Isn't balance skewed too much towards Deflection ?

[Guest]

Yes, I'm aware. Unfortunately, I don't have Fort or Will memorized, nor do I have the game in front of me to confirm them. Rather than make something up, I opted not to mention them, however I assure you they are impressive.

 

And unfortunately you are wrong. My PC is not nearly as "bullet-proof" mid game as he is later on, but he becomes very resilent as soon as he takes W&S Style. Furthermore, my PC plays the entire game in the mail he starts in (he does swap out for a robe in Raedric's Keep, but that's temporary). So I'm not advocating that one plays part of the game in slow, bulky plate and then switch later, I'm saying there's never any reason to put plate on at all.

 

Regarding your last point, I'm pretty sure I conceded that back in one of my first posts. I don't for 2 reasons: 1) it feels like cheese and 2) I don't put any item on my party unless it matches their paper doll on the character screen. I would have to come up with a new "shopping list" if I changed any of my party members armor

[Razorchain]

I think it boils down to difficulty. I was running a party on hard where no one of my 3 melee characters had a shield. I had a two hander Paladin as my PC. A one hander crit machine fighter and a dual wielding barbarian. I had no problem getting my deflection high enough, but I still wore hvy armour as I wasnt stacking deflection.

 

But then we have Potd where enemies have higher accuracy and deflection and there are more of them. Higher acc means they will hit more debuffs that lower your defenses which leads to more debuffs and hits. A phantom can literally keep 1 character stunlocked the whole fight or xaurip skirmishers can keep your frontline paralyzed.

 

 

Because of higher defenses fights will also take longer which means you get hit more often making hvy armour more important. You need 15 higher in your defenses on Potd and even then your will is also important to avoid debuffs which lower your defenses.

 

I found that chanters shine on this difficulty because on lower difficulties fights are over before I can cast a spell or irrelevant because there is only

a mop up left when they can finally cast something.

[Kaigen42]

It also depends on playstyle. If you use spells freely and rest after every few fights, then your tanks only need to be durable enough to survive. Their health is unlikely to be a limiting factor in that scenario. If you use spells sparingly and try to cram in as many fights between rests as possible, then keeping your tanks from taking even small amounts of damage can have an impact on how often you rest.

[Guest]

It also depends on playstyle. If you use spells freely and rest after every few fights, then your tanks only need to be durable enough to survive. Their health is unlikely to be a limiting factor in that scenario. If you use spells sparingly and try to cram in as many fights between rests as possible, then keeping your tanks from taking even small amounts of damage can have an impact on how often you rest.

I'm not sure this has quite the impact you might think (which isn't to say that I think you're wrong). Because I play on Hard and tend to want to save those 2 camping supplies, I have a habit of refusing to rest until I absolutely have to. This is generally bad for me, as it means I have a couple of fairly fresh party members and several who are making due via scrolls or per encounter abilities. Gets really dangerous after level 9.

[mazeltov]

And unfortunately you are wrong. My PC is not nearly as "bullet-proof" mid game as he is later on, but he becomes very resilent as soon as he takes W&S Style. Furthermore, my PC plays the entire game in the mail he starts in (he does swap out for a robe in Raedric's Keep, but that's temporary). So I'm not advocating that one plays part of the game in slow, bulky plate and then switch later, I'm saying there's never any reason to put plate on at all.

 

Didn't claim you did play that way, only that it would be amusing if someone did if they followed your reasoning (such as it is), switching from slow, bulky Plate to slow, bulky, less protective Mail for trivial reasons. Not that there's much risk of that, because Plate is clearly superior for tanks in virtually all cases but complete Misses, i.e. for the parts of the game that matter, reducing the reasons to downgrade full tank armor to either "aesthetics," "feels," or, more saliently, unique enchantments provided by lower-tier armor that are more valuable for a specific build or party setup.

