Pillars Combat Analysis-Review

[Shevek]

Mangoose
I made the same suggestion during the beta. I wouldn't increase the amount of disengagement abilities drastically though. As far as Sensuki, he does not wish to spend advancement awards on combat mobility and would rather spend all points on combat power and have combat mobility be "free."

 

[Mangoose]

Mangoose
I made the same suggestion during the beta. I wouldn't increase the amount of disengagement abilities drastically though. As far as Sensuki, he does not wish to spend advancement awards on combat mobility and would rather spend all points on combat power and have combat mobility be "free."

I just think both are too extreme. I feel like the middle between free-ness and static-ness is best because that's where there are most opportunities (and necessities) for meaningful decisions to make in combat.

You may be right in not increasing them drastically. Perhaps at the least, one per class, with the mobile classing having more and/or more significant positional effects. So for example add some more opportunities for the Rogues and Barbarians to act like skirmishers and "shock troopers," respectively. And then the opportunity for the "tanks" to "catch" them.

I think we're on the same page that basically these would add more dynamicism to the combat and lessen then static-ness without jumping to the opposite extreme of IE. Like I said, I'm not looking for simulationism... honestly I'm looking to add gamism.

 

[Sensuki]

Jesus fuck, think outside the box. No terrain advantages? Make some areas swampy that slow you. Make some areas have more trees and thus give lighter-armored units better advantage. Chokepoints - more of them.

I don't care about any of that for an Infinity Engine game. That's not what combat is about. Other than smart design of maps (chokepoints, places with no navmesh that can create interesting situations), but you don't need passive bonuses for being in a certain spot in every single game.

RTS games are not tactical games. Period.

Do you not micromanage units in combat or something?

Have you ever played Warcraft 3? Do you ever move your guys around, target units with specific armor, micro units enemies are targeting away from the frontline, use your heroes and casters active abilities?

you're trying to out-think them by taking their resource nodes, dropping units into their back-end, building counter units, using a rushing strategy when they're not prepared for one.

Yes, RTS games are primarily about controlling access to resources but combat is a big part of those games and a player with superior combat skill can turn a battle that they should lose into a battle that they win and you do that through use of tactics in combat.

There is absolutely no "actively try and stop enemies" unless you out-think them on the strategy level. You stop the enemy by picking when and where and if the battle occurs.

Bullshit. I'll use WC3 as an example again. A common tactic used to force players into wasting their TP is physically surrounding their hero unit (usually meaning that their hero is fucked). There's no way to passively prevent that from happening, you have to actually react to what the enemies are trying to do and actively stop them.

That is how it should be.

eg

We agreed that running around with active abilities is unwieldy in RTWP.

We agreed that too many active abilities per character/unit is unwieldy. On the other hand, I love making decisions often and running around in combat. I enjoy having to react to enemy actions often.

I said specifically that passive systems still require active decisions. Toggles, stances, and the like are still abilities you need to click and need to activate.

Engagement, AoOs and systems that require no player input are the passive systems I am talking about.

What the hell are you talking about standing there doing nothing? I told you I wanted a system that requires decisions but not constant decisions - instead, meaningful decisions to reposition, change stances, etc.

Being rewarded for standing still in combat, like in Pillars of Eternity. I detest AoO style mechanics in real-time games. I believe active disables are the most fun way to control units in combat.

Uh, no, I want melee characters to have something to do. How the fuck is what I said simulationist? I simply want mechanics that rely on you to make mid-battle decisions that are more than just target selection. I want meaningful gaming not chaos.

But you do have to rely on mid-battle decisions in the Infinity Engine games (less so in BG1). Even a Fighter with no active abilities has choices to be made. You have to react to what enemies are doing. Taking too much damage? Move, or drink potions. Taking poison damage? You need someone to neutralize it, or drink a potion. Don't have the right setup, enemies targeting your squishes? Move your Fighter, move your squishy back and make the enemies target your Fighter.

When you are controlling a party of six characters, it's good that there are some classes that are more passive than others and I think it works that it's the frontline characters in the IE games and the casters that are pretty active. They could be given a little bit more to do (becomes p. good in late game ToB with the HLAs etc) but I think it's a good balance.

If you start adding in all this shit like flanking, facing, toggles and whatever, all of a sudden you'll be finding that you'll be pausing all the time and it may as well end up being turn-based combat - which is where most of those mechanics you are referring to are much better off.

Notice that my proposal has everything to do with active abilities. The primary topic is that I want more active Disengagement Abilities instead of making Engagement require more activity.

These Disengagement Abilities have they have significant positioning effects and thus need to be activated less - only when necessary. If you make Engagement require active abilities, you add too much activity, because using the front-line tactically requires constant Engagement.

That is in line with having avoiding unwieldy RTWP combat.Make sense?

And I absolutely contest this notion 100%. It should be the complete reverse where you have to do something to stop others, rather than you having to do something just to move safely, which is fucking dumb in real-time games.

