Engagement System Questions

[Darth Roxor]

When each fight devolves into mobbing a chokepoint, yes, that's degenerate gameplay, and I give precisely 0 fucks about your supposed realism or other shit. Strategy and tactics? Lmao. It's about as strategic and tactical as Diablo where making enemies attack you one-by-one through doorways was the way to go as well.

 

[Grunker]

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.

1. Who cares how you play? Can we agree that to play optimally you need to keep tabs on engagement? That there is no disadvantage in meticoulously identifying the engagement-tethers in each fight? What the game rewards you for is what it incentivices. I'm sure Josh would agree. And you are rewarded for keeping tabs on engagement.

2. Due to engagement, my fight with Raedric went as follows: a) sent eder forward, trigger dialogue. b) end dialogue, eder runs, gets engaged by three dudes. c) break engagement, fall to near-zero hit points. d) reach backline, enemies get funneled into a storm of AoE-spells.

Now, because of the way engagement works, there really isn't any wiggle-room for this strategy. If the first four steps fail (say one of the enemy has his AI decide to run to my backline directly and engage instead of chasing Eder), combat is basically over. Spending my time at that point to cast Wizard's Double and disengage means one less AoE spell, and casting while tagged is impossible: i will get to cast one spell then die.

This is not an interesting game of tanky-cat vs. Squishy-mouse as it would be if melee/ranged was a checks & balances game of stickyness and avoidance. Rather, it is a matter of whether the beginning of combat goes according to plan or not. If I played at normal, I could probably roll with the punches. However because the system is so deterministic, that's what my team of eder + paladin + aloth + cipher can do if I want an actual challenge. The irony here is that alot of this 4-5 or seconds of opening combat comes down to random factors (like what the AI decides to do and whether it grazes or hits on eder's disengagement).

Now there's an argument that I just build my characters poorly. That my party is bad. I'll allow for such an explanation but not without pointing out the irony of this is the context of a game that supposedly can allow for creative building. However there is no question that with this party at least, that strategy was the correct way to beat Raedric. Which means that the game's first crowning challenge was a intense 4 or 5 opening seconds of kiting, and then a predictable and completely deterministic 30 second mob-up where my tank's engagement meant the enemy couldn't move while I put them down with predictable AoE.

My problem remains that there is no thinking on my feet. No wrenches thrown into my planning. Everything comes down to pre-determined factors. I'm not changing as I go, I'm not reacting to enemy spells cast or abilities used. I'm just waiting until I execute the opening sequence properly. In the IE-games I find myself constantly adapting to whatever enemies are doing - mainly if they're casters. I react to what happens with my own guys - do they get damaged, stripped of protections or CC'ed? If someone is stunned, I cast Remove Paralysis. If a caster is vulnerable, I cast invisibility from a trigger and run. If a priest is wounded, I send him away to cast Heal, hoping the time is there. In PoE, if I punch in the correct way during the beginning of combat, the opposition goes down, 100%. If I don't, I get beat. There's little adaption here, and Engagement plays a huge part in that.

3. This is a plain strawmen, and an incredibly disappointing and transparant one at that. It's a banal, unequivocal truth that you have less control over characters in a real time environment than a turn-based. I'm not some TB-zealot: all my favourite games are RTwP. I'm stating the obvious fact that when I have all the time in the world to decide _exactly_ what my character does on a set grid, I have more control than when I am trying to reflex-micro a character on a vague gridless plane. When you take control away from the player, you need to allow for a bit more wiggle-room when the player's intend with control differs a slight bit in execution - for instance because of pathfinding or because a piece of debris had a larger zone of impossible movement than first anticipated. Engagement is a mechanic directly lifted from a turn-based environment which presumes complete control on the part of the player, and that control simply isn't there. PoE allows for a margin of error that assumes the player is in absolute control.

So no, this is probably the part of my argument that is least "just opinion." If you seriously want to argue that there is no qualitative difference between the control you exercise in chess and in PoE, then you are so stuck in lala-land and discussion is pointless. If your point is that there's no imparative to allow for larger margins of error with less control, then I suppose that's fair, but I can't think of anyone who thinks "fun" is making sure you're character is placed 1 inch to the left instead of to the right in an RTwP RPG. Fun is supposed to come from using your abilities in tactical ways to beat whatever challenge you're presented with.

 

[mutonizer]

My problem remains that there is no thinking on my feet. No wrenches thrown into my planning. Everything comes down to pre-determined factors. I'm not changing as I go, I'm not reacting to enemy spells cast or abilities used. I'm just waiting until I execute the opening sequence properly.