[Kandidus]

I suppose the question of heavy armor vs light armor for your high deflection tanks is also dependent on what you need them for.  For my party I just need my 2 tanks to keep the enemies engaged - I have enough damage from my druid/wizard/cipher that that I don't really need my tanks to do damage.  They also have low might scores anyways - so I'd happily take a higher DR over more weak attacks.  Besides, ever since my party hit 9 my tanks end up just holding position outside of the AOE kill zone that my wizard/druid have set up - a lot of the time they aren't even doing aside from standing pretty

[Guest]

 

 

And unfortunately you are wrong. My PC is not nearly as "bullet-proof" mid game as he is later on, but he becomes very resilent as soon as he takes W&S Style. Furthermore, my PC plays the entire game in the mail he starts in (he does swap out for a robe in Raedric's Keep, but that's temporary). So I'm not advocating that one plays part of the game in slow, bulky plate and then switch later, I'm saying there's never any reason to put plate on at all.

Didn't claim you did play that way, only that it would be amusing if someone did if they followed your reasoning (such as it is), switching from slow, bulky Plate to slow, bulky, less protective Mail for trivial reasons. Not that there's much risk of that, because Plate is clearly superior for tanks in virtually all cases but complete Misses, i.e. for the parts of the game that matter, reducing the reasons to downgrade full tank armor to either "aesthetics," "feels," or, more saliently, unique enchantments provided by lower-tier armor that are more valuable for a specific build or party setup.

Didn't claim that you did claim I played that way. Your post seemed to imply that someone would, or would have to in order for mail to make any sense.

 

But clearly DR for DR's sake is good enough for you and no amount of logic is going to make a dent in that. Which is fine, it's single-player game so like I said a few times "to each their own". I merely wanted to know if there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR. I didn't think there was, my experience told that there wasn't, and nothing I've read here has challenged that, so I guess I have my answer.

[mazeltov]

Your post seemed to imply that someone would, or would have to in order for mail to make any sense.

 

...

I merely wanted to know if there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR. I didn't think there was, my experience told that there wasn't, and nothing I've read here has challenged that, so I guess I have my answer.

 

Ah, you imagined an implication, and claimed I was wrong based on it. Fair enough.

 

I realize what you were trying to say, but it was relevant to explain why it was wrong, not to convince you personally but for the sake of others reading the thread who might buy into your claims and develop a false impression of the way the game works. Tanks need good Defenses, and they need good armor for when those Defenses fail, which is why "there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR."

[Schyzm]

I agree that like DR. the other defenses should have a way to grant them diminishing returns as it is now the marginal value you get from 1 point of deflection increases as you get more deflection.

 

so 20-21 deflection is ok

 

120-121 deflection is many times better 

 

to the point of course where some portions of the game you can become unhittable. I also like the way of doing it basically the way DR does it in that you always allow something to get through. completely missing is kinda lame anyway.

[Guest]

 

Your post seemed to imply that someone would, or would have to in order for mail to make any sense.

 

...

I merely wanted to know if there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR. I didn't think there was, my experience told that there wasn't, and nothing I've read here has challenged that, so I guess I have my answer.

 

Ah, you imagined an implication, and claimed I was wrong based on it. Fair enough.

 

I realize what you were trying to say, but it was relevant to explain why it was wrong, not to convince you personally but for the sake of others reading the thread who might buy into your claims and develop a false impression of the way the game works. Tanks need good Defenses, and they need good armor for when those Defenses fail, which is why "there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR."

 

You're seeing commas where there were periods. At this point you're being pedantic and not worth talking to (which is sad, because I've mostly enjoyed your posts in the past).

 

I also hope that our readers haven't left this thread with bad ideas. I'm hoping that they won't buy into this false "plate or nothing" dichotomy that is just about everywhere in this forum. I hope they take the time to read the combat log and notice that "miss" is feels better than "hits for 8 damage" (or "hits for 3 damage" in your game because DR is just so awesome). I hope they continue to put heavy armor on party members who need it (like Kana), but not party members that don't (like Eder). And I hope that once they do all that, the come back and try to correct people who keep insisting that plate is incredible and everything else is somehow inferior.

 

Toodles.