 

[Mangoose]

Have you ever played Warcraft 3? Do you ever move your guys around, target units with specific armor, micro units enemies are targeting away from the frontline, use your heroes and casters active abilities?

Have you ever realized that Warcraft 3 introduced extra tactics because of the role of Heroes?

you're trying to out-think them by taking their resource nodes, dropping units into their back-end, building counter units, using a rushing strategy when they're not prepared for one.

Yes, RTS games are primarily about controlling access to resources but combat is a big part of those games and a player with superior combat skill can turn a battle that they should lose into a battle that they win and you do that through use of tactics in combat.

Combat is an equal aspect to the rest of the game. And because you have to juggle micro combat, macro combat, resources, unit-choice strategy, and all that, you cannot have complex mechanics that require you to make significant decisions
If you know anything about Starcraft, the only influential specific-battle "tactic" is when high level Korean players have absurd APM and micro their units so they simply target the right enemies as fast as possible while kiting as fast as possible. It's not tactics. It's out-moving the enemy faster than the enemy can out-move you.

Bullshit. I'll use WC3 as an example again. A common tactic used to force players into wasting their TP is physically surrounding their hero unit (usually meaning that their hero is fucked). There's no way to passively prevent that from happening, you have to actually react to what the enemies are trying to do and actively stop them.

Don't even bring up WC3 if you're talking about strategy. It's pretty fucking clear that the aspect of WC3's Heroes is RTT. Ask anyone who plays the game.

I said specifically that passive systems still require active decisions. Toggles, stances, and the like are still abilities you need to click and need to activate.

Engagement, AoOs and systems that require no player input are the passive systems I am talking about.

That's nice. But I said in the fucking beginning I don't like the way Engagement works at all. I want something in-between engagement and non-engagement.

Uh, no, I want melee characters to have something to do. How the fuck is what I said simulationist? I simply want mechanics that rely on you to make mid-battle decisions that are more than just target selection. I want meaningful gaming not chaos.

But you do have to rely on mid-battle decisions in the Infinity Engine games (less so in BG1). Even a Fighter with no active abilities has choices to be made. You have to react to what enemies are doing. Taking too much damage? Move, or drink potions. Taking poison damage? You need someone to neutralize it, or drink a potion. Don't have the right setup, enemies targeting your squishes? Move your Fighter, move your squishy back and make the enemies target your Fighter.

Those are not thinking decisions. Move because you are taking damage? Drink potions if you are taking too much damage? lol, epitome of tactics.

And like we all have said, making the enemy target you in IE is just shit implementation of AI. Good AI is just going to ignore you. Ask yourself this. If the AI moved your squishy back, is there anything that making you as a player target your Fighter instead?

If you start adding in all this shit like flanking, facing, toggles and whatever, all of sudden you'll be finding that you'll be pausing all the time and it may as well end up being turn-based combat - which is where most of those mechanics you are referring to are much better off.

Toggles require more pausing than active clickies? Are you kidding me?

Notice that my proposal has everything to do with active abilities. The primary topic is that I want more active Disengagement Abilities instead of making Engagement require more activity.

These Disengagement Abilities have they have significant positioning effects and thus need to be activated less - only when necessary. If you make Engagement require active abilities, you add too much activity, because using the front-line tactically requires constant Engagement.

That is in line with having avoiding unwieldy RTWP combat.Make sense?

And I absolutely contest this notion 100%. It should be the complete reverse where you have to do something to stop others, rather than you having to do something just to move safely, which is fucking dumb in real-time games.

Now you want simulationism?

I told you this is all about gameplay flow and specifically making gameplay not unwieldy. If you want actively clicking clicking clicking in your RTWP then please go ahead and refute your own position. How many times do I have to reiterate that this is all about gameplay flow. Yes, your suggestion works in the same way. The difference is that your suggestion makes for unentertaining gameplay.

Jesus fuck, think outside the box. No terrain advantages? Make some areas swampy that slow you. Make some areas have more trees and thus give lighter-armored units better advantage. Chokepoints - more of them.

I don't care about any of that for an Infinity Engine game. That's not what combat is about.[/quote]
I... have no words for this. You want combat to be flashy and visceral.

I'm done lol.

 

[Shevek]

I could be wrong on this, but I get the sense that Sensuki would be really pleased with a rpg like PoE that played like DotA.

Check out the first 20 seconds of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZR-o_5ap3k

I don't mean this as a slight or to be flippant or whatever. It has the free movement, the reactive abilities, etc. This is just not something that interests me.

 

[The Bishop]

I always think of the Total War series (in single player) when I think of RTWP.

So do I, and the funny thing about TW is that it handles "engagements" in pretty much the same way as PoE does. If you try to move your unit away when it already stuck onto enemy unit you will suffer significant (often crippling) loses. In TW games if you want to move around a lot during battle either use specific unit type like cavalry, or keep some units in reserve. I see absolutely no problem with similar system in a game like PoE, on fundamental level of course. The current implementation still has ways to go.

