Disengaging a tank is so simple

[drty]

Assuming the situation:

 

Eder (with an active Defender skill) is tanking 3 foes in close-combat. Eder has really strong defenses, so mobs can't even scratch him. At some point mobs' AI decides that Eder is not so attractive target for them, therefore it is time to disengage Eder. Following is my guessing: there is some sort of internal damage threshold value, which has to be applied to the target for every X seconds in order to continue engaging this target. Thus, because mobs can't do this - they are switching to the easier prey. You may already know what should happen next: short-lasting Benny Hill style chasing, when Eder will unsuccessfully try to re-engage at least some of the foes, then mobs are getting to chosen party-member and effectively one- two-shot him/her because it is Death March.

 

Well, it is actually not very usual situation for Eder because fighters hasn't got such superb defenses like paladins, but anyway - it may happen even with a fighter.

 

The problem is: it's basically too painless to get free from a tank's engagement. Tank can't really punish for this, because usually she is an worst damage-dealer in your party. Which leads to the question: doesn't tank need an instrument to prevent/resolve such situations in some way? For example, allow tank to apply a brief Hobbled effect on the disengaging targets (by choosing a separate talent if it's needed).

 

What do you think?

[KDubya]

The simple answer is to build a better melee, and then make a few of them. Get three or more frontline melee and you won't have any problem of enemies running past your melee.

 

Go with Monks, Paladins, Chanters or Barbarians. One of each makes for a nice synergistic melee team that will destroy enemies in relative safety.

 

For Eder re-spec him out of the garbage Defender and take Confident Aim, a Weapon focus, spec and Mastery in whatever you find appealing, armored grace, savage attack and vigorous defense. He will then do pretty good damage and be just as or more 'tanky' as your Defender build. If you go with a shield go with sabres, or go two handed.

 

One 'tank' and five casters doesn't work like it used to.

[drty]

The simple answer is to build a better melee, and then make a few of them. Get three or more frontline melee and you won't have any problem of enemies running past your melee.

 

Go with Monks, Paladins, Chanters or Barbarians. One of each makes for a nice synergistic melee team that will destroy enemies in relative safety.

 

For Eder re-spec him out of the garbage Defender and take Confident Aim, a Weapon focus, spec and Mastery in whatever you find appealing, armored grace, savage attack and vigorous defense. He will then do pretty good damage and be just as or more 'tanky' as your Defender build. If you go with a shield go with sabres, or go two handed.

 

One 'tank' and five casters doesn't work like it used to.

 

OK, so you propose to trade party-survivability (which Defender actually is) talents with damage-dealing talents. And how good suggested tanking build will behave on the maximum difficulty? How long such tank will live while taking damage from 3-5 mobs simultaneously?

 

Besides, it wasn't the question about how to play or how to build your party. Generally I'm talking about the disengagement mechanic related to the available tanking abilities.

[KDubya]

Defender is a terrible ability. It lowers your deflection by 5 and make you easier to be hit. Extra engagements are worthless, again not worth the ability point spent.

 

Building  three strong melee frontliners IS party survivability, I'm not suggesting a less survivable party but a much more survivable party structure. Also with three melee there won't be five enemies attacking one guy, it'll be two or three instead.

 

If the enemy is running past Eder to engage what you call weaker party members the problem is your party as well as how you built Eder.

 

Another option is to have heavy CC and lockdown the enemy every fight with a Wizard or Cipher.

[drty]

Defender is a terrible ability. It lowers your deflection by 5 and make you easier to be hit. Extra engagements are worthless, again not worth the ability point spent.

 

Yeah, that's the point I'm actually talking about - these extra engagements are basically worthless just because at any moment of time foe can easily break an engagement with your tank, simply because they can't hit him/her. Mobs don't even need to use controlling abilities on tank (i mean abilities such as Prone, Paralyze, etc.) - they just decide to go away and do it without any difficulty.

 

So "ideal"  tank (in terms of survivability) is worthless for your party because it can't effectively hold the targets. From my point of view, this is a flaw of engagement mechanic in general.

[Crucis]

 

The simple answer is to build a better melee, and then make a few of them. Get three or more frontline melee and you won't have any problem of enemies running past your melee.

 

Go with Monks, Paladins, Chanters or Barbarians. One of each makes for a nice synergistic melee team that will destroy enemies in relative safety.

 

For Eder re-spec him out of the garbage Defender and take Confident Aim, a Weapon focus, spec and Mastery in whatever you find appealing, armored grace, savage attack and vigorous defense. He will then do pretty good damage and be just as or more 'tanky' as your Defender build. If you go with a shield go with sabres, or go two handed.