Not disagreeing, but that's an AI problem to some extent and an ability problem as well. Engagement system has nothing to do with anything you just explained and that's pretty much exactly how a IE fight would go APART from the fact that nor you (or the enemy) can simply run past your front liners without any problem in PoE, which is the purpose of that system in a way. For example, in that fight, you can't send your crazy barbarian right through everyone and onto the archmage, unless you stabilize the frontline (or take disagement attacks, use abilities and whatnot). In IE games, you could just ignore all the goons and just rush onto the dangerous fellas and gib them with ease. I mean just look at Sensuki playing IWD since he mentioned his videos, there's nothing in there but cheap abuse of a weak system. Can't do that here, at least not that easily and not with melee characters.
Now, that leaves casters (but they are limited by resources) but above all, ranged, which are THE major offenders for abuse and cheese play in PoE I think. No inventory management, no ammo management, no penalty when in melee or shooting in melee, all that means that you can cheese with great ease. No a huge deal for me since I don't play like that when I can avoid it, but again, just look at Sensuki: First thing he did to replace his "rush through everything and melee them big dudes" was "cheese with ranged and shot everything". Me personally, I'd love a mod that gives an ACC penalty if you shoot into melee as well as ACC penalty when you have a ranged and are engaged, limit access to stash (putting and getting) only in specific places and have an ammo system but apparently people just mod to makes things easier and cheese even cheesier, not sure why.

An SCS mod for PoE (hopefully that will come at some point) could be a way to shape things around a bit for what you described, just as it did for IE games, but again, not related to engagement system whatsoever. It's likely however that it'll be harder for the AI in PoE because of the engagment system and the pathfinding issues.

 

[Gerrard]

If you think you should be able to freely turn around and run away from a melee opponent without getting stabbed in the back then it's you who is stupid.
And don't go "muh real time combat", because the game has something as ridiculous as "recovery time" where wearing heavier armor apparently means you have to wait 3 seconds after swinging a sword once, just because.

The problem with this system in PoE compared to NWN games is that here you cannot move at all, whereas in NWN you were able to move a small distance every round without triggering AoOs.

 

[mutonizer]

The problem with this system in PoE compared to NWN games is that here you cannot move at all, whereas in NWN you were able to move a small distance every round without triggering AoOs.

Yea, the no "step" mechanic is a pain, 100% agree on that. Plenty different ways to implement it that would fit PoE's context however so hopefully it'll come at some point.

 

[Grunker]

My problem remains that there is no thinking on my feet. No wrenches thrown into my planning. Everything comes down to pre-determined factors. I'm not changing as I go, I'm not reacting to enemy spells cast or abilities used. I'm just waiting until I execute the opening sequence properly.

Not disagreeing, but that's an AI problem to some extent and an ability problem as well. Engagement system has nothing to do with anything you just explained and that's pretty much exactly how a IE fight would go APART from the fact that nor you (or the enemy) can simply run past your front liners without any problem in PoE, which is the purpose of that system in a way. For example, in that fight, you can't send your crazy barbarian right through everyone and onto the archmage, unless you stabilize the frontline (or take disagement attacks, use abilities and whatnot). In IE games, you could just ignore all the goons and just rush onto the dangerous fellas and gib them with ease. I mean just look at Sensuki playing IWD since he mentioned his videos, there's nothing in there but cheap abuse of a weak system. Can't do that here, at least not that easily and not with melee characters.
Now, that leaves casters (but they are limited by resources) but above all, ranged, which are THE major offenders for abuse and cheese play in PoE I think. No inventory management, no ammo management, no penalty when in melee or shooting in melee, all that means that you can cheese with great ease. No a huge deal for me since I don't play like that when I can avoid it, but again, just look at Sensuki: First thing he did to replace his "rush through everything and melee them big dudes" was "cheese with ranged and shot everything". Me personally, I'd love a mod that gives an ACC penalty if you shoot into melee as well as ACC penalty when you have a ranged and are engaged, limit access to stash (putting and getting) only in specific places and have an ammo system but apparently people just mod to makes things easier and cheese even cheesier, not sure why.

An SCS mod for PoE (hopefully that will come at some point) could be a way to shape things around a bit for what you described, just as it did for IE games, but again, not related to engagement system whatsoever. It's likely however that it'll be harder for the AI in PoE because of the engagment system and the pathfinding issues.

Everything you say here is wrong basically (well except the part about not disagreeing with me ).

