|
It's really hard to tell on the internet what's a popular opinion and what's a vocal minority and I have no idea how Obsidian does it.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
I'm honestly kind of surprised to read people found engagement restrictive to such a degree. The ogre example I can understand, ogres appear early enough for you to run out of CC fighting them, have no engagement limit and hit hard (with base accuracy high enough that disengagement attacks are probably gonna crit). But in general my criticism of engagement is that, while I think it's a good mechanic and works when it's relevant to an encounter, it really isn't all that often. That's more an issue with AI, power of AoE status attacks, and encounter design/number of enemies on PotD, though, not engagement per se.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Taking a hit while disengaging is suboptimal!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Not if you're a Monk. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:What I don't think is necessary is a system that forces characters to attack certain targets, or punishes them for not doing so. PoE's engagement system doesn't do this at all. You can target whatever you want up to the point you're engaged, and even then you can break engagement whenever you wish. Copping a free hit for breaking engagement is not in any way the same as being 'forced' to play a specific way, unless your brain is broken. Hyperbole bordering on bullshit, like so many of your claims. Most of the complaints you have about PoE seem to be more about your personal preferences than actual problems with the game. You obviously set your expectations for how the game should be and every failure to match your vision is taken as a failing on the game's part. In my opinion your inability (refusal?) to work within and enjoy the limitations of the system says more about your approach to gaming than it does about the game itself. And as usual your post assumes wide support for your opinion, which I don't think you have. ubachung fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
ubachung posted:PoE's engagement system doesn't do this at all. You can target whatever you want up to the point you're engaged, and even then you can break engagement whenever you wish. Copping a free hit for breaking engagement is not in any way the same as being 'forced' to play a specific way, unless your brain is broken. Hyperbole bordering on bullshit, like so many of your claims. Did you actually read what you quoted? My specific statement refers to both systems that take the control of the player away (think Dragon Age Origins) and AoO style systems, which is what I meant by "punishes them for not doing so". quote:Most of the complaints you have about PoE seem to be more about your personal preferences than actual problems with the game. You obviously set your expectations for how the game should be and every failure to match your vision is taken as a failing on the game's part. In my opinion your inability (refusal?) to work within and enjoy the limitations of the system says more about your approach to gaming than it does about the game itself. I do have personal preferences, but I don't think anyone can deny that no matter what, dealing with the Engagement system punishes the player in some way - whether it be through taking damage, being forced to stand still, losing action speed or being forced to spend character advancement points to maybe avoid damage. It severely reduces the tactical viability of the action of moving a character in combat. This does not happen in the Infinity Engine games, and it does not happen in other games with this combat style because thankfully most designers don't try to use a turn-based solution to a real-time problem. The most optimal way to deal with the Engagement system is to work out how you can make enemies target your preferred units and then use a combo of engagement, positioning and armor choice and implement that before/as combat begins, and then limit your character movement (the act of clicking on the ground to move) as that is also punished by a move recovery penalty. The Infinity Engine games did not limit you to dealing with enemy targeting before/as combat begins and as long as you could recognize you needed to make a change you could do it. It actively rewarded player thinking in combat, as well as pre-combat. Have you actually even looked outside of this forum? There have been big debates about the mechanic here, on the Codex and the Obsidian forums over the past year, and I get people commenting on my youtube videos that they hate Engagement as well. I don't claim to know how many people dislike it, I am just saying that there are a lot more than the four of us in this thread from the last few pages. Sensuki fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
So, adding any new character options to the lower levels this time around in addition to whatever you set the level cap to this time? Last expac gave talents that replicated other class abilities, so will there be anything else like that?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
