Range superiority is alive and kicking.

[Odd Hermit]

So I've covered my issues with the defense/deflection system already, which somewhat plays into this.

 

First off, let's just put out the one big disclaimer: Melee builds are generally a bit more survivable than casters.

 

However, a damage focused melee vs. a damage focused caster isn't that major, at least as you get up to mid-higher levels. Except maybe the poor Wizard.

 

The main problems with them right now are -

 

#1. Melee take more AoE damage, and AoE damage is scary in this game. Being around the tank you "pull" enemies with isn't very safe. I've had Adra beetles kill the other beetles around my tank and fared better than having my characters in melee helping said tank(they'd get wrecked by lightning).

 

#2. Melee engage things. Things engage back. A caster can throw a lot of damage around without getting targeted back, and generally the enemies on your 1-2 very durable characters won't break off and come after said caster. Same is not true for melee, and melee DPS can still be taken down rather quickly.

 

#3. Melee suffer from disengagement attacks if they want to switch targets or position themselves. Casters can move about more freely, assuming they haven't done something dumb like be in melee range and get engaged.

 

These three weaknesses add up to, IMO, more than cancel out the small durability advantage a melee damage focused fighter, paladin, chanter, monk has over a Druid, Wizard, or Cipher. And then there's rogues, who are about the same durability. Which is why guns are a good idea for rogues...

 

 

So, engagement was originally intended to prevent kiting, right? It was to make life harder for casters, to counteract their advantages. But right now, as long as you keep your casters at a distance, they're often just not even targeted by enemies. Melee gets into a cluster, casters bomb the cluster using their extra AoE from int to avoid friendly fire.

 

Engagement has ended up making life harder for melee damage dealers.

 

At the very least I'd say the AI needs some tweaks so that un-engaged melee enemies won't keep attacking a 100+deflection tank when there's a 40 deflection Druid spamming Blizzards on them. Also, I'd simply up the durability for melee builds a bit.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[Tartantyco]

Yes, melee characters generally take more damage than ranged characters. That's to be expected. The ranged characters still have to rest at the same time as the melee characters.  It's a symbiotic relationship where the ranged characters depend on the melee characters to keep them out of harm's way. Your "three weaknesses" don't mean that you can just build an all-ranged party and pwn everything with 720 noscope. They'd get trashed. If you're in a fight with heavy AoE(Crystal Eaters, for instance), you need to approach that situation with a different tactic than if you're fighting the ogre and bears. It does not mean that the devs should buff melee characters. To me, it sounds like you just want one tactics to work in every situation.

[Odd Hermit]

Yes, melee characters generally take more damage than ranged characters. That's to be expected. The ranged characters still have to rest at the same time as the melee characters.  It's a symbiotic relationship where the ranged characters depend on the melee characters to keep them out of harm's way. Your "three weaknesses" don't mean that you can just build an all-ranged party and pwn everything with 720 noscope. They'd get trashed. If you're in a fight with heavy AoE(Crystal Eaters, for instance), you need to approach that situation with a different tactic than if you're fighting the ogre and bears. It does not mean that the devs should buff melee characters. To me, it sounds like you just want one tactics to work in every situation.

 

I'm not feeling the symbiosis. Also, no an all ranged party wouldn't get trashed. I know for a fact you can do hard difficulty NP without any melee at all.

 

There's melee damage builds, and then there's melee tank builds. You only really want one or two of the latter to keep casters alive right now, but even that isn't a necessity it just makes it a lot easier. Of course you can potentially solo the content with some classes as well, but for the sake of argument I'm excluding cheesy approaches like constantly resetting combat after gibbing things with leadsplitter.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[Luckmann]

Yes, melee characters generally take more damage than ranged characters. That's to be expected. The ranged characters still have to rest at the same time as the melee characters.  It's a symbiotic relationship where the ranged characters depend on the melee characters to keep them out of harm's way. Your "three weaknesses" don't mean that you can just build an all-ranged party and pwn everything with 720 noscope. They'd get trashed. If you're in a fight with heavy AoE(Crystal Eaters, for instance), you need to approach that situation with a different tactic than if you're fighting the ogre and bears. It does not mean that the devs should buff melee characters. To me, it sounds like you just want one tactics to work in every situation.

 

The problem really isn't melee vs. ranged in the way you portray it. The problem is that ranged DPS is superior to melee DPS in virtually all contexts. You may still want a melee tank, but that's for tanking, to keep them away from the ranged damage-dealers.

[mutonizer]

At the very least I'd say the AI needs some tweaks so that un-engaged melee enemies won't keep attacking a 100+deflection tank when there's a 40 deflection Druid spamming Blizzards on them.

