Engagement System Questions

[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.

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?

I haven't seen "several of its own problems" though. It seems that if you understand the mechanic, how it works, and what its used for, there aren't any issues other than, "It's not like IE games".

Now there is a second issue, the "It's a free attack which doesn't cost time.", but I find that specious at best since you can avoid the attack by simply breaking engagement, unless you chose to risk the attack, in that case you know what you are going to get.


Also it turns out, after doing more investigation, that there is no damage bonus inherent with a disengagement attack. There is only an accuracy bonus. It is true that an accuracy bonus can push a hit into crit territory, but that crit will no hit any harder than a normal crit.

I was also mistaken, and maybe Sensuki didn't know this either, but there are MOBs in the game that have their AI programmed to ignore engagment, such as Trolls and Ghouls.

There are also MOBs that are programmed to use certain abilities when they are engaged. For example, there are mercenaries and sell swords in Raedric's Keep with the Escape ability. The Escape ability can be used to break engagement, but it can also be used to break engagement and jump to another opponent, and in this case, they will break and try to engage a squishy who is too close. I believe they do it based on stamina, but I'm not positive. Shadows do something similar with their teleport too I believe.

Edit: I bring that last point up because there are cases where the player can get their OWN disengagement attacks against enemies without cheesing it.

 

[Athelas]

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).

It's not about realism (there is obviously nothing realistic about the kind of free movement in combat that you see in games), it's about having solid underlying and coherent mechanics. Attacks of opportunity simply do not play well with the other aspects of real-time games.

 

[Shevek]

I think it plays just fine.

 

[Ninjerk]

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?

I haven't seen "several of its own problems" though. It seems that if you understand the mechanic, how it works, and what its used for, there aren't any issues other than, "It's not like IE games".

I haven't seen any reason why someone would ever want to play an old IE-like game except nostalgia.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey, how is Tamerlane relevant to Josh other than being a goon? The system was pretty much made for him right

That's it as far as I know.

There was a -4 penalty for using ranged weapons in melee in all the 2nd edition IE games.

It was actually -8, at least in BG, and I know because I saw it with my own eyes. Additionally http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Ranged_weapon_penalty_in_melee

Any character fighting with a ranged weapon in melee will suffer a -8 penalty to hit. The enemy attacking him with a melee weapon will get +4 bonus to hit. In BG1 and BG2, the enemy also enjoyed a +4 to damage as well. making melee attacks against ranged/unarmed targets very lethal. (That bonus damage even got multiplied by backstabs and critical hits) +4 damage bonus is not present in BG:EE.

lol trent

 

[Anthony Davis]

Well, thanks for at least proving people wrong that you can't have a civilized discussion on the Dex. It turns out that the only person who can't control their temper is...ME.

I appreciate it. I guess for now, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think we can also all agree that TB is superior at least.



For me, I've been playing the game, and I really love it. I've actually felt like the better I understand the mechanics, the better I have played.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

I haven't seen "several of its own problems" though. It seems that if you understand the mechanic, how it works, and what its used for, there aren't any issues other than, "It's not like IE games".

Even if I agreed with this (I very much don't, but there's no use repeating everything that's already been said several times in this thread), don't you see why this would still be an issue? Again, it's a drastic gameplay change to solve a problem that doesn't exist in a game where the entire pitch to me (to which I contributed based on the pitch) was "we are going to make a game like the IE games." If the pitch was "we are going to make an IE-like game, except completely change the combat because we think [thing that has never happened to you in the IE games] is a big problem" things would be different. I'm not saying that I think Obsidian betrayed my trust and lied to me in order to get funding, just that if you look at it from where I am it's making a drastic change to a formula I liked and wanted to see again to solve a problem I didn't have. So there's nothing gained. Even if there aren't any problems with engagement (there are), my default here would be to dislike the new mechanics, because what I really wanted was more of the old mechanics.

Also it turns out, after doing more investigation, that there is no damage bonus inherent with a disengagement attack. There is only an accuracy bonus. It is true that an accuracy bonus can push a hit into crit territory, but that crit will no hit any harder than a normal crit.

Well, that's interesting, but the gameplay effect is still that disengagement attacks do more damage than regular attacks on average (not on an average hit, on an average attack - which includes attacks that miss).

 

[Gord]

It's not about realism (there is obviously nothing realistic about the kind of free movement in combat that you see in games), it's about having solid underlying and coherent mechanics. Attacks of opportunity simply do not play well with the other aspects of real-time games.

I guess we have different ideas/tastes about that then. Well, so far I anyway don't claim to have a particularly good understanding of PoE's mechanics - I've only played a few hours with a low-level party. My impression might very well change yet, but so far I'm not convinced by the anti-engagement arguments (I do understand/agree that there are some problems with bugs and *ahem* balancing).