A) Engagement has everything to do with it. The very reason I can't roll with the punches is that it is not viable to maneuver around them. Say my initial rush to a priest goes wrong, and he gets a good AoE aura spell off. My roll-with-the-punches choice here is to at least get out after the initial burst and take the fight elsewhere. However engagement prevents this. I am weighing options: staying in the AoE = death, moving from the AoE causing disengagement = death. Result: combat hinges on whether or not the initial positioning goes according to plan.

B) It is not every IE-fight. See above. If I position myself improperly and take an AoE spell hit, I can maneuver to mitigate the problem. The fight will be less clean, but I can still emerge victorious. PoE so far, for me, doesn't have unclean fights, really, it has victories and defeats, and not a lot of middle ground between the two. This is due to engagement.

C) PoE doesn't really need an SCS mod IMO. The game is superior to stock IE-fights (as in: trash mob fights) in the vast majority of cases. Fighting Skuldr in PoE is loads more fun than fighting Gnolls in BG1. I also don't have many issues with the AI, I find it competent. The problems people have with shades I find to be a little whiny to be honest. Josh's tight balancing really pays off in a lot of places. The way abilities work feel really polished, the character system is good, enemy behaviour is fine (I had one glorious fight on Raedric's battlements against two paladins a priest and an archer where the paladins would attempt to willfully engage my tanks to allow the priest to give them the edge in the tank vs. tank). Most of my problems here are niggles, like enemies being too eager to attack confused team mates (making my confusion spell Numero Uno in the world of CC). But really, balance and enemy behaviour is light-years ahead of vanilla IE.

 

[Grunker]

Also, while roshan is a whiny cunt, this:

Pathfinding is completely screwed up. I order a character to attack an enemy that's right beside her, and she instead decides to run all the way around the whole clusterfuck of enemies

is by far my biggest problem with pathfinding currently, and it's just another knock against engagement. It's the margin-of-error thing again: the system wants tight control, and it just can't offer it.

 

[mutonizer]

A) Engagement has everything to do with it. The very reason I can't roll with the punches is that it is not viable to maneuver around them. Say my initial rush to a priest goes wrong, and he gets a good AoE aura spell off. My roll-with-the-punches choice here is to at least get out after the initial burst and take the fight elsewhere. However engagement prevents this. I am weighing options: staying in the AoE = death, moving from the AoE causing disengagement = death. Result: combat hinges on whether or not the initial positioning goes according to plan.

Hmm, disengagement is just like one attack man, even on PotD I break engagement constantly when I feel I need to or when it pays off. Really not having the same experience of things here, like we're not playing the same game or something.

C) PoE doesn't really need an SCS mod IMO. The game is superior to stock IE-fights (as in: trash mob fights) in the vast majority of cases. Fighting Skuldr in PoE is loads more fun than fighting Gnolls in BG1. I also don't have many issues with the AI, I find it competent. The problems people have with shades I find to be a little whiny to be honest. Josh's tight balancing really pays off in a lot of places. The way abilities work feel really polished, the character system is good, enemy behaviour is fine (I had one glorious fight on Raedric's battlements against two paladins a priest and an archer where the paladins would attempt to willfully engage my tanks to allow the priest to give them the edge in the tank vs. tank). Most of my problems here are niggles, like enemies being too eager to attack confused team mates (making my confusion spell Numero Uno in the world of CC). But really, balance and enemy behaviour is light-years ahead of vanilla IE.

Well at least we agree on that part, PoE is indeed to me as well light years ahead of IE games and really having a blasting in battles. My main issue with AI currently is it's use of abilities/spells. Though it's lessened in release (I think so far), they still front load a bit too much with little effect sometimes and lack spell variety for same kind of mob type (mainly for humans really). It's nit-picking though.
Path-finding can be a bitch though sometimes, but yea, it's a lot due to little crap on the ground blocking or not blocking, sometimes without reason.

As a note, can't comment on lower difficulties but on Potd, you get packs of like 2 shades and 6 shadows, with shades having like 70 DEF for your 30-40 ACC guys and all that. Fucking nightmare man! Good fun though.

 

[Grunker]

Well at least we agree on that part, PoE is indeed to me as well light years ahead of IE games.

You really need to read my posts more carefully bro.

The game is superior to stock IE-fights (as in: trash mob fights) in the vast majority of cases. [...] balance and enemy behaviour is light-years ahead of vanilla IE.