I do however have a problem with turning PoE into Pillars of DOTA. That active abilities spam belongs to MOBAs, not tactical slow paced RPGs.

 

[tdphys]

I could be wrong on this, but I get the sense that Sensuki would be really pleased with a rpg like PoE that played like DotA.

Check out the first 20 seconds of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZR-o_5ap3k

I don't mean this as a slight or to be flippant or whatever. It has the free movement, the reactive abilities, etc. This is just not something that interests me.

I'd say POE is rtwp influenced by tabletop. I'd really like to see a rtwp RPG with some inspiration from modern MOBA's. Not, obviously, the limited spammable class powers and level progression, but more from the rts refinement and positioning tactics that's driven the genre. Unfortunately, that means good pathfinding and decent AI. I wonder how much of that is available in the new source engine.

 

[Sensuki]

I told you this is all about gameplay flow and specifically making gameplay not unwieldy. If you want actively clicking clicking clicking in your RTWP then please go ahead and refute your own position. How many times do I have to reiterate that this is all about gameplay flow. Yes, your suggestion works in the same way. The difference is that your suggestion makes for unentertaining gameplay.

IE combat has beautiful flow. Pillars combat does not. It's quite disjointed in comparison. Some amount of actives are good, but not too many and they shouldn't be spammable.

Just because I think you should move, block and disable to control movement, that does not equal bad flow. All games that I have played that do this (RTS etc) have great flow.

I... have no words for this. You want combat to be flashy and visceral.

I'm done lol.

No. I want to react. Not every game needs passive bonuses or maluses for terrain and shit like that.

I do however have a problem with turning PoE into Pillars of DOTA. That active abilities spam belongs to MOBAs, not tactical slow paced RPGs.

Neither the IE games or PE have slow paced combat, and PE ain't very tactical.

 

[Infinitron]

Just want to say that I refined my idea for "defensive engagement". There's no need to make it a modal ability that needs to be activated. Just make characters only become "sticky" after standing in place for some minimum amount of time.

So, if your wizard gets ganged up on by a bunch of guys, he can get away if he's quick enough, but your static defensive lines are still sticky.

 

[tdphys]

Another way to do it would be line of sight. For example, in Chess (and other tabletop wargames actually), the backline offense can't just attack the enemy willy-nilly. Here tanks are useful positionally by blocking off line-of-sight.

Or similarly attacks/spells themselves could be at the mercy of collision detection, so that tanks can literally block and deflect projectiles/etc.

Artillery gets around that but that's another story.

I like the line of sight idea, it would mean opening lanes for your shooters, which would possibly allow back line infiltration, except that *engagement* makes manipulating the front line really impossible.

Maybe -15% accuracy if your line to target clips something.

Another useful addition would be a lot more terrain advantages/disadvantages. Here you can use a tank/tanks to block off a chokepoint for example

We kind of already have this with spells like entangle and traps to some extent. I don't thing it would be a bad thing to have existing *swamp* locations or *deep brush* that slow or give accuracy penalties. In fact, I think maybe that could lead to some encounter design that pillars is lacking

 

[Sensuki]

Just want to say that I refined my idea for "defensive engagement". There's no need to make it a modal ability that needs to be activated. Just make characters only become "sticky" after standing in place for some minimum amount of time.

So, if your wizard gets ganged up on by a bunch of guys, he can get away if he's quick enough, but your static defensive lines are still sticky.

That would be pretty boring and you'd always use pulling tactics every single encounter (set up tanks, send guy out to get aggro and then run behind tanks who have already ticked into "siege tank mode"). It would be just as shit, if not worse than PE.

 

[The Bishop]

Neither the IE games or PE have slow paced combat, and PE ain't very tactical.

It's not very tactical so let's make it an action game with pause? How about making it more tactical instead?

 

[gestalt11]

It's not very tactical so let's make it an action game with pause? How about making it more tactical instead?

 

[Infinitron]

That would be pretty boring and you'd always use pulling tactics every single encounter (set up tanks, send guy out to get aggro and then run behind tanks who have already ticked into "siege tank mode").

Doesn't sound so different from the current game?

Like I said, the way I see it, this kind of defensive engagement is what the IE games sort of tried to support (by letting you place characters in chokepoints etc), but had issues with.

The other functionality of engagement in PoE, this "playing tag" aggro business, on the other hand, is something that had no clear analogue in the IE games. Like, why is it even there? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing in concept, but I question whether it's what the designers really intended.

 

[tdphys]

That would be pretty boring and you'd always use pulling tactics every single encounter (set up tanks, send guy out to get aggro and then run behind tanks who have already ticked into "siege tank mode").

Doesn't sound so different from the current game?

Like I said, the way I see it, this kind of defensive engagement is what the IE games sort of supported (by placing characters in chokepoints etc), but had issues with this.

The other functionality of engagement in PoE, this "playing tag" aggro business, on the other hand, is something that had no clear analogue in the IE games. Like, why is it even there? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing in concept, but I question whether it's what the designers really intended.