 

[ArchAngel]

Well, thanks for at least proving people wrong that you can't have a civilized discussion on the Dex. It turns out that the only person who can't control their temper is...ME.

I appreciate it. I guess for now, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think we can also all agree that TB is superior at least.



For me, I've been playing the game, and I really love it. I've actually felt like the better I understand the mechanics, the better I have played.

So you think Engagement is perfect as it is and none of our comments mean anything?
Like not being able to take a single step without provoking disengagement attacks?

 

[Mastermind]

I think we can also all agree that TB is superior at least.

u wot m8

 

[CyberWhale]

Well, that's interesting, but the gameplay effect is still that disengagement attacks do more damage than regular attacks on average (not on an average hit, on an average attack - which includes attacks that miss).

This.

The easiest way to fix it and not change anything drastically would be to balance it out decrease the damage output of a disengagement attack to that of a normal one.
Disabling the ability to go anywhere above the regular Hit (so no Crits unless you have some class-specific Talents) and equally spreading the chance (depending on your chosen attributes, of course) to get Misses (disengagement talents would still be useful if you wanted to be completely sure of getting this outcome), Grazes and Hits would IMO do the trick.

You'd get punished for moving, but it wouldn't be so devastating to completely discourage you from ever doing it.

Also it turns out, after doing more investigation, that there is no damage bonus inherent with a disengagement attack. There is only an accuracy bonus. It is true that an accuracy bonus can push a hit into crit territory, but that crit will no hit any harder than a normal crit.

Sensuki, doing the thing that I've proposed would probably require to much work (coming up with original Talents and all that) for a simple mod but I guess that you could reverse the accuracy bonus (make it a penalty instead) that Anthony is talking about? I think you could easily do it by simply exchanging a + for a - in an appropriate file.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Anthony Davis , your suffering in this thread was due to your doubting of the thread before it even began.

p.s. Never stop posting.

 

[Hegel]

Meh, I still don't understand why the good guys at Obsidian didn't port the combat of a modded BGII or that of a modded ToEE (co8), they could have saved time and resources this way.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony Davis , your suffering in this thread was due to your doubting of the thread before it even began.

p.s. Never stop posting.

Maybe my mind wasn't open, but I sure was trying to keep it open for ideas.

*not that I could change anything about it anyway.

 

[Mangoose]

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 it's plainly obvious what to do with each character, and there is no point in using different tactics or strategies, and no point in making decisions after you set up your initial formation.

You know what the nice thing about RTSes (ahem non Starcraft micro-hell) even though they are real time, possibly with pause? There is much more to consider than put a guy at one place, put another guy at another pace, micromanage a couple dozen active spells, etc.

Play something like a Total War game and compare. You don't just simply put a unit to flank/behind this guy that guy/etc and then get ready to clicky-clicky. You consider terrain, you consider different speeds, you consider coordinating units to make up for deficits.

Cavalry against spearmen? Fuck that. Engage them with infantry and then you can wedge charge without them being able to point their spears at you. Infantry not strong enough for that? Then think of something else.

Light infantry crappy against more armored infantry? Well, let's see that happen in a small forest where the heavy infantry can't rely on tight formation.

---

I hoped to dear god that the engagement mechanic would promote decision making during combat. To have the choice between engaging and not engaging. Because in IE games, you basically ran at whoever you wanted to with little penalty. I was hoping that there would be a penalty to running around willy-nilly, yet still being able to take that risk if necessary.

Or in other words, make positioning and re-positioning important.

Instead of having combat be decided from the first second.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I think the discussion has run its course. If I could, I would lock the thread. Anything you want to say to me about this will have to be done through PMs, though remember, I can't change anything about it.

I feel terrible for losing my temper at Sensuki, who is a good dude. That's on me though.

I still don't think it's possible to argue with people who have played IE games a thousand times, and know exactly where to place their guys and know exactly how to play every single fight, are making a fair judgement on a new system because they don't think they NEED the problem fixed.

Sensuki is going to give you a mod without engagement and without engagement attacks. Good. You can play it just like IE. I'm glad he is making it for you. Again, he's a good dude.



Other than that, I'm gonna go play PoE.

 

[Mangoose]

I think the discussion has run its course. If I could, I would lock the thread. Anything you want to say to me about this will have to be done through PMs, though remember, I can't change anything about it.

I feel terrible for losing my temper at Sensuki, who is a good dude. That's on me though.

I still don't think it's possible to argue with people who have played IE games a thousand times, and know exactly where to place their guys and know exactly how to play every single fight, are making a fair judgement on a new system because they don't think they NEED the problem fixed.

Sensuki is going to give you a mod without engagement and without engagement attacks. Good. You can play it just like IE. I'm glad he is making it for you. Again, he's a good dude.



Other than that, I'm gonna go play PoE.

