Taunts are needed

[sapientNode]

It is standard today that certain characters have the ability to taunt.

Even old school games like BG and IWD had certain abilities that increased aggro on certain characters or at least kept the enemies attention.

Engagement is only a system that deals with entering and leaving combat not locking down opponents.

 

As it is taunts pretty much consist of face slamming groups so the AI gets confused or has too many paths to find the character they are chasing.

I have literally ran 5 enemies in circles because they suddenly decided my priest was a very noteworthy guy.

Running him off into the distance then panning back to combat is a bit too much.

I know fighter has the yank command but that is limited and per rest.

 

I suggest AoE shouts that draw aggro and allow them to be open like the additional skills/feats/talents we get now that are quasi dual class.

Certain skills like regens/wounds and procs rely on characters being hit.  If the AI is running randomly all over the place it is hard to have strategic fights and they turn random.  It is not too difficult to face smash enemies and force them to pick the closest target to attack.  But with pathfinding often my guy will go run laps around enemies just to run in and target and while running laps the enemies decide to randomly go after other targets.

Seems right now AI is simply every turn cycle it will occasionally choose another random target if not directly engaged.

And for whatever reason they all but ignore Kana even though he can straight shoot them in the face for 40 damage in one hit and is shooting off AoE damage and buffs.  They seem to love my squishy rogue and my priest.

 

A taunt feature/system would be fantastic and would allow for a much more strategic battle. As well as smoother less sporadic micro managing.

 

[LaSpeakeasi]

I'm impartial to the idea of taunts. If it's done well.

 

It would help a lot with large-scale combat. But since the game is so reliant on choke-hold combats anyway I'm not sure it'll do much good.

 

Also I don't think you're meant to have characters that can AoE tank being ganged upon by mobs. The MMO tank-DPS-healer combo is really boring and unrealistic if you ask me.

 

I'd much prefer they fix the pathfinding AIs first before they try to do anything that changes the flow of combat.

[View619]

BG and IWD didnt have abilities that increased aggro, the AI just stuck to any enemy that it couldn't effectively pass. Engagement solves the problem of melee and ranged kiting from the IE games, where enemies would mindlessly focus on specific units while the rest of the party attacked with no risk (even in melee).

Edited September 25, 2015 by View619

[Caerdon]

A taunt feature/system [---] would allow for a much more strategic battle.

 

Could you expand on this, please?

 

It's a common misconception that giving players more control over the flow of battle automatically leads to increase in tactical depth. This is not true; there needs to be a balance of control and unpredictability. Being able to plan for failure and to adjust to changing combat situation is a major part of tactics. Explicit control over aggro mechanics leads to static, predictable combat flow, eliminating the need for backup plans and multiple lines of defence.

 

I think this was very evident in DA series. It was extremely easy to get every enemy to attack your tank, and if someone eventually broke off and went after your mage, a quick taunt got them back in line. There was no need to protect your back line, and no need to even consider how to protect your back line. What's so "strategic" about that?

[Guest 4ward]

i have succesfully taunted and killed all forest trolls and forest lurkers i encountered in an area. The IE games had it right by enemy follwoing you, since you could run into other enemies and would sooner or later be followed by a horde of enemies you couldn't escape, the engagement system coupled with the enemies following you would be the horror. the engagemetn needs to go first, then proper encounter and enemy design (placing enemies and adjusting their speed, giving ranged attacks is the solution not the sticky melee system) has to be introduced if PoE2 wants to have a chance of having decent combat. (engagement also kills real status effercts as they are in IE, a charmed minsc attacking party chars who are locked up in engagment would be the horror).

[KDubya]

Hell No!!!!

 

Why do they need to make tank & spank even better?

 

Much better if they have the enemy act like people do in analyzing threats. Every fight the first move should be to shoot the guy in the dress. Your robe wearing casters should be commonly mistaken for Avian Godlikes due to the large number of feathers that will be sticking out of you

 

Having low DR, low deflection and low endurance (the proto-typical 3 con, 3 res glass cannon) should be like a neon light flashing saying "shoot me instead of the guy in plate mail with the big shield".

 

In this game casters can wear plate, it's time the enemy started to make that be a real choice instead of the current no brainer wear a dress for the fastest action speed.

[pi2repsion]

I respectfully disagree with the ideas espoused in the opening post.

 

Allowing the player to effectively decide who the enemy attacks does not make for more strategic play - it makes for easier and more predictable play, where tactical mistakes of positioning and lack of battlefield control go unpunished. This, in turn, makes planning strategy a trivial task as few contingencies have to be considered.