I think they started with it, and it became too integral (in their minds) to take out, because kiting. It's kind of morphed into what it is today just by necessity, a passive aggro grabber that doesn't even do much but disrupt movement since disengagement attacks were nerfed. So really, if I were to be a conspiracist, it's there to mask pathfinding and ai issues In reality, since the pathfinding and AI were all written with engagement, the devs probably can't bear the rework to change it.

 

[Mangoose]

I could be wrong on this, but I get the sense that Sensuki would be really pleased with a rpg like PoE that played like DotA.

Check out the first 20 seconds of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZR-o_5ap3k

I don't mean this as a slight or to be flippant or whatever. It has the free movement, the reactive abilities, etc. This is just not something that interests me.

The funny thing is I was interested in such an idea (and still kinda think it may work if done right). But the one game (Aarklash Legacy) that did that did not play well at all so.. eh: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aarklash legacy&oq=&gs_l=

Maybe if it had less actives and more emphasis on toggles.

 

[Mangoose]

It's not very tactical so let's make it an action game with pause? How about making it more tactical instead?

I wanted to bring that up but it felt too insulting.

 

[Mangoose]

I... have no words for this. You want combat to be flashy and visceral.

I'm done lol.

No. I want to react. Not every game needs passive bonuses or maluses for terrain and shit like that.

Because making the decision to maneuver between different terrain areas, because of enemy units moving into a position which suddenly makes your position with respect to terrain disadvantageous rather than advantageous, is passive and not reactive.

You don't want situational passive bonuses but you're happy with buffing spells.

You don't want passive gameplay but it's perfectly okay for some classes to be passive but other classes to be active.

You want positioning to be important but you don't want to make positioning important by competing over positions.

You want a very very very simplistic implementation of positioning where it's not even important.

What the hell are you reacting to? Lose health = run away and potion up?

How's about reacting to someone taking a valuable area of the board and you forcing him off or somehow maneuvering to make his position disadvantageous?

How about taking advantage of an enemy unit positioned so that it is overextended, cutting him off from his support and then gangbanging him?

How about getting to a chokepoint before the enemy so that you have a dominant position?

 

[Sensuki]

I could be wrong on this, but I get the sense that Sensuki would be really pleased with a rpg like PoE that played like DotA.

I play DotA.

As Mangoose said, there is a game that's kinda sorta like a DotA style RPG. Aarklash Legacy. It mixes MOBA with MMO and party based control. The combat is reactive and tactical, and movement and positioning are dynamic and crucial. However there are some big areas where it falls down. First of all boss fights are designed like MMO fights, so you're basically fighting a DPS war against a single boss with a lot of HP which amounts to doing the same thing over and over and over again. You only have four abilities like in a MOBA, so the gameplay can get a bit repetitive where you're just spamming shit every time it comes off cooldown. There is some deliberation about what to cast and you need to use tactics but the use of the same few actives all the time gets repetitive, particularly in the boss fights. The item system is terrible. It's basically just small passive bonuses. +3% to damage, etc etc.

The main thing that probably brings it down is the MMO-style HP slog combat. Everything has a lot of HP so it takes a fair amount of time to whittle enemies down, particularly bosses. This increases the repetitiveness of combat. It has some good encounters, the heroes are all different and using them in different combos is cool, movement is really good, the engine rocks, gameplay feels super smooth and the combat is reactive and tactical but unfortunately it's repetitive/grinding.

The same gameplay feel with more abilities/better char progression, less HP slog and an actual item system plus more RPG elements would be quite cool IMO.

It's not very tactical so let's make it an action game with pause? How about making it more tactical instead?

Do you even know what tactical means? You seem to be confusing "slower paced game with a bunch of passive rules, stategical considerations and low micromanagement = tactical" and "faster game with more micromanagement and the seldom use of active abilities" = action.

No.

Most "tactical" games that you are thinking of are turn-based games. JA2, Silent Storm. They're called tactical games because they lack the resource control/base building of a strategy game.

Action combat requires constant input from the player. Diablo is an action game because each action that the PC takes in the game is controlled by the player. Every attack requires holding down of the mouse or a click.

RTS games do not require constant input from the player. You left or right click to attack and that unit will continue to attack until they kill the unit they're targeting, they are killed or you issue them another command. The use of active abilities does not = action gameplay. In this thread I have stated that I think Pillars of Eternity goes too far with the amount of active abilities and frequency that they are used (usually several per encounter per unit) but I think the IE games could have a few more.

Doesn't sound so different from the current game?

Your suggestion would likely make it more stationary and more repetitive. You would still be able to stick a character in a doorway and block access to the rest of the party simply because you're blocking the pathing space. The only thing it would do is outside of chokepoints, you'd just need to "plant" your tanks and use a different character to pull enemies to them so that they get snagged. Instead of moving your tanks out to meet the enemies, you'd just be changing the gameplay to the inverse where you wait and they come to you. That is literally the only thing it would do. I don't see that as a positive, I see that as a negative because then everything would be so much more static and it would make moving tanks in combat be completely pointless.

