So that was terrible...

[RocketChaser]

Spent all evening last night playing the new content and don't see what the fuss is about. Eder is still an absolute boss man and it's still simple enough to keep mobs off your ranged dps and healers if you're not daft.

 

Learn to use your environment, fight in choke points where you can, work your formations to protect your squishies.

 

A game isn't broken if it stops holding your hand, it's broken if it does.

[archangel979]

 

 

 

It's not. It's terrible news. What's the point of having a combat-sticky engagement mechanic if it's just ignored by the enemies? The whole purpose of "engagement", from what I understood, was to avoid the BG scenario where your ranged squishies are just constantly rushed. Like in actual D&D, where there are limitations on combat movement and a tank character can actually hold enemies and protect ranged characters.

 

This is exactly the worse aspect of BG combat--the total inability for a tank to tank. It does seem to be a regular part of combat in the expansion and it's ****ing ****. I don't want to have to drag my goddamn fighters across the battle field five goddamn times while constantly re-positioning my main character to avoid instantaneous melee death *EVERY GODDAMN BATTLE*. My tanks are built defensive, with ****ing multiple-engagement talents and deflection and ****, to ****ing tank--to hold multiple enemies on them. Literally my entire party is built around the simple concept of holding enemies on my tanks and dealing damage with my damage dealers. Every item I have, every talent I took, every spell I know--it's all built around that one simple strategy.

 

If they're just going to completely ignore engagement and run off after my casters every. single. time. (as they have been doing) then this entire expansion will be nothing but a constant micromanagement slag of chasing characters around a battlefield. How fun. Yay.

 

Wow. First time I see a post of someone who understands BG combat wasn't perfect, and that the engagement idea is there for a reason. Finally.

The things I suffered in the beta forums

 

I'm guessing some more balancing is needed. Obviously the fighter can't have high deflection + high accuracy + extra engagements + high damage. So saying it's the op's problem if his/her fighter doesn't punish disengagement is kinda silly.

 

Actually both him and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. In Bg games it was super easy to tank. You kited a bit with ranged and sent your tank after the chasing enemy and the enemy went back to attacking the tank.

 

That is literally the definition of what you do to adapt to bad tanking systems.

 

Nope, that is what happens if enemy going to stab you manages to get past your front line ally (this happened all the time in war in RL). You either have tools to stop him before he kills you or your run away.

[Spirtikus]

Tbh, I dont know how can any AI be improved if you dont make it smarter? If you dont make it calculate the risk of disengagement and attacking your squishies?

TO me this is a good improvement, makes it a bit more challenging.

[Wiggum Esquilax]

 

dude, yeah. I bought this game to play on easy and was very much surprised by combat after the update. used to play every day but find myself avoiding the game, not really fun for me to kite the whole enemy party with my rogue just to be decimated by disengagement attacks (not a naked rogue, nor 3 con, but still gets killed almost instantly) please add an option for the old combat  for us casuals! thanks. I enjoy the rest of the update btw

 

I can see your point.  It sounds to me like a minority of the player base didn't realize that this was always intended to be a tactical RPG.  That MMO tank, dps, and healer was never the intent.  Maybe the devs can impleent an A.I. 1.0 toggle, for the tactically impaired/disinterested?

[tinysalamander]

It could be tad more “tactical” if “everyone in one spot, guess who is where and is doing what” was't possible

Edited August 26, 2015 by tinysalamander

[spardeous]

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through).

If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should - then this would not be a problem. if I wasn't so fearful of their utter impotence in maintaining aggroe, then this would not be the case. I guess my idea of a tank's role relies on seeing them not as endurance toll booths, but foes to be rightfully more fearful of, in the moment. I see the former as a fundamental misconception of the role.

My conception of why an enemy would come after a tank would basically be that their presence(how they look and act) would make them a bigger immediate threat in split-second high-pressure moments of decision making.

[Terces]

 

Well I did finally manage to get through the first map and into the ruins. It's not "easy", though. I actually skipped one group of enemies.

 

I think the biggest problem may have just been the particular types of enemies in that first area, though. The undead on the other part of the map aren't anywhere near the total bastards that those mercenaries were.

 

No wonder they hired them to take on a legendary mage. I would, too.

 

hmmm I guessed this was the issue. You are in the mage's keep where a band of mercenaries are attacking him and threatening to do the same with Caed Nua right?

