Can we really play the whole game with just one character?

[Lephys]

Erm... boxers don't used ranged attacks. o_o

 

They aren't kiting. They're just moving a lot and good at dodging and countering. In an RPG, that's all represented by "dice" rolls. Kiting isn't having really good defense/evasion and just not-getting hit. It's successfully attacking your foe whilst preventing it from attacking you.

 

It's not like you either stand perfectly still the entire fight, OR you're kiting, and those are somehow the only two options. There's plenty of movement to be had in combat that doesn't amount to kiting.

 

And no, kiting isn't a "legitimate" tactic, in-so-far as that it does not actually exist in real life. It was born out of video game mechanics abstraction. No one in real life encountered some hostile thing, then utilized their superior move speed and ranged attack rate to slowly whittle it to death while just avoiding ever being actually attacked by it.

[Stun]

Erm... boxers don't used ranged attacks. o_o

 

They aren't kiting. They're just moving a lot and good at dodging and countering.

kiting does not automatically necessitate ranged combat, does it. And countering (counter punching) is a completely different subject. Once you start countering (even in a video game), you're no longer kiting.

 

Stick-and-Move is literally the definition of Kiting. You hit someone, then you back away so he can't hit you. Then you hit him again, then you back away so he can't hit you. etc.

 

 

And no, kiting isn't a "legitimate" tactic, in-so-far as that it does not actually exist in real life

That's.... silly. Magic doesn't exist in real life either. Therefore, using spells to kill someone isn't a legitimate tactic in a video game? Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Quetzalcoatl]

The issue with kiting has more to do with cheesing the enemy A.I. which stays stuck on the kiter while the rest of the party pelts the enemy with ranged attacks.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Lephys]

kiting does not automatically necessitate ranged combat, does it.

True enough. I was not specific enough. Kiting does not require ranged combat, but it was literally born of hard-coded attack range. Thus, it is distance related. It's all about keeping enough distance between yourself and the enemy, such that he can never hit you.

 

Stick-and-Move is literally the definition of Kiting. You hit someone, then you back away so he can't hit you. Then you hit him again, then you back away so he can't hit you. etc.

Yes, but boxers do it because of skill. They're essentially attacking and dodging. They aren't "kiting." They don't issue an attack order, then a move order. They're not attacking before their opponent's attack speed is capable of executing a swing. They COULD be hit. That one boxer just happens to be faster and more agile than the other.

 

In RPG terms, that would be the one boxer attacking, then the other boxer missing. Hell, in PoE's own mechanics, they'd both still be "engaged" in melee combat the entire time; one isn't fleeing the other the whole time.

 

Kiting was born of video game abstracted mechanics, and it wasn't on purpose. No developers thought "Hey, it'd be great if, like, you could just outrun this wolf, and shoot it in the face with an arrow, or hit it with a sword, then resume running away again before it can hit you, until it's dead, 8D!"

 

In the boxing match, if that other guy wanted you dead, he could just take the hit and tackle you. He wouldn't just dance toward you and try some precise swing at your head, only to miss every time. Or he'd just stop and throw something at you, etc.

 

So, no, kiting doesn't exist in real life, because it's a side-effect of primitive attack/move systems in video games (and/or inadequate AI).

 

 

 

That's.... silly. Magic doesn't exist in real life either. Therefore, using spells to kill someone isn't a legitimate tactic in a video game?

Except magic isn't a tactic. It's just a new entity. You're emulating the real world, and tactics. You don't just invent a new tactic that doesn't make any sense with the rest of your world you're claiming makes sense. "Ohhhh, these wolves are very deadly. Oh! No one's ever thought of just attacking them, then running away, with a very fast character! YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE, CHARACTER WHO CAN KITE!"

 

Mithril doesn't exist in the real world, either. But, if I put it in a video game, that's fine. If people saw it into boards like wood, even though it's metal, then I'm going to call BS.

[Stun]

Yes, but boxers do it because of skill.

Actually, most of the time boxers do it when they're hurt, or when their opponent is vastly more powerful than they are. For example, look at the old Mike Tyson fights... the ones from from the 80s. His opponents couldn't handle a stand up fight with him, nor were they skilled enough to classically box him....so, they'd Kite. They'd jab then they'd run. Then when he'd catch up with them....they'd jab...then they'd run.... Since Tyson is a short, stocky guy who never had a reach advantage over anyone he fought, The tactic worked against him...NOT because of the opponent's skill, but because of....Genetics. Of course, such hit and run tactics against a high-pressure fighter like Tyson takes a ton out of you, and when you run out of gas, that's when you get knocked out.

