned.

There are spells and abilities that can be used to break engagement and either make it safe to move away, or DRASTICALLY reduce the risk.


If you have the ability to engage more than one enemy in PoE, you can move to engage a second enemy. At least I could with Eder - I'm not sure how far you can move though.


To me the system makes sense, if you only have the ability to engage and defend yourself against one enemy, if you then focus on a second enemy, that first enemy is going to wreck your world. As your fighter gets more experience and can handle multiple opponents at once, it makes it easier and safer to fight multiple opponents at the same time.

 

[Sensuki]

Your first point is mostly bullshit. Yes you COULD position fighters in the way of enemies, but it was not reliable at all. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. It was more successful if you had a door or something to funnel enemies THROUGH, but if you didn't, prepare to micro manage the hell out of the fight keeping your squishes running for their lives.

I have a complete Icewind Dale playthrough on youtube where I control the unit targeting in 99% of the encounters, because I think about how unit targeting works. If I know the conditions that make enemies change targets, then I'm going to know how to manipulate the battlefield right? If people don't think about those kind of things, then of course they're going to struggle. The targeting AI in the IE games is fucking snappy as man, once enemies qualify for a re-target it happens on the next frame.

Breaking engagement is supposed to have penalties. I get that desire from the design, and I agree with it.

Why? Even real-time games simulate combat, just because a unit turns around it doesn't mean that that turning around has to symbolize dropped defenses/running away just because the budget isn't there to animate it properly and/or that wouldn't make good gameplay having units shuffling around like a realistic battle in a game with this camera perspective and this many units.

My problem with it is that the enemy will never break engagement with my characters, or at least I have never seen it - so my characters are the only one who get hit by the free attack.

I've seen enemies break engagement, and you can also cheese engagement to your advantage by pulling them across the edge of frontline's engagement circle.

the AoO in IWD games was bullshit too then to by your own "instant attack" argument as well - not that I remember enemies ever letting themselves get AoO'd.... again a penalty that only players usually paid.

There is no Attack of Opportunity in any Icewind Dale game. How long has it been since you last played one?

I don't agree with your 3rd point as it is written. RtwP games, the IE games including NWN, are simulating turn based mechanics. Everyone is on the same 6 second round. Not to change the point, but there is plenty of other messed up shit in the 2nd edition IE games, for example, you could shoot bows and other ranged weapons, point blank, into enemies without penalty. I'm not seeing how that combat system is superior.

I'm going to say bullshit to the statement that (all) RTwP games are simulating turn-based mechanics. The pause exists for you to be able to manage a party in real-time because it's difficult to control six characters with multiple abilities at once. The original intent of the IE games may have been to simulate turn-based mechanics in the way that attacks and actions occur, but in reality the way they are implemented is not dissimilar to how attacks and attack cooldowns in Fighting Games or other real-time games such as Warcraft 3 work. Personally I don't care what the original intent was, they definitely play like a real-time game and they definitely have an RTS feel to them as well. Everyone is NOT on the same 6 second round (in the Infinity Engine games). There are individual round timers for each unit.

Not to change the point, but there is plenty of other messed up shit in the 2nd edition IE games, for example, you could shoot bows and other ranged weapons, point blank, into enemies without penalty. I'm not seeing how that combat system is superior.

I don't care about the AD&D rules. This is not about D&D.

What aggro mechanic? Not being sarcastic, this statement, "They also include an aggro mechanic, which I and a lot of others are not fans of." Does not tell me what game you are talking about and does not explain the mechanic.

The AI targeting clause that causes your party members to stop and attack their engager - that is an aggro mechanic. It can be disabled, but it's horrible because you suffer disengagement attacks all the time because they occur on the very next frame after you've been engaged if you're still moving. I'm glad they implemented this option though because it allowed us to make our mod good.

I *DO* disengage, sometimes without penalty, sometimes with. If I see a character is about to go down, and I can't heal, but the only way another character can engage (usually because of room and position) I will take a chance and break engagement because that character is probably going to go down anyway. When I start my next play through, I fully intend to take abilities that allow me to disengage with my squisher classes, it seems way too helpful.