I don't think the White March was a very good value. Sorry, Josh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:I do have personal preferences, but I don't think anyone can deny that no matter what, dealing with the Engagement system punishes the player in some way - whether it be through taking damage, being forced to stand still, being forced to spend character advancement points to avoid damage or losing action speed. It severely reduces the tactical viability of the action of moving a character in combat. So you're just going to ignore that this is a fundamental part of how games work? There are always trade-offs for whatever strategy you want to use. There are always limitations on how a game can be played. Do you complain that reloading animations 'punish' FPS players for using all their bullets? Are RTS games 'punishing' players with unit build times? There are always trade-offs and opportunity costs, especially in an RPG, but you're trying to argue that in this particular instance there shouldn't be any such limitations because you personally don't like it. Most players are able to adapt their play style and strategy to account for these types of trade-offs, but because this one conflicts with something you're obviously pathologically attached to you declare it objectively bad and refuse to interact with it at all. That is 100% your failure as a player, not a failure of the game. Your insistence on this type of trade-off being punishment would be funny if it wasn't so obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:Have you actually even looked outside of this forum? There have been big debates about the mechanic here, on the Codex and the Obsidian forums over the past year, and I get people commenting on my youtube videos that they hate Engagement as well. I don't claim to know how many people dislike it, I am just saying that there are a lot more than the four of us in this thread from the last few pages. Out of curiosity I went to the PoE thread in rpgcodex and holy poo poo people are salty that Josh actually posts here in SA (also something something about him listening more to Ratios and Tendency than Sensuki, dunno  )
frajaq fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
ubachung posted:So you're just going to ignore that this is a fundamental part of how games work? There are always trade-offs for whatever strategy you want to use. There are always limitations on how a game can be played. Do you complain that reloading animations 'punish' FPS players for using all their bullets? Are RTS games 'punishing' players with unit build times? There are always trade-offs and opportunity costs, especially in an RPG, but you're trying to argue that in this particular instance there shouldn't be any such limitations because you personally don't like it. I'm not ignoring anything, I am comparing how something is done in the Infinity Engine games and other games of this combat type to how it is done (poorly) in Pillars of Eternity and Neverwinter Nights 2 and stating what the ramifications of those changes are. The cost to moving in the Infinity Engine games is simply that the time spent moving means that you are not performing actions while you are moving. The more attacks per round you have, the more movement means less time spent attacking. In contrast, in Pillars of Eternity the cost is that, plus even further slowed down recovery meaning a longer delay until you can perform your next action and if you move while engaged you'll most likely take damage. Surely you can see how this makes movement a lot less viable as a tactical response. It's as if one is not allowed to question whether designers made a good decision or not. I also have adapted my playstyle - I can play within these rules perfectly. I learned the system and contributed to the widespread understanding of the system by the fanbase through my forum posts and videos, but I still think it's a bad, not-fun system. When I did my playthrough of the game in April, I used Engagement, played with it and succeeded quite easily, and I still hated it every step of the way. Sensuki fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
If anyone thinks that motherfucking Sensuki is bad at PoE, well I don't know what to tell them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Most people don't even know about the recovery penalty when moving, I imagine. When I last had this engagement talk with my lesser enthusiastic rpg gang, they liked engagement because they didn't like having to intercept enemies in BG and hoping they target whoever they sent to do so. At the same time though they really didn't like AoOs. They wanted their cake and to eat it too pretty much. I think whoever said AoO punished the player much more than the enemy was probably on the right track.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:It's as if one is not allowed to question whether designers made a good decision or not. I also have adapted my playstyle - I can play within these rules perfectly, but I still think it's a bad, not-fun system. You can question all you like, but that's not what you're doing. You have repeatedly asserted both that this is objectively bad design and that a large number of people agree with you, neither of which is fact. I also find it bizarre that you've latched on to this one aspect of design so doggedly when most people would just shrug and move on. It's so obviously rooted in personal preference but you continue presenting it as fact and yourself and your nebulous supporters as victims being 'punished' by the devs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:When I last had this engagement talk with my lesser enthusiastic rpg gang, they liked engagement because they didn't like having to intercept enemies in BG and hoping they target whoever they sent to do so. At the same time though they really didn't like AoOs. They wanted their cake and to eat it too pretty much. There are systems that are legitimately fair, and there are systems that feel fair, and in general I think most people prefer the latter if they have to choose between them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
