Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Sensuki]

Disengagement attacks have no animation. It's still a very poorly implemented system, that is also still abusable (but not as much as before).

It's not a huge concern of mine anymore because I think I figured out a way to disable the system while still retaining the AI functionality. We'll see in the next version.

Unfortunately the AI in this game will be simpler than the IE games, but what can you do.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Engagement isn't confusing of haphazard, which is the big thing.

It makes about as much sense...

Spoiler

Not much

 

[Roguey]

Josh wanted disengagement attacks to be ghosted, but it was too expensive.

And they make perfect sense.

A bunch of backers requested front-line stickiness. Without adding an aggro mechanic (which again, many backers rejected out of hand) there are only so many ways to accomplish that.

Goon backers to be precise.

 

[Kem0sabe]

SA yet again. Josh is nothing if not consistent

 

[Sensuki]

You mean people from SA/badgame ?

(They fucking hate me there, it's great)

The important point, really the ONLY point, is that in the IE games, and this includes NWN, Melee classes WILL LOSE attacks. Period. Showing me one example where it worked correctly does not change the situation.

The math is straightforward. If the animation takes X time, then the max number of animations that can be played is 6.0/x, truncated.

What I want to know is, how does this make the game not fun? Have you ever been in a situation in the IE games where you built a character for 5 attacks per round in the first place?

 

[tuluse]

Josh wanted disengagement attacks to be ghosted, but it was too expensive.

And they make perfect sense.

A bunch of backers requested front-line stickiness. Without adding an aggro mechanic (which again, many backers rejected out of hand) there are only so many ways to accomplish that.

Goon backers to be precise.

He could have just actually implemented stickiness. When you're close to other characters your food speed is reduced (adjusted based on class/creature and an offensive and defensive attribute) with fighters given abilities to make that speed 0.

 

[tdphys]

Disengagement attacks have no animation. It's still a very poorly implemented system, that is also still abusable (but not as much as before).

It's not a huge concern of mine anymore because I think I figured out a way to disable the system while still retaining the AI functionality. We'll see in the next version.

Unfortunately the AI in this game will be simpler than the IE games, but what can you do.

The lack of animation really bothers me, you'd think visual fidelity would be top priority for a real-time game. I'd just prefer an instant reduction of action timers, or just trigger melee attacks + some crit bonus and reset the timer

 

[Anthony Davis]

You are talking about the RENDERER. How is is rendered.

Your gameplay system for handling how combat is resolved doesn't give a shit how it's rendered - you could render it in text for all it cares.

Do daggerfall, morrowind and skyrim use the same engine? Shit, they didn't change the game system much, only the renderer, lol.

ALso, using your logic, Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 1 are just two instances of the same engine as well.

When coding, you always use code parts from your previous projects, it's not what defines the engine though. Of course you'll take dnd related parts and adapt them to use in another dnd game, but that's the most irrelevant part of the engine, the less defining part. What defines the engine is the technology behind it, the look and feel, the ui system, not the fact that you use d20 rolls using the same code or use the same names for classes. All dnd games use d20, and the way the d20 is coded is irrelevant, it's the easy code, and that's also the reason it was taken from IE to Aurora, because it's like copying the "+" sign to do an addition in another project.

You mean people from SA/badgame ?

(They fucking hate me there, it's great)

The important point, really the ONLY point, is that in the IE games, and this includes NWN, Melee classes WILL LOSE attacks. Period. Showing me one example where it worked correctly does not change the situation.

The math is straightforward. If the animation takes X time, then the max number of animations that can be played is 6.0/x, truncated.

What I want to know is, how does this make the game not fun? Have you ever been in a situation in the IE games where you built a character for 5 attacks per round in the first place?

It depends. If what is fun for you is playing a melee class that can do everything it is supposed to do, I would think failing to get your extra attacks because of animating cleave or something, would be negative fun.

It happens, Easily - especially when any movement time also counts against your time limit.

In PnP, you could run 30 ft and get 5 attacks, any one of which could proc a cleave or greater cleave. It didn't matter because it was PnP, not real time.

In real time models where you fully animate the swings, you simply can't get all of your attacks.

 

[Elhoim]

In real time models where you fully animate the swings, you simply can't get all of your attacks.

You could do a single "whirlwind" animation and hit all the characters you are supposed to hit. Cleave is supposed to represent a powerful hit that continues killing several guys in a row, so a single whirlwind animation could solve those issues.

Of course, this is purely theoretical, but that's how I would have solved it.

 

[Ninjerk]

In real time models where you fully animate the swings, you simply can't get all of your attacks.

You could do a single "whirlwind" animation and hit all the characters you are supposed to hit. Cleave is supposed to represent a powerful hit that continues killing several guys in a row, so a single whirlwind animation could solve those issues.

Of course, this is purely theoretical, but that's how I would have solved it.

I was thinking of something like this

 

[Sensuki]

It depends. If what is fun for you is playing a melee class that can do everything it is supposed to do, I would think failing to get your extra attacks because of animating cleave or something, would be negative fun.