That map is for higher level parties. I tried attacking it with my level 12 party and I was having a hard time facing more than 3 enemies at once. That map is designed for higher level parties. There are enemies scouting, so when you start a fight with say 2-3 enemies, then 1 or 2 more join the fun. Also there was a type of mercenary that produced duplicates. Not one...2-3 of them each! I was facing two of them so 5-6 duplicates all of the sudden. I will try it again after I get better gear and higher level. Ps: Playing on Path of the Damned.

 

Yeah, that one map is like nightmare mode. I went there first because the quest text made it sound like I should deal with it asap but at level 12 I was having a hell of a hard time surviving each fight. Between the duplicating mercs and the patrols, it's really easy to get overwhelmed and wipe. I ended up bailing out before I cleared the area outside the keep but for a while I was wondering if my game was set on some sort of secret insanity difficulty. Guess I'll come back to it later.

[Katarack21]

 

I can see your point.  It sounds to me like a minority of the player base didn't realize that this was always intended to be a tactical RPG.

This isn't particularly tactical. The AI is using the *same* tactic over and over again--rush the back line. Rush the back line. Rush the back line. I did adapt--I got through the area, eventually. It's a hard tactic to deal with--it is basically designed to **** me--but it's also *EXTREMELY* predictable. The Mercenary Beserker will *ALWAYS* jump over the tank, knocking him prone, and attack my back line. The Mercenary Warrior will *always* break engagement and rush the back line. It's not an "occasional" thing, it's not a "sometimes" thing. It's an entirely predictable event that you can depend on, and therefor manipulate.

 

The complaint before was that you always were doing the same things over and over again? You still are. It's just a longer, more complicated sequence.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Katarack21

[Katarack21]

 

Well I did finally manage to get through the first map and into the ruins. It's not "easy", though. I actually skipped one group of enemies.

 

I think the biggest problem may have just been the particular types of enemies in that first area, though. The undead on the other part of the map aren't anywhere near the total bastards that those mercenaries were.

 

No wonder they hired them to take on a legendary mage. I would, too.

 

You know, that's not the first map of the expansion. That's the optional high level area you are supposed to tackle at the end of the game with max level.

The main expansion content takes place in the white march (as the name suggests), which is to the top right on the world map.

 

 

Seriously? Like...seriously? I mean, I knew the main expansion was that other area--but are you serious that the mage encampment is the higher-level part?

[Karkarov]

Seriously? Like...seriously? I mean, I knew the main expansion was that other area--but are you serious that the mage encampment is the higher-level part?

Yeah he is serious.  So is it still too hard or were you just trying to do content your party wasn't prepared for?

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through).

 

If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should .......

Ok stop.  Here is your problem.  First stop saying the word "tank".  Eder is a fighter, Pallegina is a paladin, etc etc.  This is not World of Warcraft, it was never meant to be a "tank and spank", Eder's job was not supposed to be "get hit and not fall down while the DPS kill the mob".  Simply put, you misunderstood what this game is.  It is supposed to be a real time with pause tactical combat strategy RPG.  It is not an MMO and everyone complaining about the combat keeps describing MMO combat.  If that is what someone was looking for... sorry, you got the wrong game.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Karkarov

[Katarack21]

Ok stop.  Here is your problem.  First stop saying the word "tank".  Eder is a fighter, Pallegina is a paladin, etc etc.  This is not World of Warcraft, it was never meant to be a "tank and spank",

The word "tank" has nothing to do with WoW. The word "tank" comes from tabletop D&D via wargames, in reference to actual tanks originally. Josh Sawyer, the lead designer, uses the word "tank" when talking about fighters in Pillars of Eternity. Telling people not to use that word comes across as incredibly pretentious and patronizing.

 

As for the difficulty...probably a little of both. If that's true about it being the higher-level area, then I actually have reason to be proud of myself, don't I?

 

"If you want a mixed support/off-tank/light offense character, play a paladin. If you want to coordinate nasty attacks with an animal companion, play a ranger. If you want reliable damage output and the most consistent tanking ability, play a fighter."

--Josh Sawyer

Edited August 26, 2015 by Katarack21

[spardeous]

 

Seriously? Like...seriously? I mean, I knew the main expansion was that other area--but are you serious that the mage encampment is the higher-level part?