That's a good point. Not only is engagement poorly implemented on the player side, it's also hard to notice. Not only is it too penalizing on the monster side, it's very noticeable because poor feedback, bad pathing and AI and clunky controls make it very easy to end up stuck in engagement when you thought you were safe, or having to eat a disengagement attack because you need to adjust to the side two millimeters. Enhancing the way the game actually plays by improving feedback and smoothing out the controls as well as giving players abilities that make engagement more impactful and clearly noticeable would go a long way towards improving what's fundamentally a good RPG mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:The cost to moving in the Infinity Engine games is simply that the time spent moving means that you are not performing actions while you are moving. The more attacks per round you have, the more movement means less time spent attacking. In contrast, in Pillars of Eternity the cost is that, plus even further slowed down recovery meaning a longer delay until you can perform your next action and if you move while engaged you'll most likely take damage. Surely you can see how this makes movement a lot less viable as a tactical response. Because the BG games are pseudo-turn-based abominations, the optimal way to play casters is to cast your spell for the round (after that you're done and can't cast for a few seconds, so no actions besides attacking and missing with a sling can be lost here), then run away hoping that it makes melee attackers that are after you miss some of their attacks per round, then cast the next spell when the next round starts, rinse repeat. Not something I'd expect a human being without serious mental health issues to do, but if you install Sword Coast Stratagems, enemy casters just loving love doing that. Of course that's more an issue with the BG games being a kind of weird TB/RTwP hybrid thing, not necessarily with them not having anything to punish movement. What I wanna know, though, and this isn't necessarily about PoE's engagement system in particular: movement is an important gameplay element; why shouldn't there be a mechanic that limits/punishes it? I mean, restrictions open up design space and in turn create meaningful choices. Rascyc posted:Most people don't even know about the recovery penalty when moving, I imagine. Wizard Styles fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
ubachung posted:You can question all you like, but that's not what you're doing. You have repeatedly asserted both that this is objectively bad design and that a large number of people agree with you, neither of which is fact. I also find it bizarre that you've latched on to this one aspect of design so doggedly when most people would just shrug and move on. It's so obviously rooted in personal preference but you continue presenting it as fact and yourself and your nebulous supporters as victims being 'punished' by the devs. I do think it's bad design, but I only think that the disengagement attack part of the system is bad design (and the fact that it requires UI I guess, which clutters the screen), and that is the bit I am arguing against, not the bit about giving players an easier way of controlling enemy targeting. I have also not stated that "a large number of people agree with me" I have said there are a lot more than just the four of us on this forum. I haven't seen an overwhelming number of people flat out disagree, in the discussions I've taken part in I've seen relatively similar numbers for and against with a lot more people saying they don't really care and like or dislike this for x reason. Of course I'm arguing out of personal preference, but that preference is in line with the Infinity Engine legacy. Wizard Styles posted:WELL, ACTUALLY...! They're not pseudo-turn based. The game just has a coarse action speed system that deals in whole actions over a period of time in seconds. There are no turns or pseudo-turns. Casting spells unlike normal actions have a cast time, and you can cast multiple short cast animation spells "per round", but with the ones with longer animations you might end up missing the entire (or part of the) "next round" or something depending on how long the spell cast time is. That might be the best way for the enemy AI to work and kinda reminds me of archer AI in AoE2 lol, but a lot of the time the player mages won't be in melee with anyone, so they only really need to move to get in range to cast spells and stuff. No matter what, the player is always going to be smarter than the AI. The AI can only do what it is programmed to do. So IMO rather than trying to hamstring the player because surprise AI has limits, why not just design around/with those limits in mind instead ? ... which is what happens regarding encounter design where the player faces mobs that if a human player was controlling would just flat out win, but because they're controlled by the AI the player can beat them. quote:What I wanna know, though, and this isn't necessarily about PoE's engagement system in particular: movement is an important gameplay element; why shouldn't there be a mechanic that limits/punishes it? You can't perform non-movement actions while moving. That is the cost of moving. If you add more things to penalize it, movement becomes less viable as a response to situations in combat. No one is saying you can't do that, but I am saying that if you want movement (the act of clicking on the ground to move) to be tactically viable, then this is bad. Wizard Styles posted:My history with the recovery penalty is: I read about it during the beta, decided I didn't like it, but soon forgot it exists. Remembered it again on release when I looked through the talents and saw one that reduces the penalty, then forgot it exists. Then it came up here and I guess now I'll remember it again for some time. Well for one, this mechanic is not documented anywhere. It's not in the manual. It's not on the wiki. The only acknowledgement by the devs of it's existence is a post by Adam Brennecke saying "it's to stop kiting" on the Obsidian forums. If the mechanic is meant to stop kiting, and doesn't remotely make a difference there but affects other aspects of the gameplay negatively, then why should it even be there ? Because it's a percentage it's more noticeable after actions with long recoveries like firearm shots, two handed attacks in plate armor and various things like that. Sensuki fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