 

Tank & Spank, which is what taunting mechanics devolve to, is not the apogee of tactics; If anything, it is the opposite.

 

 

The better solution to enemy AI in some situations performing bad choices when fighting the player is not removing the AI choice by turning it into a player choice, but improving the AI routines.

Edited September 25, 2015 by pi2repsion

[FlintlockJazz]

**** taunts.  They are not tactical, they are cheese bull****. 

 

*Breathes deeply*

 

I'm sorry, I just find the idea of taunts and aggro frustrating.  No one would attack the most heavily armoured guy on the battlefield simply because he called their mother a whore who had sex with Durance.  I find them lazy encounter design that has become too common in this day and age, let the AI be intelligent instead of shackled to actions a player would never make. 

[Killyox]

They aren't needed. Game is perfectly viable and beatable however you like without them. This isn't an mmo.

[Teioh_White]

I'd rather the engagment systyem have some real meat too it. Right now, it's mostly up to the mob's AI if they want to pretend like it matters or not. Be nice if the frontline could have more influence on things.  Kiting's still plenty a thing, if the mob is melee only and you have the space. Normally not the best tactic, but I don't use it not because it's not a valid option, but because I can do better things than micro one person in a circle with 3 guys following him.

 

Also, they should put at least a quick tip for new players letting them know how the 'aggro' system works.

 

As for Dragon Age games, the second didn't have a really an effective taunt, so you had to use other methods by and large to keep things under control, in a game where it frequently would spawn crap ontop of your backline. Well, until the patch nerfed Nightmare, anyways (I mean, you had taunt, but it was more like it handled one pack of mobs in a game about multiple packs spawning in different locations.)

 

Agree on Origins though, which didn't have a ton of depth. But that was a game where you actively had to try not to snap the balance in half. And three veered so far away it's not really close to the IE genre at all anymore. Even then, past midway point was just spamming a class's 1-2 'I-win' buttons.

[Cottonmouth]

The only thing that infuriates me about the engagement is that I can't move engaged characters around the enemy they are engaged with, allowing another to go past. So often you're stuck and blocked unless you break engagement without actually moving a melee NPC out of melee range.  And that's ridiculous. Watch any melee duel ever and it's completely clear that you can circle the enemy without exposing yourself. Within a certain radius around the engaged enemy, movement should be possible without punishment.

 

 

Taunt makes absolutely no sense against intelligent enemies. I'm fine with a taunt like ability that works only on dumb monsters but intelligent enemies should prioritise dangerous enemies.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, the AI shouldn't be too smart. Imagine the horror if the AI played optimally, like players do.

[Alexander1]

It would help a lot with large-scale combat. But since the game is so reliant on choke-hold combats anyway I'm not sure it'll do much good.

 

 

Exactly.  Taunts take place in games that don't have a collision system -- like MMOs -- where characters are free-roaming and need threat-based mechanic to determine which character in a party the enemy will choose to attack.  Games that have free-roaming monsters need this because there is literally no other way to for a character to bar an enemy's path unless they have a root or slowing mechanic, which is harder realistically implement. Why tie-down an enemy when you can just appear more of a threat and force them to attack you?  But PoE doesn't have the free-roaming problem.  Instead, they have "engagement" and that's a totally different mechanic.

 

In PoE, any time an enemy collides with a player-character, they become "engaged" and can't run away unless they're willing to give them a much better chance to hit with a parting-shot.  This creates strategy: if a monster manages to collide with a vulnerable character, magician or healer, a tough fighter can engage that same monster and give the monster's victim a chance to run away.  It forces the player to consider both possibilities and really have to mull over which options are best -- do I run away now and risk the parting shot?  Will the monster try to follow?  Can I fell the monster if it tries to break away, or will the fighter keep it engaged while the victim gets away?  Or, should I risk having the victim stay here, and hope the two characters can quickly take down the monster. 

 

That's much more in-depth and interesting than "oh, here comes a monster -- pull.  Okay, now the monsters stuck to me and the healer can heal and the nuker can nuke..."

 

Laspeakeasi is right -- that can be boring when you have a more complex mechanic in place. And the engagement mechanic, since this isn't an mmo and doesn't have server-strain, is a much more sophisticated mechanic for gameplay.

 

Also, you have to realize the game already has other skills that would have to be rebalanced if taunts became too common -- many classes, like the "Rogue" have a "disengage" style ability that allow them to "get away" once a fighter helps them; and there are certain items that increase the character's ability to "withdraw" from combat such as the cape of withdrawal. 

