[Defense Discussion] They're testing the 'fenses for weaknesses...

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

Seems obvious Josh has a clear disconnect here...when viewing the SA forums there are like the same few people egging him on so I guess we get a game optimized for 12 people.

Been an issue since forever, it seems. Sawyer enjoys the hugbox and the echo chamber more than any locale which will question his sometimes odd decisions or hangups. God forbid he'd have to defend the decisions.

 

 

 

Hah, that's the first time I've ever seen the Something Awful forums of all places called a "hugbox."

 

For what it's worth I disagree with a lot of Sawyer's decisions but I don't hugely disagree. The game is fun and playable as is, even if some tweaks could improve it, and I'm not in a position to know what those tweaks would cost in terms of development time etc. There are changes I definitely think would improve the game -- Perception doing more for ranged characters, a "auto pause at end of each action" button, etc. -- but these are all small problems not big ones.

 

 

 

VV Dude, people on SA yell at him all the time, myself and Sensuki included. It's not anything like a sheltered as you're making it out to be. VV

Edited March 13, 2015 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Luckmann]

 

 

Seems obvious Josh has a clear disconnect here...when viewing the SA forums there are like the same few people egging him on so I guess we get a game optimized for 12 people.

Been an issue since forever, it seems. Sawyer enjoys the hugbox and the echo chamber more than any locale which will question his sometimes odd decisions or hangups. God forbid he'd have to defend the decisions.

 

 

So of course, when X designer doesn't agree with you, he must just "enjoy the hugbox". What an asinine thing to say, but all to common around these parts...

 

 

No, that's not the point. The point is that he knowingly stays away from places that are liable to criticize him or pick apart the mechanics, and so on. Making decisions I don't agree with is fine, as long as you are willing to explain the rationale, what is trying to be achieved, and why X is set in stone. As it is, he really surrounds himself with yes-sayers that never actually dig into the meat of the game, primarily on a forum you literally cannot even read unless you pay $10 to participate. He then selectively picks out commentary which he often either misunderstands or flat-out don't understand, responding with a hearty "nu-uh".

[roguelike]

All this arguing about Josh Sawyer is distracting from the real issue, which is that some people still don't understand how good tanks are.  Here's a video of fighting the ogre on Path of the Damned with a level 4 BB party.  Now everyone can agree with me that tanks are awesome, even when the fights get tough.

 

 

[Infinitron]

 

(written by Something Awful, how appropriate)

Edited March 13, 2015 by Infinitron

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Every time I see this thread title the phrase "they're taking the hobbits to Isengard!" pops into my head

[Odd Hermit]

That's right, but they never attack the same place twice. They were testing the fences for weaknesses, systematically. They remember.

 

 

 

That's where I was going with it, IDK.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[TrueMenace]

All this arguing about Josh Sawyer is distracting from the real issue, which is that some people still don't understand how good tanks are.  Here's a video of fighting the ogre on Path of the Damned with a level 4 BB party.  Now everyone can agree with me that tanks are awesome, even when the fights get tough.

 

Video is private lol...

[Sensuki]

All this arguing about Josh Sawyer is distracting from the real issue, which is that some people still don't understand how good tanks are.  Here's a video of fighting the ogre on Path of the Damned with a level 4 BB party.  Now everyone can agree with me that tanks are awesome, even when the fights get tough.

 

That video basically demonstrates one of my main problems with the system. The game promotes this style of play as that's the best way to do it - one tank that is built basically purely defensively and then five ranged characters with no armor that just stack CC and AoE damage.

 

If you tried with more tanks, the fight would likely get progressively worse for you, if you tried with more characters in melee, the fight would go progressively worse for you.

[Tartantyco]

While I think that the defensive capabilities of that tank are somewhat excessive, it's not like the encounter is all that complicated. It's melee enemies with no engagement bypasses. Spellcasters, teleporters, burrowers, would just **** that rear line up.

 

I think a potential solution would be to impose severe exponential penalties when a character is engaged by more enemies than their engagement limit. Anyways, it all largely depends on targeting AI and enemy composition.

