Engagement System Questions

[Infinitron]

I don't believe that is what its PURPOSE was. Its purpose, as I understand it was, to create the ability to stop mobs from running through your line and killing squishies.

And along the way, it also affects your ability to run through THEIR lines, and also does a bunch of weird stuff when there are no "lines" at all. If this was really about setting lines, then maybe engagement should have been a modal that took time to activate/deactivate and locked the engager in place as well, like deploying a siege tank in Starcraft.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Have you seen my beginner guide's to Pillars of Eternity?

Skip to 31:08 for Engagement

So I made some time and I watched from 30:00 to the end. You describe the engagement system perfectly, as I understand it, and I still don't agree with your statement that it is a bad system.

Here's the thing, I never, ever, doubted you understood how the system worked. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

 

[Trodat]

Bullshit. My criticism of Engagement isn't a relativist question of taste, and if you replied directly to said criticism instead of to your own strawmen, that would be clear. I detest arguments based on viewpoint alone.

You don't like that it makes combat statics, and makes initial positioning important, fine. That's "taste" and my taste is that's why PoE system is great compared to the bullshit combat that were IE games. So yea, that kinda makes my point that while there are some issues with the current system

PoE was pitched as a successor to those games and the combat was a core part of the experience. Many people actually enjoyed it so we feel annoyed because it was changed.

 

[Jarpie]

Like I said earlier, if there's not already, somekind of taunt ability to make enemies break the engagement and somekind of clear(er) visual signs of the engagement to show the player where they can move so they won't get the AoO.

 

[Grunker]

I'm not one of those people, Trodat. I have a strict criticism of, in this case, one system. Now we're at the stage where criticizing combat encounters lasting upwards of 3 minutes for being decided by the initial 5 seconds is a "question of taste." Relativism in a nutshell.

If you want more replies mutonizer, you can reply directly to my criticism, otherwise I see no point.

Good night folks.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I don't believe that is what its PURPOSE was. Its purpose, as I understand it was, to create the ability to stop mobs from running through your line and killing squishies.

And along the way, it also affects your ability to run through THEIR lines, and also does a bunch of weird stuff when there are no "lines" at all. If this was really about setting lines, then maybe engagement should have been a modal that took time to activate/deactivate and locked the engager in place as well, like deploying a siege tank in Starcraft.

I think it's ok that I can't run through the enemy lines. I like to engage their lines and go around the side with my other non-engagers.

 

[mutonizer]

PoE was pitched as a successor to those games and the combat was a core part of the experience. Many people actually enjoyed it so we feel annoyed because it was changed.

Totally understand that and that's fine. As I said before, to each his own.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Not to sound like a whiny cunt, but if you wanted to have a conversation with Sensuki only you could have sent him a PM

I guess in the end I should blame the 'tron for making me waste all that time yelling on the internet.

I know Sensuki is the expert, but I wanted to see if there was any other different opinions on what people think is wrong with the system.

To follow up, I started to reply to both you and Darth Roxor - but I'm at work and I ended up throwing both of those posts away when work came up. By the time I got back, the thread had moved on.

Moved on neglecting the most valid criticism of engagement IMO. Or actually it hasn't, it's been quoted a couple of times on these last two pages, it's just the "defense" that need to chime in. Following points are still unanswered:

1) Engagement in larger encounters consistute a complex web of tethers - correct gameplay means pausing a carefully following each one. Like playing connect-the-dots. Not fun.

2)

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.

3)

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.

And my favourite games are RTwP, mind.

1. I only have/use 2 to 3 characters whose JOB it is to engage. If they are engaging One to Four targets apiece, I don't need to worry about them and "follow the threads" because they are doing their jobs. I worry about them if things either go bad or targets start dropping. I did have trouble at first following the arrows, but I get it now and it seems easier.

2. If it is a fight I have scouted, I can pre-position characters in appropriate places for their job. This is one of the reasons why everyone in my party has at least SOME stealth. If it is a fight I have rolled up on, I agree that THEN the first 4 to 5 seconds of the fight are important, but certainly don't always warrant a reload if my guys didn't engage PERFECTLY. That seems so drastic. That's why my ranger carries melee weapons. That's why I have buffs and and spells and potions. If your goal and expectation is to play through every fight perfectly and flawlessly without reloading, then I can't give you that unless you play on easy mode, or if it is your second or third play through.

