Engagement System Questions

[Roguey]

Who is Tamerlane and why does he hold so much sway? I keep hearing him mentioned, poisoning Sawyers mind like some sort of Grima Wormtongue.

He just happened to make the first post I saw where someone was specifically asking for what-would-become engagement http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...sion-debate-society.95760/page-4#post-3633697

He's also a goon which makes it funnier.

 

[Ninjerk]

Who is Tamerlane and why does he hold so much sway? I keep hearing him mentioned, poisoning Sawyers mind like some sort of Grima Wormtongue.

He just happened to make the first post I saw where someone was specifically asking for what-would-become engagement http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...sion-debate-society.95760/page-4#post-3633697

He's also a goon which makes it funnier.

The last post you mentioned him in I almost said outloud in my physics lecture, "Who the fuck is Tamerlane?!"

EDIT: Goons ruin everything.

 

[Immortal]

So what's with engagement then if he's not a fan of real time AoO's?

Tamerlane (among other people) requested it.

Who is Tamerlane and why does he hold so much sway? I keep hearing him mentioned, poisoning Sawyers mind like some sort of Grima Wormtongue.

I wish I could brofist this.. your comparison to wormtongue had me laughing my ass off.

 

[Ninjerk]

So what's with engagement then if he's not a fan of real time AoO's?

Tamerlane (among other people) requested it.

Who is Tamerlane and why does he hold so much sway? I keep hearing him mentioned, poisoning Sawyers mind like some sort of Grima Wormtongue.

I wish I could brofist this.. your comparison to wormtongue had me laughing my ass off.

Apparently it's true.

 

[Rostere]

You know. That's not really an argument. At least not a better argument than "MOBA fans don't belong in RPG forums".

It is an argument, that statement on it's own is not but the reasons why AoOs don't work in real-time has been stated countless times by me and others. My very first post in the thread, for instance.

First off, I'm not defending every aspect of the PoE engagement system as much as a more sensible and realistic approach to melee fighting in general.

Being somewhat of a simulationist, I have often thought that BG needed more to capture how you can threaten an area with a weapon with long reach, how flanking and multiple engagements is crucial to combat, and how enemies should not be able to just turn your back on you/walk past you without consequence. From a gamist (Sawyer) perspective, an engagement mechanic is also a solution to the problem which arises as soon as you make half-decent AI for BG - IIRC something which was discussed during the development of IWD - the fact that the enemy becomes way to good at sniping and hunting down your weak characters, which (typically) forces a reload, unless you run around, in which case the game degenerates into kiting. This problem of course also exists in the other direction. You would always just leisurely stroll past anything in your way and take out weak casters first, who otherwise might cast spells which fuck you up. How come it's just as easy to stand chopping at a caster with a monster dude attacking your back as it is to face the monster dude up front? It's very stupid and immersion-breaking. Either you have retarded AI which keeps inanely attacking your frontliners even though you stand with a naked caster 2m away, or you change the game mechanics somehow.

In my opinion, to avoid absurd situations like some of the above you need to have a more realistic system modeling

• Reach: Typically the most important aspect of a close combat weapon. A soldier wielding a weapon with long reach can take down people with shorter weapons before they even get near. Slashing and crushing weapons will benefit from wide swings (while this is not the case for piercing weapons). As someone who has practiced classical fencing for five years, even such as small difference as subtracting or adding 1,25 decimeter to the length of a foil can completely change a duel. Bringing daggers to a sword fight is completely hopeless unless you can somehow close in to zero distance to a distracted opponent, at which point you will have the advantage (and where your opponent will have to resort to simple bashing).
  
• Direction: Well, this pretty much states itself. In 2-on-1 flanking is much more deadly than attacking someone from the same direction. It is far more deadly to attack someone from the back than from the front (and you don't need to be a "rogue" to do this).
  
• Engagement: You will be greatly disadvantaged if you're attacked by a person who you can't/don't actually engage in melee. If you're wielding a dagger and enter the threat zone/"engagement ring" of a guy wielding an two-handed sword you will pretty much be a walking piñata until you've also put the other guy inside your threat zone. Same if you're trying to walk past someone. Although, it would probably be fine to walk past someone who is already engaged with someone else.
  
• Speed: It should obviously be much easier for a quick and nimble person to escape from a fully armoured knight than the reverse.

You say these types of mechanics can't be done in a RT game, but there's actually a lot of RTS games who successfully use these types of mechanics in their gameplay. Yes, I'm of course talking about Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat/Dark Omen, and its more famous copycat series, the Total War games. These also have pause and slowdown/speedup which is IMO should be features of any tactical real-time game.