 

One 'tank' and five casters doesn't work like it used to.

 

OK, so you propose to trade party-survivability (which Defender actually is) talents with damage-dealing talents. And how good suggested tanking build will behave on the maximum difficulty? How long such tank will live while taking damage from 3-5 mobs simultaneously?

 

Besides, it wasn't the question about how to play or how to build your party. Generally I'm talking about the disengagement mechanic related to the available tanking abilities.

 

 

 

 

What it sounds like to me, having read the posts, is that you don' t like that your old "tank" character isn't as effective as he used to be at being a tanking frontliner, and, instead of adapting to the changes that came with the recent patches, you want the devs to go back to the way things used to be, in so many words.

 

KDubya is suggesting how you can adapt to those changes, while you seem to want to refuse to adapt and would prefer things be the way they were.  Frankly, I doubt that the devs are going to fall back to the way things were, because the old way seemed a little too boring and predictable.  I mean seriously .... tanks were nothing but giant aggro magnets and the enemies they attracted were utterly mindless and dumb in how they dealt with that aggro magnet. 

 

I strongly suggest that you look at these changes as a challenge.  Learn to adapt to them.  Come up with new tactics for dealing with bad guys who disengage, rather than complain that your old aggro magnet tank just doesn't cut it any longer.

 

 

 

[wanderon]

I'd be more inclined to see a single tank that could easily hold a mob in place as a flaw myself.

[drty]

What it sounds like to me, having read the posts, is that you don' t like that your old "tank" character isn't as effective as he used to be at being a tanking frontliner, and, instead of adapting to the changes that came with the recent patches, you want the devs to go back to the way things used to be, in so many words.

 

KDubya is suggesting how you can adapt to those changes, while you seem to want to refuse to adapt and would prefer things be the way they were.  Frankly, I doubt that the devs are going to fall back to the way things were, because the old way seemed a little too boring and predictable.  I mean seriously .... tanks were nothing but giant aggro magnets and the enemies they attracted were utterly mindless and dumb in how they dealt with that aggro magnet. 

 

I strongly suggest that you look at these changes as a challenge.  Learn to adapt to them.  Come up with new tactics for dealing with bad guys who disengage, rather than complain that your old aggro magnet tank just doesn't cut it any longer.

 

 

I don't even know what is "the way things used to be". I just play PoE of version 2.02.

[drty]

I'd be more inclined to see a single tank that could easily hold a mob in place as a flaw myself.

 

Maybe i wasn't correct. Not hold it in place, but have a ways to get it back.

[KDubya]

Who else is on your team besides Eder?

 

Who is standing up front with Eder to fight in melee?

[drty]

Who else is on your team besides Eder?

 

Who is standing up front with Eder to fight in melee?

 

My rogue character and Kana. I'm just level 5 at this moment. So, not much to choose from.

BTW: rogue's Escape ability is real crap.

[KDubya]

Once you can get the Paladin you'll have a stronger frontline, the Ranger pet works pretty good as well. I'd look to higher a merc to help out up front until you replace with the Paladin. This would let you have the merc, Eder and Kana form a line to hold the enemy while your Rogue can flank. Or if your Rogue is a Reach weapon type, the three guys up front will let you stand behind and attack from safety.

 

The Rogues I use are either Pike users (Tall Grass) or large shield tanky rogues like Devil. I don't have the micro to keep a more squishy type Rogue alive.

[mosspit]

The gameplay direction that the developers wants seems to steering away from "tank-and-spank". Simply put, most of your party should have some degree of survivability, and your tanks will also need to at least do some amount of dmg.

 

You can of course figure out the sweet spot in stats spread and deflection manipulation to make your tanks as sticky as possible. But I feel that they will ultimately be short term, as they go against the above mentioned direction. Meaning to say the "formula" to determine whether enemies will stay engaged to the tank can easily be changed as it already did.

[drty]

Once you can get the Paladin you'll have a stronger frontline, the Ranger pet works pretty good as well. I'd look to higher a merc to help out up front until you replace with the Paladin. This would let you have the merc, Eder and Kana form a line to hold the enemy while your Rogue can flank. Or if your Rogue is a Reach weapon type, the three guys up front will let you stand behind and attack from safety.

 

The Rogues I use are either Pike users (Tall Grass) or large shield tanky rogues like Devil. I don't have the micro to keep a more squishy type Rogue alive.

 

Well, ok, you are still trying to help me build my party. I appreciate this of course, but this wasn't the initial reason why I've created this post.

[drty]

The gameplay direction that the developers wants seems to steering away from "tank-and-spank". Simply put, most of your party should have some degree of survivability, and your tanks will also need to at least do some amount of dmg.