[Sensuki]

It's called being Flanked, which is pretty much exactly what you're talking about and you get -10 Deflection from it.

 

Engagement is one of the reasons why using melee characters in situations like this is pointless because if you make a single pixel move, you get hit by a 90 damage attack with no animation, even if the bear is currently recovering from a swing it just made. Without Engagement you can actually use cool tactics like rotating aggro off the bear.

 

I need to make a video demonstrating that tbh but I gotta wait for Bester to convert the IE mod to v480.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sensuki

[Tartantyco]

Isn't the flanked status related to positioning, though? I've gotten flanked when an enemy is to the side or rear of the enemy I'm attacking, regardless of whether the amount of enemies exceeded my engagement limit.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Tartantyco

[Sensuki]

I believe it has to do with who is engaging you, not who you're engaging.

[Odd Hermit]

If they wanted to nerf tanks they could make flanking penalties stack.

 

That sounds evil and would hurt other classes as well but it would make sense in the long run, with other balance changes of course.

 

I've got a 21 Perception + Interrupting blows + 19 Resolve Orlan Paladin tank right now and he is a laugh. It's totally giving me IWDII Svirfneblin build vibes.

 

 

And he slayed the Ogre with a 2 damage hit from a hatchet hehehehe -

 

http://i.imgur.com/y0O1aFS.jpg

Edited March 14, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[Sensuki]

Why would you want to nerf tanks?

 

Make a party with multiple tanks, it is bad.

 

It's in-between / mixed builds that are crap.

[Odd Hermit]

Why would you want to nerf tanks?

 

Make a party with multiple tanks, it is bad.

 

It's in-between / mixed builds that are crap.

 

Right now nerfing tanks would just push us toward 100% offensively built parties. But, in the long run, I don't think it's good balance that you can sit a single character in a swarm of enemies and have him survive for so long while everyone else AoEs the mob down.

 

Granted, if AI went after non-tank characters that would help too, but again we'd have a situation where damage and CC> everything else if it enemies actually targeted weaker characters. It's a complicated problem.

 

I also don't think flanking does enough right now, -10 deflection isn't much of a penalty. But of course I'd say deflection isn't balanced well in the first place so... IDK.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[Namutree]

Why would you want to nerf tanks?

 

Make a party with multiple tanks, it is bad.

 

It's in-between / mixed builds that are crap.

I made a build that was in-between recently; it wasn't so bad.

 

My defenses were high enough to render the low attack power enemies helpless, and the few enemies strong enough to punch through my defense could be suppressed via knockdown.

 

Really, I find being a pure tank is kind of redundant as just going half-way with defense is sufficient for most enemies, and the few enemies it isn't enough for usually circumvent deflection all together.

[Sensuki]

Personally I think a single tank being effective is a good thing, but I think that the system needs looking at so it can support a variety of strategies and compositions rather than just the min-maxed.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

Personally I think a single tank being effective is a good thing, but I think that the system needs looking at so it can support a variety of strategies and compositions rather than just the min-maxed.

They could make talents in the expansion that increase you offense AND defense.

[Voss]

Watching the video, I'm not convinced of the idea that tanks are awesome.  Necessary maybe, to tie up the extraordinarily stupid AI, but despite the triple digit deflection, they happily chewed own the tank repeatedly, and only constant heals and crowd control kept him upright.  It was great for mitigating crits and converting a lot of hits to grazes, but that fighter still  took 222 points of damage during that fight (going by the health total at the end, not the healed endurance), despite the sky high deflection and 14/18 DR.

 

I'd like to see the same fight but with some well built damage dealers (like sensuki's estoc and arquebus rogues), or some crazy druid builds.  Even taken to an extreme the tank absolutely requires a dedicated healer and lots of CC to stay upright, and certainly can't handle a fight like that more than twice without resting (and even the second fight would be iffy).  Having optimized damage dealers takes a lot of pressure off the tank if they can kill stuff faster.

