Shevek

I think the pace of combat feels good but more can be done on the ui/feedback side.

Well, the beta is a tiny slice of the game and the encounter dynamics shift wildly as they mess with AI. I have used disengaging tactics to both retreat and to go after ranged opponents fairly often in the final dungeon but also sparingly before then. I notice that I am using them more now since the AI seems a bit better. Ive played like 70 hours but mostly in the last 2 patches.

It depends. I pause, switch to disengage song, and do the push back then move. Can be useful. Cipher also has a multihit push back ability (cant get it to work right, must admit). I think fighter gets an aoe knockdown at higher levels too.

Thats not always the case and not always worth the risk. Also, I also find aoe push backs (and the Chanter disengage song) to be useful when I want to move a guy away from a group. The issue is one of ensuring the player has enough time to react to employ these tactics. This has been improved significantly in this last patch but could be better.

"That's right, you can. However since prone, stunned and paralyzed units can't fight back and get huge penalties to defenses ... why on earth would you stop attacking them?" To not die when they get up. "Why would you pick Graceful Retreat which only gives you a bonus against disengagement attacks, when you could pick a talent that gives you a Deflection bonus always (such as Superior Deflection), rather than on disengagement attacks?" Then they make Graceful Retreat better. Thats an issue of talent balance and its a rather easy issue to address.

I have been pushing for engagement snares and nerfing engagement attacks a bit (making them grazes and/or putting in a very short cooldown - I wouldnt get rid of them) for a while. Its a minor change that should increase the player's ability to react to engagement and break free with some effort (knockdowns, stuns, etc). Facing and what not could get messy in a RT game though.

This is not helpful. There is one piece of new information in this thread. Everything else is a retread of old threads and simply not relevant to this discussion.

Guys, lets keep this in perspective. This has been debated to death. The devs have seen the posts already. The only new factor is this exploit. That is the only thing the devs give a darn about and its in the first few posts of this thread. I dont think the devs would rip out an entire mechanic they have worked on for over a year and designed a large set of abilities and talents around, when they can fix this single exploit in a couple afternoons, do you?

Ciphers have good mechanics for gishes I think but I havent tried to melee with them. Chanters are good in melee and with magic as well. I dont think Wizards are the very good at that though.

The word "Effect" is spelled "Efect"

Well, we have discussed engagement in a general sense and they have responded to that by stating they are going to look at ui changes and visual feedback as a partial solution. This is a different discussion though. This is an exploit. They have to test it and have some discussions about it, etc.

I am curious if the devs feel that addressing this single exploit would be a dramatic drain on resources or significantly increase development time. I honestly don't think it will.

Well, if you notice, I listed this as inspiration. I dont play Warcraft mods.

I don't think the solution is particularly difficult either.

Never played it. Whats the connection?

Thats shared damage rather than shared health. That is my first suggestion. It would make melee rangers more viable I think. I would just do one modal that the ranger activates. I would strongly suggest taking a look at the Mad Dog archetype I posted. That is how you design a martial pet class, imo.

I have not played with Monks much, I must admit. So I cannot effectively speak to the state of that class with respect to the ranger.

What constitutes good or bad AI is largely subjective really. In actuality, systems with engagement mechanics can exist with good AI. Systems without it can have bad AI. Essentially, the issue of AI quality is a separate issue. For example, I think the IE games had essentially bad AI since their targeting clauses often had them stick to the first thing that ran into them despite that not being the most tactically advantageous target. Some would call this good AI as it serves as an abstraction that leads to combat stickiness. Opinions on this come down almost entirely to perspective. This is supremely debatable and we would get nowhere. The only thing everyone agrees on is that the abuse sucks and it should be fixed. Frankly, if it cant, then engagement should go. Why dont we stick with that for now since most agree on that? If we start getting decrying systems again and claiming one side sucks or that the other sucks, this will just unravel into another flame war.

