Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

combatfags find satisfaction in very small things

It's just attacks of opportunity, even NWN2 already had that.

 

As stale as the combat in NWN 1 gets, Attacks of Opportunity work just fine in it. Probably what you can expect here.

 

Cleve Reference confirmed.

Like the concept, specifics pending. It's a sensible mechanic, it's intuitive to players whilst playing, it inherently transforms combat mechanics, and can be manipulated by advanced players for tactical complexity. This will need to be met by good, solid movement controls & characters that don't 'glide', though using IE-style 2D/3D already makes that easier. Imagine having this mechanic in Aurora Engine variants, it would be a nightmare. I imagine Engagement will be clearly marked with an icon in the player portrait and/or simple graphics on the sprites, reducing accidental move-aways.

If they implement Engagement range for longer-range weapons and give polearms some ability to 'rope in' nearby opponents into engagement that would also be a good RTwP way of simulating what AOD does with polearms.

 

I think what I was aiming at in my post was the idea that entering melee should be equally as dangerous as leaving melee range with a fighter. Getting close to someone proficient in polearms should be hard, as they should be able to keep you at a distance while using the length of their (hyper) weapon to wear you down, for example.

This lock down system sounds good for making melee more risky for non-tank characters, though.

Edit; There is also the sense that melee range should be important. A long melee weapon (polearm, greatsword, flail [due to the swing reach of a ball/chain weapon], or such) should be able to demonstrate an effective range, getting close to the character should be hard because you'll take more damage at a certain distance, but once you close quarters with a close range weapon (a stabbing sword, such as a short sword) your close-range damage should outweigh their long range damage.

Thus: At long melee range, your defence / parrying vs a polearm would be important. If your character can parry a polearm attack at long range, then you'd presumably be able to enter their close-melee range where your weapon (if a short sword) becomes effective.

An attack of opportunity would theoretically be the attack an opponent would get when you move into or out of their effective range in such a system?

Edit#2: So, building on what Tigranes said, and what Zed said, a long-range melee character, with a polearm or greatsword, for example, should "lock you down" in their effective melee range, where a competent short-range fighter, with a falchion, mace, shortsword (effective short range melee weapons) could close into their effective range if they are able to defend/parry the attacks of the opponent. This would encourage interesting ways of building your melee character. The distance vs close quarters melee fighter. It would also encourage interesting ways of getting through or out of an opponent's lockdown, a rogue for example might be able to use a "trickery" skill to throw sand in the opponent's face to blind them, which could "turn off" the lock down effect for x simulated turns.

 

Sounds good, I guess.

 

More like, fuck this, i'm out of here.

 

What kind of degenerate uses a white mouse with black keyboard?

 

Is that the merchant from Animal Crossing in the background?

 

I actually managed to miss that eariler. Well I guess I'm naming my spellcaster Blakemore.

 

I wonder if they will implement something like the 5-foot step to end the disengagement attack too.

 

From the description of Grimoire Slam, it doesn't sound like there will be a 5 foot step like ability.

 

Hahahahaha, no I mean, in general, to disengage from a melee fighter. Not specifically Grimoire Slam.

 

Why give the wizard an ability to break free if everyone can just take a 5 foot step?

 

'k

 

Remember Sawyer hates multiple inputs.

 

So each class will have its own way to deal with engagement? That's actually pretty cool... in theory. Let's see how the implementation pans out.

 

Obviously a balancefreak.

 

Or a diversity-loving LIBRUL.

 

Clearly the nay-sayers were right. ... everywhere. This newest update shows it.

On a more serious note, anyone know whether this can cause problems for good AI? I imagine whenever you have an awesome mechanic, the devs are likely to lean on it quite heavily, and if there are easy ways of side-stepping the whole situation, the whole mechanic becomes moot. The only example I could think of was some sort of glitch where the melee enemies constantly kept switching their engaged enemy and thus rendering the whole thing moot. Something like a rogue sneaking in and out of engagement and preoccupying the melee fighter while everyone else just prances by.

 

Yeah, they need to make sure the AI routines support it properly. No enemies constantly trying to reach your weak mage not realising they are running into the barbarian, or...

...whoa. I just realised. This means if you have 4 party members surrounding a single strong enemy in a small room, you could surround the enemy and retain a small distance, ensuring that whenever it exits one engagement it runs into another engagement. The adventurer's equivalent to a mosh pit.

 

Or there could be a significant combat malus modifier to being effected by multiple, overlapping engagements?

If you're fighting on all sides and not in a defense stance, or perhaps an aggressive stance targetting your weakest opponent, you'd almost certainly be cut down the most you turned your back on one or other enemy.