 

Finally, taunts as an MMO concept are becoming outdated because realistically they aren't that reliable. If a party gets attacked by a hothead in a brawl maybe the big guy taunting him will work -- in a professional army or a zombie attack it's just not really believable. Why is the earth blight going to stop attacking that priest just because the tough fighter says "hey, attack me instead"?

 

 

Nevertheless, I'm not saying taunts are a terrible idea -- if PoE wanted to add a taunt as a class skill or some other mechanic to generate "threat" as it were, I think it could have a place in the game -- but it's not critical.  If a new ability for some fighter class is able to manipulate the ai to just attacking the fighter outright, that's fine, but it may not be as clever as the current engagement system.  I'm not saying a vehemently opposed to taunts -- and perhaps there could be a clever way to implement one or two such skills -- but I'm happy with the current system as is, to be honest.

[sapientNode]

I understand the whole MMO thing where you can yell and force enemies to attack the tank.  Of course in that scenario if there were no taunts we might as well forget any raids with any length because bosses would have to have significantly less hp and have ways to kill them one shot because they would likely go after people at random.

I also hear this argument that they should just have better AI.

Well with better AI as in real world AI.  Here is how it would go likely.

The battle would consist of killing the mage/priest then rogue.  Then you split between ranged and melee and we would be done.

The enemies would calculate resistances and defense based on visibility and make decisions appropriately based on these calculations.

What this would entail unless you use choke hold yawn fests is that every character would be armored and have to be taking tanking/defensive melee skills.

I don't know about you but a full party in plate armor ends up being pretty boring.  Not to mention a rogue in plate or a mage in plate makes no sense.  Neither have the might/strength to put this **** on and even move in it properly.

 

As stated the only real strat as of now is choke points where you can force enemies to dance in the back trying to get to you as you pick them off one by one.

So realistic there right...

 

When we get to a place where enemies scale walls and we are not relying on HP and things can literally be one shot like real life we still need a method to hold down enemies.

If a constant aggro generation in not preferable then perhaps a per rest aggro that yanks or stuns for those times that the AI has decided to chase a character across the map which ends up being better anyway because then when he finally comes back or they do even if they downed your guy they are faced with my main force.  it is just annoying because of the time element and that I have to pan around more.

 

Real AI is very far off and so is more realistic combat scenarios aside from FPS.

Real world AI would run away and do random things.  It also would seriously make bad choices and mistakes and totally screw up.

 

I am annoyed I have to rely on an even cheesier mechanic as in standing in a doorway to take on enemies one by one as my chanter just sings away and my mage has a dance party.

Taunts allow for more open combat and add a method in which we can somewhat defend our squishies and mitigate the random AI mechanic.

Nothing is perfect but something like what is already incorporated with the fighters pull skill could be opened up to all classes and also made per rest and bumped up in use per encounter.

[Gfted1]

I think taunts sound like a good idea. From what Ive read, WM introduced enemies that will patently ignore engagement and bumrush the back like, eating AoO's the whole way. Perhaps engagement / agro should be calculated like WoW, if you out DPS the tank or overcome their taunts then the enemy will disengage and come after the squishies.

[LaSpeakeasi]

I think taunts sound like a good idea. From what Ive read, WM introduced enemies that will patently ignore engagement and bumrush the back like, eating AoO's the whole way. Perhaps engagement / agro should be calculated like WoW, if you out DPS the tank or overcome their taunts then the enemy will disengage and come after the squishies.

That would be the worst way to implement taunts. Even the D&D 3.5 Barbarian taunt is better than that. We absolutely don't need MMO style tank-and-spank.

 

The backline targeting mobs in WM is good because it forces you to come up with new strategy instead of the tried-and-true bottlenecking that is pretty much without fail in the vanilla campaign. It forces you to look for the sparsely occurring bottlenecks in an expansive maps, and utilizes scouting and traps to direct the flows of enemies. It gives you the feeling of a hunting party, a welcome change from the claustrophobic Od Nua.

 

I'm down for 3.5-style barbarian taunts - 1-2 per encounter, single target, only used to debuff enemy or save a dying backline member. MMO style taunts would be soooo boring.

[LaSpeakeasi]

I am annoyed I have to rely on an even cheesier mechanic as in standing in a doorway to take on enemies one by one as my chanter just sings away and my mage has a dance party.

Taunts allow for more open combat and add a method in which we can somewhat defend our squishies and mitigate the random AI mechanic.