But there is engagement in baldur's gate. It is simply hidden in the enemy A.I. Whoever is closest, the A.I. will charge that PC and stick to them. It isn't exactly a compelling system. Running your bait around in a circle while everyone else shoots arrows isn't fun either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Literally 5 mins after posting this I had Hiravias' AI run straight over to engage an ogre, with nothing else around, and he took a 75 damage disengagement crit and was knocked out. Why didn't you just move him away safely? There's no shortage of effects that you could have used to stop engagement, including interrupts, which everyone is capable of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
captain innocuous posted:But there is engagement in baldur's gate. It is simply hidden in the enemy A.I. Whoever is closest, the A.I. will charge that PC and stick to them. It isn't exactly a compelling system. No, that's not how it works for all enemies, but BG1 didn't have great AI targeting clauses. Later IE titles improved it (I think IWD:HoW did it the best) just as Pillars targeting supposedly improved with TWMPt1. Enemies may prefer targets with crap AC (especially archers, those Black Talon Elites love to shoot Imoen / Edwin etc first), some enemies are scripted to target the PC as the main priority if visible. Enemies will also re-evaluate targeting constantly as combat goes on. Mods also further improve things. Octo1 posted:Why didn't you just move him away safely? There's no shortage of effects that you could have used to stop engagement, including interrupts, which everyone is capable of. I don't think he moved him away. He scored a disengagement attack while running towards the Ogre. As I said previously I think it's a bug, been there forever. Sensuki fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:What I wanna know, though, and this isn't necessarily about PoE's engagement system in particular: movement is an important gameplay element; why shouldn't there be a mechanic that limits/punishes it? I mean, restrictions open up design space and in turn create meaningful choices. The cost of moving is not attacking. In a game like D&D 4E you have a move action and a standard action on your turn(I am ignoring minors for the sake of this example). In this system, movement doesn't have a cost because I have a specific movement resource to use for it and I can do a move+attack(or attack+move) combo. I'm never deciding between moving and attacking; I can always do both. Because of this, the system needs a way to punish movement, which it has in the form of Opportunity Attacks, which are basically engagement attacks. In PoE, there is no distinct movement resource. Whenever I chose to move in combat, I am moving in lieu of some other action. I'm moving instead of attacking, or I'm moving instead of healing, or I'm moving and slowing my recovery rate. I have sacrificed some other action in order to move, which is why engagement is sort of a double penalty. I'm giving up my attack AND I'm giving it a free swing at me. That aside, engagement is an uninteresting system because it doesn't create a meaningful choice. Disengagement attacks are more damaging, they're more accurate, and they stop your movement long enough to let the enemy re-engage you. You're almost always better off just standing there and letting them swing at you. I honestly can't think of a situation where I'd take the attack. Better to stand there and take one attack than try to run and take two, and that's without considering the fact that the movement attempt sacrifices your offensive action potential. I like the idea of having something to prevent movement and hold people still, but I don't like engagement's implementation at all. It's an anti-kiting mechanic that interferes with close-quarters combat while being ineffective against kiting techniques. After all, if the enemy you are kiting is in melee range of you, you're not kiting them properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Kiting is terrible design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Never once noticed my party performing disengagement attacks, so... but I enjoyed getting my wizard out of a pickle by, say, having my fighter do knockdown on an enemy engaging my monk so he could run up to the guy engaging the wizard and punch him ten feet away. Punish me more, I say! I haven't played White March yet, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:It's really hard to tell on the internet what's a popular opinion and what's a vocal minority and I have no idea how Obsidian does it. The answer is to ignore volume completely when it comes to internet forums and treat each opinion on its own merits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:They're not pseudo-turn based. The game just has a coarse action speed system that deals in whole actions over a period of time in seconds. There are no turns or pseudo-turns. Casting spells unlike normal actions have a cast time, and you can cast multiple short cast animation spells "per round", but with the ones with longer animations you might end up missing the entire (or part of the) "next round" or something depending on how long the spell cast time is. Holy poo poo, no you can't. You categorically can't. There is literally an epic (expansion added) spell specifically designed to break the fact that it's pseudo-turn based and you can only cast one spell, regardless of cast time per round. Considering how much you love the BG games