Apart from criticism on specifics of the PoE engagement system, I've yet to see any good argument against more detailed and realistic depiction of melee combat, by you or anyone else. Basically what can be said is that some people prefer gameplay more similar to Age of Empires or something, and that's pretty much it. There's nothing that "can't be done", there's just a bunch of people who IMO like their simplicity a bit too much.

 

[Sensuki]

I couldn't give a rats arse about simulation or realism.

the fact that the enemy becomes way to good at sniping and hunting down your weak characters, which (typically) forces a reload, unless you run around, in which case the game degenerates into kiting

Never happened to me, I honestly don't know what people are complaining about - they need to learn to read enemy targeting AI I guess?

I never had to kite in any of the IE games, I switched aggro through some small movements, but that's not kiting - it's also smart and enjoyable gameplay.

I've never played any War Hammer real-time game other than Dawn of War, which used mechanics from another engine (although I forget which) and had nothing like that, and I personally do not want any Total War style mechanics in an Infinity Engine style game. The reason I think that those mechanics work in Total War is because you are controlling a group of units, and those groups get intertwined, so when you do retreat from melee, you actually have guys literally surrounded by another unit - so it's understandable that if you issue a retreat command that those units are killed.

If you're looking for a realistic depiction of combat I think you should look somewhere else, because I do not want a realistic depiction of combat in an Infinity Engine game, I want combat like the Infinity Engine games and like the RTS games that play similarly to it.

Another game? Sure. But not this one.

And trying to pin "simplicity" on the lack of systemic way of handling it is a fucking joke to be honest. It baffles me how people cannot put two and two together - you can handle unit stickiness through fucking abilities, you don't need a fucking retarded system for it.

This game has Hobbled, Stuck, Paralyze, Daze, Prone and a bunch of other shit that slow or stop movement. This is all that is needed combined with good targeting AI and AI that uses these disables.

My view is that in order to hinder someone's movement you should ACTIVELY try to do something about it, rather than expecting the game to do it for you.

 

[hiver]

I couldn't give a rats arse about simulation or realism.

Thats because you see and understand the idea of "realism" as some stupid forced notion of making dull boring "simulations".
You know, just like when you are in that airplane simulator and all you see are those knobs and dials and shit you have no idea what its all about and its soooo booooring, right?

the fact that the enemy becomes way to good at sniping and hunting down your weak characters, which (typically) forces a reload, unless you run around, in which case the game degenerates into kiting

Never happened to me, I honestly don't know what people are complaining about - they need to learn to read enemy targeting AI I guess?

Never happened to meee mleh, mleh, bleehhh

lets pretend we are talking about the most dumb superficial playeeeeeerrrrrrssss!

If you're looking for a realistic depiction of combat I think you should look somewhere else, because I do not want a realistic depiction of combat in an Infinity Engine game, I want combat like the Infinity Engine games and like the RTS games that play similarly to it.

that kind of non-logic leaves you with inventing convoluted mechanics that clash with everything else and lower the quality of the whole game. Because they are inadvertently stupid, only superficially effective at best and cause various negative consequences on the whole.

And trying to pin "simplicity" on the lack of systemic way of handling it is a fucking joke to be honest. It baffles me how people cannot put two and two together - you can handle unit stickiness through fucking abilities, you don't need a fucking retarded system for it.

You mean you can handle those because there is a system to handle them with?

This game has Hobbled, Stuck, Paralyze, Daze, Prone and a bunch of other shit that slow or stop movement. This is all that is needed combined with good targeting AI and AI that uses these disables.

Thats a systemic way if handling things. You have those options because the system gives them to you, you fool. Yet just because there are some mechanics there - that doesnt mean its the best possible system, does it?

My view is that in order to hinder someone's movement you should ACTIVELY try to do something about it, rather than expecting the game to do it for you.

Cheap and very stupid strawman, - i dont see anyone suggesting that the "game should do it for you" - but anyway, feel free to remove those mechanics and then try to "do it yourself".

 

[Mangoose]

I personally do not want any Total War style mechanics in an Infinity Engine style game. The reason I think that those mechanics work in Total War is because you are controlling a group of units, and those groups get intertwined, so when you do retreat from melee, you actually have guys literally surrounded by another unit - so it's understandable that if you issue a retreat command that those units are killed.

