PoE engagement disabled in IE Mod pros and cons

[Kiste]

I'd just like to point out how turn based systems like pathfinder and D&D offer way more options around AoO. You have the disengagement action but, more importantly, the 5-foot step. That means a squishy character can trade moblity for a modicum of safety, move in the direction of other party members and STILL act in the same unit of time. You also have a dedicated skill, acrobatics/tumble (wich gives you other uses outside of battle) and unblanaced spells like sanctuary or shadow door to deal with "engagement".

Oh for fucks sake, this is nitpicking. How many squishies will be heavily invested in the tumble skill? Yeah, thought so. And yes, there's plenty of unblanaced shit in D&D and Pathfinder, which is why I mentioned earlier that AoO ceases to matter in high level gameplay and it's just one of the many reasons why D&D 3E and Pathfinder high level gameplay is such a broken mess. Who gives a fuck if these systems offer "more options"? These games are so disgustingly bloated abominiations that they singlehandedly kickstarted the current wave of lean and lightweight P&P systems, like D&D 5E, Fate and Numenera (the combat rules of the latter one fit on 1 1/2 pages in the book and can be exhaustively explained in about 4 sentences).

The fact remains Engagement works reasonably well as a way for melee chars to keep the enemy in melee and there are ways to deal with it. Discouraging target switching is the main reason we have AoO in these RTwP games since NWN1, because in the IE games, the only legitimate way to do it was through obstruction and it fucking sucked ass. Discouraging target switching is a neccessity if you want the concept of the armored frontline fighter have any meaning at all.

And none of this is actually achieveable by Sensuki's meaningless ideas of having "micro-movements", and "snappy target re-acquistion" and "good AI targeting clauses". We don't need gameplay based on the idea that you're contantly "micro-ing" and repositioning you units in and out of harms way like some spastic Starcraft 2 gook. Party-based CRPGs are not these kind of games and that's precisely why Sensuki's crusade against Engagement is so fucking wrong-headed.

Just have a look at the shit he writes:

The Infinity Engine games. Dungeon Siege, Aarklash Legacy, Age of Empires 2, Battle Realms, Total Annihilation Kingdoms, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Age of Mythology, Starcraft (against zerg etc) ... the list goes on ...

The Infinity Engine was an RTS prototype and the Infinity Engine games play a lot like an RTS with a few player controlled units.

The Infinity Engine was not an "RTS prototype", it was an attempt to implement a real-time Version of the 2nd Ed. AD&D ruleset (which did not feature AoO), presumably to deal with the perceived drawbacks of TBC and to make sex it up for the RTS crowd. I seriously doubt that the aim was to emulate the kind of gameplay found in Warcraft or fucking Diablo and the fact that you honestly think that these games are like "RTS with few player controlled units" is the only reason we're having this stupid debate.

So congratulations,. Sensuski, you spawned the most uneccessary, idiotic debate because you confuse a party-based RTwP CRPGs with goddamn RTS games like Age of Empires and Hack&Slay ARPGs like Dungeon Siege.
Well done, Sensuki, well done. Here, let me give you a fucking medal:

 

[Sensuki]

They used an RTS prototype engine that BioWare were developing and turned it into an RPG, which is why it plays like it does (and what a good thing that is). The only other RPG that produces slick gameplay like this is Aarklash Legacy. Every other engine with full party control is clunky as a motherfuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Engine

Infinity Engine is a game engine which allows the creation of isometric role-playing video games. It was originally developed by BioWare for a prototype RTS game codenamed Battleground Infinity, which was ultimately re-engineered to become the first installment of the Baldur's Gate series.

the only legitimate way to do it was through obstruction and it fucking sucked as

?? Are you bad at games or something? You really think that you had to physically block paths to get units to change targeting? lol?

 

[Kiste]

Still doesn't mean BG was supposed to play like an RTS or an ARPG Hackfest, goddamnit. I still can't believe that you cited that interactive screensaver Dungeon Siege as an example for "good AI targeting clauses, snappy target re-acquistion and enemy AI that actually uses disables themselves". That game virtually played itself. You want these games to be party-based ARPGs? Well, you can fuck off.

 

[Sensuki]

I cited Dungeon Siege as an RPG that doesn't have either Taunt/MMO aggro mechanics or Attacks of Opportunity. I did not enjoy that game but there was nothing wrong with melee combat or targeting. You certainly are on your rags.

Here is an example I just recorded of how easy it is to control aggro in BG1. The first Infinity Engine game. I didn't have my microphone on to explain what I was doing though, oh well.



No cumbersome engagement system required. No taunt system required.