Yeah he is serious.  So is it still too hard or were you just trying to do content your party wasn't prepared for?

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through).

 

If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should .......

Ok stop.  Here is your problem.  First stop saying the word "tank".  Eder is a fighter, Pallegina is a paladin, etc etc.  This is not World of Warcraft, it was never meant to be a "tank and spank", Eder's job was not supposed to be "get hit and not fall down while the DPS kill the mob".  Simply put, you misunderstood what this game is.  It is supposed to be a real time with pause tactical combat strategy RPG.  It is not an MMO and everyone complaining about the combat keeps describing MMO combat.  If that is what someone was looking for... sorry, you got the wrong game.

 

 

You've misunderstood my point, but there is fundamentally no difference between how either of these classes mitigates damage(high deflection). They fill the same role in different ways. You can call it whatever you wish, but it doesn't change the dynamic.

 

Second, are you sincerely trying to insinuate that, in a combat situation, the angry guy rushing at you in plate armor trying to decapitate you at close quarters is somehow less dangerous than the guy standing in the back row wearing robes and waving a wand? That combatants should automatically DROP EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING and suicidally rush to engage that guy?

 

Enemies in PoE do not seem to have a good grasp of risk assessment, and situations such as 'guy swinging a flaming greatsword at you in close quarters' should not be given the same weight as 'guy standing behind 5 other guys in back row shooting missiles.' Logistically, it doesn't make any sense. Hence my suggestion.

Edited August 26, 2015 by spardeous

[spardeous]

The issue of enemies not being able to assess risk works both ways - why are their tanks rushing past your tanks leaving their lighter combatants wide open? Breaking rank because the guy in the back is doing 5 more points of damage is suicidal not just to yourself, but to your team. Maybe you'll pick that guy off, but what about your comrades?

That's why a taunt make sense, so that enemies can keep their priorities straight. If it worked like how other aoe abilities worked in the game, it would not affect rangers, casters, and enemies outside of it's range, who might very well take issue with those 5 points of damage.

[Cottonmouth]

 

 

I can see your point.  It sounds to me like a minority of the player base didn't realize that this was always intended to be a tactical RPG.

This isn't particularly tactical. The AI is using the *same* tactic over and over again--rush the back line. Rush the back line. Rush the back line. I did adapt--I got through the area, eventually. It's a hard tactic to deal with--it is basically designed to **** me--but it's also *EXTREMELY* predictable. The Mercenary Beserker will *ALWAYS* jump over the tank, knocking him prone, and attack my back line. The Mercenary Warrior will *always* break engagement and rush the back line. It's not an "occasional" thing, it's not a "sometimes" thing. It's an entirely predictable event that you can depend on, and therefor manipulate.

 

The complaint before was that you always were doing the same things over and over again? You still are. It's just a longer, more complicated sequence.

 

When one move is superior, you'll always chose that one. This doens't make it "not tactical". Tactical doesn't mean a player randomises over inferior strategies. Just think about how another human players would fight your party. There'd be no uselessly hitting your indestructable fighters whilst the Ciphers and the Mage annihilate everyone.

 

Now, as I've said before, the AI employing optimal tactics doesn't necessarily make the game more enjoyable to play.

[Gorionsson]

A lot of encounters are harder, simply because enemies seem to use more of their powerful class abilities.

This is excellent, IMO. (And....... the game is not really that hard, is it?)

 

I do agree that the frontline should hold aggro a bit better, though.

Pure tank builds seem almost pointless after patch 2.0,- I don't think that's ideal.

Hybrid builds are way better now.

 

I think we'll see more tweaks.

[anameforobsidian]

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through).

 

If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should - then this would not be a problem. if I wasn't so fearful of their utter impotence in maintaining aggroe, then this would not be the case. I guess my idea of a tank's role relies on seeing them not as endurance toll booths, but foes to be rightfully more fearful of, in the moment. I see the former as a fundamental misconception of the role.

 

My conception of why an enemy would come after a tank would basically be that their presence(how they look and act) would make them a bigger immediate threat in split-second high-pressure moments of decision making.

 

That seems like using RP as equivocation.  Why would enemies who were seeking to do the most damage attack the most threatening foe?  Also, people who live in that world and are aware of magic are probably aware of the danger.  When in doubt, kill the mage seems like a pretty good philosophy for fighters.  It also isn't neurosurgery to figure out.