 

You can of course figure out the sweet spot in stats spread and deflection manipulation to make your tanks as sticky as possible. But I feel that they will ultimately be short term, as they go against the above mentioned direction. Meaning to say the "formula" to determine whether enemies will stay engaged to the tank can easily be changed as it already did.

 

And I agree with this direction. I just prefer to have *optional* instruments of doing tanking job in more advanced style. There are no currently.

[archangel979]

 

Once you can get the Paladin you'll have a stronger frontline, the Ranger pet works pretty good as well. I'd look to higher a merc to help out up front until you replace with the Paladin. This would let you have the merc, Eder and Kana form a line to hold the enemy while your Rogue can flank. Or if your Rogue is a Reach weapon type, the three guys up front will let you stand behind and attack from safety.

 

The Rogues I use are either Pike users (Tall Grass) or large shield tanky rogues like Devil. I don't have the micro to keep a more squishy type Rogue alive.

 

Well, ok, you are still trying to help me build my party. I appreciate this of course, but this wasn't the initial reason why I've created this post.

 

But that is how cRPG are played. You get mechanics of the game in front of you and you figure out how to play within those. You don't do whatever and expect to always succeed. For that you can play casual games like Dragon Age series. Edited October 28, 2015 by archangel979

[drty]

But that is how cRPG are played. You get mechanics of the game in front of you and you figure out how to play within those. You don't do whatever and expect to always succeed. For that you can play casual games like Dragon Age series.

 

 

I'm curious. Any time you are starting new cRPG you are already familiar with its entire rule/mechanic set. I mean you know it in advance? I just ran against some flaw in this system (in my opinion) and try to discuss it here.

[MunoValente]

The most frustrating thing about Defender for me at the moment is that you can't use it with Savage Attack or Cautious Attack and there is no good reason for those restrictions. Savage would be good for people that wanted stronger disengagement, Cautious for a more defensive character.  This is compounded by the same issue most modals have where the game doesn't present you with any information about which modals do and do not work together or any kind of consistent rules that would allow you to figure it out.

[blinkicide]

Disengagement attacks can't be analyzed in a vacuum; if they were intended to control the flow of battle alone they would effectively just be fool-proof taunts.

 

If anything, the AI seems overly cautious about breaking engagements - it seems much less likely to break an engagement than if a human was controlling the unit .  Which is why defender is pretty powerful imo even on POTD.  

 

When enemies do start peeling for your backline, that's the time to start summoning melee units, and having your tanks switch to their 2 hand weapons.  Not only do enemies have to run around the summoned units, but they'll be suffering extra disengagement attacks along the way.   

 

Combine this with movement speed reduction or other CC.  A lot of powerful enemies you see at lvl 5 there, can't even move when blinded.  E.g. forest trolls, flame blights; normal trolls/ogres barely move.  You should space your front line as wide as possible without allowing the enemy to run between them.  This means a long circular run if they are going to get to your back line.

 

The backline should be able to handle mobs ocassionally getting in melee range.  Some mobs teleport for instance, some encounters are ambushes where you are start surrounded.  For example, each of my wizards can tank with buffs (better than a fighter) for limited periods of time.   My ranger is the only class in my party that absolutely dreads being stuck in melee with an enemy. You should probably only have 1-2 pure glass cannon builds  in your group.

[Boeroer]

I think drty is right about engagement being broken somehow. The only good thing about it is that it stops enemies when you engange them (if you triggered that option). But honestly I don't care much and play around it. Which means I give no second thoughts to things like Defender, +engagement items and Hold the Line. I just use three or four sturdy frontliners (animal comp. included) and that works fine. But you can't say drty is not right. It's actually a very good idea that disengagement attacks cause some form of affliction and/or a very high chance of dealing a crit. You are turning your back to an attacker - such stupidness should really be punished. A new talent would be OK for that. One that lets you choose which short timed affliction you want to cause with a disengagement attack or something like that. Choose between longer hobbled, mediocre prone and weakened or short stun or whatever. That would give more engagement slots a real purpose and make the whole engagement system way better.

[the_dog_days]

I'd be more inclined to see a single tank that could easily hold a mob in place as a flaw myself.

Which is exactly why I wish the devs would change Wary Defender to +20% disengagement attacks. Mobs still escape, but pay heavily to do so.

[drty]

Disengagement attacks can't be analyzed in a vacuum; if they were intended to control the flow of battle alone they would effectively just be fool-proof taunts.

 

If anything, the AI seems overly cautious about breaking engagements - it seems much less likely to break an engagement than if a human was controlling the unit .  Which is why defender is pretty powerful imo even on POTD.  

