PoE engagement disabled in IE Mod pros and cons

[Sensuki]

I don't think I'm going too far - it has a serious pacing issue, it's very swingy, it's rote (strings of per encounters), the party formation and positioning is always the same, there's no counterspelling and it's a bit tedious. Then there are the problems with the leveling, balance and encounter design. Pathfinding in combat is also atrocious.

There's not really much I can say that is good about the combat (or the exploration, really). I would continue my playthrough if I actually cared about the story/writing ... but unfortunately I'm disappointed there too, and I already know spoilers about the game anyway so meh, I may not even bother finishing it.

 

[Athelas]

But isn't this the game you waited a significant part of your life for?

 

[Shevek]

I think the poll results are skewed since its either better than BG1 or Better than BG2. A middle option would have garnered many votes as well (likely drawing from the better than BG1 pool). Still, that a sizable plurality of grizzled gamers at the Codex thinks the game is better than BG2 is worthy of note.

Bottom line: Some folks are drawing lines in sand and taking 'principled' stances due to shit they said prior to release.
My advice: Just let that shit go and enjoy the game. Its pretty great.

 

[prodigydancer]

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.

It's just Obsidian catering to noobs and it shouldn't be too hard to fix.

Also per-encounter stuff must go. Spells and abilities should, perhaps, have bigger impact but they should all be per rest. Including cipher abilities (but that would mean a serious class rework - I'm not sure it's doable in a proper way).

Pathfinding in combat is also atrocious.

Yeah, they really blew it.

 

[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.

It's just Obsidian catering to noobs and it shouldn't be too hard to fix.

Maybe they genuinely believe those spells are powerful and dangerous.

Also per-encounter stuff must go. Spells and abilities should, perhaps, have bigger impact but they should all be per rest. Including cipher abilities (but that would mean a serious class rework - I'm not sure it's doable in a proper way).

I agree about the per-encounters. And ciphers should start combat with 0 focus, but be able to build up focus quickly, with the opening shot giving them just enough to use their lower-level abilities.

 

[Prime Junta]

Sensuki sounds to me like you have a seriously bad case of post-honeymoon hangover. Like, wait, I married THAT?

Give it some time. With any luck it will pass. It's also possible you burned yourself out with all the emotional investment you put in it though, which would be a pity. But then again, every war demands its fallen heroes.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

There is no "moving whenever i want" in what i say, and it hardly needs your re-translation, especially so distorted one.
Nor do i think anything like "Engagement is for realismfags and it sucks" - which is utter nonsense and just shows you havent read a single thing im saying.

You saying "i dont mind it" is also equivalent to zero, in the context.

I TL;DRed all i got from the topic, not your insights obviously. And my "i played all IE games and i am fine with engagement and do not miss anything" is relevant in the same way as saying "with engagement the games combat sucks" (which is the vibe i am getting here, not from you, overall). And i am sorry but i cannot get more out of it - where are the obvious arguments i am missing?

PoE combat is indeed lacking, but this heated discussion about engagement is kind of too much. It's not like lack of engagement would suddenly make the combat more exciting... Encounters are shit and too easy. It's not engagements fault.

 

[Sensuki]

Bottom line: Some folks are drawing lines in sand and taking 'principled' stances due to shit they said prior to release.

Doesn't have anything to do with stuff I said before release. When the game came out, I sat down and played it for a few days straight after I finished the majority of the youtube content I set out to do. I didn't focus on reporting bugs, I just sat down and played to have fun. I started out enjoying myself but the enjoyment factor just wore off very fast, unfortunately. It might be affecting me worse than others because of the degree of my personal investment but the problems I am having with the game seem to affect many others here.

 

[Shevek]

I think you have had the game under a microscope for too long. You look long enough at anything and you start to fixate on the minutiae rather than take in the big picture. You did alot to improve the quality of the game, Sensuki, but it sounds like your efforts have made it difficult for you not to be in "hyper critical mode." Try just stepping away from it for a bit.