Like I said, the way I see it, this kind of defensive engagement is what the IE games sort of tried to support (by letting you place characters in chokepoints etc), but had issues with.

I doubt they even considered it.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing in concept, but I question whether it's what the designers really intended. The other functionality of engagement in PoE, this "playing tag" aggro business, on the other hand, is something that had no clear analogue in the IE games. Like, why is it even there?

Probably not, however both fantastic gameplay and really shit gameplay can be the result of players not playing as designers intended. In this case it's the latter. From what we've seen of the PE devs when they play they play very basic - see enemy, attack, use some abilities ... - very different to how players play the game with the always stealthing, always setting up on encounters etc etc (up to the point where you don't even need to do that really). Sometimes I really have to question their intentions. For instance - Josh Sawyer was claiming that making interrupts end engagement was supposed to be a way to 'enable' movement in combat. Was he lying to try and sell the idea? / sell the engagement system? Dunno, but it quickly became pretty clear to me that it added almost nothing to the gameplay. Firstly, interrupts are unreliable. Secondly, it's difficult to even notice when an interrupt ends engagement due to the visual richness of combat. Engagement arrows only show if your character is selected, the thick engagement circle doesn't distinguish between one or more engagements and if you show the arrows all the time it really clutters the combat screen. I never once in my playthrough noticed it, but I did notice that using Blinding and Crippling Strike cancelled my Rogue's current engagement (probably a bug, unsure if fixed). Thirdly, why on earth would you want to run away if you score an interrupt in melee? That's fucking retarded. You can't if you're engaged by more than one unit and secondly, you've technically 'disabled' that unit for a short time so why not take advantage of it and pour on the DPS?

Seems to me like there's always been a bit of a disconnect between how a mechanic should work and how it actually works. "Create idea on paper, get programmer to implement into game, see if it works, OK DONE! No more playing". Bester said it was pretty obvious that they don't test their implementations, so there's no doubt that they don't study the effects their mechanics have on the gameplay either.

 

[Sensuki]

Because making the decision to maneuver between different terrain areas, because of enemy units moving into a position which suddenly makes your position with respect to terrain disadvantageous rather than advantageous, is passive and not reactive.

Jesus fucking Christ. This is not Jagged Alliance 2. This is not Silent Storm.

You don't want situational passive bonuses but you're happy with buffing spells.

I don't want systemic passive bonuses exterior to the character system other than stuff similar to what's there in the IE games, or something similar. TBH personally I don't care what happens to Pillars of Eternity but in my ideal "Infinity Engine style" game I would not want these mechanics, no. Just like I wouldn't want them in The Banner Saga. I don't think it suits this type of game.

You don't want passive gameplay but it's perfectly okay for some classes to be passive but other classes to be active.

See above - passive bonuses exterior to the character system. Good in other types of games, not these ones IMO.

You want positioning to be important but you don't want to make positioning important by competing over positions.

Positioning is already important, and I don't think adding passive bonuses for standing on specific points in the map suits the game. You sound like you're trying to force mechanics from a game with guns into a fantasy RTwP RPG. A game that was like Company of Heroes (which has stances and cover mechanics) would be awesome fun RT or RTwP IMO but that's completely different to an Infinity Engine game.

You want a very very very simplistic implementation of positioning where it's not even important.

What the hell are you reacting to? Lose health = run away and potion up?

Damage, Targeting, Status Effects (Poison, Hold, Disease, Silence, Paralyze, Level Drain etc) and Spells?

The stuff you are advocating for doesn't really promote tactics, it promotes strategy like Engagement does. Engagement promotes using the same setup over and over again, and promotes setting it up before the encounter begins. Infinity Engine combat doesn't play like that at all, it is more dynamic.

How's about reacting to someone taking a valuable area of the board and you forcing him off or somehow maneuvering to make his position disadvantageous?

This isn't a board game, nor a turn-based game. Let's say a spot on the map gave you a passive bonus if you occupy it. If that spot is fair game, you will simply plan to occupy that spot, you'd be a fucking imbecile to let the computer AI get it. Think about how this would work in Pillars of Eternity. Player has stealth, player stealths to spot that gives advantage, player turns off stealth, beelines for the spot, gg.

How about taking advantage of an enemy unit positioned so that it is overextended, cutting him off from his support and then gangbanging him?

Hahah, I'd like to see you name a scenario that relates to the Infinity Engine games or Pillars of Eternity in this manner.

How about getting to a chokepoint before the enemy so that you have a dominant position?

This is what EVERYONE does in Pillars of Eternity. In the IE games you can do it too. You don't need to give doing this a passive fucking bonus. The fact that it blocks pathing to your party members is bonus enough.

 

[Mangoose]

Damage, Targeting, Status Effects (Poison, Hold, Disease, Silence, Paralyze, Level Drain etc) and Spells?

And how exactly do I do that with melee characters? Besides run away and drink pots.

Jesus fucking Christ. This is not Jagged Alliance 2. This is not Silent Storm.