 

Agree about Defender - it's good, I like it too. But regarding the first part - have you ever tried to tank with paladin as your main character? If you build him for a maximum survivability (including correct reputations), then he will have enormous defenses even for POTD, which simply means for an AI that such tank must be ignored at all costs. So, AI is overly cautions about breaking engagements only if tank is not "unhittable". This logic could be acceptable, but only when you're able to counter such disengagement attempts (at least couple of times during particular encounter). An example of such counter ability is an talent I have suggested in my opening post - let's call it "Hamstring Strike" something that will automatically apply Hobbled effect on a foe which turn its back to you. Looks reasonable to me.

 

When enemies do start peeling for your backline, that's the time to start summoning melee units, and having your tanks switch to their 2 hand weapons.  Not only do enemies have to run around the summoned units, but they'll be suffering extra disengagement attacks along the way.   

 

It will work as a source of additional damage, but will hardly prevent mobs to get to their squishy prey.

 

Combine this with movement speed reduction or other CC.  A lot of powerful enemies you see at lvl 5 there, can't even move when blinded.  E.g. forest trolls, flame blights; normal trolls/ogres barely move.  You should space your front line as wide as possible without allowing the enemy to run between them.  This means a long circular run if they are going to get to your back line.

 

The backline should be able to handle mobs ocassionally getting in melee range.  Some mobs teleport for instance, some encounters are ambushes where you are start surrounded.  For example, each of my wizards can tank with buffs (better than a fighter) for limited periods of time.   My ranger is the only class in my party that absolutely dreads being stuck in melee with an enemy. You should probably only have 1-2 pure glass cannon builds  in your group.

 

Even if you have such CC ready for a moment, you still need a time to cast it, which is rarely (if ever) enough to intercept mobs before they get to your glassy caster, and I don't mean forest trolls which are easily kite-able foes even without slow effects.

Edited October 28, 2015 by drty

[Vicarius]

The engagement system is broken. In reality it doesn't do much at all. It does create awkward senseless situations that gives the game an unrefined feel. 

 

1. The way it steers a character into another feels awful when playing. If you have a gap in your line and the enemy is trying to run through it can't because it gets steered into engagement. Hinders the enemy AI in this case and makes the game easier. Happens even if your back is facing the gap which is totally silly.

 

2. The way your character, after getting a command to attack, sometimes will not enegage an enemy that has reach attack range unless you expend an ability to close the gap is awful. This even happens if the enemy has its back turned to you which is again, totally silly.

 

The system needs a complete revamp. It should only work in a 120 to 180 degree cone in front of a character. Remove the defender skill, the maximum number of engaged enemies should be 3 to better fit the frontal cone egagement system (engaging something behind you is dumb). A character should be able to maneuver within engagement as long as he doesn't disengage without taking extra attacks. Fix the issue with the AI not closing the gap to attack an enemy with a reach weapon after getting a manual attack command. Maybe make disengagement attacks hurt more if it doesn't harm the enemy AI too much. I think weapon ranges (melee ranges) could be tweaked so combat isn't so cluttered but this could conflict with some of existing cramped environments, perhaps for the future.

[drty]

I think drty is right about engagement being broken somehow. The only good thing about it is that it stops enemies when you engange them (if you triggered that option). But honestly I don't care much and play around it. Which means I give no second thoughts to things like Defender, +engagement items and Hold the Line. I just use three or four sturdy frontliners (animal comp. included) and that works fine. But you can't say drty is not right. It's actually a very good idea that disengagement attacks cause some form of affliction and/or a very high chance of dealing a crit. You are turning your back to an attacker - such stupidness should really be punished. A new talent would be OK for that. One that lets you choose which short timed affliction you want to cause with a disengagement attack or something like that. Choose between longer hobbled, mediocre prone and weakened or short stun or whatever. That would give more engagement slots a real purpose and make the whole engagement system way better.

 

Yeap, this is what I meant. If at least one person got the idea I'm trying to bring, means that my english is not so hopeless.

[archangel979]

 

But that is how cRPG are played. You get mechanics of the game in front of you and you figure out how to play within those. You don't do whatever and expect to always succeed. For that you can play casual games like Dragon Age series.

 

I'm curious. Any time you are starting new cRPG you are already familiar with its entire rule/mechanic set. I mean you know it in advance? I just ran against some flaw in this system (in my opinion) and try to discuss it here.

 

That was not discussing, you were almost screaming at people trying to help you. You just don't want to accept that the game is designed to be played differently than you imagined and you don't want to conform.

 

When I play a new game, I try to learn it, understand it and make plans on how to "beat it". I don't come to forums screaming "this is not how it is supposed to work". I might say "I don't find it fun how it is", but that is very different.