For me it's really a couple elements from Total War that I would like to see. Nothing about realism or anything... Really I'm looking at this from a gamist perspective. For combat, gamism is really what matters, because simulationism does not result interesting thinking during combat - it just results (hyperbole here) realistic looking combat that you gawk at.

Back to Total War, I think I mentioned before but I'd like just a few things, like:

• Very good interface that keeps track of all your party's stats and conditions. As well as letting you modify stances/auras/whatever on the fly for multiple units.
• Terrain modifiers (height, rough terrain, forest terrain, maybe even a cover system [that would be in Dawn of War 2, if you've played that.. it's much more squad rather than army based). Which really should be in turn based games too, I guess.
• More macromanagement. Toggled stances, auras, speeds, etc. God do I hate micromanaging in a real-time game.

Basically, I want to have in-combat choices, but each specific choice needs to be significant. I want combat to be based on a critical coordination/succession of strikes, a la chess or even MOBAs. Not a collection of minor choices that add up to still be significant. I'm not sure if makes sense in conveying my idea, so sorry if that's the case.

I guess another way to put it is that you are dueling someone one-on-one, and you are keeping pace with "basic" counters, parries, sidesteps, slips, etc. But then you suddenly see an opening and/or a short and effective combination intuitively just pops up in your head. Because that's how a "real" fight would end.. I mean of course there's sports where you just fight with no KOs, but those are really unrealistic since then the winner is decided by judges.

So I do want to see strategic positioning to matter, but I also want to see the ability to change decisions mid-battle to make a critical strike that takes advantage of an opening.

Of course, typically both of these work together. You use superior strategy/positioning to give yourself more opportunities for a critical tactical maneuver, and then you enact it. I guess another example would be proper fireteam fire-and-movement/bounding overwatch and then assaulting when the opportunity/timing is "correct." There needs to be a combination of both. To be honest I think IE does this well.. you have powerful backstabs, serious mage spell combinations, etc. But IE is a bit light on strategy whereas PoE seems to be light on tactics.

---

As for engagement, like I said the main thing I want is somewhere between stagnant positioning, and lack of positioning significance.

 

[Rostere]

I couldn't give a rats arse about simulation or realism.

the fact that the enemy becomes way to good at sniping and hunting down your weak characters, which (typically) forces a reload, unless you run around, in which case the game degenerates into kiting

Never happened to me, I honestly don't know what people are complaining about - they need to learn to read enemy targeting AI I guess?

I never had to kite in any of the IE games, I switched aggro through some small movements, but that's not kiting - it's also smart and enjoyable gameplay.

What I'm referring to is the fact that it's basically pointless for the enemy AI to try to damage your close combat fighters with awesome AC and HP. If they can win using that tactic you are seriously doing something wrong.

I played through IWD 1 a month ago or so and maybe it's me getting old, but the AI was really glaringly stupid. Even at Insane it becomes just a roflstomp because the AI is completely unable to exploit your weaknesses - it always acts in the most predictable and stupid way. It feels nothing like engaging with intelligent beings. Playing against humans controlling the enemy would actually be hard. I vaguely remember Sawyer posting about this in a discussion on the Obsidian boards. If the AI actually tried to do what a rational human would do considering the game rules, you would get a far harder completely different game. With an engagement system you can actually have AI which tries to rush your squishies unless they are stopped by engagement/ killed from ignoring engagement on their way there, which is much in agreement with reality.

I've never played any War Hammer real-time game other than Dawn of War, which used mechanics from another engine (although I forget which) and had nothing like that, and I personally do not want any Total War style mechanics in an Infinity Engine style game. The reason I think that those mechanics work in Total War is because you are controlling a group of units, and those groups get intertwined, so when you do retreat from melee, you actually have guys literally surrounded by another unit - so it's understandable that if you issue a retreat command that those units are killed.

Melee combat with units is just a lot of individuals fighting at the same time, it's like PoE but on a larger scale. You don't need to be literally surrounded to be cut to pieces trying to walk away from a battle. I'm not saying that the specific engagement system in PoE is perfectly balanced, what I'm saying is that it captures an inherent feature of real-life melee fighting which the BG games lacked. If you're starting to get surrounded in SotHR and try to walk away, that's not going to end well, same in PoE. In the BG games you could just waltz off, whistling "lololololo" as you go.

If you're looking for a realistic depiction of combat I think you should look somewhere else, because I do not want a realistic depiction of combat in an Infinity Engine game

Well, I do want that, at least more realistic than what we have got now.