A game that was like Company of Heroes (which has stances and cover mechanics) would be awesome fun RT or RTwP IMO but that's completely different to an Infinity Engine game.

Hurr durr this is not a turn based game this is not JA2 this is not SS this is not a RTT this is not this, this is not that.

Yeah, a fantasy RTWP is not any of that. Which is why IE combat is shit outside of mage battles.

See above - passive bonuses exterior to the character system. Good in other types of games, not these ones IMO.

Why? Because you have a very very very narrow view of how Fantasy RPGs should play?

This isn't a board game, nor a turn-based game. Let's say a spot on the map gave you a passive bonus if you occupy it. If that spot is fair game, you will simply plan to occupy that spot, you'd be a fucking imbecile to let the computer AI get it. Think about how this would work in Pillars of Eternity. Player has stealth, player stealths to spot that gives advantage, player turns off stealth, beelines for the spot, gg.

Uh. Knockbacks? Status effects? Rock-paper-scissors-esque terrain advantages and diadvantages? What if that spot is not useful for a stealth character? What if you're it's a jungle-y area which gives advantages to light infantry, yet their light infantry is far away and your heavy tank is closer? Do you decide to occupy that space to deny the opponent to do so, to put yourself at disadvantage in order to deny the opponent the advantage?

Hahah, I'd like to see you name a scenario that relates to the Infinity Engine games or Pillars of Eternity in this manner.

Point exactly. You can't do that in IE or PoE.

But noooooo you can't have that in IE or PoE because that's NOT NA IE GAME and YOU CAN'T ADD THINGS THAT ARE NOT IE!!!!

The stuff you are advocating for doesn't really promote tactics, it promotes strategy like Engagement does. Engagement promotes using the same setup over and over again, and promotes setting it up before the encounter begins. Infinity Engine combat doesn't play like that at all, it is more dynamic.

Nothing. And None. Of the stuff I proposed promotes setting up and not changing things. Everything I proposed requires dynamic decisions continually throughout combat.

IE is the fucking strategy game with respect to non-spellcasters. It is not dynamic. Give me one fucking thing a fighter does besides drink pot, run away, and force the scripted AI to target them.

By the way dynamic combat != dynamic decision making.

Drinking pots is not decision making.

 

[Sensuki]

And how exactly do I do that with melee characters? Besides run away and drink pots.

This is one area that falls down in the IE games. Melee characters don't exactly have too much to do other than auto-attack and use items. Pillars of Eternity goes a bit too far with the amount of actives a frontline character might have but it has the right idea in giving them a bit more to do.

Regardless I still find IE frontliners fun to play.

Hurr durr this is not a turn based game this is not JA2 this is not SS this is not a RTT this is not this, this is not that.

Yeah, a fantasy RTWP is not any of that. Which is why IE combat is shit outside of mage battles.

No, it's pretty good actually. It could be better, but there's no dev willing to have a serious crack at it. Pillars of Eternity is "IE for people that didn't like IE", so I wouldn't be surprised if you prefer it.

Why? Because you have a very very very narrow view of how Fantasy RPGs should play?

Not at all. I do not require all games to have the one set of mechanics like you seem to. You don't see me coming into the Wasteland 2 forum and saying "COMBAT MUST BE THIS WAY BECAUSE THE INFINITY ENGINE GAMES WERE". Pillars of Eternity is a game that was supposed to be an Infinity Engine style game but apart from the looks and controls, it's not really that much like one but I guess it's closer than DA:O.

Uh. Knockbacks? Status effects? Rock-paper-scissors-esque terrain advantages and diadvantages? What if that spot is not useful for a stealth character? What if you're it's a jungle-y area which gives advantages to light infantry, yet their light infantry is far away and your heavy tank is closer? Do you decide to occupy that space to deny the opponent to do so, to put yourself at disadvantage in order to deny the opponent the advantage?

Yeah man let's all play King of the Hill on a flat plain of grass. That patch gives +2 to AC!

Sounds like the fucking dumbest shit ever, and also promotes the same binary stand still combat that Pillars of Eternity has.

There's a couple of abilities in PE that have knock backs and there's already plenty of reason to use them - the game doesn't even need a passive terrain bonus to make those abilities viable - they are viable for the disable alone. It would also be tricky to code AI to be 'smart' about terrain. Obsidian would never bother with something like that. Every character in Pillars of Eternity can stealth, you don't even need a point in the Stealth score to get close enough to most encounters.

Once again you bring up tanks (like army tanks). This isn't a military simulator.

Point exactly. You can't do that in IE or PoE.

But noooooo you can't have that in IE or PoE because that's NOT NA IE GAME and YOU CAN'T ADD THINGS THAT ARE NOT IE!!!!

That's right, you can't. Oh wait, why don't we add in bandages? And maybe stamina for movement speed and wind for arrows, or what about explosions that physically knock units back? Or maybe dragons can swallow units whole?