3. Yes, we want people to be able to control their characters, and the battlefield. I'm not real sure how to answer this, it's just an opinion - and I'm not sure what kind of response you are hoping for here.

 

[Ninjerk]

Anthony Davis, are you defending the engagement system or Obsidian?

 

[tdphys]

Just chiming in on my takes on engagement, eviscerate as you will:

Engagement (the idea) is cool for adding tactical depth and options to combat. I find the problems with the current system are:

1. a vfx style autoattack that has no bearing on the rest of combat, makes the system *gimmicky* and opaque.

How I think it should be done:

engagement should allow an auto-melee attack, full fledged animation and add a minor bit of time to the attackers action timer on his current action.

If the attack happens close enough to the current action, proc that action immediately instead.

Every attack should cause an engagement cooldown, so the character could leave without suffering an engagement attack after any attack, regardless of whether it's an engagement proc or not.

For a real-time game, I think visual fidelity with what's actually going on is really important.

Also, no slowing recovery time during movement please.

That being said... I'm loving the game.

 

[felipepepe]

BTW, regarding Sensuki's obsession for 0 knockouts:

Seems like someone at Obsidian agrees that it's a cool self-imposed challenge to take.

 

[Ninjerk]

^

 

[Athelas]

Who could expect Josh would turn out to be the biggest grog of us all by implementing attacks of opportunity in a real-time game?

Anyway, the reasons why engagement is bad have been stated already. It eliminates movement-related decisions and it is an artifice at odds with the real-time gameplay and simultaneous conflict resolution. I also think it harms enemy A.I., by making them adhere to a simple and tactically uninteresting 'do not move if it would cause disengagement attack' A.I. clause (the alternative - moving freely - would make them trigger a bunch of disengagement attacks that would murder them).

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony Davis, are you defending the engagement system or Obsidian?

I'm defending constructive ideas. I think the engagement system is a constructive idea that fixes issues I experienced with the IE games.

 

[mutonizer]

I'm not one of those people, Trodat. I have a strict criticism of, in this case, one system. Now we're at the stage where criticizing combat encounters lasting upwards of 3 minutes for being decided by the initial 5 seconds is a "question of taste." Relativism in a nutshell.

If you want more replies mutonizer, you can reply directly to my criticism, otherwise I see no point.

Good night folks.

Might be because you specialize too much or something? No idea though. Yea first seconds are important but not that crazy even if you're completely out of position.

What I'm saying is that feeling doomed within 5 seconds of engagement is your problem man, never encountered that personally and I never tried anything but Path of the Damned (apart that one time where I was completely out leveled and forgot stealth, that hurt...). Really can't imagine any situation on lower difficulties where that's be any issue. My guys have potions, I spread lore a bit as well for scrolls and there are spells to help. Aside from that, taking one or two disengagement attacks to re-position proper isn't the end of the world.

On the other hand, liking or not that first few seconds of combat are important, that's pure taste.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Who could expect Josh would turn out to be the biggest grog of us all by implementing attacks of opportunity in a real-time game?

Anyway, the reasons why engagement is bad have been stated already. It eliminates movement-related decisions and it is an artifice at odds with the real-time gameplay and simultaneous conflict resolution. I also think it harms enemy A.I., by making them adhere to a simple and tactically uninteresting 'do not move if it would cause disengagement attack' A.I. clause (the alternative - moving freely - would make them trigger a bunch of disengagement attacks that would murder them).

But you can move.

1. If you disengage, and disengaging the enemy is easy.
2. Or you are willing to risk the disengagement attack, in which you need to weigh the risk versus reward.

 

[Athelas]

But you can move.

1. If you disengage, and disengaging and enemy is easy.
2. Or you are willing to risk the disengagement attack, in which you need to weigh the risk versus reward.

You can move, but it's not worth it for the hassle disengagement attacks bring. In many cases, this reduces tactics to placing a tank up front that engages enemies while your party stands back firing from range.

Funnily enough, most of the martial classes in the game have abilities that disable enemies (Knock Down, Force of Anguish, etc.). In other words, they can hold the front line with their abilities instead of needing the artifice that is engagement (that is, if enemies were inclined to aggressively charge towards your squishies).