Nothing is perfect but something like what is already incorporated with the fighters pull skill could be opened up to all classes and also made per rest and bumped up in use per encounter.

...But that's what a real life adventuring party would (probably) have to do. If they had snipers and mages.

 

And it goes back to my original point. The bottlenecking is fine. It's how the game is meant to be played. There it's a bigger problem that AIs friend or foe don't know how to effective navigate doorways than that we lack taunts.

Edited September 25, 2015 by LaSpeakeasi

[Caerdon]

Not to mention a rogue in plate or a mage in plate makes no sense. Neither have the might/strength to put this **** on and even move in it properly.

This is just plain untrue. Wearing armour doesn't require any special strength - any ordinary man can do it - and it certainly doesn't require any special skill as in some games. Armour is designed to be easily worn. Yes, it's certainly more tiring to spend a day in armour instead of your ordinary clothes, but any "adventurer" would be fit enough that they can easily function and move about in one.

 

There are two main reasons why mages generally don't wear armour in games:

1. Tradition.
2. Mages are generally balanced by making them glass cannons.

Breaking away from silly traditions is only refreshing. The second reason is not a problem if making mages more tanky also makes them less cannon, as it does in PoE.

 

In fact, unless the lore specifically states that using magic in armour is particularly difficult, they should be wearing even more armour than fighters. Why? Because they don't need to move as much. They don't need to dodge attacks, wave their swords and shields around and step back and forth, trying to balance between defending themselves and finding an opening to attack. Mages can just stand behind the front line and call down fire from the sky, so why shouldn't they be protected while doing it?

 

As stated the only real strat as of now is choke points where you can force enemies to dance in the back trying to get to you as you pick them off one by one.

So realistic there right...

 

When we get to a place where enemies scale walls and we are not relying on HP and things can literally be one shot like real life we still need a method to hold down enemies.

If a constant aggro generation in not preferable then perhaps a per rest aggro that yanks or stuns for those times that the AI has decided to chase a character across the map which ends up being better anyway because then when he finally comes back or they do even if they downed your guy they are faced with my main force.  it is just annoying because of the time element and that I have to pan around more.

 

Real AI is very far off and so is more realistic combat scenarios aside from FPS.

Real world AI would run away and do random things.  It also would seriously make bad choices and mistakes and totally screw up.

 

I am annoyed I have to rely on an even cheesier mechanic as in standing in a doorway to take on enemies one by one as my chanter just sings away and my mage has a dance party.

Taunts allow for more open combat and add a method in which we can somewhat defend our squishies and mitigate the random AI mechanic.

Nothing is perfect but something like what is already incorporated with the fighters pull skill could be opened up to all classes and also made per rest and bumped up in use per encounter.

 

It really sounds to me like you're not taking advantage of all the options the game already provides. There are many, many ways to protect the more vulnerable party members. There are numerous caster-protection spells and stasis shield spells and items and abilities that help movement and disengagement. There are defensive and melee-oriented skills and items. There are lots and lots of CC spells and abilities. There are alternate weapon sets and Spiritshift. There are countless ways you can position your party. You can lump your casters together or keep them apart and bring some characters in only after the combat begins. You can have a secondary tank start combat in the back row with a ranged weapon. You can have a frontline character ready to disengage and move back to protect others. And so on.

 

There really are dozens of ways to deal with these problems, and they're all more tactical/stretegic than having your tank announce to the enemies that their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries.

[sapientNode]

 

Not to mention a rogue in plate or a mage in plate makes no sense. Neither have the might/strength to put this **** on and even move in it properly.

This is just plain untrue. Wearing armour doesn't require any special strength - any ordinary man can do it - and it certainly doesn't require any special skill as in some games. Armour is designed to be easily worn. Yes, it's certainly more tiring to spend a day in armour instead of your ordinary clothes, but any "adventurer" would be fit enough that they can easily function and move about in one.

 

There are two main reasons why mages generally don't wear armour in games:

1. Tradition.
2. Mages are generally balanced by making them glass cannons.

Breaking away from silly traditions is only refreshing. The second reason is not a problem if making mages more tanky also makes them less cannon, as it does in PoE.

 

In fact, unless the lore specifically states that using magic in armour is particularly difficult, they should be wearing even more armour than fighters. Why? Because they don't need to move as much. They don't need to dodge attacks, wave their swords and shields around and step back and forth, trying to balance between defending themselves and finding an opening to attack. Mages can just stand behind the front line and call down fire from the sky, so why shouldn't they be protected while doing it?