 

 

It does convince me that armor is a bad idea for damage dealers (and CC characters and healers).  The delay just isn't worth it when enemies still do 20-30 damage over 18 DR (and even graze for 9-12 damage).   And defensive wizard spells are a complete waste of space.

 

 

Aside: one thing I really didn't like is the ogre doesn't actually make a disengagement attack at the idiot fighter who walked behind him. An icon flashes at his circle, but no animations.  Sad.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Voss

[Odd Hermit]

Personally I think a single tank being effective is a good thing, but I think that the system needs looking at so it can support a variety of strategies and compositions rather than just the min-maxed.

 

If a single min/maxed tank covers all of your tanking needs compositions will generally favor gathering up and AoEing enemies around the tank which is dull. I am fine with a single high deflection tank being an asset particularly for very tough single creatures, but I think we should need at least some backup melee to keep groups off casters. Otherwise it feels like farming trash in an MMO where you control all the characters.

[Sensuki]

They'll run out of Health eventually though, and personally I like to extend my adventuring day as long as possible, so once they do get low I'll start using other characters to do it if there's just trash fights up ahead.

[Odd Hermit]

They'll run out of Health eventually though, and personally I like to extend my adventuring day as long as possible, so once they do get low I'll start using other characters to do it if there's just trash fights up ahead.

 

Better to use summons, and just try to keep combat-status rolling. No health damage taken. Will-O'-Wisps are particularly good for it, and they charm stuff. Some areas are easier to do that with than others though. I burn through the Skaen pretty fast without using many /rest resources or health.

[Sensuki]

Not every party will have a Chanter.

[roguelike]

Watching the video, I'm not convinced of the idea that tanks are awesome.  Necessary maybe, to tie up the extraordinarily stupid AI, but despite the triple digit deflection, they happily chewed own the tank repeatedly, and only constant heals and crowd control kept him upright.  It was great for mitigating crits and converting a lot of hits to grazes, but that fighter still  took 222 points of damage during that fight (going by the health total at the end, not the healed endurance), despite the sky high deflection and 14/18 DR.

 

I'd like to see the same fight but with some well built damage dealers (like sensuki's estoc and arquebus rogues), or some crazy druid builds.  Even taken to an extreme the tank absolutely requires a dedicated healer and lots of CC to stay upright, and certainly can't handle a fight like that more than twice without resting (and even the second fight would be iffy).  Having optimized damage dealers takes a lot of pressure off the tank if they can kill stuff faster.

 

 

It does convince me that armor is a bad idea for damage dealers (and CC characters and healers).  The delay just isn't worth it when enemies still do 20-30 damage over 18 DR (and even graze for 9-12 damage).   And defensive wizard spells are a complete waste of space.

 

 

Aside: one thing I really didn't like is the ogre doesn't actually make a disengagement attack at the idiot fighter who walked behind him. An icon flashes at his circle, but no animations.  Sad.

 

Yeah, I don't think tanks are required at all, but in terms of elevating a team from mediocre/poor to capable of beating difficult fights, I think they do better at the moment than any other class.  Which is what I need since I'd like to play through the campaign with the story companions but I have no confidence that they are going to be fit for battle at all.

 

This fight is kind of the worst case for armor since all the enemies are bears and ogres, but being naked does seem pretty great if you're not a tank/paladin/chanter.

 

I'm not sure how many level 6 ogre boss fights folks think a five man level 4 team that includes the bb characters should be able to beat in a day, but I'm pretty happy with one.  I do think it's possible that if my single target damage dealers were not some guy with a crossbow and some orlan with a arquebus that she found somewhere but doesn't know how to use, things might have died a little quicker and allowed me to use less spells.  But you go to war with the party you've got, not the one you wish you had (unless you spend 1250 coppers at the inn to hire them).

[Tartantyco]

I believe it has to do with who is engaging you, not who you're engaging.

 

But my BB Fighter in Defense mode was flanked against only two enemies, one standing behind him. I'm pretty sure flanking is related to the position of the enemy, and not related to any engagement numbers.