Nothing. And None. Of the stuff I proposed promotes setting up and not changing things. Everything I proposed requires dynamic decisions continually throughout combat.

I believe that you believe that. But I don't think that would be the case. Particularly with the disengagement abilities. Suffering a disengagement attack is technically a failure, so if you're in the position where you're suffering them, you're making mistakes. Disengagement abilities are there to lessen the impact or nullify the impact of those mistakes (and many are non-deterministic). If you're not making mistakes in the first place, you don't need those abilities. Abilities which are chosen instead of something that actually helps you win combat by doing more damage or more debuffs/disables.

I have been laughing at how shitty the disengagement abilities are since the early beta. Obsidian have had to keep adding mini bonuses that aren't related to Engagement to try and make them more viable choices. For instance I read that Zealous Charge now adds some Hit to Graze percentage, because bonus to disengagement defense doesn't do shit.

IE is the fucking strategy game with respect to non-spellcasters. It is not dynamic. Give me one fucking thing a fighter does besides drink pot, run away, and force the scripted AI to target them.

By the way dynamic combat != dynamic decision making.

Drinking pots is not decision making.

All AI in every single player game is scripted. There's nothing you can do about that. I stated earlier that Fighters could use some more things to do, but they should come from the CHARACTER SYSTEM. That's where the problem is.

 

[Mangoose]

And how exactly do I do that with melee characters? Besides run away and drink pots.

This is one area that falls down in the IE games. Melee characters don't exactly have too much to do other than auto-attack and use items. Pillars of Eternity goes a bit too far with the amount of actives a frontline character might have but it has the right idea in giving them a bit more to do.

Regardless I still find IE frontliners fun to play.

I do not disagree at all. That's pretty much it. Melee characters don't have enough dynamics to work with. I'm trying to come up with mechanics that allow them to do some.

Hurr durr this is not a turn based game this is not JA2 this is not SS this is not a RTT this is not this, this is not that.

Yeah, a fantasy RTWP is not any of that. Which is why IE combat is shit outside of mage battles.

No, it's pretty good actually. It could be better, but there's no dev willing to have a serious crack at it. Pillars of Eternity is "IE for people that didn't like IE", so I wouldn't be surprised if you prefer it.

Nope. Never liked the way melee characters played. You admit yourself, most melee characters are passive. What I want is the same balance of passivity and dynamicism for each class.

And, no, my point of view is that PoE jumps too much to the other extreme. I do not like PoE combat.

Why? Because you have a very very very narrow view of how Fantasy RPGs should play?

Not at all. I do not require all games to have the one set of mechanics like you seem to. You don't see me coming into the Wasteland 2 forum and saying "COMBAT MUST BE THIS WAY BECAUSE THE INFINITY ENGINE GAMES WERE". Pillars of Eternity is a game that was supposed to be an Infinity Engine style game but apart from the looks and controls, it's not really that much like one but I guess it's closer than DA:O.

Again, the things I mention are examples. They are things that can/may do the holistic idea of giving the passive melee characters something to do. Period.

Seriously, stop looking at the specific ideas I'm brainstorming and just discuss or propose other ideas. That's all I'm getting at,

Uh. Knockbacks? Status effects? Rock-paper-scissors-esque terrain advantages and diadvantages? What if that spot is not useful for a stealth character? What if you're it's a jungle-y area which gives advantages to light infantry, yet their light infantry is far away and your heavy tank is closer? Do you decide to occupy that space to deny the opponent to do so, to put yourself at disadvantage in order to deny the opponent the advantage?

Yeah man let's all play King of the Hill on a flat plain of grass. That patch gives +2 to AC!

Sounds like the fucking dumbest shit ever, and also promotes the same binary stand still combat that Pillars of Eternity has.

Stop it. Seriously. Stop it. I have never said that is the way to do it. I proposed a way that might work.

There's a couple of abilities in PE that have knock backs and there's already plenty of reason to use them - the game doesn't even need a passive terrain bonus to make those abilities viable - they are viable for the disable alone. It would also be tricky to code AI to be 'smart' about terrain. Obsidian would never bother with something like that. Every character in Pillars of Eternity can stealth, you don't even need a point in the Stealth score to get close enough to most encounters.

Remember that my initial proposal is to have more knockbacks and the like to have a balance of engagement and disengagement abilities. The point of disagreement at first was that I felt like active Disengagement abilities would be less micro activity, whereas you believed you felt like active Engagement abilities would be less micro activity than active Disengagement.

We have the same exact goal in mind. I think we'll have to agree to disagree because realistically we can only see when the idea is implemented.

Once again you bring up tanks (like army tanks). This isn't a military simulator.

Nah, in this case I'm talking about medieval tank units, in fact I'm talking very similar about MMO tanks.

Point exactly. You can't do that in IE or PoE.

But noooooo you can't have that in IE or PoE because that's NOT NA IE GAME and YOU CAN'T ADD THINGS THAT ARE NOT IE!!!!