 

 

 

That's.... silly. Magic doesn't exist in real life either. Therefore, using spells to kill someone isn't a legitimate tactic in a video game?

Except magic isn't a tactic.

 

Using spells to kill an enemy is a tactic, and it was the example I gave. The point remains. Lethal magic does not exist in the real world, nor does spell slinging. So does that mean, then, that using spells to kill an enemy in a video game is not a tactic? Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

And no, kiting isn't a "legitimate" tactic, in-so-far as that it does not actually exist in real life. It was born out of video game mechanics abstraction. No one in real life encountered some hostile thing, then utilized their superior move speed and ranged attack rate to slowly whittle it to death while just avoiding ever being actually attacked by it.

 

Bullfighting. Matadors encountering a hostile bull, utilising their arguably superior move and dodge speed and ranged attack rate to slowly whittle it to death while just avoiding ever being actually attacked by it.

 

And I'm sure there are examples of real life hunting examples where hunters used kiting techniques.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sabotin]

Real life kiting is even better than the one in games : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

[Sarex]

Lol Lephys, this discussion is your best one yet.

[Mor]

 

And kiting is fair game in my book. Why a ranged class would stand in place and eat melee blows makes no sense to me. Of course a mage would try to maneuver away from melee attackers.

The key word there being "try."

 

Pretty much. No one said you can't try to tactically retreat, but the wobbly wizard ain't likely to outrun a Barbarian( monk or anyone if he also stop to shot), and once he is pined down(engaged) he can try to turn away and run(disengage), but he is far more likely to get intimate with Barbarian sword.

[Gfted1]

 

 

And kiting is fair game in my book. Why a ranged class would stand in place and eat melee blows makes no sense to me. Of course a mage would try to maneuver away from melee attackers.

The key word there being "try."

 

Pretty much. No one said you can't try to tactically retreat, but the wobbly wizard ain't likely to outrun a Barbarian( monk or anyone if he also stop to shot), and once he is pined down(engaged) he can try to turn away and run(disengage), but he is far more likely to get intimate with Barbarian sword.

 

 

No, he should be able to straight up kite the barb. For example: Encounter starts and the barb rushes the mage. The mage seeing this casts Web. The barb is webbed and the mage puts some space between them and pew pews him. Next round, uh oh, the barb made his save and is rushing the mage again! Mage casts Grease and the barb is slowed. Mage makes some more space and pew pews him. Etc... See where this is going? If players shrug and simply accept that their range characters (see, its even in the title) get locked down on melee then THATS the failing in the game design, imo.

[Fatback]

In regards to bull fighting your less "kiting" and more using the bulls lack of intelligence against it.

[Mor]

@Gfted1, This a party game its combat mechanics are about tactics (i.e. positioning and correct use of abilities and spells). The only design failing would be uber classes\technics without weakness\counters, this what makes the game interesting defending and attacking, not through gamy technics to abuse bots..

 

So far each of the class we learned about has its role and weaknesses, and we have the mechanics in place to avoid or deal with your wizard getting engaged, but if it does end up eating blows then as I said before you ****ed up or hopefully we have great AI, stop whining about mechanics..

 

As for soloing in a party based game, we shouldn't water down class roles so that you can solo. Solo player should be able to win mainly because they will get so much more xp for their boring choice, and overpower everyone.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Mor

[Gfted1]

...and we have the mechanics in place to avoid or deal with your wizard getting engaged...

Link?

[Valorian]

The issue with kiting has more to do with cheesing the enemy A.I. which stays stuck on the kiter while the rest of the party pelts the enemy with ranged attacks.

Yes. 

I'd solve this by progressively diminishing the movement speed of the run-in-circles character who's being chased.

 

 

Kiting is fine for action games where the whole point is to actively dodge and do other stuff in real time, but in a party based game with pause-and-issue-commands tactical combat.. not really.

 

 

...and we have the mechanics in place to avoid or deal with your wizard getting engaged...

Link?

 

 

Grimoire slam. http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Grimoire_Slam

Using spells and abilities to impair enemies' movement and delay melee engagement is completely fine, as well.

[Mor]

@Gfted1, Start with planing, engagement its a mechanic that works both ways. You'd be able to engage enemies who tries to rush your wizard\support, with those at the front holding the line while you abuse them from behind, who will get the same penalties as you'r wizard if they try to disengage.