You do NOT want the AI to play like you (not you you, you as generic) play...really. Like I play, yea that'd be cool because I really try to avoid cheesing, go with theme and alignment, enjoy look above meta.

But most people cheese out in these games like there is no tomorrow and if the AI started doing it to THEM...lol.

 

I mean, wtf you gonna do if suddenly all ranged mobs started focus firing on your ranged dudes, with priority orders, or started CCing properly, then massive focus fire.

 

Mobs do NOT have resource management to handle, which is what makes these fights difficult in the first place.

Mobs do NOT need to think about story, roles, balanced party, they are just here to ruin your day and be loot fillers.

Mobs only have to fight ONE of you, you have to fight DOZENS of them.

Mobs win by killing you. You win by killing them, while using as little resources as possible.

 

 

Overall, "Good AI" doesn't mean jack ****, what matters is mostly mob design but above all: Encounter design. That's the key in tabletop, that's the key here, to me at least.

 

Not enough things go "oh ****", especially when fighting deep in an enemy temple. There should be call for backup, patrols coming from behind you, archers setting up barricades or things on fire or even better, using arrowslits, attack dogs that ignore engagement and go straight on other ranged units, not to kill, but to disrupt (low damage, fast attack dogs, etc). Should be TONS of people, maybe in barracks somewhere on the map, that represent a "pool" of bad guys that can reinforce position if you go crazy in there: Be careful and you won't freak them out, go swords blazing and you'll have a fun HUGE fight on your hands. Get out of the frikkin door, monsters, treasure mentality!

For animals, they should have engage/disengage/circle patterns, WAY more numbers (since when a couple wolves attack 6 dudes in platemail wielding super menacing weapons?) and whatnot. I think you'd reconsider the risk/reward of fighting a 30+ pack of wolves (if they don't get stuck in pathfinding that is). Flyers should be able to swooooosh across the battlefield almost instantly, making your "front line", your "back line" in a second. Things like drakes should be able to grab your characters and drop them somewhere a bit away, possible aggroing another pack in the process.

 

And AMBUSHES! During rest, during travel, in towns, in the wild! Anything to disrupt your pretty little line. Nothing ****ed my parties up like 10 enemies (especially with range) encircling the group in BG! That was awesome

 

And you need to be able to run away...why can't we run away, this makes no sense whatsoever and actually promote complete cheesing. It's one damn line of code to alter, just do it.

 

To be honest, Path of the Damned is the only difficulty worth playing anyway if you're looking for a good combat challenge ontop of a good story. Anything else is a total clickfest so ranged, melee, naked, armored and whatnot don't matter whatsoever so might as well play on easy and enjoy the story.

Edited March 17, 2015 by mutonizer

[Sock]

You make a good point. Path of the Damned is probably the best way to play PoE. At least it is for me, someone who's already "familiar" with the mechanics.

 

This is a new area for me. I usually play games in normal mode, then bump up the difficulty when I get familiar with the mechanics. I've never played a game from the start already familiar enough with it's game play to consider experiencing the story for the first time while the combat is also challenging.

 

Hmm... this is going to be fun.

[Shevek]

Ranged superiority? I find 3 melee characters to be pretty much necessary for me to play and enjoy myself.

[Bazy]

At the very least I'd say the AI needs some tweaks so that un-engaged melee enemies won't keep attacking a 100+deflection tank when there's a 40 deflection Druid spamming Blizzards on them. Also, I'd simply up the durability for melee builds a bit.

I originally liked the idea of engagement because I thought the AI would do things like this. 

[Whipstitch]

Ranged superiority? I find 3 melee characters to be pretty much necessary for me to play and enjoy myself.

That's not particularly surprising. Tanky Melee DPS has self-synergy in the sense that they provide flanking buddies on offense and line tactics helps any one melee from being focus fired on defense. That's why adding a pure tank to an otherwise ranged group works out OK while a lone melee dps in an otherwise ranged group tends to get curb stomped or demand a lot of CC and heals. On the bright side, the whole self-synergy thing means that 5 or 6 melee dudes can really stomp some ass as long as they can keep the enemy aoe under control.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Whipstitch

[Shevek]

Tanky? Naw. No shields in my crew.

[Whipstitch]

When I say "tanky melee dps" I mean no shields but armor heavier than enchanted clothing. It's a lot easier to deal decent melee damage while wearing plate than it is to deal decent melee damage while wearing a shield.

[Shevek]

Are you complaining because melee should use armor?

[Whipstitch]

I never complained in this thread.