It happens, Easily - especially when any movement time also counts against your time limit.

In PnP, you could run 30 ft and get 5 attacks, any one of which could proc a cleave or greater cleave. It didn't matter because it was PnP, not real time.

The only game that has Cleave is Icewind Dale 2, and that's the only IE game that uses 3rd Edition and is (IMO) worse off for it. How does that affect BG1, BG2 or IWD1 though ?

I for one, am *fucking glad* that the Infinity Engine games have more of an RTS feel than a 'P&P feel'. Unfortunately ... something that has been somewhat ignored for Pillars of Eternity.

 

[Anthony Davis]

It depends. If what is fun for you is playing a melee class that can do everything it is supposed to do, I would think failing to get your extra attacks because of animating cleave or something, would be negative fun.

It happens, Easily - especially when any movement time also counts against your time limit.

In PnP, you could run 30 ft and get 5 attacks, any one of which could proc a cleave or greater cleave. It didn't matter because it was PnP, not real time.

The only game that has Cleave is Icewind Dale 2, and that's the only IE game that uses 3rd Edition and is (IMO) worse off for it. How does that affect BG1, BG2 or IWD1 though ?

I for one, am *fucking glad* that the Infinity Engine games have more of an RTS feel than a 'P&P feel'. Unfortunately ... something that has been somewhat ignored for Pillars of Eternity.

My particular example was from NWN, which was far and away the worst offender (along with the NWN1 expansions) - though you are correct it also happened in IWD2.

It didn't happen often in BG1 because of the low level cap - you simply didn't get that many attacks. It did happen in BG2 - but it was not as bad as IWD2 and NWN.


Also, on an only slightly related note, the PnP version of Advanced DnD (first edition) did have a fighter ability similar in function to cleave. I don't remember what it was called or specifics for the mechanics, and it is a moot point anyway because I don't think BG1 and BG2 had it - since they were 2nd edition ADnD.



...actually, I think the Gold Box games did implement it - but those were ADnD first edition too - and they were turn based.

 

[Sensuki]

It did happen in BG2 - but it was not as bad as IWD2 and NWN.

I have played BG2 over 50 times through, with lots of different classes and I don't recall ever 'losing' an attack due to animation times. Most recently I have been playing with ToBEx which disables fake attacks (and keeps the pulsing idle animation, unlike IWD) and it *feels* amazing. The times when I have been actually able to achieve 9/2 attacks per round or 5 attacks per round - I've always got them if standing still attacking the same target.

Sure I could understand if you got four attacks against one target then moved to attack another and had to wait - but that makes perfect sense to me, and that is the opportunity cost to moving in the Infinity Engine games.

Also, on an only slightly related note, the PnP version of Advanced DnD (first edition) did have a fighter ability similar in function to cleave. I don't remember what it was called or specifics for the mechanics, and it is a moot point anyway because I don't think BG1 and BG2 had it - since they were 2nd edition ADnD.

...actually, I think the Gold Box games did implement it - but those were ADnD first edition too - and they were turn based.

Exactly - turn-based - where those types of mechanics make sense.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Also, on an only slightly related note, the PnP version of Advanced DnD (first edition) did have a fighter ability similar in function to cleave. I don't remember what it was called or specifics for the mechanics, and it is a moot point anyway because I don't think BG1 and BG2 had it - since they were 2nd edition ADnD.

...actually, I think the Gold Box games did implement it - but those were ADnD first edition too - and they were turn based.

Yes, in Gold Box you could "sweep" which would attack multiple adjacent enemies.

 

[Grunker]

Like IWD2 not having AoO despite being 3E. Though, I think they did that one by accident (lack of time) than a conscious decision.

Nah, Josh hates AoOs. Time to make a comprehensive post for future reference.

http://www.sorcerers.net/newspro/arc6-2000.html

Attacks of opportunity work well in turn-based games, but suck in real-time games.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/03/15/icewind-dale-2-trailer-and-interview

The most obvious things about 3E that don't fit are attacks of opportunity and readied actions. We are not implementing these aspects of the system because they rely too heavily upon the sequential turn-based nature of pen and paper gaming.
...
To be honest, I think the primary thing that makes 3E combat seem more "sophisticated" is the use of attacks of opportunity. Those rules are easily the most confusing and among the most often criticized elements of the system.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/49192-iwd2s-use-of-3e-was-a-mistake/

AoOs are an integral, and contested, part of 3E combat. Not necessarily "great". They work reasonably well in a tabletop turn-based environment. They work less well (and make a lot less sense) in a real-time CRPG environment. For an example that supports this, NWN's handling of AoOs felt very haphazard due to when they went off and how they were executed. They were great in ToEE because they were modeling the tabletop environment very closely.
...
I did (and do) think that 3E and 3.5 are better games than 2nd Ed., but I did (and do) criticize the choices WotC made when they built and revised the system. I think AoOs are pretty cumbersome,
...
AoOs create a new tactical aspect to movement. However, in practice, most of that goes out the window with 5' steps. In 4th Edition, "shifting" (taking a 5'/1 square step to avoid OAs provoked by movement) is your entire move action, which seems like a "no duh" change to me. In the D&D Experience module, the kobolds we fought were "Shifty", which meant that they could shift for free. It made them very difficult to deal with.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-6#entry389694

AoOs sound like a good idea, but really wind up becoming an un-fun, un-intuitive pain in the ass.