I want combat like the Infinity Engine games and like the RTS games that play similarly to it.

And I want more realistic combat, which is more similar to more realistic RTS games.

Another game? Sure. But not this one.

This game? Sure. This one maybe.

And trying to pin "simplicity" on the lack of systemic way of handling it is a fucking joke to be honest.

Actually it's not a joke, it's pretty much correct by definition. If you have a simple system you get simplicity, if you have a detailed system you get sophistication. Although I definitely concede that a more detailed system will be harder to balance.

It baffles me how people cannot put two and two together - you can handle unit stickiness through fucking abilities, you don't need a fucking retarded system for it.

This game has Hobbled, Stuck, Paralyze, Daze, Prone and a bunch of other shit that slow or stop movement. This is all that is needed combined with good targeting AI and AI that uses these disables.

But if you Hobble, Stick, Paralyze, Daze or Prone people who try to walk past your zone of control you're back at what is essentially an engagement system only it's not founded in realism, with silly labels and more clicking on top.

My view is that in order to hinder someone's movement you should ACTIVELY try to do something about it, rather than expecting the game to do it for you.

It's not about the game doing something for you, it's about the idea that the different little dudes on the screen should act more similar to how they would realistically. I doesn't matter what the game "does for me" or not, it's just that I want to push RPG games (which I also play for the story) away from cartoony cheesy idea of melee that seems inspired by Turtles to a more realistic, detailed and grognardy version.

 

[hiver]

Ach, thats just going into the opposite extreme. Even a fantasy about a whole new or other game which is practically a different subject.

And really... the engagement as it is now is not realistic at all. Thats one of its biggest problems. Because its not just humans that can perform it, because they are "smart" like in that fantastic idea of yours, - but literally every creature in the game.

Second: It is done in an almost completely automated way without much agency about it available to the player. It just happens all the time - automatically and the disengagement is also practically automatic.
Your biggest influence on it is to get gear or a spell or two that deny it or try just moving away yourself sometimes.

And that happens for every single creature in the game. From bugs to dears in the wild to probably even butterflies (if they could fight).

Its not really even anything about turning back to someone at all. In any way. Its just automatic whatever you or enemy does about it.

Theres no skill about it, no finesse, no options, no implementation where it would make sense and not to every single creature in the game.
Thats opposite of realism.

 

[Gord]

I don't see anything wrong with engagement being a universal effect of melee combat.
If you fight up close with a dog and try to get away by turning and running, he'll lunge at you and bite you (or something like that).

Also there are options we get for dealing with it - there are skills that increase engagement efficiency for your chars and there are other skills that offer possible ways to disengage without suffering an attack or to reduce how hard the attack hits. After getting used to it a bit (on normal) I've switched to hard and get along quite well, using the engagement system to my advantage if possible. And no, I'm not really affected by the stat-altering bug - at least not much, luckily it's just a few points with Edér.

However, it's also clear that several engagement-related abilities don't work very well so far (e.g. the disengagement skill of rogues is too slow and too weak to really work, imo, disengagement attacks could probably be tuned a bit, although I have to say that they hardly ever matter in my party).

Anyway, engagement works fine in principle, imo, and should get better with some tuning. Just don't insist to play the game in a way that's simply not supported by it (or just use a mod).

 

[Athelas]

I don't see anything wrong with engagement being a universal effect of melee combat.
If you fight up close with a dog and try to get away by turning and running, he'll lunge at you and bite you (or something like that).

Enemies can do this in real-time, there's no need for engagement. Actually, with the way unit stickiness is handled in PoE, even with engagement disabled, you can still get hit by a melee attack even if you've moved quite a bit of distance away from your pursuer.

 

[Rostere]

I don't see anything wrong with engagement being a universal effect of melee combat.
If you fight up close with a dog and try to get away by turning and running, he'll lunge at you and bite you (or something like that).

Enemies can do this in real-time, there's no need for engagement. Actually, with the way unit stickiness is handled in PoE, even with engagement disabled, you can still get hit by a melee attack even if you've moved quite a bit of distance away from your pursuer.

Yes, but the whole point is that here is a huge difference between being attacked by someone while dueling, if you're trying to walk past them, or if you're (even worse) walking away from them.

 

[Athelas]

I don't see anything wrong with engagement being a universal effect of melee combat.
If you fight up close with a dog and try to get away by turning and running, he'll lunge at you and bite you (or something like that).

Enemies can do this in real-time, there's no need for engagement. Actually, with the way unit stickiness is handled in PoE, even with engagement disabled, you can still get hit by a melee attack even if you've moved quite a bit of distance away from your pursuer.