As to others here, the Codex is a fellowship of grizzled gamers. Compared to other games from major dev houses, we are basically carrying PoE on our shoulders and gifting it with wine and song. Ya, there are some naysayers but there always are. The reaction, compared to most big titles that the Codex looks at, has been pretty darned positive. The only time folks are more positive about a game around here is when its from a small dev company that is making a hardcore game (AoD, Underrail, etc).

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I think the poll results are skewed since its either better than BG1 or Better than BG2. A middle option would have garnered many votes as well (likely drawing from the better than BG1 pool).

The pool options could have been better.

Still, that a sizable plurality of grizzled gamers at the Codex thinks the game is better than BG2 is worthy of note.

If that's the case then it's also worthy of note that a sizable plurality of Codexers thinks the game is worse than Bioware's first RPG.

Bottom line: Some folks are drawing lines in sand and taking 'principled' stances due to shit they said prior to release.
My advice: Just let that shit go and enjoy the game. Its pretty great.

Eh, I enjoyed it and do think it's pretty great, that's why I criticize it in the areas I feel it's lacking. I wouldn't give a shit otherwise, like in case of Wasteland 2 or something.

 

[hiver]

Bottom line: Some folks are drawing lines in sand and taking 'principled' stances due to shit they said prior to release.
My advice: Just let that shit go and enjoy the game. Its pretty great.

Your strawman ad hominems serve no purpose or have any use whatsoever. I would suggest you cut that stupid shit of telling people to stop thinking in order to idiotically "enjoy something" off and stuff it back where it came from.

There is no "moving whenever i want" in what i say, and it hardly needs your re-translation, especially so distorted one.
Nor do i think anything like "Engagement is for realismfags and it sucks" - which is utter nonsense and just shows you havent read a single thing im saying.

You saying "i dont mind it" is also equivalent to zero, in the context.

I TL;DRed all i got from the topic, not your insights obviously. And my "i played all IE games and i am fine with engagement and do not miss anything" is relevant in the same way as saying "with engagement the games combat sucks" (which is the vibe i am getting here, not from you, overall). And i am sorry but i cannot get more out of it - where are the obvious arguments i am missing?

PoE combat is indeed lacking, but this heated discussion about engagement is kind of too much. It's not like lack of engagement would suddenly make the combat more exciting... Encounters are shit and too easy. It's not engagements fault.

Do i have to post this several more times?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/engagement-system-solution.98075/



Lack of engagement would mean nothing to the overall quality of combat in the game. In fact, the game already enables the player to make engagement less and less present in the game through talents, skills and items that remove disengagement.

Same as Sensukis mod does in gross.

But engagement as it is implemented additionally deteriorates the combat system as it is.
In several ways numbered in my thread last post.

Which is the reason why i came up with the actual solution to the engagement and how it could be used to improve combat overall.

 

[Shevek]

Still, that a sizable plurality of grizzled gamers at the Codex thinks the game is better than BG2 is worthy of note.

If that's the case then it's also worthy of note that a sizable plurality of Codexers thinks the game is worse than Bioware's first RPG.

We both know the poll could have read "worse than Dragon Age: Inquisition" or "worse than the Realms of Arkania Remake" or "worse than E.T. on Atari" and the same people would have voted for that. BG1 isnt a bad game but to say PoE is worse than it is pretty darned dumb. Still, some folks want to make a statement one way or another.

*editted for clarity

 

[ZagorTeNej]

We both know the poll could have read "worse than Dragon Age: Inquisition" or "worse than the Realms of Arkania Remake" and the same people would have voted for that. To say this game is worse than BG1 is pretty darned dumb but some folks want to make a statement one way or another.

In the same vein I could say people voting for "better than BG2" also want to make the statement and piss off those damn grogs who dare criticize my PoE. Either way, I'm not sure you're correct, BG1 is not the best game ever but it's still in Codex top 20 IIRC so not comparable to DAI and other crap.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

Do i have to post this several more times?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/engagement-system-solution.98075/

Well they obviously didn't go for a very sofisticated solution. But fighter as it is, is the class that can engage more opponents. And automatic engagement seems like an easy solution, instead of say actively using the skill on targets in real time combat. Actually, you can already do this with the fighter's skill which pulls targets into engagement.