 

PS: DEF: 118, FORT: 91, REF: 118, WILL: 89

[mazeltov]

I also hope that our readers haven't left this thread with bad ideas.

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of bad ideas is that good posters do nothing." - Lil Wayne

 

--

 

to the point of course where some portions of the game you can become unhittable. I also like the way of doing it basically the way DR does it in that you always allow something to get through. completely missing is kinda lame anyway.

 

The Graze system was supposed to help mitigate the all or nothing nature of attacks. At astronomically high Defenses even Grazes are obsoleted to some extent. I think the automatic Defense gain per level could be flattened out more, but it needs to be done in a way that brings tanks down a peg without hurting the other roles too much.

[Razorchain]

 

 

Your post seemed to imply that someone would, or would have to in order for mail to make any sense.

 

...

I merely wanted to know if there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR. I didn't think there was, my experience told that there wasn't, and nothing I've read here has challenged that, so I guess I have my answer.

 

Ah, you imagined an implication, and claimed I was wrong based on it. Fair enough.

 

I realize what you were trying to say, but it was relevant to explain why it was wrong, not to convince you personally but for the sake of others reading the thread who might buy into your claims and develop a false impression of the way the game works. Tanks need good Defenses, and they need good armor for when those Defenses fail, which is why "there was a good reason to give a player both high defense and high DR."

 

You're seeing commas where there were periods. At this point you're being pedantic and not worth talking to (which is sad, because I've mostly enjoyed your posts in the past).

 

I also hope that our readers haven't left this thread with bad ideas. I'm hoping that they won't buy into this false "plate or nothing" dichotomy that is just about everywhere in this forum. I hope they take the time to read the combat log and notice that "miss" is feels better than "hits for 8 damage" (or "hits for 3 damage" in your game because DR is just so awesome). I hope they continue to put heavy armor on party members who need it (like Kana), but not party members that don't (like Eder). And I hope that once they do all that, the come back and try to correct people who keep insisting that plate is incredible and everything else is somehow inferior.

 

Toodles.

 

PS: DEF: 118, FORT: 91, REF: 118, WILL: 89

 

 

 

Of course you don't take DR for DR's sake.  My backliners have lighter armor, but that's because they are not meant to be taking damage.  

 

Let's look at why we use Hvy armour or Plate.  On hard difficulty it really doesn't matter, having DR 9 or DR 12 isn't going to make much of a difference because you'll be killing the enemy so fast if you know what you are doing.

 

Now you go to Potd difficulty and now you have more enemies who have +15 accuracy and +15 to all defenses and +25% endurance.  This means you'll hit less, which means you'll do less damage, and the fight will be longer which means you'll be hit more often. Thats where the plate comes in, to mitigate the damage you take.  

 

The enemy will have easier time to use crowd controls on you and debuff you because even though you have 120 in deflection you might have lower FORT/REF/WILL.  And when the enemy stuns/paralyzes/blinds you your deflection will suffer which means you'll get hit.  So having decent armour, especially on lower levels is good, especially since your tanks will be doing so little damage anyways.  When you have a lvl 3 character with 30 in accuracy because of a shield against a Shade with 75 in deflection you are not going to be hitting and dealing much damage.

 

On hard difficulty you'll be bursting through your enemies, hitting more often, debuffing more often which leads to more hits landing which means they die quickly and you'll have lesser use for hvy armor.

 

I'm playing on Potd with a tanky Paladin as my main and even with 102 in deflection at lvl 5 and Zelous Endurance and Plate armour (unenchanted) I have DR 15 and still he hits the floor sometimes.  He gets blinded, paralyzed and stunned even though he has +18 to Fort/Ref/Will

[View619]

I don't want to be that guy who compares POE mechanics to D&D/IE games...but things like this are why critical rolls always hit in D&D. There may need to be an adjustment where rolling within a certain range is a guaranteed hit no matter how much deflection you have. Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.

 

I'm hoping the expansion has a wider range of enemies that do damage by targeting more than just deflection.

