PoE engagement disabled in IE Mod pros and cons

[Sensuki]

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.

What a load of shit. "Squishies" in Pillars of Eternity have low Deflection and lower Health, so if they get attacked they take high damage. Just because some problems exist in Pathfinder or 3E at high level play, that does not reflect what Pillars of Eternity should play like at the low to mid levels. The Melee Engagement system also does not facilitate 'tankiness' and it does not make it easier to form a line of defense. Furthermore, if every RPG followed that principle it would be a fucking boring world to live in. Also FTR, as you keep referencing 3E and Pathfinder - Baldur's Gate 1, Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale were based off the AD&D 2E ruleset. The only Infinity Engine game that wasn't was IWD2 and it was "Sawyerized", anyway.

 

[Matalarata]

I'm not really interested in some retarded "You don't know what you're taking about kekekekeke" debate

Fixed it for you! I don't know why that tl;dr of your previous posts was there but I'm friendly enough to remove it and make your point clear!
I still think you could simply admit being a retard and shut us all up.

Also pathfinder is basically free, document yourself before further embarassment...

 

[Kiste]

Just because some problems exist in Pathfinder or 3E at high level play, that does not reflect what Pillars of Eternity should play like

Just because you keep rubbing one out to retarded RTS gameplay does not mean that's what Pillars of Eternity should play like.

Baldur's Gate 1, Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale were based off the AD&D 2E ruleset.

Thank you great Sensuki for reminding me of this fact. That's totally new to me. And I am also certain that the lack of AoO was totally because the goal was some sort of RTS microing shitfest gameplay and not because there were no AoO in AD&D 2nd (discounting splatbooks).

May I quote Exitiums IWDII Codex Review?
Just as well, Icewind Dale II isn't entirely faithful to the 3rd Edition Rules. There are several glaring omissions of the official rules from the game, most notably the Attacks of Opportunity that are present in the pen and paper game, in Bioware's Neverwinter Nights and even in Pool of Radiance 2. The lack of that feature's presence hinders the game play from being much better than it could be now, when you consider the fact that the Attacks of Opportunity are one of the 3rd Edition's largest tactical implements, not present in 2nd Edition rules which the Infinity Engine was designed for.

 

[Sensuki]

quoting Excidium

Yeah I get it, you want a turn-based game. However you have no idea what tactical means.

 

[Kiste]

However you have no idea what tactical means.

*shrug* Whatever you have to tell yourself.

 

[Norfleet]

Not even NWN2 was this obnoxious with its AoO. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember there you can move characters a little without triggering AoO from everyone.

Well, in D&D, only full moves trigger an AOO. If you merely shuffle with your 5' freemove, you don't trigger anything. PoE's engagement mechanic is probably a little too static, having lines of guys locked in place exchanging blows until one of them dies without moving in the slightest just doesn't seem all that realistic and resembles no melee fight I have ever been in, where combatants typically move and circle a great deal, with movement often dominating the bulk of the engagement without any blows being struck at all. If you turn and run, or try to run past your opponent, you get stabbed. That's why you circle, trying to get a shot at a vulnerable area. Of course, your opponent can see it, so he turns as well, and the entire dance continues. Observe dogs fighting.

 

[hiver]

quoting Excidium

Yeah I get it, you want a turn-based game. However you have no idea what tactical means.

Neither of you two knows this.

Sensuki because you keep replacing tactics driven by stats and skills with real time twicth play - in a fucking rpg.
(i.e your ideas about microing whetever in the game, relying on player twitch skills)

Kiste because he thinks the current super idiotic implementation achieves any of the effects he pretends it does, while pretending none of the negative ones exist.

 

[Sensuki]

When you're fighting one on one - however these are group vs group combat games, which play out differently.

I think the Infinity Engine games do a good job of portraying the feeling of chaotic small group vs small group combat

 

[Kiste]

Him because he thinks the current super idiotic implementation achieves any of the effects he think it does.

I actually think that the system, while fundamentally sound, could use a few tweaks. My problem with Sensucki is that he is opposed to the Engagement system on priciple, while I believe on principle that any proper tactical CRPG combat system, doesn't matter if RT or TB, needs some sort of AoO system. Sensucki, on the other hand, believes that such systems have no place in real-time CRPG-combat and it should play like fucking Starcraft.

 

[Sensuki]

Well, actually I believe that Pillars of Eternity should play more like an Infinity Engine game. The word RTS seems to trigger you.