I'd say AI should just get a bump and try to disable your fronliners to break engagement to go for your back row. And generally do more threatening stuff. So overall i just don't find the topic very controversial, that's it. Engagement is not a super hot feature, but it's also not really worth to be discussed to death or condemned.

 

[hiver]

The fact that fighters can engage more opponents means absolutely nothing in a system where everyone can engage everyone else.

- i have no fucking idea where the idea about using engagement in real time combat comes since this is obviously a Real time WITH PAUSE system.

And the fighter does not "pull" anyone into engagement, there is a separate talent you have to take to "pull" anyone and it mostly doesnt work for various minute pathfinding problems.

So overall i just don't find the topic very controversial, that's it. Engagement is not a super hot feature, but it's also not really worth to be discussed to death or condemned.

You stated this repeatedly and it still means nothing. Not to mention that its just empty declaratory statements without any meaning or relevance to anything.

 

[hell bovine]

Bottom line: Some folks are drawing lines in sand and taking 'principled' stances due to shit they said prior to release.

Doesn't have anything to do with stuff I said before release. When the game came out, I sat down and played it for a few days straight after I finished the majority of the youtube content I set out to do. I didn't focus on reporting bugs, I just sat down and played to have fun. I started out enjoying myself but the enjoyment factor just wore off very fast, unfortunately. It might be affecting me worse than others because of the degree of my personal investment but the problems I am having with the game seem to affect many others here.

I think it's because exploration in PoE is dissapointing in general. It's just scattered groups of enemies combined with bland side quest.

My issue with engagement is that the enemy seems unwilling to break it, even if engaged by a character who can't hit the broad side of the barn and therefore doesn't pose any threat in melee. Even in the open my shooters can stand just next to the fray, since because moving that half a centimeter would cause the enemy to disengage, they won't move. I wonder if it's possible to change their AI for this.

Question: do you need to restart after patching?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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.

Even if the classes were balanced (i.e. the defensive options of Mages, or Mage-likes, were significantly tuned down) that still wouldn't solve the problem; that is, past a certain point in fantastic settings, "tanky" characters are unable to defend their squishies from the attacks of enemies. Tanks are quickly at strong disadvantage with regards to mobility as fantastic foes become more advanced. Three dudes with swords, plate-mail, and boards can hardly be expected to defend their back line against charging giants, vampires or genies breaking through the ranks in mist form, purple worms burrowing up from underground, or a dragon flying overhead (and cooking some mages extra crispy).

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.

And stringent constraints upon enemy movement and offensive abilities to actually make defensive lines viable. You can pretty much throw out any enemy that can traverse the battlefield more effectively than a (demi)human Fighter because elsewise they will crack the bedrock of the combat. Oh, and these protective lines do nothing to protect those behind them from ranged attacks, be they arrows, bullets, fireballs, breath attacks, Beholder rays, etc. Not exactly a great cornerstone for a combat system of this sort.

Again, it's silly to try and shoehorn in this sort of tactical framework to fantasy worlds and game rulesets that it is completely incongruent with. Just like the Phalanx formation never would have arisen in a world where dudes with somewhat uncommonly distributed abilities could hurl magical conflagrations across the battlefield, no fantasy fighting squad would try to rely upon some generic warriors to protect them from the myriad threats they face.

 

[Sensuki]

there won't be ridiculous scenarios where some enemy just decides to go after character x no matter what and i have to walk that character around in a circle as every other character tries to take that enemy down

This didn't happen in the Infinity Engine games except for a few specific scenarios where enemies just target the one unit. Newsflash - trolls and stuff do that in Pillars of Eternity as well. They ignore engagements.

 

[hiver]

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.

Very hard to do in simple systems like HP points, as the first thing that comes to mind.