 

Those who avoid being intercepted, wade through a barge of attacks\abilities\spells such as the ones you described and catch your wizard. I believe that Cipher mind wave stun, paladin shake it off and Wizard Grimoire Slam are some of the abilities that would allow you to break engagement and get your wizard to safety. Alternatively Arcane Veil will give you 10 seconds of safe haven, while your rogue can flank and sneak attack your opponent for maximum effect.

 

Those are just the ones I am familiar with, honestly from the little that we know the system seem very forgiving..

Edited May 20, 2014 by Mor

[Stun]

As for soloing in a party based game, we shouldn't water down class roles so that you can solo.

No one here is asking for the classes to be 'watered down' so that we can solo. A good player can solo a party based game regardless of how strictly the devs decided to define the class roles. If he can't then the game has an options deficit problem.... the rock-paper-scissors kind, to be specific.

 

And just in case the goal posts are being moved here... lets reiterate. Giving a class the ability to Kite is not "watering down" any roles. Especially not a mage's Role. Why do you think time honored mage spells like Invisibility, Haste, Dimension door, Slow, Fumble, Grease and Sleep have existed since Josh Sawyer was in kindergarten? Here let me answer that. Because dealing with Bull-rushing battle field goons IS the mage's role.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Actually, most of the time boxers do it when they're hurt, or when their opponent is vastly more powerful than they are. For example, look at the old Mike Tyson fights... the ones from from the 80s. His opponents couldn't handle a stand up fight with him, nor were they skilled enough to classically box him....so, they'd Kite. They'd jab then they'd run. Then when he'd catch up with them....they'd jab...then they'd run.... Since Tyson is a short, stocky guy who never had a reach advantage over anyone he fought, The tactic worked against him...NOT because of the opponent's skill, but because of....Genetics. Of course, such hit and run tactics against a high-pressure fighter like Tyson takes a ton out of you, and when you run out of gas, that's when you get knocked out.

So... stamina-based attrition is now kiting?

 

 

Using spells to kill an enemy is a tactic, and it was the example I gave. The point remains. Lethal magic does not exist in the real world, nor does spell slinging. So does that mean, then, that using spells to kill an enemy in a video game is not a tactic?

The point remains... completely flawed and irrelevant. Magic is an entity, a force. Kiting is a method. You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to harvesting oranges.

 

Also, you don't seem to comprehend the nature of tactics. Throwing a firebolt at the enemy and firing a flaming arrow at them are not different tactics. The tactic you're using is to damage them, with fire, from a distance. Not "I'm using magic tactic" or "I'm using arrow tactic." That tactic is how you're accomplishing your goal, not the materials you're using.

 

Kiting isn't a legitimate tactic, just like tearing someone's head off isn't; You could tear someone's head off, but, by the time you've done that, you could've already done 17 other things that owould've been way more efficient. If you can just run from something, all the while killing it (just you and your weapon versus a creature... not some trap/ambush, etc.), then it wasn't even a threat in the first place. That's not a tactic, because you're not actually fighting it at that point. You're just killing it while moving.

 

So apparently we disagree. I don't really have anything else to say about it, and I'm not going to get into another 5-page "discussion" with you, so believe what you've want. I've merely presented my perspective on the matter, for what it's worth.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

In regards to bull fighting your less "kiting" and more using the bulls lack of intelligence against it.

 

So is it still kiting or not due to the bull's lack of intelligence? 

[Lephys]

Bull "Fighting" is more accurately just Bull Dodge-Torturing.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Bull "Fighting" is more accurately just Bull Dodge-Torturing.

 

I'm not asking what's more or if it's torture or if you're using other tactics or anything else you want to include. I'm asking does it still contain the act of kiting? Yes or No.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

You also weren't asking me anything. I was just commenting on bull fighting. I didn't say I was answering your question.

[Stun]

 

Actually, most of the time boxers do it when they're hurt, or when their opponent is vastly more powerful than they are. For example, look at the old Mike Tyson fights... the ones from from the 80s. His opponents couldn't handle a stand up fight with him, nor were they skilled enough to classically box him....so, they'd Kite. They'd jab then they'd run. Then when he'd catch up with them....they'd jab...then they'd run.... Since Tyson is a short, stocky guy who never had a reach advantage over anyone he fought, The tactic worked against him...NOT because of the opponent's skill, but because of....Genetics. Of course, such hit and run tactics against a high-pressure fighter like Tyson takes a ton out of you, and when you run out of gas, that's when you get knocked out.

So... stamina-based attrition is now kiting?

 

Is that what you interpreted from that passage?