 

As stated the only real strat as of now is choke points where you can force enemies to dance in the back trying to get to you as you pick them off one by one.

So realistic there right...

 

When we get to a place where enemies scale walls and we are not relying on HP and things can literally be one shot like real life we still need a method to hold down enemies.

If a constant aggro generation in not preferable then perhaps a per rest aggro that yanks or stuns for those times that the AI has decided to chase a character across the map which ends up being better anyway because then when he finally comes back or they do even if they downed your guy they are faced with my main force.  it is just annoying because of the time element and that I have to pan around more.

 

Real AI is very far off and so is more realistic combat scenarios aside from FPS.

Real world AI would run away and do random things.  It also would seriously make bad choices and mistakes and totally screw up.

 

I am annoyed I have to rely on an even cheesier mechanic as in standing in a doorway to take on enemies one by one as my chanter just sings away and my mage has a dance party.

Taunts allow for more open combat and add a method in which we can somewhat defend our squishies and mitigate the random AI mechanic.

Nothing is perfect but something like what is already incorporated with the fighters pull skill could be opened up to all classes and also made per rest and bumped up in use per encounter.

 

It really sounds to me like you're not taking advantage of all the options the game already provides. There are many, many ways to protect the more vulnerable party members. There are numerous caster-protection spells and stasis shield spells and items and abilities that help movement and disengagement. There are defensive and melee-oriented skills and items. There are lots and lots of CC spells and abilities. There are alternate weapon sets and Spiritshift. There are countless ways you can position your party. You can lump your casters together or keep them apart and bring some characters in only after the combat begins. You can have a secondary tank start combat in the back row with a ranged weapon. You can have a frontline character ready to disengage and move back to protect others. And so on.

 

There really are dozens of ways to deal with these problems, and they're all more tactical/stretegic than having your tank announce to the enemies that their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries.

 

 

Come on man wearing Armor doesn't require any special strength? Aloth with that little thin frame in huge plate mail.  Sure its a game but seriously go put on some platemail.  I could see Durance wearing some because the dude has built himself up over time but Aloth or Kana or Sagani ... not so much.

 

As for the multiple strategies.  Yes there are indeed some caster buffs that seem to be placed just to stand ground while the tank comes running over and smacks the enemy.

Druid CC is of course top notch.  Storm is indeed ridiculous for mobs in open space.  The problem remains the stamina fights where spells are completely depleted and you have enemies running to the back line with no more knock downs or yanks from the main tank.  At this point you run over and force the enemy AI to shimmy a bit so it decides that pathing to the squishy will be an issue.  This is ultimately the same thing as having a taunt but its more a hack of the AI because we know how pathfinding works.

 

There is no reason why additional direct methods of forcing engagements can exist alongside what is already in place.  it will just add more diversity and will not remove any of the existing strats.

 

Suppose I could just mod the yank for the fighter myself and bumps its use and make it per encounter.  The problem with the yank is LOS is not always easy to get and it often fails due to LOS issues even when it would appear I am fully capable of seeing the enemy.  However the spot next to me is occupied so there is nowhere to yank the enemy too.  Similar to the issue of summons in spaces that become occupied.

 

Aggro generation seems quite viable in this game given the amount of enemies that are linked in combat and especially in the upper difficulties.  Also it would lessen the constant pausing to micro manage and allow for us with slow down on to bounce around and pick spells and abilities without pause pause pause again... pause pause.  Aggro generation would be the same as having pause but reduce the amount of time micro managing.  And I am not saying a guaranteed hate on the tank like MMOs have.  Just more options to pull in enemies focus.  The whole calling your enemies mother a name would actually work often with the human types anyway.  As for the different variations of enemies who have no minds or are spirit form we are dealing with conditions that could easily be manipulated by the force of will in a fighter.  Especially a Paladin with incredibly high resolve.

 

The mechanic could be based on will and its saves would be will.  So of course we would end up having enemies totally immune.  It would also be AoE wide.

[Oralaina]

I have issues with the whole "disengagement" setup.  Really guys.... in a mass battle in the real world (a la warfare in the German republics in the 12 century) NO ONE knew who was beating on whom.  So if you could manage to pull someone else in front of you (or even just duck or fall), you could quite handily move out of "engagement" - and with several hundred people all beating on whoever was the nearest target, you were okay for a minute.  More or less.

 

So this whole mechanic of "disengagement" is pretty much bullcorn.