and hold their mechanics sacred, it's pretty interesting that you don't know how a key mechanic works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Holy poo poo, no you can't. You categorically can't. You're right sorry, but you can cast a spell as one action and then make the rest of your actions as attacks. That's got nothing to do with being turn-based though, it's likely for balance reasons/emulating AD&D rule. Rascyc posted:Kiting is terrible design. Aggro switching isn't though. In Aarklash: Legacy on Hard difficulty, none of your units can survive holding aggro against some bosses for a long period of time because incoming damage is higher than you're ever going to be able to heal it, so what you have to do is you have to share aggro between your units, so that when one unit starts getting really hurt, you swap aggro and heal/let the guy regenerate. That style of gameplay reminds me of Cave Troll fight in The Fellowship of the Ring, where none of the fellowship could stand toe to toe with the troll, so they use other methods to win. Aside from a very specific case in Pillars of Eternity (Chanters, who have to wait to summon ogres/drakes), kiting sucks anyway, even with engagement disabled and that's mostly because of the ranged weapon design. Firearms do a lot of damage but you have to stop to reload them. Kiting with bows and crossbows does virtually no damage lol. You can kite single big units that are slow around such as Trolls and Forest Lurkers, but you can do this with or without engagement, because they can't reach you. Any unit that doesn't change targets and you are faster than you can also kite - like with a fast Monk character, you run them around and have some guys stand still with guns etc and shoot the units you're kiting. If enemies change targets though, kiting becomes a pretty pointless, time consuming way to play. Sensuki fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:My history with the recovery penalty is: I read about it during the beta, decided I didn't like it, but soon forgot it exists. Remembered it again on release when I looked through the talents and saw one that reduces the penalty, then forgot it exists. Then it came up here and I guess now I'll remember it again for some time. My history with the recovery penalty is: have my (plate armored) rogue initiate combat with a pistol attack, switch to melee, close in for melee, wonder what the gently caress is this bullshit when he spends the next "round" of combat doing gently caress all because guess what he ate a bunch of recovery penalty from the slow weapon + weapon swap + movement + heavy armor and oh hey I guess this cool fun tactic is strictly worse than just having the guy waltz into melee instead. Oh, sure, I could've spent two talents to make doing so suck slightly less (though still worse than just closing in with a melee weapon), but then again I could also spent those two talents to make my character better at combat, period. It's kind of funny how people assume just because someone doesn't like the engagement mechanic that they don't know how to play the game. I cleared Raedric's Hold at level 4 on POTD when the game was released, I didn't even cheese the final fight! I understand engagement just fine. I don't like it. Though I did find it kind of funny how just before the release, tons of streamers who weren't all that interested in the game had gotten their hands on review copies or whatever, and approximately none of them figured out that the reason their dudes were dropping so fast in combat was because they tried to micro dudes in combat, triggering engagement attacks whenever they tried to do anything. I guess you could say the mechanic wasn't all the intuitive or well explained to the player. (Hell, I thought you could move your dudes within the engagement radius as long as you didn't try to break it, and I'd been following the development since day 1!) Rascyc posted:Kiting is terrible design. Kiting is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
I also ate a few extra engagement attacks until I realized that engagement means you are basically nailed to that spot, I was hoping I could at least shift position slightly while still maintaining melee contact
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
verybad posted:Kiting is inevitable. Kiting is unavoidable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Honestly, something as simple as making 'striker' classes immune to disengagement would make for more interesting gameplay. Instead of "I always need to kill the mage first" you might need to kill the rogue or monk because they can waltz past your tank and up to your casters. I also agree completely that making a talent to become immune to disengagement just isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:So, adding any new character options to the lower levels this time around in addition to whatever you set the level cap to this time? Last expac gave talents that replicated other class abilities, so will there be anything else like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
As I've said previously in this thread I think I'm pretty happy with engagement on the whole however at the moment it seems as if it's a mechanic that's vastly more detrimental to the player rather than enemies (this is exacerbated with greater enemy numbers on POTD). More ways to use engagement to your own advantage might satisfy some of the people that don't like it such as giving characters more engagement slots by default or special abilities that increase the effectiveness or proc an affliction on a disengagement attack. Make it work for the player, rather than against the player.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
That could be an interesting niche for Fighters. They already have a talent that increases their number of engagement slots, so why not let them capitalise on that even further?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