Yes, but the whole point is that here is a huge difference between being attacked by someone while dueling, if you're trying to walk past them, or if you're (even worse) walking away from them.

While moving, you're giving up doing anything. The enemies can attack you while you move sesy, so they have a comparative advantage.

Anyway, what you describe can be achieved without an engagement system. They could implement a deflection penalty for being hit while moving like how they implemented the deflection penalty for being flanked.

 

[Rostere]

While moving, you're giving up doing anything. The enemies can attack you while you move sesy, so they have a comparative advantage.

Yes, but considering movement speeds and damage per hit this does not by far reflect the weaknesses you expose when trying to move away from, or skirt past someone.

Anyway, what you describe can be achieved without an engagement system. They could implement a deflection penalty for being hit while moving like how they implemented the deflection penalty for being flanked.

Sure - I'm very open to changing the system in that direction - but something like that would in many ways be equivalent to the engagement system we have.

Again, I'm not saying the current solution is perfect (and in any case, it needs tweaking), I'm saying that they are correct in the issues they are trying to correct.

 

[Sensuki]

No, they are not.

With an engagement system you can actually have AI which tries to rush your squishies unless they are stopped by engagement/ killed from ignoring engagement on their way there, which is much in agreement with reality.

I'm sorry, but have you actually played this game? You're living in a dream world if you think that is the case. The AI targeting is dumber than IWD:HoW and is completely exploitable. What do you think I've been doing the whole game? Working out the conditions of AI targeting and using it against the AI - just like I do in other games.

Trolls in this game go after a single target and ignore engagement, so you find the target they chase, run them around and they suffer multiple disengagement attacks from everyone else and get booked. It's hilariously bad.

You seem to have some magical ideology of "Engagement" that simply does not exist?

Melee combat with units is just a lot of individuals fighting at the same time, it's like PoE but on a larger scale.

I'm sorry, what? This is untrue anyway since because of the limitations of the engine they can't afford to have as many creatures in encounters, or in scenes - so most fights are only against a few enemies compared to most of the IE games.
Then again, how is this relevant at all to the discussion?

And since you're arguing about realism (which as I said, I personally don't give two fucks about) - Engagement in Pillars of Eternity isn't close to realistic, at all.

 

[tdphys]

No, they are not.

With an engagement system you can actually have AI which tries to rush your squishies unless they are stopped by engagement/ killed from ignoring engagement on their way there, which is much in agreement with reality.

I'm sorry, but have you actually played this game? You're living in a dream world if you think that is the case. The AI targeting is dumber than IWD:HoW and is completely exploitable. What do you think I've been doing the whole game? Working out the conditions of AI targeting and using it against the AI - just like I do in other games.

Trolls in this game go after a single target and ignore engagement, so you find the target they chase, run them around and they suffer multiple disengagement attacks from everyone else and get booked. It's hilariously bad.

You seem to have some magical ideology of "Engagement" that simply does not exist?

Melee combat with units is just a lot of individuals fighting at the same time, it's like PoE but on a larger scale.

I'm sorry, what? This is untrue anyway since because of the limitations of the engine they can't afford to have as many creatures in encounters, or in scenes - so most fights are only against a few enemies compared to most of the IE games.
Then again, how is this relevant at all to the discussion?

And since you're arguing about realism (which as I said, I personally don't give two fucks about) - Engagement in Pillars of Eternity isn't close to realistic, at all.

It is a little silly that a *slow* creature is the one that breaks engagement, and thus is easily cheesable. Though, I think the encounters with the pwggrs.. or whatever, are supposed to slow your char down so that the trolls can get to them.

 

[Ellef]

I wonder how the game would have turned out if they got the complete MMO aggro system without engagement attacks they probably preferred.

 

[Mangoose]

I wonder how the game would have turned out if they got the complete MMO aggro system without engagement attacks they probably preferred.

Dragon Age

 

[Gord]

I don't see anything wrong with engagement being a universal effect of melee combat.
If you fight up close with a dog and try to get away by turning and running, he'll lunge at you and bite you (or something like that).

Enemies can do this in real-time, there's no need for engagement. Actually, with the way unit stickiness is handled in PoE, even with engagement disabled, you can still get hit by a melee attack even if you've moved quite a bit of distance away from your pursuer.

Except they currently wouldn't if you time it right, as you would be away by the time they could attack again. If you increase their attack speed in such cases you are effectively back to disengagement attacks.