Even if the classes were balanced (i.e. the defensive options of Mages, or Mage-likes, were significantly tuned down) that still wouldn't solve the problem; that is, past a certain point in fantastic settings, "tanky" characters are unable to defend their squishies from the attacks of enemies.

Yes, but that happens only after a "certain point" so actually the tanks and such formations do have their use for some part of combat encounters.

Tanks are quickly at strong disadvantage with regards to mobility as fantastic foes become more advanced. Three dudes with swords, plate-mail, and boards can hardly be expected to defend their back line against charging giants, vampires or genies breaking through the ranks in mist form, purple worms burrowing up from underground, or a dragon flying overhead (and cooking some mages extra crispy).

Yes, but we do get even such enemies nerfed down so that they are manageable and the party often gets various items that provide specific protections against such more fantastic enemies. Sorta.
Its not like we are ever going to get some sort of realistic clash of monsters versus ordinary men in these games. You never play an ordinary man or woman or a party.

Oh, and these protective lines do nothing to protect those behind them from ranged attacks, be they arrows, bullets, fireballs, breath attacks, Beholder rays, etc. Not exactly a great cornerstone for a combat system of this sort.

That rarely happens does it? Enemies never seem to do the basic thing the player does, let alone anything more complicated.

Again, it's silly to try and shoehorn in this sort of tactical framework to fantasy worlds and game rulesets that it is completely incongruent with. Just like the Phalanx formation never would have arisen in a world where dudes with somewhat uncommonly distributed abilities could hurl magical conflagrations across the battlefield, no fantasy fighting squad would try to rely upon some generic warriors to protect them from the myriad threats they face.

No, it still has its uses, because of the way these things are designed.

We could talk a lot about what kind of cool stuff could be added and invented to pay more attention to such possibilities as you described above, but considering what basics we are getting in games like these i dont think there would be much point to it.

 

[Sensuki]

No it doesn't, you probably just didn't know how to switch enemy aggro.

 

[Kiste]

No it doesn't, you probably just didn't know how to switch enemy aggro.

Using some sort of RTS-style microing has no place in stat-driven tactical RPG combat. It's to be considered a degenerate gameplay element and it sucked in the IE games. RTwP is already bad enoug as it is, let's not make it suck even more for the sake of chasing your personal Holy Grail of Dungeon Siege and Warcraft style gameplay.
​

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

RTwP is already bad enoug as it is
​

Surprise, surprise, another person who doesn't like RTwP. Tell me again why it makes sense to cater to people who don't like RTwP in your RTwP game?

 

[Sensuki]

Knew he didn't like RTwP haha, no wonder he was qqing so much.

I suppose it doesn't help that the devs themselves all want to make a turn-based game as well, so it's no surprise that they listen to such idiots.

 

[Kiste]

Surprise, surprise, another person who doesn't like RTwP. Tell me again why it makes sense to cater to people who don't like RTwP in your RTwP game?

I don't particularly like it but I don't really hate it all that much. It's more like something I can deal with and it doesn't negatively impact my enjoyment of the game too much. I'm not one to blow a gasket over RTwP, I just think that TB is a much better fit for stat-driven RPG combat.

Now you tell me why it makes sense to have RTS twitch nonsense and shit like microing your guys around to confuse shitty enemy targeting AI in your a stat-driven tactical RPG combat, RT or otherwise, and why this should be the gold standard for aggro control.

Knew he didn't like RTwP haha, no wonder he was qqing so much.

Uh, you're the idiot who is qqing about Engagement. I'm fine here, no complaints.

 

[Ziem]

Now you tell me why it makes sense to have RTS twitch nonsense and shit like microing your guys around to confuse shitty enemy targeting AI in your a stat-driven tactical RPG combat, RT or otherwise, and why this should be the gold standard for aggro control.

makes sense in a "spiritual successor to the ie games"

also

what is "microing your guys around to confuse ai" supposed to mean lmao
retreating, switching targets or just moving in combat = confusing ai?
???