 

[Seari]

I don't find a sword in the eye rewarding.

 

[aeonsim]

I have to say I agree with the view that this is just all about different play styles that for some people's style engagement is the worst thing ever whole for others it's great and others don't care. Sensuki is strongly and loudly against it, while Anthony appears to favor it but is open to adjusting it. Personally I quite like it, but I don't care enough to spend a huge amount of time arguing for it as it's there and I'm happy, I'm also happy to see a mod that removed it for those who care. However unless a vast majority have problems with it it should be in the game, and in that case it could probably be fixed via changes rather than deletion.

 

[aeonsim]

But you can move.

1. If you disengage, and disengaging and enemy is easy.
2. Or you are willing to risk the disengagement attack, in which you need to weigh the risk versus reward.

You can move, but it's not worth it for the hassle disengagement attacks bring. In many cases, this reduces tactics to placing a tank up front that engages enemies while your party stands back firing from range.

Funnily enough, most of the martial classes in the game have abilities that disable enemies (Knock Down, Force of Anguish, etc.). In other words, they can hold the front line with their abilities instead of needing the artifice that is engagement (that is, if enemies were inclined to aggressively charge towards your squishies).

Funnily enough those ability's can also be used to end engagement as well, as such I'm happy to have engagement there so I don't have to chase after someone ,if I'm slightly distracted when they run past, to try and use my special ability to knock them down for control, instead engagement helps with the control and I can use the special abilities to break engagement if I need to move.

 

[Shevek]

But you can move.

1. If you disengage, and disengaging and enemy is easy.
2. Or you are willing to risk the disengagement attack, in which you need to weigh the risk versus reward.

You can move, but it's not worth it for the hassle disengagement attacks bring. In many cases, this reduces tactics to placing a tank up front that engages enemies while your party stands back firing from range.

Funnily enough, most of the martial classes in the game have abilities that disable enemies (Knock Down, Force of Anguish, etc.). In other words, they can hold the front line with their abilities instead of needing the artifice that is engagement (that is, if enemies were inclined to aggressively charge towards your squishies).

Funnily enough those ability's can also be used to end engagement as well, as such I'm happy to have engagement there so I don't have to chase after someone ,if I'm slightly distracted when they run past, to try and use my special ability to knock them down for control, instead engagement helps with the control and I can use the special abilities to break engagement if I need to move.

That is my feeling as well.

 

[Gord]

One argument I don't quite understand is how AoO or an Engagement system supposedly have no place in a RT(wP) system.
Maybe someone could explain me the reasoning behind it.

 

[Athelas]

One argument I don't quite understand is how AoO or an Engagement system supposedly have no place in a RT(wP) system.
Maybe someone could explain me the reasoning behind it.

It breaks the rules of the game, since unlike every other action in the game, it doesn't happen in real-time. It's the same reason why being able to chug a 1000 potions while pausing in the inventory screen isn't exactly a good design decision either.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

I don't believe that is what its PURPOSE was. Its purpose, as I understand it was, to create the ability to stop mobs from running through your line and killing squishies.

The strangest thing about this whole debate is that, before today, I literally did not know this was an issue anyone had with the IE games. I'm not trying to say "git gud" or to troll or anything, but I can't remember ever having major issues with mobs breaking my line and killing my weaker characters. Sensuki has specified what he does to prevent it from being an issue, but I can't even think of what I do. It's just never come up when I was playing one of those games.

That probably at least partially explains why I hate the engagement mechanic so much. All the flaws are listed on the first page, but just as important is that I can't see the purpose for it. It's solving a problem that (to me) never existed in the first place, so there is absolutely nothing to counterbalance the negatives. So try to understand where some of us are coming from. Take one of your favorite games, add a complex mechanic that completely changes how the most major portion of the game plays, adds several of its own problems, but only solves a problem that you had never come across. Would you be happy?

 

[Gord]

It breaks the rules of the game, since unlike every other action in the game, it doesn't happen in real-time. It's the same reason why being able to chug a 1000 potions while pausing in the inventory screen isn't exactly a good design decision either.

A lot of things in the system are idealised representations of an actual, real combat, I don't see that as such a big problem, esp. since it's still pretty close if you ask me (engagement system).
Jugging 1000 potions simultaneously is silly of course (even though it's absolutely oldschool).