You have a habit of taking my very specific points and warping them into generalized comments

As of now, I consider key IE-fights which plays with a lot of those games systems superior to PoE's fights, and a lot of that is due to the way engagement bogs down decision-making to the first couple of seconds, making those feel frantic and the rest of the fight comparatively tedious.

 

[mutonizer]

Fine, we don't agree on anything and I hate you too.

Key-fights might just be because of the game system (D&D), not IE mechanics, though I really can't recall any non SCS key fights being that interesting. Got an example just to refresh my memory?

 

[Grunker]

Got an example just to refresh my memory?

Every single fight involving enemy spellcasters. In before you say "nu-uh with complete system mastery it's a walkover" which is true of any RPG ever. We're arguing what the mechanics support, not what the difficulty is.

SCS is obviously haevan, but that's another story entirely.

 

[mutonizer]

Every single fight involving enemy spellcasters. In before you say "nu-uh with complete system mastery it's a walkover" which is true of any RPG ever. We're arguing what the mechanics support, not what the difficulty is.

Then we do agree somewhat (I only consider them interesting with SCS really) and to me that comes down the game system itself and what spells casters have access to as well as how the AI uses them. Poe casters are not as interesting as D&D casters I think, especially wizards. Not really sure how engagement plays a part here, apart from the fact that you can't as easily cheese them by rushing your melee DPSers past everyone and insta-gib them, which I think is great

 

[Grunker]

Not really sure how engagement plays a part here

Last repetition, then I'm done with this: if you make a mistake in the opening of an IE fight against a spellcaster, you can rally and maneuver to cut your losses and win the fight less cleanly. If you make a mistak in the opening of a PoE-fight, you are probably dead, because that means you are locked in a deadly engagement and faced with taking multiple disengagement hits or staying in an exposed AoE area where you can't get to the important foes.

PoE's system supports interesting fights just as well as IE's does, it's the engagement that prohibits the system from reaching it's full potential.

 

[mutonizer]

Last repetition, then I'm done with this: if you make a mistake in the opening of an IE fight against a spellcaster, you can rally and maneuver to cut your losses and win the fight less cleanly. If you make a mistak in the opening of a PoE-fight, you are probably dead, because that means you are locked in a deadly engagement and faced with taking multiple disengagement hits or staying in an exposed AoE area where you can't get to the important foes.

I see.

Well, to me that makes fights more interesting and cut down the cheese, at least that one. So while it indeed does what you say it does (though dis-engagement attacks are just that: one attack, not some mysterious one shot kill attack or something), whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing is just personal opinion.

 

[Grunker]

stay in school kids, don't do relativism

 

[Ellef]

"don't do relativism"

 

[Doktor Best]

I kinda have to agree with both sides here: IE system was suboptimal because kiting was cheesy and too easy to apply and also intercepting enemies was kinda random and not intuitive, POE system is interesting but also reducing the dynamics of a fight because of harsh punishment of repositioning.

I like how it incentives you to prepare repositioning though (as in you have to apply cc/shield your companion in order for him to move, the problem is you cannot cc every enemy and there is no proper option to shield someone, atleast not to the point i reached in this game)

Proposal: Why dont you implent a new ability which you can use 1-2 times each encounter which gives you like a 2-3 seconds immunity to disengangement? to everyone? link it to perception on how long/well it works and boom you even strengthen that stat which is quite underpowered at the moment.

Then you have the good of both worlds: You have to actively think how to use that ability to reposition, giving you a pool of mistakes you may make each fight. Another plus side is that it makes long, dramatic fights even more nervwrecking because you are facing more possibilites to find yourself in the need to reposition but you only have a fixed amount of immunities.



The far bigger problem than disengagement though is the pathfinding. Any word on when/if you are planning to fix it maybe?

 

[mutonizer]

stay in school kids, don't do relativism

Geesh, you keep repeating that then go on describing a mechanic mixed with just giving your opinions as if they were obvious facts. I agree with what you say engagement does mechanically but while doing so, you make it as if that's an obvious problem, to which my answer is: that's your fucking problem because to me, it's a solution.

So shove up your one-liners and get off your high horses.

 

[Makabb]

We have to clear one thing up, you don't play PoE for the combat.

 

[Seari]

You don't play any game for the combat nowadays.

 

[panda]

My problem remains that there is no thinking on my feet. No wrenches thrown into my planning. Everything comes down to pre-determined factors. I'm not changing as I go, I'm not reacting to enemy spells cast or abilities used. I'm just waiting until I execute the opening sequence properly.