That would still make using the pet come at a penalty. I just have a hard time with the class being penalized for using its single distinguishing feature. What if cipher's took damage for using Soul Whip or Chanter's health drained for chanting? I dunno, it just doesnt seem right.

The only thing that is certain is that its abusable. All other opinions on the mechanics have been hashed and rehashed a 100 different ways at this point. What matters now is whether or not the devs can address the abuse.

I posted this elsewhere but I thought I would post it here for the heck of it. I know its way too late for this kind of thing but I thought I would put it out there regardless. Perceived problem: Currently, the Ranger class does not seem to be a terribly interesting and is a bad option for any party. This is especially problematic since one of the companions in the game is a Ranger. Part of the issue may lie in the "shared health" mechanic and part may be to the underwhelming nature of its talent/ability selection and the general play experience. Many of the better implemented classes are very unique and their unique elements are desirable. The paladin has auras and LoH. The Cipher has soul whip which confers a damage bonus and helps him build up magic points. The Ranger however is saddled with a pet that clutters things up in the front line, drains his health and doesn't really add much to the party. Basically, the Ranger's pet is a LIABILITY. Its unique class mechanic makes it worse not better. Possible Solution A: The first thing I would advocate is to rethink the shared health mechanic. Currently, a melee ranger is not really a thing. However, what if there was a modal where damage could be split with a pet when in close proximity (Ranger gets hit, takes 70% of the dmg, 30% goes to pet and vice-versa or some such). I would make this a selectable ability for those Rangers that want to fight up close. The thing here is the shared health mechanic would promote the use of the pet since it would increase combat effectiveness not reduce it. In other words, there would not be a shared health pool but rather shared damage for melee builds. Outcomes of Solution A: More build types are possible and the pet is no longer seen as a liability. Possible Solution B: Another possibility is to rework ranger abilities.What if ranger talents/attacks would be focused on coordinating attacks with the pet. This is similar to how some of the abilities for the Mad Dog Barbarian archetype for Pathfinder work. With this, shared health is not necessary since the player would still be motivated to keep the pet alive to continue to use most of its attacks. Outcomes of Solution B: Ranger would play in a unique way and pet would, again, not seem to be a liability but rather a source of strength. Conclusion: I would recommend any solution that makes the pet seem desirable and a source of strength rather than a liability. These are two possible suggestions. I do believe the shared health mechanic is at the core of the problem but is not the sum of the problem.

Sensuki I think the issue is not that stickiness cannot be accomplished in th IE but rather how. It would be interesting to hear the underlying rationale for why they prefer the engagement mechanic but I suspect it is perhaps to allow them to make mobility a part if the character development system and encounter design in general. They may also simply prefer mobility to have an opportunity cost. They may also wish to do more with the AI that these straightforward targeting clauses. I like engagement in part for such reasons but perhaps the devs can speak to their own rationale.

@seari Some folks like the mechanic. Some don't. There are copious explanations for both sides that I am sure you or anyone else can read at their leisure by using the forum search function. The arguments have been made. Sensuki brings up some valid points. There are significant exploits possible. Why dont we wait to see what devs think about the feasibility of addressing these concerns? Lets keep it classy and not sink the thread. This way, the devs are more likely to approach the thread and respond.

Well, Sensuki has been good enough to identify abuses in the system. I think the devs can address them and keep the mechanic with little trouble but that may not be the case. I am genuinely curious as to how (hopefully) the devs respond to this.

Chilloutman: Even though I am a proponent of engagement, those abuses are a bit too easy to pull off for my liking. I have a feeling the devs will be able to fix or limit abuses with engagement. If they can, great. It stays and the system gets better. If they cant, then it might go. Either way, the game gets better. Honestly, none of us know what the current AI can do or what it can be programmed to do or what have you. This is a good test. If AI can be modified to curb the worst of these abuses, then I think that will pretty much settle this issue. I am sure the devs have perused Sensukis vids already. I am sure they are already talking about ways to address the exploits.