 

I had to laugh at sapientNode's paragraph about plate and Aloth, though.... Not in a mean way - but.... There was a German princeling back in the 15th century or so.  His sword and plate mail are still standing around in a castle near Stuttgart, saw them myself back when my second grandchild was born and we were there for a month.  He was shorter than I am (so about 5 feet 5 inches) by looking at his suit of mail.  His sword was about as tall as my husband - so around 6 feet or so.  Now admittedly there weren't photos back then, but drawings were pretty veracious I think - whoever produced them did NOT show the prince in a real good light:  he was short, very muscled, but.... um.... entirely unprepossessing.  Somehow, he got hoisted onto his horse to get out to the battlefield in full plate (articulated, but NOT light - the full suit according to the plaque beside it weighed 200 + pounds) and once on the battlefield, he'd of course get unhorsed at some point - and THEN he'd be swinging a sword taller than he was by a foot or so, and wearing 200 pounds of metal.

 

Sure, we're playing a game to have fun.  But you know, sometimes it pays to look at the background of battle mechanics.  Unless Aloth used a feather spell on a suit of plate mail, there's just no way he'd be able to walk.  Period.  Suspension of disbelief?  Not happening on that one.

[Elerond]

 

Come on man wearing Armor doesn't require any special strength? Aloth with that little thin frame in huge plate mail.  Sure its a game but seriously go put on some platemail.  I could see Durance wearing some because the dude has built himself up over time but Aloth or Kana or Sagani ... not so much.

 

Armor don't really take nearly any strength to wear, because it mass is divided evenly around you and it is supported to parts of body that don't need to move. 

 

But anyway there is really no need to make your back line wear heavy armors as there is so much abilities and mechanics that allow you to control flow of the battle. 

[Caerdon]

Come on man wearing Armor doesn't require any special strength? Aloth with that little thin frame in huge plate mail.  Sure its a game but seriously go put on some platemail.  I could see Durance wearing some because the dude has built himself up over time but Aloth or Kana or Sagani ... not so much.

 

No, wearing plate armour doesn't require any special strength. Shows how much you know about armour, especially considering how you call it "plate mail".

 

Aloth has perfectly ordinary, lean frame and MIG and CON that give no penalties. Kana is a huge aumaua; Sagani is a muscular, stocky dwarf, a long distance hunter and an archer; both have high MIG and bonuses from CON too, so why on Earth would the not be able to wear armour?!?

 

I had to laugh at sapientNode's paragraph about plate and Aloth, though.... Not in a mean way - but.... There was a German princeling back in the 15th century or so.  His sword and plate mail are still standing around in a castle near Stuttgart, saw them myself back when my second grandchild was born and we were there for a month.  He was shorter than I am (so about 5 feet 5 inches) by looking at his suit of mail.  His sword was about as tall as my husband - so around 6 feet or so.  Now admittedly there weren't photos back then, but drawings were pretty veracious I think - whoever produced them did NOT show the prince in a real good light:  he was short, very muscled, but.... um.... entirely unprepossessing.  Somehow, he got hoisted onto his horse to get out to the battlefield in full plate (articulated, but NOT light - the full suit according to the plaque beside it weighed 200 + pounds) and once on the battlefield, he'd of course get unhorsed at some point - and THEN he'd be swinging a sword taller than he was by a foot or so, and wearing 200 pounds of metal.

 

Museum plaques are notoriously untrustworthy. 200+ pounds seems more than a bit implausible, seeing how most full plate armours weigh less than 50 lb. Armours specifically made for jousting could sometimes weigh up to 100 lb, but they weren't used for combat.

 

--

 

Seriously guys, go look at some re-enactors. You'll see that the majority of them are perfectly ordinary men, not some hulking mountains of muscle. Typically a good portion of them are outright nerds (no offence) with physique that goes along with the title, yet they have no problems moving about and doing combat demonstrations.

[KDubya]

 
Trying without any quotes this time, not sure what is up.

 

As others have said armor is carried by the whole body. Women wear body armor in modern militaries and it is at least as heavy as a breastplate.

 

By your reasoning we should stop all Orlans or non Aumaua females from wearing armor.

 

If you need to cheese the AI by only using doorway tactics perhaps you should lower the difficulty level.

 

The problem with the game is that there is no glass to go along with the cannon. Enemies will target the trained combatant in the heavy armor with a shield who will kill one guy at a time instead of going after the asthmatic (3 con) with low intestinal fortitude (3 resolve) who is wearing a dress and conjuring fire that is killing everyone.