AoOs are unnecessary in TB games that have separate resources for movement and non-movement action points, because one of the reasons they exist is to solve problems that occur in systems where such actions come from a shared resource pool.

 

[prodigydancer]

I believe on principle that any proper tactical CRPG combat system, doesn't matter if RT or TB, needs some sort of AoO system.

Just not the magical-instant-out-of-nowhere sort, please. In the IE games, when you tried to move a nearly dead character away from melee you could still lose the character especially later on when enemies had more than one attack per round. That was sensible.

 

[hiver]

Group vs grup or one vs one, in an RPG such matters must be controlled and limited through stats and skills.
microing like you want is real time twicth gameplay. the end.

Him because he thinks the current super idiotic implementation achieves any of the effects he think it does.

I actually think that the system, while fundamentally sound, could use a few tweaks.

Thats as far away from the truth as possible.

The system is fundamentally flawed and needs big tweaks and adjustments.

In the context of the setting and the game history and its own gameplay, i cannot see anything better then what i suggest.

My problem with Sensucki is that he is opposed to the Engagement system on priciple, while I believe on principle that any proper tactical CRPG combat system, doesn't matter if RT or TB, needs some sort of AoO system. Sensucki, on the other hand, believes that such systems have no place in real-time CRPG-combat and it should play like fucking Starcraft.

Any discussion based on extreme global assertions about a specific RPG mechanic is pointless. What can and should be discusses are the details of it and specific implementation of some mechanic.

There is no "principles" to think about here. Sensuki is utterly wrong about his notions, (twicth micro gameplay based on player skills should not be even considered for an cRPG - for such character based abilities or skills), while you are completely wrong in thinking Engagement is sound in principle, or acceptable or producing effects that would be good and complimentary to the game gestalt.

Shifting either of these specific into a discussion about principles defeats the whole purpose of the discussion and leads into nothing.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Not even NWN2 was this obnoxious with its AoO. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember there you can move characters a little without triggering AoO from everyone.

Well, in D&D, only full moves trigger an AOO. If you merely shuffle with your 5' freemove, you don't trigger anything. PoE's engagement mechanic is probably a little too static, having lines of guys locked in place exchanging blows until one of them dies without moving in the slightest just doesn't seem all that realistic and resembles no melee fight I have ever been in, where combatants typically move and circle a great deal, with movement often dominating the bulk of the engagement without any blows being struck at all. If you turn and run, or try to run past your opponent, you get stabbed. That's why you circle, trying to get a shot at a vulnerable area. Of course, your opponent can see it, so he turns as well, and the entire dance continues. Observe dogs fighting.

Been in a lot of melee fights?

But yes, I agree that completely static fights also look strange. Why something like a 5 foot step wasn't implemented I have no idea.

 

[Shevek]

AoOs are unnecessary in TB games that have separate resources for movement and non-movement action points, because one of the reasons they exist is to solve problems that occur in systems where such actions come from a shared resource pool.

Recovery time. Or, you know, time in general.

Also, anything is unnecessary in any game. Just because it can be proven to be unnecessary doesn't mean its bad. If games were reduced to just what is deemed necessary, they would be shit.

Anywho, it should be clear at this point that engagement is not universally hated. It did not hinder PoEs reception or prevent the majority of casual or hardcore fans from seeing PoE as a worthy IE successor. Many people have even expressed enjoying the system and there are some that feel the game (with this system you hate) is on par with the strongest title in the IE line. Maybe consider that standing against this on principle is wholly unneccessary and may be preventing you from enjoying the game as much as you could.

 

[hiver]

AoOs are unnecessary in TB games that have separate resources for movement and non-movement action points, because one of the reasons they exist is to solve problems that occur in systems where such actions come from a shared resource pool.

Recovery time. Or, you know, time in general.

Also, anything is unnecessary in any game. Just because it can be proven to be unnecessary doesn't mean its bad. If games were reduced to just what is deemed necessary, they would be shit.

Anywho, it should be clear at this point that engagement is not universally hated. It did not hinder PoEs reception or prevent the majority of casual or hardcore fans from seeing PoE as a worthy IE successor. Many people have even expressed enjoying the system and there are some that feel the game (with this system you hate) is on par with the strongest title in the IE line. Maybe consider that standing against this on principle is wholly unneccessary and may be preventing you from enjoying the game as much as you could.