 

[Matalarata]

Oh for fucks sake, this is nitpicking

You're right, facts are oppressive. Only the victim POV matters.
My point is even slow-as-fuck pnp systems allows for more tactical depth, re-read my post. Sensuki is trying to explain how this creates an ever more "degenerate" playstyle than bg, since positioning is so important and adamant once battle begins the optimal way to play PoE is by reloading till you put your tank in the right position. Also the most degenerate build you could do in bg is the invulnerable kensai-mage, draw all the aggro on him, layer defenses and let the rest of the group fire away, does this vaguely resemble something we're playing and discussing in this period?
You've got a really tenuous grasp of pnp systems, you understood nothing of what Sensuki is trying to explain and you know very little of how both pen and paper D&D and it's digital rendition via inifiniy engine play.

diagnosis:

 

[Ellef]

Yeah but you paused seven times, and the proponents of engagements hate that and want the game to decide for them who can move and attack where.

We don't need gameplay based on the idea that you're contantly "micro-ing" and repositioning you units in and out of harms way.

 

[Sensuki]

I paused because I was talking. I didn't realize I didn't have my mic set up in Bandicam (reinstalled Windows - new CPU/mobo etc)

You pause more in Pillars of Eternity because you have to manage engagement and stuff like that.

 

[hiver]

Yeah but you paused seven times, and the proponents of engagements hate that and want the game to decide for them who can move and attack where.

Enagagement does not decide who to move and where to attack - because it does the same thing for every creature in the game, i.e - it makes everyone not move.

Thats all it does right now. Makes combat more static.

Because thats whyt IE games needed, right? Thats what RTwP combat system really needs, right?

You pause more in Pillars of Eternity because you have to manage engagement and stuff like that.

True. So not only does engagement make things more static and paralyzed, bt it also perversely makes players pause even MORE, then before.
Although a fault for that is also due to how movement in general was designed. And super fireworks flashy magic and stuff like that. It all adds up.

Ive been trying to record a few fights to show off my wizard-fighter but all the fights i recorded turned out to be huuuuge drawn out pause fests, where any action is only happening for a few short split-seconds in between all the fucking pausing. Its obnoxious to watch in a video.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

I cited Dungeon Siege as an RPG that doesn't have either Taunt/MMO aggro mechanics or Attacks of Opportunity. I did not enjoy that game but there was nothing wrong with melee combat or targeting. You certainly are on your rags.

Here is an example I just recorded of how easy it is to control aggro in BG1. The first Infinity Engine game. I didn't have my microphone on to explain what I was doing though, oh well.



No cumbersome engagement system required. No taunt system required.

Sensuki -trying to make abusing AI exploits look like legitimate gameplay since 2012

 

[Sensuki]

Problem?

 

[Ellef]

I don't really see pausing as a negative either way, but it's clear that micro'ing isn't well received by people that like engagement. I'm shit at games like Starcraft but it's fun in RTwP imo.

Enagagement does not decide who to move and where to attack - because it does the same thing for every creature in the game, i.e - it makes everyone not move.

Thats all it does right now. Makes combat more static.

Because thats whyt IE games needed, right? Thats what RTwP combat system really needs, right?

Yeah I phrased it poorly, i'm basically saying the same thing as you. Static combat because micro is hobbled with engagement.

 

[Sensuki]

A lot of the people hate tactics but enjoy strategy, or probably confuse tactics with strategy.

 

[hiver]

Yeah I phrased it poorly, i'm basically saying the same thing as you. Static combat because micro is hobbled with engagement.

I know, i wasnt attacking you, just making matters more clear and correct.



/

When we talk about microing... it really depends what exact kind we are discussing.

There isnt just "microing" you know? If there was all there is to it then it will all be like microing units in Starcraft or some such similar RTS - which is clearly not what we need for RPG games.
That is what most people will find easy to argue against as some form of "lol you want to play RTS2/Starcraft/whatever" and thats what Sensuki is doing with his exploitation of bad rules adventures in those videos.

The big difference that should be adhered to is - micro management guided and ruled through skills and mechanics made specifically for the type of the game we want.


THATS FUCKING WHY - my suggestion handles that side of the equation already. It is included as an integral base in my idea.

 

[Kiste]

Oh for fucks sake, this is nitpicking

You're right, facts are oppressive. Only the victim POV matters.

What the fuck are you babbling about? This isn't some GG thread, leave your aspergers OCD shit where it belongs.

My point is even slow-as-fuck pnp systems allows for more tactical depth

And what is the point of making that point? Seriously, what the fuck does it matter with regard to the issue at hand? Are you trying to make the point that the numerous CC abilities and spells in PoE are not sufficient? Do you want some other arbitrarily picked feature from Pathfinder that you are desperately missing in PoE? What IS your fucking point?