Wasn't talking to you directly. You just made a good succinct description of how the combat works. Made it easy to quote to reference those points lol.

I don't like IE either, like I said. Give me a balance, give me choices.

 

[Ellef]

What an amusing thread. Interesting discourse then MASS INSANITY when Sensuki mentions he reloads if one character goes down in a fight; Is it really that rare? I've spent over an hour on fights in Banner Saga to continue my no casualties run, and I'm too lazy to be a perfectionist.

There's plenty to build on in POE without the engagement system to make an interesting tactical game. It's not there yet, but engagement only limits where it can go since it limits your response to new threats and promotes a 'tank and spank' policy.

 

[Seaking4]

I'm not going to read through 8 or so pages to see if this has been mentioned but engagement seems to do the opposite of what it was intended to do. In my (albeit limited 7 maybe 8 hour) experience, once an enemy gets past my front row, I know that Aloth is fucked. This is especially annoying with shadows/shades who teleport past my fighters to go right after my casters. My fighters get locked down and then I can't help out my casters at all if something happens because I take some pretty brutal disengagement attacks. Maybe I'm not using the engagement system to its full potential (which I'll admit is certainly a possibility) but I never really had a problem in IE games of enemies going right after my casters. It was simple enough to solve but it didn't really happen that often. I only remember it happening in Icewind Dale.

 

[Ellef]

I'm not going to read through 8 or so pages to see if this has been mentioned but engagement seems to do the opposite of what it was intended to do. In my (albeit limited 7 maybe 8 hour) experience, once an enemy gets past my front row, I know that Aloth is fucked.

Use the priest Halt, works well. Or Grimoire Slam, or many other disables. I do without engagement on, so it's not like having it this is a plus for the system, just sayin. The aim of removing engagement isn't to make things easier for the player, just allows you to have more interesting replies than standing perfectly still until a disable breaks engagement.

 

[Sensuki]

For posterity here is the IE Mod for PE 1.02.508

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

Spoiler

I'll be making a video about it tomorrow.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I also would like to add that 'it's there to stop enemies from chopping up your squishies for BBQ' is almost downright wrong because it only enlarges the problem of your backline getting murdered if they can't reliably escape from engagement, and becomes very very apparent the moment you have to fight any shadows. This only further forces you into abusing chokepoints, and that is Degenerate Gameplay at its worst.

 

[FreeKaner]

The main problem with engagement system is the fact disengagement attack is absolutely free and happens regardless of when the engage-r(?) last attacked. I can understand an attack of opportunity on a fleeting enemy but how is the engager managing this at the next frame after another attack? I think giving disengaging attacks a seperate cooldown, much shorter but still significant from last attack and also removing its accuracy bonus could fulfil the intended purpose. If of course I am understanding the purpose right, which I assume to be punishing leaving zone of control with melee characters and making combat movement more meaningful?

You can disengage shortly after getting attacked, making zone of control meaningful as they still have to receive the attack and waste time or receive an attack on shorter cooldown with bonus damage? It's a balanced trade-off, one forcing you to make decision on where you move with punishment for careless movement.

That or you could have made the game turn-based, since it is already pretty much turn-based anyway since you have to pause for every minuscule action, rather than playing like an RTS with only movement, positioning and skills requiring micro-management.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

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.

Sounds you're just exploiting your metaknowledge of how the AI works if I understand you correctly? That's hardly an example of great tactical depth in combat. Sorry, I prefer a real system in place, not saying engagement in PoE is good or bad though, as I have just played it for an hour or so.

Really bizarre what you wrote there, wondering why nobody pointed that out before.

 

[mutonizer]

I also would like to add that 'it's there to stop enemies from chopping up your squishies for BBQ' is almost downright wrong because it only enlarges the problem of your backline getting murdered if they can't reliably escape from engagement, and becomes very very apparent the moment you have to fight any shadows. This only further forces you into abusing chokepoints, and that is Degenerate Gameplay at its worst.

If enemies get to your backline, they SHOULD mop up your squishies if you don't anticipate it or react proper. It's not wrong, it's what happens when strategy fail (or tactic, depending). If you use Total War comparison as someone did, that's like shock cav getting into your archers/swords without opposition...try that and see what happens.

Using chokepoints to control the battle is like basic strategy 101. The issue here is not engagement and all that, it's pathfinding and AI targetting, especially ranged AI though it's improved a bit I noticed for release. Shadows are MEANT to fuck you up hard if you don't approach a fight differently, NOBODY likes shadows and everyone gets fucked by them at first. Again with the (not 100% appropriate) comparison, imagine a shock cav able to teleport anywhere on the battlefield..yea..good luck with that.

So no, that's no "degenerate gameplay", that's actual strategy and tactic. Complain all you want about AI and pathfinding but this has nothing to do with engagement system.