[Schyzm]

I don't want to be that guy who compares POE mechanics to D&D/IE games...but things like this are why critical rolls always hit in D&D. There may need to be an adjustment where rolling within a certain range is a guaranteed hit no matter how much deflection you have. Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.

 

I'm hoping the expansion has a wider range of enemies that do damage by targeting more than just deflection.

 

I think a nice system might be something like <50 graze, 50 or more hit, and then do miss/crit on the rolls of the attacker, so like <10 attack roll miss, >90 attack roll crit or wutever. it would devalue accuracy some but that's kind of the point.

[Kanasuke]

So what the OP is saying is, it sucks that there is really only one way to build a tank? 

[Guest]

The OP is asking, why are there so many ways to stack Deflection when there are so few ways to stack DR.

[b0rsuk]

So what the OP is saying is, it sucks that there is really only one way to build a tank? 

 

More less.

 

I'm having this idea of a DR tank floating in my head.

Race: Fire Godlike

Class: Barbarian (Blooded passive!)

Dual wielding spears with Valiant (+10 Accuracy and +25% damage when below 50%)

Eventually wearing He Carries Many Scars (1.5X DR when below 25% endurance), Mantle of the Dying Boar (+5 regen below 33%)

Supporting teammates: Paladin with Aura of Endurance, Chanter with Dull the Edge, Blunt the Point.

 

Barbarian is the only class that can benefit from having Endurance below 50%. "Valiant" is a powerful weapon enchantment. Barbarian can get Thick Skin and Defiant Resolve, whose effect would be greatly improved with high DR. Because this build benefits from a paladin, why not borrow the breastplate from Pallegrina in early game ?

Edited May 5, 2015 by b0rsuk

[koski]

Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.

 

It would be really interesting to see this. As how it currently stands there is little to no reason to not disengage from the tanks. I bet the whole community would be shouting shenanigans if that started to happen. I mean everyone and their mother tends to build tanks for survivability, which always leads to less damage that ends up with their disengagement attacks not being any real threat. In fact, the current NPC AI actually hurts from targets doing disengagement (my tanks tend to start following the designated target and if that is the one who disengages the tank will happily take attacks from the rest of the guys he is engaged with). In the end tanks would hold no aggro as its always smarter to just take the hits and run to one-shot the wizards/priests in no armour/cloth. Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner covering all paths to your squishies (like many of us do against shadows/phantoms/shades) or just the usual door blocking.

 

The real way to fix these problems would be to give enemies ranged attacks. Currently, only designated ranged attackers use ranged weapons but the game would change completely if the enemy would be able to use the same tactics as you. Having your fighter block the door while the rest of the party attacks with reach weapons or ranged/spells? How would you like it if the enemy at the second row would switch to using a pike or the knight in the back row to his crossbow and return the favour against your squishies? Suddenly you'd be in a hurry to deal with the tank blocking the door to get inside to deal with the actual threat. Its hard to justify a person in a fantasy world that would not carry some sort of ranged weapon with them. When it is about life or death, you'll want to at least have a shot of ending the fight before it even starts. Many enemies even have bows, but they never switch to them.

 

That is really what the AI needs, not something that breaks the whole engagement system and reduces the whole thing to anarchy.

 

As for the whole topic at hand. There is a huge difference in building a tank in the "approved potd"-Mazeltov way and building it like Achilles does it. If your Tank™ is there sitting with 3 might, 3 dex, 3 int (if fighter) and per,res and con capped then of course you should wear the heaviest armour available. The tank will be dealing no damage so there is zero difference between wearing no armour and wearing full plate so why not wear full plate? And if you build your "Tank" in a way you'd build a damage dealing warrior with talents towards tanking (which is what I am assuming Achilles is doing), you might actually have a reason not to wear plate. Though to be honest I think Achilles might have to check his math on when 5% faster attack rate is better than 3 DR. The fight will have to be over a whole lot faster with that 5% recovery gain for it to offset even a single graze that ends up doing reasonable damage.