I disengage if I need to move out of a persistent hazard that does damage, such as Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar. Otherwise I don't put myself in the position where I need to disengage, you can play around it through unit positioning in most encounters.

 

[tuluse]

My main beef with PoE so far is that I find myself quickly reloading fights if the first 4 or 5 seconds of it don't go as planned - because I know that all decisions I make subsequent to that opening space are much, much less essential as long as the beginning is right.

I've found this as well. Either you open right and have an easy fight or open poorly and get wiped (playing on hard).

There is very little opening averagely and making decisions on the fly.

The effect is increased by the change in damage and frequency of hits compared to damage taking potential. PoE fights go fewer "rounds" than BG2 fights did. So there is simply less opportunity to make decisions even if later decisions were more important.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I don't think this system is perfect btw, but that's an easy statement for me to make because I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect system.... well maybe a perfect turn based system.

I like the stickiness idea - but again, writing an idea like that on a forum and then translating it into a rules system useable by a computer is a lot harder.


Let me re-read some more of tuluse, sensuki, and grunkers posts. Process this a bit.

 

[tuluse]

You could also make minor positioning adjustments without worrying about eating attacks. This is *supposed* to be possible in the engagement system, but it is very finicky (is there a button to hold down so characters will move as close as they can to where you are clicking without dis-engaging? I haven't found one but it would help).

This doesn't sound terribly difficult to fix, e.g. by requiring a character to move a minimum distance radially before a disengagement is triggered.

Yeah the AI can do it (see my ring-around-the-rosey example). Be nice if it was something like shift-click and you do the same thing.

 

[Grunker]

Your first point is mostly bullshit. Yes you COULD position fighters in the way of enemies, but it was not reliable at all. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. It was more successful if you had a door or something to funnel enemies THROUGH, but if you didn't, prepare to micro manage the hell out of the fight keeping your squishes running for their lives.

Wait, what? I am playing through Icewind Dale right now and this is simply not true. It's the very reason Josh engineered the engagement system at all I suspect. Keeping my squishies safe is a matter of casting a movement spell and kiting the enemy. IE's problem was that it disfavored melee characters - especially enemies since they were seldom hasted - not the other way around.

It's pretty much the reason my Heart of Fury with level 1 characters playthrough is possible.

I like the stickiness idea - but again, writing an idea like that on a forum and then translating it into a rules system useable by a computer is a lot harder.

I sincerely doubt that a slowing aura would be harder to code than an auto-attack with a cooldown timer than has to support abilities to allow more tethers.

 

[ArchAngel]

Let me add a bit. Personally I don't mind engagement as I didn't mind AoO in NWN2.

Why?
a) Because the game gave you accessible ways to mostly neutralize it: 1. Tumble skill 2. Spring Attack and that other feat that reduced the chance by 20%

b) Also you could still make smaller movements near enemy without it activating.

c) And if it did activate it was a normal attack, not something extra punishing

It worked well like that!!

PoE?
1. No skills that protect. And feats are too weak.
2. You cannot move at all. Yesterday I wanted to move a bit to help my other character take down another enemy faster. everyone was close but not within weapon reach but if I did try to move I would get hit and die. Stupid...
3. It does not need to be extra punishing (with greater chance of critical hit).


Can we at least get that Athletics gives you deflection vs engagement attacks? Like 1 Athletics = 3% to deflection (or 5%)

 

[tuluse]

I like the stickiness idea - but again, writing an idea like that on a forum and then translating it into a rules system useable by a computer is a lot harder.

Well sure, but what else should I be doing with my time

Wait, what? I am playing through Icewind Dale right now and this is simply not true. It's the very reason Josh engineered the engagement system at all I suspect. Keeping my squishies safe is a matter of casting a movement spell and kiting the enemy. IE's problem was that it disfavored melee characters - especially enemies since they were seldom hasted - not the other way around.

I remember in BG2 lining up two fighters in front of a door thinking I had perfect positioning to keep anything from coming through, but they would just push my characters out of the way and walk right through anyways. I can understand wanting to stop this.

 

[Sensuki]

While not related to the Infinity Engine games, Pillars of Eternity or Engagement Anthony Davis, here's some insight into how I think about unit targeting in games



Fully manipulated to my advantage simply by having a general understanding of the AI targeting.