 

Wearing armor or not for your ranged casters and bow/firearm users should be an actual choice with pros and cons. Right now there is no reason not to wear a dress. The few enemies that actually pose a threat to the dress wearers don't need to be stopped by adding a taunt. You should instead change your tactics, wear some protection or be prepared for some casualties.

 

Shooting the guy in the dress is the first thing I do in every game I've ever played that had magic in it. Its about time that the enemy AI and the Devs catch on to this winning tactic.

 

Wizards in PoE have all the tools needed via Arcane Veil, Spirit Shield, Iron Skin, Displaced Image and others, most of which are per encounter at higher levels, to have better deflection, defenses and damage resistance than any other character in the game. They just choose not to use them since they are not needed due to the enemy never targeting them in the back. The sad truth is that its easier to just take the rare KO rather than take defensive talents or spell choices and definitely better to avoid armor. 

 

Adding a taunt just makes the problem even worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ceremonial Armor might have weighed that much but not anything that was ever used in combat. The same with the ceremonial 15 lb swords, they were never used in combat.

 

Functional full plate allows for gymnastics to be performed while wearing the armor. In the past people were a lot stronger and a whole lot fitter than we are today. Historians have studied Greek Triremes and the fitness level needed to row them in battle and come up with that modern day Olympian rowers would be the norm.

 

Look at the physiques on statues. This is centuries before steroids, everything was functional strength. The idle rich martial class, knights, did not work other than to train for combat. You'd get pretty darn good at it if it was all you did and your life depended on your skill.

 

In a melee engagement, a battle, why would you not know who you were fighting? They are right in front of you after all. You'd have trouble seeing the big picture but the guy in front of you, you'd know when he drops his shoulder that he is about to swing. If you turn to run away he will stab you in the back. If you back up he can move forward both faster and easier than you can. If he has a friend who can flank you you're in real trouble.

 

Guys in the rear, especially on horses, they could run away and live but the guys in the thick of it their only hope was victory. The whole "not being able to get away from a guy with a melee weapon who is trying to kill you" is both realistic and the basis for the engagement system in PoE. It is not perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than a magic 'taunt' that makes the enemy do the stupidest thing - attacking the most defensive target - rather than to kill the weak and vulnerable - hitting the guys in the dress.

 

Edited September 26, 2015 by KDubya

[KDubya]

trying again from Word this time.

 

 

sapientNode, on 26 Sept 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Caerdon, on 26 Sept 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

sapientNode, on 26 Sept 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

Not to mention a rogue in plate or a mage in plate makes no sense. Neither have the might/strength to put this **** on and even move in it properly.

This is just plain untrue. Wearing armour doesn't require any special strength - any ordinary man can do it - and it certainly doesn't require any special skill as in some games. Armour is designed to be easily worn. Yes, it's certainly more tiring to spend a day in armour instead of your ordinary clothes, but any "adventurer" would be fit enough that they can easily function and move about in one.

There are two main reasons why mages generally don't wear armour in games:

1. Tradition.
2. Mages are generally balanced by making them glass cannons.

Breaking away from silly traditions is only refreshing. The second reason is not a problem if making mages more tanky also makes them less cannon, as it does in PoE.

In fact, unless the lore specifically states that using magic in armour is particularly difficult, they should be wearing even more armour than fighters. Why? Because they don't need to move as much. They don't need to dodge attacks, wave their swords and shields around and step back and forth, trying to balance between defending themselves and finding an opening to attack. Mages can just stand behind the front line and call down fire from the sky, so why shouldn't they be protected while doing it?

sapientNode, on 26 Sept 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

As stated the only real strat as of now is choke points where you can force enemies to dance in the back trying to get to you as you pick them off one by one.
So realistic there right...
 
When we get to a place where enemies scale walls and we are not relying on HP and things can literally be one shot like real life we still need a method to hold down enemies.
If a constant aggro generation in not preferable then perhaps a per rest aggro that yanks or stuns for those times that the AI has decided to chase a character across the map which ends up being better anyway because then when he finally comes back or they do even if they downed your guy they are faced with my main force.  it is just annoying because of the time element and that I have to pan around more.
 
Real AI is very far off and so is more realistic combat scenarios aside from FPS.
Real world AI would run away and do random things.  It also would seriously make bad choices and mistakes and totally screw up.
 