Thats a really retarded position based on a fallacy by popularity and whining why doesnt someone "enjoy stuff" more.

The assertion made by Sensuki in the quote is irrelevant and based on his imagination.

Not facts.

AoO were designed into TB games to deal with characters or enemies being completely static while other enemies make their actions during their turn - which invalidates the core mechanics of characters acting based on their own skills, not the player twicth skill.

Engagement as implemented in PoE is NOT A FUCKING AoO.
Its not an ability some specific class or build or set of stats provide or control and affect. It cannot be countered by anything, it happens automatically without any player agency in every single case, no matter anything else.

 

[Sensuki]

The game has much worse problems than the engagement system. With or without engagement the combat is pretty garbage - felipepepe appraised it correctly.

Recovery time. Or, you know, time in general.

I was talking about turn-based. Units can act at the same time in real-time combat. In turn based they cannot. AoOs/Overwatch simulates simultaneous actions in a turn-based environment.

 

[Shevek]

I haven't noticed too many big problems. Ive been too busy enjoying the game and planning my next playthrough.

 

[hiver]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

An excuse why it should be just disabled and forgotten about, eh? Excuse why it should be considered and made into something better that would actually affect combat and encounter design positively, while providing the players with options and abilities they would control and use tactically?

 

[Sensuki]

Good for you

Many of us have, however.

 

[Shevek]

hiver
No one will ever implement your fighter only engagement idea. I dont mean to be mean about by its not that good of an idea.

Sensuki
One can sit around and complain about anything. I tend to agree with VD's initial big post on that thread. And people pick kingcomrade in polls here just because. Excluding that option, most people thing the game is better than BG1 and a sizable number think its better that BG2. I think a good number of people would have chosen on par with BG2 if that were an option. OE did a fine job with this game.

 

[hiver]

No one will ever implement your fighter only engagement idea.

I dont mean to be mean about by its not that good of an idea.

 

[Sensuki]

I picked kingcomrade.

I don't think beating BG1 in heaps of areas is a very good achievement as that was the first game of this style. Unfortunately it manages to be disappointing to average in most areas except for stuff like art, technical issues aside.

I put a lot of time and money into this game, and would likely contribute next to nothing of either if there is a next time.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

One can sit around and complain about anything.

Constructive criticism/feedback is good and valuable, especially with kickstarter system that cuts out the publisher. Engagement is a subjective topic that depends on one person style of play but terribly bland itemization, repetitive encounter design (including hand-placed special encounters) and gameplay (repeat one tactic ad nauseum a la DAO) etc. is far less so. Sucking Obsidian's dick aren't going to help them improve the game.

I tend to agree with VD's initial big post on that thread. And people pick kingcomrade in polls here just because. Excluding that option, most people thing the game is better than BG1 and a sizable number think its better that BG2. I think a good number of people would have chosen on par with BG2 if that were an option. OE did a fine job with this game.

What sizable number? Not that it fucking means anything (million+ gamers all over the world think there's nothing wrong with DAI) but last I checked, more people voted worse than BG1 than better than BG2.

 

[prodigydancer]

With or without engagement the combat is pretty garbage - felipepepe appraised it correctly.

Now you're going a bit too far. There are problems, I agree. The encounter design is flawed - felipepepe summarized it very well so I won't reiterate. Grazes (like I predicted long ago) don't make combat less swingy - mostly because crits still fuck you up good. In fact, crits are even worse than they were in BG for three reasons: a high Acc enemy may crit low Def characters very often whereas in AD&D crit chance was a fixed percentage; no easy immunity from helmets; healing just doesn't cut it in hard fights where you need it most. And, of course, enemy casters are weak for the same reasons why party casters are weak (no surprise here - we all knew it would be like that).

But it's not all bad. I'm still experimenting with classes and abilities and I mostly like what I see. Obsidian put a lot of effort into the class system, they just couldn't make proper use of it, unfortunately. With the addition of hard counters it could really shine, and if we still have dedicated modders among us, maybe one day PoE will be a true successor to BG/BG2.

 

[Athelas]

Enemy casters are weak for the same reasons why party casters are weak (no surprise here, we all knew it would be like that).

The enemy casters are at a disadvantage because they are programmed to consistently use the weakest spells they could have access to. Enemy ciphers will use Fractured Volition instead of Mind Blades. Enemy wizards will use Minoletta's Minor Missiles or Jolting Touch instead of Slicken or Fan of Flames.