 

Also, I think taunt systems are ridiculous in any form of roleplay.  To quote the ever-terrible RA Salvatore:

"You're mother is an ore-loving harlot."

The orc ran at the dwarf instead.

 

There are much more realistic(ish) ways to deal with overly aggressive enemies.  Trips and knockdowns.  Dimensional shifts.  Grimoire slam back into the fighter they just disengaged (Grimoire slam is super fun, it's worth taking a suboptimal feat to literally beat your enemies to death with books).  Sleep spells.  Llenegrath's safeguard.  Using summons to get in the way.  Charm Spells.  Silent scream.  The utterly ridiculous amplified wave.  And the list goes on and on.

 

Basically, if you use your abilities to harass, harry, and control opponents you can get much greater mileage out of them.  Charming the enemies and having them go to town on each other has always been more effective than engagement anyways.   Same with the remarkable slicken and adragan's gaze.

[View619]

Taunts are a terrible idea. Enemies disengaging because your front-line is not doing damage and is not blocking their path, basically failing at their assigned task, is fine. The "problem" is that players have gotten used to dumb AI that focuses on the first unit it can see without taking actual threat into account. The definition of what a "tank" is in POE is changing with the latest update and we're seeing the expected outcry against it since people have gotten used to the old system.

 

Give it a month then re-visit the topic.

Edited August 26, 2015 by View619

[Doppelschwert]

 

 

Well I did finally manage to get through the first map and into the ruins. It's not "easy", though. I actually skipped one group of enemies.

 

I think the biggest problem may have just been the particular types of enemies in that first area, though. The undead on the other part of the map aren't anywhere near the total bastards that those mercenaries were.

 

No wonder they hired them to take on a legendary mage. I would, too.

 

You know, that's not the first map of the expansion. That's the optional high level area you are supposed to tackle at the end of the game with max level.

The main expansion content takes place in the white march (as the name suggests), which is to the top right on the world map.

 

Seriously? Like...seriously? I mean, I knew the main expansion was that other area--but are you serious that the mage encampment is the higher-level part?

 

 

Yeah. I worded that slighty ambigous in retrospective, but I was sincere. It's totally ok to have problems in the area you went to, its boss was described as even harder than the last boss of caed nua.

[Katarack21]

Taunts are a terrible idea. Enemies disengaging because your front-line is not doing damage and is not blocking their path, basically failing at their assigned task, is fine. The "problem" is that players have gotten used to dumb AI that focuses on the first unit it can see without taking actual threat into account.

No, the problem is that a tank build designed to hold an enemy is effectively a non-viable play strategy, and it's the strategy I spent 11 levels and 2/3rds of the game creating and using. The way the enemies are behaving in that map, it wouldn't be any different if you removed engagement entirely from the game--the battle would play out in pretty much exactly the same manner.

 

The only reason to have a "sticky" mechanic in combat that I can even understand is to create a situation where tanks can hold enemies; there's always the option of breaking combat engagement, for a penalty, but it's not something that the AI should do every time, without fail, as their only combat mechanic.

 

Fortunately, it's not. Not really. The other parts of the expansion that I've played have intelligent AI, much better than pre-2.0, but aren't doing that. I'm pretty sure that the enemies on that map are specifically designed to basically ignore engagement--it's showcasing what a combat-mobility focused group can do. And what it can do is seriously **** up your day.

[spardeous]

 

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through).

 

If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should - then this would not be a problem. if I wasn't so fearful of their utter impotence in maintaining aggroe, then this would not be the case. I guess my idea of a tank's role relies on seeing them not as endurance toll booths, but foes to be rightfully more fearful of, in the moment. I see the former as a fundamental misconception of the role.

 

My conception of why an enemy would come after a tank would basically be that their presence(how they look and act) would make them a bigger immediate threat in split-second high-pressure moments of decision making.

 

That seems like using RP as equivocation.  Why would enemies who were seeking to do the most damage attack the most threatening foe?  Also, people who live in that world and are aware of magic are probably aware of the danger.  When in doubt, kill the mage seems like a pretty good philosophy for fighters.  It also isn't neurosurgery to figure out.

 

Also, I think taunt systems are ridiculous in any form of roleplay.  To quote the ever-terrible RA Salvatore:

"You're mother is an ore-loving harlot."