[Odd Hermit]

You do NOT want the AI to play like you (not you you, you as generic) play...really. Like I play, yea that'd be cool because I really try to avoid cheesing, go with theme and alignment, enjoy look above meta.

But most people cheese out in these games like there is no tomorrow and if the AI started doing it to THEM...lol.

 

I mean, wtf you gonna do if suddenly all ranged mobs started focus firing on your ranged dudes, with priority orders, or started CCing properly, then massive focus fire.

 

Mobs do NOT have resource management to handle, which is what makes these fights difficult in the first place.

Mobs do NOT need to think about story, roles, balanced party, they are just here to ruin your day and be loot fillers.

Mobs only have to fight ONE of you, you have to fight DOZENS of them.

Mobs win by killing you. You win by killing them, while using as little resources as possible.

 

 

Overall, "Good AI" doesn't mean jack ****, what matters is mostly mob design but above all: Encounter design. That's the key in tabletop, that's the key here, to me at least.

 

 

I would honestly love that but it all depends on, as you say, appropriate encounter design. The better the AI, the less advantage in other ways (numbers, stat boosts, etc.) the enemies need.

 

That said I'm not expecting that level of AI at all. I just want some very, very basic scripted priorities and common sense behaviors. The game has an auto-pause option for when you're attack an enemy with too high deflection for your accuracy level to do much of anything to, what if mobs had a script where they'd realize it's pointless to pile on the tank?

 

I'm fine with that behavior from things like beetles, but a group of humanoid enemies with balanced composition(Medreth's group, the Skaen, the egg bandit group, etc.) should behave more intelligently. It's a combat balance thing but also an immersion thing.

 

 

 

At the very least I'd say the AI needs some tweaks so that un-engaged melee enemies won't keep attacking a 100+deflection tank when there's a 40 deflection Druid spamming Blizzards on them. Also, I'd simply up the durability for melee builds a bit.

I originally liked the idea of engagement because I thought the AI would do things like this. 

 

 

Same, I still think engagement has potential and can be saved.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Odd Hermit

[Odd Hermit]

That's not particularly surprising. Tanky Melee DPS has self-synergy in the sense that they provide flanking buddies on offense and line tactics helps any one melee from being focus fired on defense. That's why adding a pure tank to an otherwise ranged group works out OK while a lone melee dps in an otherwise ranged group tends to get curb stomped or demand a lot of CC and heals. On the bright side, the whole self-synergy thing means that 5 or 6 melee dudes can really stomp some ass as long as they can keep the enemy aoe under control.

 

 

I found this only true at higher levels. Melee seems way more dependent on talents and abilities to come into their own. And it's generally still easier to play collect the enemies around the tank and bomb them.

 

I have gone through with some melee heavy groups, and the beetles are a huge PITA early on. You also need more support/healing for them than you do casters, and casters bring their own - the best offensive caster(druids are just overpowered) has pretty strong healing and support spells.

[mutonizer]

I found this only true at higher levels. Melee seems way more dependent on talents and abilities to come into their own. And it's generally still easier to play collect the enemies around the tank and bomb them.

Yea but remember that us players have an additional win condition for each fight: resource management.

 

Of course staying alive is key but if you're gonna handle every single fight with "bomb them", you'll be doing trips back to the inn all the time. If you're going with this mindset, might as well play on easy really, save you some running time...

To each his own of course, but I always said supplies were a moronic idea to artificially try and counter rest-spamming since people who rest-spammed in BG/IWD would always find a way to do it here anyway, supplies or not. Meanwhile, people who didn't, find themselves with an artificial limitation tied to difficulty setting for some reason.

 

Cheesies are gonna cheese anyway, we all have our own way to play these games so it's hard to compare experiences.

 

I have gone through with some melee heavy groups, and the beetles are a huge PITA early on. You also need more support/healing for them than you do casters, and casters bring their own - the best offensive caster(druids are just overpowered) has pretty strong healing and support spells.

Yea, early on's the hardest but I think that's BB related because you're just dumped in there. It's true though that melees become more "stable" with levels however, at least in beta.

 

But personally I just finished my last PotD test runs, see which party composition I'll be going on release, and have to say it was really, really good fun. It was only on that run that I fully grasped the "mobs don't give xp" concept and ran with it. Was on that run as well that I realized that you could do a RP low-meta party/no cheese on PotD and that it was, to me, the only difficulty setting worth playing, at least as far as beta was concerned, if you wanted a good combat challenge ontop of a good story (potentially).