The way I see it, what's necessary to improve engagement is: Improve anti-disengagement skills of some classes and/or add some, tune disengagement attacks, improve/enable movement during engagement (e.g. enable movement within some small radius to the enemy without triggering an attack), improve AI handling of engagement.

The system itself is fine if you actually use the tools at your disposal and accept that PoE is NOT an Infinity Engine game.

 

[Athelas]

accept that PoE is NOT an Infinity Engine game.

You're going to make Sensuki cry.

Except they currently wouldn't if you time it right, as you would be away by the time they could attack again. If you increase their attack speed in such cases you are effectively back to disengagement attacks.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that even without engagement, moving away from enemies is already heavily disincentivized compared to the IE games (of course, combat is currently not very challenging, but that's due to a number of other reasons).

Sure - I'm very open to changing the system in that direction - but something like that would in many ways be equivalent to the engagement system we have.

Huh? It would not be remotely similar. It's not as if the wood elf's accuracy bonus for attacking from range changes the feel of combat, neither would my suggestion (although it's stupid to penalize movement with a deflection drop, it's still a far better idea than the engagement system). The problem with engagement it that it does alter the flow and feel of combat - for the worse.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Being somewhat of a simulationist, I have often thought that BG needed more to capture how you can threaten an area with a weapon with long reach, how flanking and multiple engagements is crucial to combat, and how enemies should not be able to just turn your back on you/walk past you without consequence.

It's an abstraction, think of them retreating facing the enemy with their weapons drawn. Regardless, I can't stress enough that there ain't nothing simulationist about exploding people with ultra powerful invisible attacks, it feels very arbitrary.

From a gamist (Sawyer) perspective, an engagement mechanic is also a solution to the problem which arises as soon as you make half-decent AI for BG - IIRC something which was discussed during the development of IWD - the fact that the enemy becomes way to good at sniping and hunting down your weak characters, which (typically) forces a reload, unless you run around, in which case the game degenerates into kiting.

A non-existant problem in my opinion. Weak characters in BG actually had reliable protection spells (BG vanilla mirror image is far more useful than anything I encountered in PoE so far) and in my experience when you send out a character to attack enemies in melee they'll attack him instead (same as PoE basically).

This problem of course also exists in the other direction. You would always just leisurely stroll past anything in your way and take out weak casters first, who otherwise might cast spells which fuck you up.

Unlike PoE, casters aren't defenseless in those games.

How come it's just as easy to stand chopping at a caster with a monster dude attacking your back as it is to face the monster dude up front?

Give that monster dude a flanking bonus (which PoE already does) and there you go, problem solved.

Apart from criticism on specifics of the PoE engagement system, I've yet to see any good argument against more detailed and realistic depiction of melee combat, by you or anyone else.

Engagement system is about as far from realism as possible. It's the very last thing I'd used to defend that system.

Basically what can be said is that some people prefer gameplay more similar to Age of Empires or something, and that's pretty much it. There's nothing that "can't be done", there's just a bunch of people who IMO like their simplicity a bit too much.

No, some people prefer gameplay more similar to IE games which is I think a reasonable thing to expect from an IE-nostalgia funded game. It's also not about simplicity but about static vs dynamic combat, PoE doesn't play to real time-strengths but rather severely punishes people who like to move their chars around during the battle. As a result combat feels constrained and static, always getting resolved in similar manner, you don't act and react on the fly during it but you simply position your chars beforehand, pick a strategy and execute it and that's about it.

 

[Athelas]

And the engagement system has implications for the spells and abilities, which have to be designed for a static battle field. Contrast this with the IE games where something like an insect plague spell was an actual physical hazard that you could avoid by having your characters move out of the way. PoE is really lacking in that sort of thing.

 

[Gord]

And the engagement system has implications for the spell/ability design as well, which have to be designed for a static battle field. Contrast this with the IE games where something like an insect plague spell was an actual physical hazard that you could avoid by having your characters move out of the way. PoE is really lacking in that sort of thing.

Currently the engagement system is probably the only thing that makes some spells useable at all for me. Many of them take much too long to cast in comparison to their range and movement speed of enemies to have any effect otherwise.
I wouldn't mind more spells that automatically spread to nearby enemies, but that's regardles of whether PoE uses the engagement system or not.

Don't find the combat much more/less static than in IE games, though. But that's maybe because I used to play them a bit lazily, dunno.

 

[Crooked Bee]

badgame posters are triggered by this thread

Spoiler