The orc ran at the dwarf instead.

 

There are much more realistic(ish) ways to deal with overly aggressive enemies.  Trips and knockdowns.  Dimensional shifts.  Grimoire slam back into the fighter they just disengaged (Grimoire slam is super fun, it's worth taking a suboptimal feat to literally beat your enemies to death with books).  Sleep spells.  Llenegrath's safeguard.  Using summons to get in the way.  Charm Spells.  Silent scream.  The utterly ridiculous amplified wave.  And the list goes on and on.

 

Basically, if you use your abilities to harass, harry, and control opponents you can get much greater mileage out of them.  Charming the enemies and having them go to town on each other has always been more effective than engagement anyways.   Same with the remarkable slicken and adragan's gaze.

 

I didn't use the word taunt, and I disagree with your assumption about it's implied meaning, your definition is far too literal and completely nonsensical. Taunt basically means 'threat points'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29

 

Threat points are not just about who is putting out the most damage, but about who is the most immediate threat to the fighter and his team. This does not just include latent danger(such as damage taken) but also potential danger(such as an enemy trying to slip by the orc wielding a flaming greatsword in melee range, to be met by another heavy combatant, except now flanked). Threat points also include non-damaging maneuvers, such as healing and buffing spells.

 

I cited the example in another thread about enemies running STRAIGHT PAST tanks, leaving their light combatants wide open to attack and effectively cutting them off from the rest of their allies. It's completely irrational. Animals won't even operate that way.

[majestic]

Well I did finally manage to get through the first map and into the ruins. It's not "easy", though. I actually skipped one group of enemies.

 

I think the biggest problem may have just been the particular types of enemies in that first area, though. The undead on the other part of the map aren't anywhere near the total bastards that those mercenaries were.

 

No wonder they hired them to take on a legendary mage. I would, too.

 

Wait, what undead on the other part of the map? Do you mean those inside Crägholdt? Have you finished the quest?

[Katarack21]

No, not yet. It was being such a bastard that I decided to go do some of the Duran's Battery content, instead. I did get up into Cragholdt, though.

[Skie Nightfall]

 

 

It's not. It's terrible news. What's the point of having a combat-sticky engagement mechanic if it's just ignored by the enemies? The whole purpose of "engagement", from what I understood, was to avoid the BG scenario where your ranged squishies are just constantly rushed. Like in actual D&D, where there are limitations on combat movement and a tank character can actually hold enemies and protect ranged characters.

 

This is exactly the worse aspect of BG combat--the total inability for a tank to tank. It does seem to be a regular part of combat in the expansion and it's ****ing ****. I don't want to have to drag my goddamn fighters across the battle field five goddamn times while constantly re-positioning my main character to avoid instantaneous melee death *EVERY GODDAMN BATTLE*. My tanks are built defensive, with ****ing multiple-engagement talents and deflection and ****, to ****ing tank--to hold multiple enemies on them. Literally my entire party is built around the simple concept of holding enemies on my tanks and dealing damage with my damage dealers. Every item I have, every talent I took, every spell I know--it's all built around that one simple strategy.

 

If they're just going to completely ignore engagement and run off after my casters every. single. time. (as they have been doing) then this entire expansion will be nothing but a constant micromanagement slag of chasing characters around a battlefield. How fun. Yay.

 

Wow. First time I see a post of someone who understands BG combat wasn't perfect, and that the engagement idea is there for a reason. Finally.

The things I suffered in the beta forums

 

I'm guessing some more balancing is needed. Obviously the fighter can't have high deflection + high accuracy + extra engagements + high damage. So saying it's the op's problem if his/her fighter doesn't punish disengagement is kinda silly.

 

Actually both him and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. In Bg games it was super easy to tank. You kited a bit with ranged and sent your tank after the chasing enemy and the enemy went back to attacking the tank. Also the squishy classes had good cc spells that would take out of the battle those that came to hit them.

 

This change to PoE is awesome for people that use IE mod and turn off disengagement attacks, we can now play it almost like BG since enemies will disengage more often (with no penalty with IE mod) and you will need to kite and not just tank&spank like in vanilla PoE

 

 

So kiting is your perfect combat mechanism instead of engagement? wtf?

Seriously tired from all the people who want an IE clone.

Just go fund a game that use the real IE. People have overhauled BG2 into a completely new game before.