Not disagreeing, but that's an AI problem to some extent and an ability problem as well. Engagement system has nothing to do with anything you just explained...

Actually engagement system directly promotes this type of gameplay, and that is what people keep saying in this thread.

Earlier you said:

Using chokepoints to control the battle is like basic strategy 101.

But engagement system allows creation of artificial chokepoints everywhere. That is the point. Whoever stuck in enemy chokepoint will lose because it "is like basic strategy 101" indeed.
And, because lockdown happens naturally within first 5 seconds, fights pretty much come down to this: whether you(your damage dealers) avoid being caught or not. Just as simple as that. Binary outcome which mostly depends on initial positioning.

In other words:

No wrenches thrown into my planning. Everything comes down to pre-determined factors. I'm not changing as I go, I'm not reacting to enemy spells cast or abilities used. I'm just waiting until I execute the opening sequence properly.

 

[Grunker]

Geesh, you keep repeating that then go on describing a mechanic mixed with just giving your opinions as if they were obvious facts. I agree with what you say engagement does mechanically but while doing so, you make it as if that's an obvious problem, to which my answer is: that's your fucking problem because to me, it's a solution.

So shove up your one-liners and get off your high horses.

Me: "interesting choices are taken out of the main part of combat because of engagement,"

You: "yeah but that's just, like, your opinion, man"

Don't ask me to take that seriously. Obviously combat that is interesting all the way through and asks you to adapt and make choices constantly is better than 4 or 5 seconds of frantic, high stakes micro-movement. Calling that debate a matter of opinion is 7th grade level arguing. You may disagree with what I say, but actually saying "I agree it's like that but man maybe people just like combat being decided by opening positioning and not continious tactical decision making" is the very definition of relativism.

EDIT: panda sums it up perfectly, really.

We have to clear one thing up, you don't play PoE for the combat.

Of course you do. There are many interesting choices in combat, they're only impaired by the engagement-system, not utterly crushed by them at all. So far (who knows if it'll hold) it's one of the better combat systems I've played.

 

[mutonizer]

But engagement system allows creation of artificial chokepoints everywhere. That is the point. Whoever stuck in enemy chokepoint will lose because it "is like basic strategy 101" indeed.
And, because lockdown happens naturally within first 5 seconds, fights pretty much come down to this: whether you(your damage dealers) avoid being caught or not. Just as simple as that. Binary outcome which mostly depends on initial positioning.

That's kind of the point and why it's basic strategy 101. You try and stabilize the enemy in one place, then try to outflank/outmanuever him. Of course it's limited after that by AI, pathfinding and whatnot, but engagement brings that, for the enemies sure, but mostly for you as well, unlike IE games where you could just walk past everyone and gib the big bad, THEN mop up.

Me: "interesting choices are taken out of the main part of combat because of engagement,"
You: "yeah but that's just, like, your opinion, man"

Don't ask me to take that seriously. Obviously combat that is interesting all the way through and asks you to adapt and make choices constantly is better than 4 or 5 seconds of frantic, high stakes micro-movement. Calling that debate a matter of opinion is 7th grade level arguing. You may disagree with what I say, but actually saying "I agree it's like that but man maybe people just like combat being decided by opening positioning and not continious tactical decision making" is the very definition of relativism.

That's my point and why it's YOUR opinion (bolded parts). YOU think it's taking out "interesting choices", I think it's taking out bullshit and cheesy combat mechanics and making things instead more interesting by fights being more stable overall. And yes I like being able to ensure a win combat by good (relatively speaking) battle plans if I can and careful approach. The actual tactical side may not always go perfectly (random being random and other factors), but that's called strategy. If things start going down the toilet or if I'm ambushed (therefore my strategy didn't work, or I didn't have time to set it up), I still have the tools to react accordingly, with spells, abilities or just eating up a couple disengagement attacks to reposition, and while I agree that it's harder in PoE, that's only because it's the whole point as it was complete crap in IE games, at least for me.

We have to clear one thing up, you don't play PoE for the combat.

You don't, I do, well in part of a whole at least.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

You don't play any game for the combat nowadays.

Underrail.

 

[gunman]

Sorry if it has been answered earlier but I didn't read the entire thread and I don't want to open a separate topic just for this question:

Can you escape from an unwinabble fight? Can you end the combat without killing all the enemies and/or exit the map?

I was thinking if something like that works: some of the party members become unconscious, have one character lure the enemies away and then become somehow invisible by spell or skill. Will this trigger the end of combat?