Edited May 5, 2015 by koski

[b0rsuk]

That's a false dichotomy - there's middle ground between: "1 tank should be enough for everyone" and "Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner.". If you had two line holders, you would be causing double disengagement attacks. Most enemies would be severely weakened after that. If they still go after your "squishies", switch to two-handed weapons and cut them in half. "Squishies" can equip large shields and have defensive tricks, in worst case - potions. And "squishies" just got a buff in 1.05. Cipher, Wizard got more health and endurance. Even priest got more health. Not every melee line is worth getting through.

 

Giving all encounters ranged attacks to fall back is not foolproof. Cipher has a hard counter to ranged attacks in the form of level1 spell Eyestrike. It inflicts Dazed and Blind in an area. Besides, at least one of the spirit types already has a ranged attack, and does it really work ?

 

Tight formations like hugging a corner have a strong counter - area attacks. Even one enemy per encounter with an area attack would change the way you fight.

Edited May 5, 2015 by b0rsuk

[koski]

That's a false dichotomy - there's middle ground between: "1 tank should be enough for everyone" and "Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner.". If you had two line holders, you would be causing double disengagement attacks. Most enemies would be severely weakened after that. If they still go after your "squishies", switch to two-handed weapons and cut them in half. "Squishies" can equip large shields and have defensive tricks, in worst case - potions. And "squishies" just got a buff in 1.05. Cipher, Wizard got more health and endurance. Even priest got more health. Not every melee line is worth getting through.

 

Giving all encounters ranged attacks to fall back is not foolproof. Cipher has a hard counter to ranged attacks in the form of level1 spell Eyestrike. It inflicts Dazed and Blind in an area. Besides, at least one of the spirit types already has a ranged attack, and does it really work ?

 

Tight formations like hugging a corner have a strong counter - area attacks. Even one enemy per encounter with an area attack would change the way you fight.

 

Its not about one tank being enough. Its about no one bothering to stick to any tank, as they wont be any kind of threat even with disengagement attacks. The problem is probably in the engagement system itself, which is a blessing and a curse. Two tanks would not cause any more engagement attacks, as unless they're fighters, specced for tanking they will not be able to aggro even the mobs they're supposed to hold themselves, let alone have enough engagement slots left for the "extra" guys to double hold for the second tank.The point however is, that if the AI was designed to take disengagements every now and then, then most of the times they would do that would pretty much include all the time. On all tanks. No tank would be able to hold aggro as there is little to no actual reason to attack the tanks.

 

a) they got too high deflection to actually hit -> any smart AI would just leave them there, good thing the AI is not smart.

b) they're wearing too heavy armour to damage properly -> any smart AI would just leave them there and kill them last, good thing the AI is not smart

c) they deal little to no damage and pose no threat -> any smart AI would just ignore them and go for targets with actual threat, good thing the AI is not smart

 

Add a,b and c together and you got foes going towards your mage, ranger, priest, rogue, whoever else than the tanks. This is what you do as a player too. You stick your fighter towards the big guys running straight at you and focus down the mages. Up to the point where you'll get your ass handed to you in a second if you do not do it but the whole fight is a cakewalk and you'll lose no HP on anyone if you do it.

 

And to be honest, eyestrike is a hard counter for pretty much everything. Blind & dazed opponents rarely do anything useful. But you know who else doesn't do anything useful? The guys who are standing in line to be slaughtered one by one.

 

Shade is probably the one you mean with the ranged attack? And yes, it does work. They gank Aloth almost every time. Spirits in general are the representation on what would happen if foes were able to freely ignore engagement. And I can't really say I've ever heard anyone praise the spirit type enemies. Quite the opposite. They're probably the most hated creatures along with the vampire things.

 

And yes, AoE attacks hard counter corner hugging, but its a risk you have to take when your tanks have no way of holding aggro. Then again you could build every party member like you'd build a PotD solo character. Able to tank for himself and deal with any enemy. That'd be fun.

Edited May 5, 2015 by koski

[Raven Darkholme]

 

Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.