 

Actually, wearing down the Kiter down is in fact, another tactic, and the counter to kiting. But, as described above, Kiting is one method used to deal with a powerful, aggressive meleer. Therefore, it is a tactic. Not a great one. Not even a fair one. But we were not discussing the greatness or fairness of a specific tactic...just whether it IS one.

 

 

The point remains... completely flawed and irrelevant. Magic is an entity, a force. Kiting is a method.

I give up. You're right.

 

Casting spells is an entity then. I just remembered that in most RPGs you may purchase Spell Casting, in quantities of 5 or 10 or 99, from any merchant.

 

Derp.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You also weren't asking me anything. I was just commenting on bull fighting. I didn't say I was answering your question.

 

I did ask you a question. Does it contain the act of kiting? Yes or No

[Stun]

Real life kiting is even better than the one in games : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

Guess who's staying a hundred miles away from this post of yours? Guess who won't touch it or look at it because it demonstrably shatters his ridiculous claim that actual *Literal* kiting doesn't exist in the real world? Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Actually, wearing down the Kiter down is in fact, another tactic, and the counter to kiting. But, as described above, Kiting is one method used to deal with a powerful, aggressive meleer. Therefore, it is a tactic. Not a great one. Not even a fair one. But we were not discussing the greatness or fairness of a specific tactic...just whether it IS one.

There's your problem, right there. You're worried about a technical definition. I'm arguing the actual legitimacy of kiting as an actual, employable tactic that should be implemented into a virtual system of combat mechanics.

 

If you wanna go by definition, a pine cone is food. But I'd still say it's no meal. You could eat a pine cone, and even get nutrition from it, but it's not really a viable option when it comes to meal options. If you have the choice between anything else, and a pine cone, you'd choose anything else.

 

"Kiting" is a friggin' side effect of video game programming. "Keeping your enemy at a distance" is not kiting. Killing your enemy without getting hit is not kiting. Dodging is not kiting. Specifically taking advantage of the math involved with movement commands, inter-command delays, attack speed, and move speed such that your virtually programmed foe never actually gets to hit you over the course of a substantial duration of time while you hit him all day long... that's kiting.

 

So, yeah, it's as much of a legitimate tactic as infinitely teleporting around at-will is. And that ties in your awesome magic example. In real life, people can't magically teleport around. But, that doesn't mean magic can't be put into a game world. Therefore, if we allow people to magically teleport around limitlessly, and live forever, avoiding the enemy until it dies of old age, that's totally a viable, legitimate tactic we should both put into our games AND support! 8D

 

No. See how preposterous that is? You probably don't. Or, if you do, you somehow think it has nothing to do with the very nature of kiting as a gaming term.

 

 

I give up. You're right.

 

Casting spells is an entity then. In fact, most RPGs you may purchase Spell Casting, in quantities of 5 or 10, from any merchant.

 

Derp.

Hahaha... You do realize that the only difference between casting spells and casting stones is the thing you're casting, right? The act of casting magic spells is just what you do with spells. Therefore, "casting things" is a method. Spells is not a method. You said "Magic doesn't exist," then asked if that makes it illegitimate, in our discussion of kiting. What do you need to cast spells? Spells. What do you need to kite? The ability to move and attack, and some rather specific values, etc.

 

Derp all you want, oh stubborn one. Whether it's a magic spell that you used to put those enemy soldiers to sleep, or a non-fictional chemical you slipped into their water supply, putting them to sleep is the tactic you're using. Magic is not. So, your magic example yet remains completely ineffective.

 

Not to mention, I never even said "solely because kiting doesn't exist in the real world, it shouldn't be in a video game, BECAUSE!", so you're arguing a point you arbitrarily decided anyone else was even contradicting you on.

 

A lack of the ability to kite in a game isn't doing the game any harm. Just like the lack of infini-teleporting and being immortal isn't hurting the game's tactical repertoire any, either. That's why it's silly to be in the game. Not because it just happens to not really exist.

 

I did ask you a question. Does it contain the act of kiting? Yes or No

I said "you weren't asking me a question." Past tense. Unless you ask people questions by quoting other people?

 

Maybe now you're asking me a question, very cleverly disguised as a simply clarification of your initial question (that's rather confusing, for the record, especially since, if you're asking me a question now, it's literally the exact same question you were asking Fatback).

 

The answer is no, btw. It contains the act of dodging, and counter-attacking. Again, in RPG mechanics, the Bull would use an ability called "Charge," and the Matador would then Dodge and Counter-Attack. For him to be kiting, he'd have to constantly run away from the bull the whole time, always staying just too far ahead of it for it to even successfully attack him, all the while killing it with his own direct attacks.