That's right, you can't. Oh wait, why don't we add in bandages? And maybe stamina for movement speed and wind for arrows, or what about explosions that physically knock units back? Or maybe dragons can swallow units whole?

Sounds good to me. Again I'm not saying my ideas are what I want in game. Any idea is good.

Nothing. And None. Of the stuff I proposed promotes setting up and not changing things. Everything I proposed requires dynamic decisions continually throughout combat.

I believe that you believe that. But I don't think that would be the case. Particularly with the disengagement abilities. Suffering a disengagement attack is technically a failure, so if you're in the position where you're suffering them, you're making mistakes. Disengagement abilities are there to lessen the impact or nullify the impact of those mistakes (and many are non-deterministic). If you're not making mistakes in the first place, you don't need those abilities. Abilities which are chosen instead of something that actually helps you win combat by doing more damage or more debuffs/disables.

Welp, again the advantage of one over the other can only be seen when in a game. So reallly we're just theorycrafting too much.

I have been laughing at how shitty the disengagement abilities are since the early beta. Obsidian have had to keep adding mini bonuses that aren't related to Engagement to try and make them more viable choices. For instance I read that Zealous Charge now adds some Hit to Graze percentage, because bonus to disengagement defense doesn't do shit.

Completely agree.

All AI in every single player game is scripted. There's nothing you can do about that. I stated earlier that Fighters could use some more things to do, but they should come from the CHARACTER SYSTEM. That's where the problem is.

I do agree about that. AI has a long way to go, and I did say that it really is no one's fault because it's fucking hard. And yep, how the conversation started was to give passive characters more to do. The difference again is that I wanted more Disengagement Actives and you wanted more Engagement Actives (or so I interpreted). These both are for the same end goal of balancing it so every class is similarly active.

So, seriously, relax. I'm not saying do this, do that. I'm saying here are some ideas that might work, might not work. But maybe they should be given a try, or at least given thought so that the idea itself breaks the typical RTWP combat "out of the box."

 

[Mangoose]

Sensuki Remember how I came into the topic:

For example this may necessitate a strategy like having mid-liners (like Rangers or something) to "catch" enemies that get past the front-line, and also make nuanced positioning important to reduce gaps (think Blood Bowl). Or even funnel enemies through an opening on purpose. Or perhaps you'd choose/develop front-liners that have better movement or disengagement capability rather than purely defensive "tanks" allowing the front-liners themselves to "catch" those same enemies. Or on the other hand you can design a very maneuverable party focused on getting around Engagements to get to the back line. Even then you may make your backliners maneuverable so that they can handle themselves without help.

I don't think decreasing the effectiveness of Disengagement Attacks is the right answer because I think it can be a good mechanic if implemented properly in that they are made avoidable if the right decisions are made in combat.

This is plain and simple a way to bring a balance between IE over-dynamicism and PoE over-staticism.

Pre-combat positioning is important. But the emphasis is that mid-combat reactive/adaptive positioning is also important if not more.

 

[Sensuki]

Mid-combat positioning and movement should be a product of reacting to events that happen during combat. The problem with the static nature of PE combat is that not only are you rewarded for not moving, that there is often little reason to move, and there are many reasons for that - Engagement is one, but it also ties into several aspects of the game design.

Even with no engagement at all, and no movement recovery slow - there's not massive amounts of incentive to move. It plays fairly similarly except you don't have to be anally careful about not moving in melee but you can do things like make small adjustments (not being able to do such is _SO_ANNOYING_ with engagement on).

There are so many things in the game that promote keeping units together as close as possible and keeping things static. The IE games didn't really have 'tank' characters that were all about armor and defense with not much offense to them. All Warrior characters could be both hard to hit and deal good damage, which IMO is more fun than the very polarized design of Pillars of Eternity where you can only have one or the other. Characters moved to react to things like a spider's poison, a ghoul stunning a nearby character, a vampire nearly level draining a character to death, even a low health character.

In the IE games you have to remove that poison. The PC has some spells from dreams in BG1/2 - maybe they're a Fighter and they have Slow Poison, and they need to use it on another character - they need to move. Poison in Pillars of Eternity? Meh. Not worth worrying about. Just stand still and kill the unit that inflicted it, and it will end. A ghoul just stunned a character, oh fuck - your Fighter needs to kill that Ghoul fast before it does some damage to the stunned character who now gets automatically hit. Pillars of Eternity? Meh, the stun will wear off in 3 seconds. No big deal. Plus, it only reduces their Deflection by 25 or something, whatever. Level Drain? No such thing. Character nearly dead? Well, if you move to adjust your frontline or re-target, you'll be punished for it by either the recovery slow or Engagement, and that character can't move either so you won't be moving your frontline will you?

Flip all of this around to the IE way, and give the frontliners a few abilities and combat would be a bit more dynamic.

It's not the even the engagement system that causes this static gameplay, really. It's the entire design of the game. The party is designed to play as a close knit unit that stands close together. The designers think in tabletop mode, where people mostly probably stand still, so you're given as little reason to move as possible, and punished for it if you do.