ArgoATX posted:I don't think the White March was a very good value. Sorry, Josh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:That could be an interesting niche for Fighters. They already have a talent that increases their number of engagement slots, so why not let them capitalise on that even further? It's one of the things 4E does really well that unfortunately is hard to translate into a real-time game - 4E has lots of ways for the more weapon-based classes to take at-will abilities that can be used in-place of a standard hit-things-with-your-damage-stick attacks, like Charges and opportunity attacks (and free basic attacks granted by Leaders). Not sure how you'd do something like that interface wise in PoE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:That could be an interesting niche for Fighters. They already have a talent that increases their number of engagement slots, so why not let them capitalise on that even further? Go a step further and make an ability that outright prevents the enemy from moving away from you. Alternatively take a hint from 4E and give them the ability to Mark a target for a long time and it takes big penalties for attacking anyone that isn't the fighter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:Well for one, this mechanic is not documented anywhere. It's not in the manual. It's not on the wiki. The only acknowledgement by the devs of it's existence is a post by Adam Brennecke saying "it's to stop kiting" on the Obsidian forums. If the mechanic is meant to stop kiting, and doesn't remotely make a difference there but affects other aspects of the gameplay negatively, then why should it even be there ? So, yeah, I don't see the point of that mechanic. But it's still not really a big deal, so whatever. Khizan posted:The cost of moving is not attacking. In the same vein, if my options are letting Edér attack the beefy melee enemy in full plate right and shield in front of him or running past him to reach the squishy Cipher in the back that's going to do really annoing things soon, am I really going to consider the ramifications of not attacking the guy in full plate? Not really, it's just not going to do a ton of damage and that guy's equipping a shield, he's not a DPS machine himself anyway. So gently caress him. And that's where engagement or a system like it can come in and create more meaningful choices by adding a cost to movement beyond the opportunity cost of not having spent the time on something else, and also on not just movement but positioning relative to enemy pieces in particular. If and to what degree that actually happens is another matter, but that's why I like engagement as a mechanic. Sensuki posted:You're right sorry, but you can cast a spell as one action and then make the rest of your actions as attacks. That's got nothing to do with being turn-based though, it's likely for balance reasons/emulating AD&D rule. And I called the IE games pseudo-turn-based because they coerce AD&D rules, including the round/turn structure, into a RTwP system, that's all I was saying. Also, Aarklash: Legacy is part of the current Steam sale for three bucks and anyone posting in a Pillars of Eternity thread should probably at least give it a look. Clear presentation of what's going on, good unit design (the healer you start with has really cool skills), decent enemy variety, manual skill shot dodging that works out really well. The game keeps moving at a steady pace, too, and because consumables and most equipment are cut out altogether and you can respec at all times you can always switch things up without getting bogged down in inventory management or poo poo like that. The character writing and voice acting are total garbage, and the game decides to throw too many puzzles at you right before the end, but those things are both forgivable imo. The only real issue I had with the game was that too many bosses were just damage races. There's an optional boss in the first (?) area of the game that's really fun, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
rope kid posted:If you have any additional feedback, it's something we may be able to address in the future. I think the 'main' questline was a bit too easy and way too short. Most of the difficulty came from the Tundra Dragon, and the trash encounters in the two side areas. The only really difficult fight in the storyline is the fight against the Ogre Warlord in the village. Granted, I haven't even tried Cragholdt yet, but that doesn't really feel like a big part of the DLC. The DLC's called the White March, I've wrapped up the questline in the White March and now it feels like the DLC is complete, because everything else is just sidequests. I think it was fun but badly structured. Stretching out the main quest a bit more to maybe cover a bit of Longwatch Falls would have helped, as would putting Cragholdt up in the White March area so that it felt more like DLC content. Wizard Styles posted:In the same vein, if my options are letting Edér attack the beefy melee enemy in full plate right and shield in front of him or running past him to reach the squishy Cipher in the back that's going to do really annoing things soon, am I really going to consider the ramifications of not attacking the guy in full plate? Not really, it's just not going to do a ton of damage and that guy's equipping a shield, he's not a DPS machine himself anyway. So gently caress him. This is where you put a backliner or a ranged on the cipher and leave Eder soaking up the beefy melee guys like he's supposed to, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Should I wait until 3.0 to start a new game? When will it be coming out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:45
|
|