You've got a really tenuous grasp of pnp systems, you understood nothing of what Sensuki is trying to explain and you know very little of how both pen and paper D&D and it's digital rendition via inifiniy engine play.

Yes, decades of P&P experience apparently have taught me nothing. Idiot. I understand very well what Sensuki is trying to explain and I think it's a crock of shit.

Here is an example I just recorded of how easy it is to control aggro in BG1. The first Infinity Engine game. I didn't have my microphone on to explain what I was doing though, oh well.
No cumbersome engagement system required. No taunt system required.

Continuing the great tradition of videos of small controlled, isolated encounters that tell you fuck all, like your PoE kiting video. It's over so quickly, that you can't even tell how enemy targeting actually works.

It appears that the only way this could possibly work is if the AI is wilfully dumb and continues to attack the dude in armor instead of completely ignoring him and going after the little girl in the pink dress and maul her until she is fucking dead, which is what the player would do. If you even have the most basic, primitive AI that prioritizes the most dangerous and the squishiest characters then you need something like AoO/Engagement or even fucking taunt to compensate for it or the game becomes a retarded race of "who beelines and kills the squishies first".

You are quite literally making the point that the AI targeting should suck so that you can have your unit-microing Starcraft-RTS-style gameplay in a CRPG, unencumbered by any AoO or Engagement considerations.

We don't need gameplay based on the idea that you're contantly "micro-ing" and repositioning you units in and out of harms way.

Yes, I'm sorry, but the last time I played P&P D&D, which was last week, our squishies didn't "micro" back and forth like some fucking Starcraft Marines and at the end of the day, these games are still supposed to be CRPGs, i.e. videogames that try to emulate the P&P experience. Nothing of the RTS gameplay Sensuki envisions has anything to do with "RPG".

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Oh for fucks sake, this is nitpicking. How many squishies will be heavily invested in the tumble skill? Yeah, thought so. And yes, there's plenty of unblanaced shit in D&D and Pathfinder, which is why I mentioned earlier that AoO ceases to matter in high level gameplay and it's just one of the many reasons why D&D 3E and Pathfinder high level gameplay is such a broken mess.

AoOs and other melee positioning and zone-of-control mechanics break down in high-level D&D (and other fantasy combat systems) because the idea of a "front line", manned by earthbound (demi)humans, completely flounders against enemies with powerful mobility options. What good are three stalwart dudes with sword and board to defend "back line" squishies against:

-an Ankheg that can burrow underground?
-a Golem that can (Improved) Bull Rush right through a formation?
-a Dragon that can fly over them?
-an enemy fighter with a Fly or Jump spell cast upon them?
-an Illithid that can travel through the Ethereal Plane?
-an opposing Fighter/Mage/Thief with a Dimension Door/Shadow Door sequencer?
-a Balor that can Teleport Without Error at will?

Simply put, enemy mobility options eventually render the typical adventuring parties' formations obsolete A "line of defense", albeit one that has a good degree of flexibility through superhuman abilities and magic, cannot hold against fantastic foes. Such antagonists are simply too mobile.

Because of this tactical reality, squishies have to be, well...less squishy; enemies will eventually get to them and thus they need to be prepared for these occasions. Mages need defensive spells like Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Dimension Door, and/or various illusions. Clerics have their decent Armor Class to fal back on, but also have buffs and Sanctuary-like spells to fall back upon. Thieves usually have to rely on magical trinkets to go invisible (a clear flaw in D&D-likes). And Fighters...well, they're "tank" and "DPS" rolled into one. They aren't squishy in the least.

It might not be the most elegant set of systems, but the Infinity Engine games are relatively robust in dealing with these sorts of things, evidenced by playing with modded AI like Sword Coast Strategems. There are plenty of defensive measures to fall back on when your line is inevitably breached. Illusions, Abjurations, or simply running the hell away.

Can PoE make a similar boast? Based on all the complaining about Shades/Shadows ignoring player formations and warping to their wizards, I'm going to guess not. In fact, I'm certain Engagement mechanics only exacerbate this problem, nailing squishies with a brutal disengagement attack for trying to get to safety, else forcing them to use an ability they might not have.

It seems like a lot of devs get the idea that tactics means shoehorning in positioning/formation mechanics that aren't germane to the systems or gameworld (because lines were, as the Buzzfeed/Gawker types say, "a thing" in Classical/Medieval times and most RPGs are based on those time periods) and PoE might have bee another victim of this syndrome.