[Tigranes]

 

Taunts are a terrible idea. Enemies disengaging because your front-line is not doing damage and is not blocking their path, basically failing at their assigned task, is fine. The "problem" is that players have gotten used to dumb AI that focuses on the first unit it can see without taking actual threat into account.

No, the problem is that a tank build designed to hold an enemy is effectively a non-viable play strategy, and it's the strategy I spent 11 levels and 2/3rds of the game creating and using. The way the enemies are behaving in that map, it wouldn't be any different if you removed engagement entirely from the game--the battle would play out in pretty much exactly the same manner.

 

The only reason to have a "sticky" mechanic in combat that I can even understand is to create a situation where tanks can hold enemies; there's always the option of breaking combat engagement, for a penalty, but it's not something that the AI should do every time, without fail, as their only combat mechanic.

 

Fortunately, it's not. Not really. The other parts of the expansion that I've played have intelligent AI, much better than pre-2.0, but aren't doing that. I'm pretty sure that the enemies on that map are specifically designed to basically ignore engagement--it's showcasing what a combat-mobility focused group can do. And what it can do is seriously **** up your day.

 

 

As I dissected earlier, your strategy has made you extremely reliant on a single mechanic. Any setup that hinges on a single dependency is, by definition, exposing itself to major vulnerabilities. If you weren't so reliant, or if you adapted your tactics, you might still have trouble, but it wouldn't be so catastrophic. Case in point: quite a few people actually criticised engagement for being too sticky before WM/2.0, because it was far too easy to rope enemies into near-complete staticity and then blast away at will. 

 

In any case, if you are right that enemies on a particular map are disposed specifically to screw up engagement and 'showcase what a combat-mobliity focused group can do'... that sounds really great. Like Shades/Shadows in Eothas Temple, it is always more fun to have specific enemies/encounters that force you to mix things up, instead of using the same basic template to victory.

[tjayharvey]

Taunts are a terrible idea. Enemies disengaging because your front-line is not doing damage and is not blocking their path, basically failing at their assigned task, is fine. The "problem" is that players have gotten used to dumb AI that focuses on the first unit it can see without taking actual threat into account. The definition of what a "tank" is in POE is changing with the latest update and we're seeing the expected outcry against it since people have gotten used to the old system.

 

Give it a month then re-visit the topic.

 

Yes. But the concept of "threat" in general is an artificial mechanism to represent something that's hard to do well in games of this style, that you have in fact highlighted: blocking or otherwise impeding their path.  If you're talking about a one on one situation, there's no reason an enemy should ever get past the lead rank assuming relatively similar mobility. Having the enemy stick on the fighter is a convenience to avoid the ridiculous amount of micromanagement you'd have to do in order to keep your front line positioned exactly correctly in respect to the enemies. That's not tactical, that's babysitting. Ironically, it would actually work better to not have threat in an MMO style game where everyone is controlling only one character - only the issue of lag to the server and the resulting minor positional inaccuracies really stops it. If your front line is outnumbered, sure it makes sense for certain enemies to spread out so they can get past, but that should require some communication - at least some gestures, which could be reflected in game by having it take around 5 seconds for them to coordinate that plan.

 

Furthermore, there are/were a lot of reasons why being surrounded was generally fatal to combatants. It may be great that the AI is now recognizing that charging off away from their unit and getting surrounded is actually fine because they won't pay any price for it - that is indeed a smart decision. But it's not great that the penalties for doing so are so minimal that it is a smart decision. This is partly an issue because of the conventions of RPGs (health points, and similar things). A child wielding a stiletto in a real-life situation would have to be respected - you couldn't just push past their "controlled space" because the are "weak" or "not very good at fighting me face to face". Tanking systems are ultimately necessary in order to make a defensive role make any kind of sense in the artificial combat of RPGs.

 

Here, I think the easiest solution is just to seriously up the damage of Disengagement attacks except when the person leaving the "controlled area" is moving directly away. If the person wants to fall back into their own "back ranks", that should be significantly easier (because you can pick a time the person is off balance or recovering from a swing and jump back out of the way). But if I'm actually trying to move right on past someone with a weapon, there's a lot of danger there and that should be reflected. That way you can have both a combat system that actually reflects something realistic and an AI that makes intelligent decisions about how to operate within it.