But disengagement and AoOs are the same thing

Engagement isn't confusing of haphazard, which is the big thing.

Yeah, they are.

He could have just actually implemented stickiness. When you're close to other characters your food speed is reduced (adjusted based on class/creature and an offensive and defensive attribute) with fighters given abilities to make that speed 0.

This was suggested many times Roguey. Saying those things about AoOs and implementing a disengagement mechancic that is identical makes no sense.

 

[Sensuki]

I didn't even know he said those things until Roguey posted them

 

[imweasel]

I have played BG2 over 50 times through

Spoiler

Impressive.

Certainly a lot more than Sawyer's 0.2 playthroughs too.

 

[FUDU]

8000 Bitches.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I have played BG2 over 50 times through, with lots of different classes and I don't recall ever 'losing' an attack due to animation times. Most recently I have been playing with ToBEx which disables fake attacks (and keeps the pulsing idle animation, unlike IWD) and it *feels* amazing. The times when I have been actually able to achieve 9/2 attacks per round or 5 attacks per round - I've always got them if standing still attacking the same target.

Sure I could understand if you got four attacks against one target then moved to attack another and had to wait - but that makes perfect sense to me, and that is the opportunity cost to moving in the Infinity Engine games.

There was this early glitch with Boots of Speed in BG2 where it would seemingly act like a haste spell and increase your APR but IIRC your offhand attacks wouldn't occur at all and you would always miss your first hit when you tried to backstab but that bug has been long since fixed (and now they act like Boots of Speed from BG1).

Other than that, don't ever recall "losing" attacks due to round based system either, whether I had 5 attacks per round or even 10 (with whirlwind/improved haste). I'd rather believe my own eyes than listen and believe to Sawyer.

 

[Infinitron]

But disengagement and AoOs are the same thing

This is factually incorrect.

If you click exactly once to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in NWN2, you will suffer a storm of AoO attacks.

if you click exactly once to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in PoE, you will suffer zero disengagement attacks.

 

[Athelas]

But disengagement and AoOs are the same thing

This is factually incorrect.

If you click exactly ONCE to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in NWN2, you will suffer a storm of AoO attacks.

if you click exactly ONCE to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in PoE, you will suffer zero disengagement attacks.

Yeah, but the latter is far more deadly and will likely get you killed.

Saying those things about AoOs and implementing a disengagement mechancic that is identical makes no sense.

Some of those comments go back to 2002. I guess he had a change of heart. The QA testers on PoE apparently enjoy the meta-game of engagement.

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, but the latter is far more deadly and will likely get you killed.

I don't see how suffering zero attacks can be deadly, so I assume you're referring to successful disengagement attacks in general and not to that particular scenario.

In which case, yes - that's another way in which disengagement and AoOs are NOT the same thing.

 

[Grunker]

But disengagement and AoOs are the same thing

This is factually incorrect.

If you click exactly once to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in NWN2, you will suffer a storm of AoO attacks.

if you click exactly once to move to the other side of a large group of enemies in PoE, you will suffer zero disengagement attacks.

You just described the difference between one attack of opportunity and multiple attacks of opportunity. They're still bloody attacks of opportunity. The only difference between PoE and NWN is that combatants need to establish a soft lock with each other before AoOs enter the picture.

 

[Athelas]

Yeah, but the latter is far more deadly and will likely get you killed.

I don't see how suffering zero attacks can be deadly, so I assume you're referring to successful disengagement attacks in general and not to that particular scenario.

In which case, yes - that's another way in which disengagement and AoOs are NOT the same thing.

Oh sorry, I completely misunderstood your post. Still, my point stands: the disengagement attacks are far too punishing. I'd argue that the fact that they're made at increased accuracy (often bringing them into the crit range) and the fact that you play a hit animation (which didn't happen in NWN2) make them even more of a nuisance than NWN2's AoO's.

 

[Infinitron]

They're still bloody attacks of opportunity.

Call them what you want. The fact is, the mechanic is easier to control than AoOs were, because it's one mouse click == one attack.

Still, my point stands: the disengagement attacks are far too punishing. I'd argue that the fact that they're made at increased accuracy (often bringing them into the crit range) and the fact that you play a hit animation (which didn't happen in NWN2) make them even more of a nuisance than NWN2's AoO's.

I think it's okay for disengagement from melee to be punishing*. The players who enjoy fluttering around the battlefield like butterflies with their melee dudes won't like it, but you can't please everybody. The primary issue is one of control - being able to move around without something happening to you that you weren't intending. Disengagement is better than AoOs in that respect, but it can still be improved.

(*Note that when I say that it should be punishing, I don't necessarily mean that punishment should happen in the form of one single overwhelming attack.)