TL;DFR: Don't make positioning mechanics in a system where many of the units lol heartily at them.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Problem?

The biggest critic of PoE's combat system is a high-functioning autist who likes to analyse AI targeting triggers in his free time.

You have some very peculiar ideas of what exactly constitutes good tactical gameplay. As it happens, the horrid bastardchild clusterfuck of a combat system that we have in the IE games perfectly fits your special needs and tastes, but that doesn't mean it is anything other games should be universaly judged against.

There is difinitely a lot of shit wrong with the engagement system in PoE (shit that in my opinion is fixable by a few major tweaks) - but claiming that this kind of system and AoOs can have absolutely no place in RT games is simply ridiculous.

 

[Kingston]

What the fuck ... aspergers OCD shit

Seriously, what the fuck

What IS your fucking point?

Idiot ... crock of shit.

tell you fuck all

even fucking taunt

Looks like someone is getting... aggroed.

 

[Sensuki]

The biggest critic of PoE's combat system is a high-functioning autist who likes to analyse AI targeting triggers in his free time.

You have some very peculiar ideas of what exactly constitutes good tactical gameplay. As it happens, the horrid bastardchild clusterfuck of a combat system that we have in the IE games perfectly fits your special needs and tastes, but that doesn't mean it is anything other games should be universaly judged against.

Do you even know what tactical gameplay is?

"Please mummy, I didn't like the Infinity Engine games, make the game more like a turn-based game"

Continuing the great tradition of videos of small controlled, isolated encounters that tell you fuck all, like your PoE kiting video. It's over so quickly, that you can't even tell how enemy targeting actually works.

It appears that the only way this could possibly work is if the AI is wilfully dumb and continues to attack the dude in armor instead of completely ignoring him and going after the little girl in the pink dress and maul her until she is fucking dead, which is what the player would do. If you even have the most basic, primitive AI that prioritizes the most dangerous and the squishiest characters then you need something like AoO/Engagement or even fucking taunt to compensate for it or the game becomes a retarded race of "who beelines and kills the squishies first".

You are quite literally making the point that the AI targeting should suck so that you can have your unit-microing Starcraft-RTS-style gameplay in a CRPG, unencumbered by any AoO or Engagement considerations.

The Hobgoblin AI re-targets Imoen every so often if she is in range, and you can correct it using the same method I just used. The Infinity Engine games use grid-based pathfinding, so there are cases where you can block spaces on the grid that stop the re-targeting.

If you want a more specific example that is easy for me to re-produce (e.g., I loaded a pre-genned character and beelined straight for that area in the game), I can make it. It's pretty clear though that you don't understand how the AI targeting works in the Infinity Engine games in the first place, and you're just calling it bad.

It's also very clear how the AI works. The AI checks for a new target every frame (as it changes targets to a different character the very frame after the retreating one moves out of range). Then after a period of time, it runs it's loop again.

The Pillars of Eternity AI is rudimentary, possibly even more so than Baldur's Gate 1. Josh Sawyer used that very word to describe it on his tumblr or formspring or whatever and Steve Weatherly their AI programmer said it would be simple.

 

[Kiste]

Looks like someone is getting... aggroed.

Nah, I pretty much always write like this, unless I'm being superserial.

 

[Kiste]

The Hobgoblin AI re-targets Imoen every so often if she is in range, and you can correct it using the same method I just used. The Infinity Engine games use grid-based pathfinding, so there are cases where you can block spaces on the grid that stop the re-targeting.

And how on earth does this invalidate anything I have written.

 

[Sensuki]

You have been complaining about the lack of aggro in the Infinity Engine games, yet all you have to do is just use positioning and re-positioning. These systems would have likely already been in place when the game was Battleground Infinity.

If you want enemies to attack your "tank" you position them closest to the enemies, much like you do in Pillars of Eternity. If melee enemies change targets, you move your characters to keep the enemy onto who you want them to be attacking. All the tools are there.

I'm not sure what your problem is exactly, do you want the player to be able to control enemy targeting or not?

 

[Kiste]

You have been complaining about the lack of aggro in the Infinity Engine games, yet all you have to do is just use positioning and re-positioning. These systems would have likely already been in place when the game was Battleground Infinity.

So you keep "microing" Imoen to fuck up AI targeting and that's your gameplay solution to keeping enemies engaged with the tanks? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Matalarata]

Yes, decades of P&P experience apparently have taught me nothing.