 

For..I don't know, information sake, I decided to record the run at the last minute (really not equipped for this but there's very little PotD stuff out there, and all of it it 100% cheese). Can find it here if you want. First couple videos are just build up, then adventuring. Microphone didn't work before part 2 and sucks.

[Answermancer]

So, engagement was originally intended to prevent kiting, right? It was to make life harder for casters, to counteract their advantages.

 

 

I just wanted to point out that this is... literally the opposite of why engagement was added to the game.

 

Engagement is there so that the entire group of mobs can't swarm your caster if he opens with a fireball, it's an aggro/threat mechanic intended to let you form a line (of tanky/melee characters) and keep your squishy people safe. It's also clearly inspired by attacks of opportunity and similar systems (I'm reading the book for the pnp RPG '13th Age' right now and the engagement system in that game is extremely similar so I think it might have inspired it, or whatever game 13th Age borrowed it from did).

 

I have mixed feelings on the implementation, personally, but I liked the idea originally and I don't think it's some horrible monstrosity right now, either. I think currently it does it's job but does it too well.

 

If I was making this game I would have made it work like it was supposed to originally and how 5E works (move around someone all you want, get attacked if you move too far away), and I would have added a lot more mobility abilities to classes (especially melee classes) and possibly also a generic "disengage" ability that everyone gets (again, like 5E or 13th Age).

[Mr. Magniloquent]

At the very least I'd say the AI needs some tweaks so that un-engaged melee enemies won't keep attacking a 100+deflection tank when there's a 40 deflection Druid spamming Blizzards on them.

You do NOT want the AI to play like you (not you you, you as generic) play...really. Like I play, yea that'd be cool because I really try to avoid cheesing, go with theme and alignment, enjoy look above meta.

But most people cheese out in these games like there is no tomorrow and if the AI started doing it to THEM...lol.

 

I mean, wtf you gonna do if suddenly all ranged mobs started focus firing on your ranged dudes, with priority orders, or started CCing properly, then massive focus fire.

 

Mobs do NOT have resource management to handle, which is what makes these fights difficult in the first place.

Mobs do NOT need to think about story, roles, balanced party, they are just here to ruin your day and be loot fillers.

Mobs only have to fight ONE of you, you have to fight DOZENS of them.

Mobs win by killing you. You win by killing them, while using as little resources as possible.

 

 

Overall, "Good AI" doesn't mean jack ****, what matters is mostly mob design but above all: Encounter design. That's the key in tabletop, that's the key here, to me at least.

 

I could not disagree more. Vanilla Baldur's Gate is a great game. Baldur's Gate with the Sword Coast Stratagems (SCS) mod installed in a marvelous game. SCS takes enemies AI to the level of a highly experience player that knows every rule and nuance of the game. Comparing BG with and without SCS are night & day. Encounters design is merely a stage. AI is the actual substance of the play.

[Shevek]

@Odd Hermit

 

Engagement doesnt need to be saved. It works great in this latest patch. There are tons of abilities that a player can use when engaged if they need to disengage and with thoughtful character/party development and careful play, one can use those abilities to good effect. This is how a well designed system should function.

 

People claiming the sky is falling over this mechanic are over selling their positions.

[Sensuki]

It is buggy in v480 but apparently they've fixed the disengagement attack exploit finally.

There's also some minor bugs with engagement slots as well, reported them.

 

And there's bugs when you combine engagement and abilities like Dimensional Shift and Escape - will be writing those up soon.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Sensuki

[GreyFox]

I"m really worried about the AI...

 

How often does an enemy use an anti engagement move to go after your caster(s)?

[Sensuki]

I've seen Rogues use Escape (currently bugged and causing invisibility)

[Lephys]

What ever happened to Josh's proposed changes to Interrupt, allowing successful Interrupts to break engagement? Did that make it into 480? I've played it a little bit, but didn't think to check specifically for that at the time.

 

Even so, if it DOES work like that now, how can you tell you've broken engagement without spamming pause and checking the combat log for "... has interrupted (insert foe here)"?

[Shevek]

Engagement arrows/lines?

[Lephys]

^ Okay, I'm sorry. I should've said without spamming pause and searching the combat log, OR watching for the disappearance of engagement lines.

 

You don't exactly have a huge window of opportunity to move if an Interrupt breaks your engagement, and that's what you were waiting on. Just seems tedious to have no indicator without pausing and pausing and pausing. "Is the line gone now? Hmmm, how 'bout NOW? Hmmm... OKAY NOW! MOVE NOW!"

 

*shrug*

 

Anywho, I don't even know if that made it into the v480 build, or if it's going to make it into the final game (even if it's not in 480), OR if it just got scrapped.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Lephys