I am annoyed I have to rely on an even cheesier mechanic as in standing in a doorway to take on enemies one by one as my chanter just sings away and my mage has a dance party.
Taunts allow for more open combat and add a method in which we can somewhat defend our squishies and mitigate the random AI mechanic.
Nothing is perfect but something like what is already incorporated with the fighters pull skill could be opened up to all classes and also made per rest and bumped up in use per encounter.

It really sounds to me like you're not taking advantage of all the options the game already provides. There are many, many ways to protect the more vulnerable party members. There are numerous caster-protection spells and stasis shield spells and items and abilities that help movement and disengagement. There are defensive and melee-oriented skills and items. There are lots and lots of CC spells and abilities. There are alternate weapon sets and Spiritshift. There are countless ways you can position your party. You can lump your casters together or keep them apart and bring some characters in only after the combat begins. You can have a secondary tank start combat in the back row with a ranged weapon. You can have a frontline character ready to disengage and move back to protect others. And so on.

There really are dozens of ways to deal with these problems, and they're all more tactical/stretegic than having your tank announce to the enemies that their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries.

Come on man wearing Armor doesn't require any special strength? Aloth with that little thin frame in huge plate mail.  Sure its a game but seriously go put on some platemail.  I could see Durance wearing some because the dude has built himself up over time but Aloth or Kana or Sagani ... not so much.

[Gfted1]

That would be the worst way to implement taunts. Even the D&D 3.5 Barbarian taunt is better than that. We absolutely don't need MMO style tank-and-spank.

 

The backline targeting mobs in WM is good because it forces you to come up with new strategy instead of the tried-and-true bottlenecking that is pretty much without fail in the vanilla campaign. It forces you to look for the sparsely occurring bottlenecks in an expansive maps, and utilizes scouting and traps to direct the flows of enemies. It gives you the feeling of a hunting party, a welcome change from the claustrophobic Od Nua.

 

I'm down for 3.5-style barbarian taunts - 1-2 per encounter, single target, only used to debuff enemy or save a dying backline member. MMO style taunts would be soooo boring.

Ive also read that WM mooks have an ability to vault over a frontliner, knock them prone, and land near a backliner for facemelting. So I'm curious about something. Lets say your in a bottleneck and you have your tank up front, maybe the offtank behind them, then the rest all in a line down a hallway. Can the mook vault all of your party members at the same time, knocking them all prone on the way to the backliner? Or can they only vault one party member at a time?

[pi2repsion]

Ive also read that WM mooks have an ability to vault over a frontliner, knock them prone, and land near a backliner for facemelting. So I'm curious about something. Lets say your in a bottleneck and you have your tank up front, maybe the offtank behind them, then the rest all in a line down a hallway. Can the mook vault all of your party members at the same time, knocking them all prone on the way to the backliner? Or can they only vault one party member at a time?

There are only a few specific enemies with leap attacks; They aren't spirits, but you can think of them as upgraded Shadows and other teleporting spirits, because that's really all there is to it.

 

The main difference between them and teleporting spirits being that they are a) fairly tough, and b) few and far between.

 

They are a truly minor tactical challenge; Nobody who's come that far should have problems dealing with them after the initial shock of seeing them in action has worn off.

 

I don't recall if the type of Spirit that abducts you to it rather than teleports itself to you is new with the expansion or was in 1.0, but I consider it considerably nastier than the new leapers. Fortunately, those spirits are very rare.

 

 

As a general rule, when you read people telling how all enemies bypass their front lines or hit their casters in 2.0, the most likely explanations are:

• They use a small front line or one ill suited to taking advantage of the engagement mechanic/enemy AI of 2.0; Most enemies - even on POTD with much higher enemy density - are perfectly happy getting entangled with your front line if you've got 3-4 frontliners with 2 engagement limit each, even when you are not defending a bottleneck.
• They do use a decent front line, but don't use magic to crowd control the few enemies that manage to bypass it. (Which capability admittedly can be difficult to attain in the early game.)
• They don't use summons to provide more obstacles as well as targets for the enemies.
• They use poor tactics.

There are a few encounters that - at least on POTD - feature so many enemies that even a front line of 3 summons and 3-4 characters with 2 engagement slots will get overwhelmed with enemies flanking if the player doesn't take advantage of a bottleneck and do shoulder to shoulder bottlenecking rather than the normal loose line, but not that many.

 

 

We are definitely not talking POE1.0 "1 tank in plate + 5 ranged in cloth is an optimal party" any longer, but if you use a balanced party and think about party tactics rather than having the party act like a mob your members in the rear will only rarely be attacked.

Edited September 28, 2015 by pi2repsion