At least you admit it. Good, knowing you're a retard who wasted "decades" and learnt nothing is the first step, 'gratz!
And just randomly from the top of my mind, squishies DO invest in tumble/acrobatics, or in your "decades" of pnp you never saw a rogue. Wizards gets 4+int skill points, if you do not invest in tumble/acrobatics you're a Kiste retard.
AoO do not lose effectiveness at high level, except for the point Edward_R_Murrow wrote above, they still define humanoid vs humanoid combat wich is a big thing, also 75% of the creatures in the manual are subject to normal move rules so AoO again.

AoO in a turn based game (we can use another system if you hate D&D, since you have little knoweledge of ACTUAL D&D/pathfinder) simulate an action performed at an unspecified time, during a discreet time unit. Said time unit is lacking in a real time game, hence you have this clusterfuck of a combat system, where if you misclick an attack your whole party (engaged members) gets multishotted for moving around 3 pixel.
You have shadows wich are coded to go after the member with less defense (great encounter design!) and teleport behind the frontlines, your tactical options at this point are a) let your mage die b) let your tank or any other char be AoOed for half his hp to TRY and make something (not chanters, barbarians, rogues you need a paralyze/stone or a prone effect to free you mage).
Other options are the first level cleric spell wich cures+banishes a character or grimoire slam

And by the way, I play with engagement on. The game unfortunately has been designed around that and won't work otherwise without extensive modding.

Again were you not

you'd try to add some facts (harassment) to your posts, instead of pouring bellyfeels itt

 

[Sensuki]

So you keep "microing" Imoen to fuck up AI targeting and that's your gameplay solution to keeping enemies engaged with the tanks? Are you fucking kidding me?

I talked about what I was doing in the video but as I said, didn't have the mic selected when I recorded. The first movement I made was to move Imoen forward so the Wild Dog would attack Imoen. I then moved my Fighter forward and moved Imoen behind him to 'correct' this mistake. The Wild Dog then targeted my tank.

Then when the Hobgoblin came down, he was targeting my Tank. I moved Imoen forward and my Tank back so that he would target Imoen to simulate "me fucking up", and then I did the same move - moved Imoen back and moved my Tank forward, the Hobgoblin then retargeted my Tank.

What exactly is your problem with this? If a Bear is coming to attack Aloth in Pillars of Eternity, you move him back and you send Eder in to "engage the Bear" and the bear targets Eder. As I have demonstrated in the video, this scenario occurs in Baldur's Gate without an engagement system. So if that is the case, then why is an engagement system needed to make melee units sticky?

 

[Kiste]

Matalarata
I'm not really interested in some retarded "You don't know what you're taking about kekekekeke" debate with an idiot, so I'm not going to grace you with any further answers.

AoOs and other melee positioning and zone-of-control mechanics break down in high-level D&D (and other fantasy combat systems) because the idea of a "front line", manned by earthbound (demi)humans, completely flounders against enemies with powerful mobility options. What good are three stalwart dudes with sword and board to defend "back line" squishies against:
[...]
Simply put, enemy mobility options eventually render the typical adventuring parties' formations obsolete A "line of defense", albeit one that has a good degree of flexibility through superhuman abilities and magic, cannot hold against fantastic foes. Such antagonists are simply too mobile.

Yup, that's it basically and it's a problem because....

Because of this tactical reality, squishies have to be, well...less squishy; enemies will eventually get to them and thus they need to be prepared for these occasions. Mages need defensive spells like Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Dimension Door, and/or various illusions. Clerics have their decent Armor Class to fal back on, but also have buffs and Sanctuary-like spells to fall back upon. Thieves usually have to rely on magical trinkets to go invisible (a clear flaw in D&D-likes). And Fighters...well, they're "tank" and "DPS" rolled into one. They aren't squishy in the least.

...of this. High Level D&D 3E and PF both suffer from this dissolution of basic combat roles. "Squishies" stop being particularly squishy, so they don't really require the presence of "tank" style characters anymore. They end up being sufficiently robust (in the sense of being able to deal with most threats), significantly more powerful in terms of damage and with signifcantly more utility and cool shit to do compared to melee characters, which, at some point, become kind of obsolete and, quite frankly, incredibly boring to play compared to spellcasters. High Level D&D 3E and PF gameplay degenerates into a straight up spellcaster shitfest. An adventuring group that had to rely on and complement each other at lower levels eventually turns into "a wizard and his bag-carriers", even though, technically, everyone is a frigging superhero at those levels.

This is why, in my opinion, it is important in any RPG system that squishies stay squishy and that "tanks" retain their basic function of keeping shit away from the squishies. In order to do that, you need some sort of game mechanic that lets you maintain a "line of defense", as well as game mechanics that neccessitate such a line of defense in the first place. Not being protected by a tank must be a real threat to a squishy and that also means it can't be as simple as being able to simply move away.