 

 

It would be really interesting to see this. As how it currently stands there is little to no reason to not disengage from the tanks. I bet the whole community would be shouting shenanigans if that started to happen. I mean everyone and their mother tends to build tanks for survivability, which always leads to less damage that ends up with their disengagement attacks not being any real threat. In fact, the current NPC AI actually hurts from targets doing disengagement (my tanks tend to start following the designated target and if that is the one who disengages the tank will happily take attacks from the rest of the guys he is engaged with). In the end tanks would hold no aggro as its always smarter to just take the hits and run to one-shot the wizards/priests in no armour/cloth. Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner covering all paths to your squishies (like many of us do against shadows/phantoms/shades) or just the usual door blocking.

 

The real way to fix these problems would be to give enemies ranged attacks. Currently, only designated ranged attackers use ranged weapons but the game would change completely if the enemy would be able to use the same tactics as you. Having your fighter block the door while the rest of the party attacks with reach weapons or ranged/spells? How would you like it if the enemy at the second row would switch to using a pike or the knight in the back row to his crossbow and return the favour against your squishies? Suddenly you'd be in a hurry to deal with the tank blocking the door to get inside to deal with the actual threat. Its hard to justify a person in a fantasy world that would not carry some sort of ranged weapon with them. When it is about life or death, you'll want to at least have a shot of ending the fight before it even starts. Many enemies even have bows, but they never switch to them.

 

That is really what the AI needs, not something that breaks the whole engagement system and reduces the whole thing to anarchy.

 

As for the whole topic at hand. There is a huge difference in building a tank in the "approved potd"-Mazeltov way and building it like Achilles does it. If your Tank™ is there sitting with 3 might, 3 dex, 3 int (if fighter) and per,res and con capped then of course you should wear the heaviest armour available. The tank will be dealing no damage so there is zero difference between wearing no armour and wearing full plate so why not wear full plate? And if you build your "Tank" in a way you'd build a damage dealing warrior with talents towards tanking (which is what I am assuming Achilles is doing), you might actually have a reason not to wear plate. Though to be honest I think Achilles might have to check his math on when 5% faster attack rate is better than 3 DR. The fight will have to be over a whole lot faster with that 5% recovery gain for it to offset even a single graze that ends up doing reasonable damage.

I agree and said this before myself.

[Raven Darkholme]

 

So what the OP is saying is, it sucks that there is really only one way to build a tank?

 

 

More less.

 

I'm having this idea of a DR tank floating in my head.

Race: Fire Godlike

Class: Barbarian (Blooded passive!)

Dual wielding spears with Valiant (+10 Accuracy and +25% damage when below 50%)

Eventually wearing He Carries Many Scars (1.5X DR when below 25% endurance), Mantle of the Dying Boar (+5 regen below 33%)

Supporting teammates: Paladin with Aura of Endurance, Chanter with Dull the Edge, Blunt the Point.

 

Barbarian is the only class that can benefit from having Endurance below 50%. "Valiant" is a powerful weapon enchantment. Barbarian can get Thick Skin and Defiant Resolve, whose effect would be greatly improved with high DR. Because this build benefits from a paladin, why not borrow the breastplate from Pallegrina in early game ?

That wouldn't work btw because Raedrics armor sadly only gives a bonus DR when below 25% HEALTH I wear the armor with my solo pala and never really use the bonus. So basically the only use is EN reg for non fighters.

[Kaigen42]

@koski The problem with programming the AI to actually disengage is that as it currently stands, it's very difficult (if not impossible) to make a tank that is both very durable and very dangerous. They would either need to boost tank damage high enough to be threatening, which would make dps specialists marginal as you could have someone doing similar damage with better survivability, or else give tanks tools to punish disengagements in other ways ala 4e D&D, which would require them to program an AI intelligent enough to assess the various penalties they might take for disengaging vs. the tactical advantage of hitting a more vulnerable target. All of which might end up with a properly built tank having disengagement attacks so nasty that it's never a good idea to disengage, leaving us back where we started.

[b0rsuk]

AI smart enough to disengage once in a while would encourage more balanced fighters, who are reasonably tough while still dealing good damage. And that would be good.

[Kaylon]

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.