Engagement now useless?

[plenilune]

Speaking of PotD. Now that AI is smarter, why would anyone choose the Defender talent over Guardian stance? Enemies seem to attack whatever they feel like, and your accuracy is too low to punish anyone breaking engagement. That +10 deflection from Guardian is so much more useful, because they protect the ones they attack. Sure the range is short, but if the enemies are going to attack your backline, why bother keeping a distance.

[Boeroer]

I would say both abilites are pretty worthless. If you're a supersquishy then +10 deflection will do not much for you. If you're not so squishy you can stand a few slaps on your own.

 

Defender was nerfed to uselessness because engangement - as you said - is nothing that you can build on. Enemies have too many hitpoints to stop them with one Disengagement Attack - even if you're specced for damage it will not be enough to stop any enemy that rushes past you.

 

So, best is to not rely on a single tank but build a solid frontline instead - and even then you will have to watch out. Another approach is to not use glass cannons. It's enough to give your backline a bit of DR and deflection (without wasting a precious ability point of the figher) and they don't get rushed anymore. Doesn't have to be superthick armor or a 100 deflection. You can even feel the difference when you put them in hide armor and put on a ring of deflection.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Boeroer

[PrimeJunta]

I've had the most overall satisfying gameplay with a relatively evenly-hardened party. I think it's mostly due to AI behaviour; it lets me manoeuvre more freely without turning it into a game of protect-the-squishy. The good news is that it's not hard at all to get there -- just build your "frontline" classes for damage and give your "back row" ones some defensive talents and gear.

 

It's totes possible to play with just one or two tanks and the rest squishy damage-dealers; you just need a lot more micro to keep the squishies out of trouble. Zealous Rush helps tremendously for this.

[Torm51]

I've had the most overall satisfying gameplay with a relatively evenly-hardened party. I think it's mostly due to AI behaviour; it lets me manoeuvre more freely without turning it into a game of protect-the-squishy. The good news is that it's not hard at all to get there -- just build your "frontline" classes for damage and give your "back row" ones some defensive talents and gear.

 

It's totes possible to play with just one or two tanks and the rest squishy damage-dealers; you just need a lot more micro to keep the squishies out of trouble. Zealous Rush helps tremendously for this.

*Charge

[plenilune]

I would say both abilites are pretty worthless. If you're a supersquishy then +10 deflection will do not much for you. If you're not so squishy you can stand a few slaps on your own.

 

Defender was nerfed to uselessness because engangement - as you said - is nothing that you can build on. Enemies have too many hitpoints to stop them with one Disengagement Attack - even if you're specced for damage it will not be enough to stop any enemy that rushes past you.

 

So, best is to not rely on a single tank but build a solid frontline instead - and even then you will have to watch out. Another approach is to not use glass cannons. It's enough to give your backline a bit of DR and deflection (without wasting a precious ability point of the figher) and they don't get rushed anymore. Doesn't have to be superthick armor or a 100 deflection. You can even feel the difference when you put them in hide armor and put on a ring of deflection.

 

Well yes, on PotD I would make sure my backline has enough deflection + DR so the added deflection becomes more meaningful. Does the AI look at both deflection and DR when targeting the most vulnerable? Or can I skimp on DR.. 

[Raven Darkholme]

Engagement "now" useless?

It never was useful, only the reasons have changed.

Before 2.0 it was useless, because everybody attacked the tank anyway.

[rheingold]

Funnily enough I like the idea of engagement or attacks of opportunity as they used to be called. It does make sense that you would be punished for moving around in combat. I think the issue is that the punishment is not severe enough. If it were up to me, I'd make the "attack of opportunity" an automatic crit. Not sure other people would go for it though.

[Boeroer]

But then the system would have to be revised. It can't be that when I walk onto a guy I get like three disengagement attacks just because I ran in a slight curve and not 100% straight. Disengagement attacks shouldn't happen at all when I enter the threat area - they should happen when I LEAVE! At the moment - when I try to flank an enemy who has more than one engagement slot I eat more than one disengaement attack. That's just stupid. It would be totally ok to get some if I wanted run run past him - but for the I would have to leave his reach and THEN I should get hits, not before. 

 

As disengagement attacks have a bonus to ACC it could be a nice setup to take defender, high ACC and a weapon that does prone or stun on crit. THat way disengaement attacks with defender would have some usefulness. IF the on-crit effects work with disengagement attacks - don't know.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Boeroer

[rheingold]

Well, yeah, it should be for disengagement not engagement Can't be that difficult to tweak? (Says the non computer programmer)

But the fact remains that you should get penalized otherwise what's the point.

[Livegood118]

Does anyone have the information on hand about the actual % increase in damage and accuracy from a Disengagement Attack? I was just thinking that it's something I've never actually come across.

[Boeroer]

I just did a quick test with a tank that's specced for disengangement attacks: very high deflection, DR and defenses, low damage (so that the enemy wants to leave you and go for your glass cannons), but high ACC and a stunning weapon. I took defender in order to get more eng. slots so that more enemies eat disengagement attacks when they try to pass me.

 

Result: not one single enemy got critted or stunned...?

 

Seriously that ability is total crap. Especially since you can't use it together with Savage Attack, Cautious Attack and so on. I know that defensive modals are exclusive - but first of all Defender is not defensive anymore and secondly: why Savage Attack? Stupid...

[HawkSoft]

I trying the 3.0 Beta, engagement still sucks (?)

 

Party is 3rd level, Monk, Eder, Aloth, Durance,

I was doing the Gilded Vale smith's quest and the bandit leader runs out of engagement from my (bare hands) monk to beat on Durance, WTF?

 

It did mean the monk avoided being double teamed and was able to pulp two bandits in quick succession whilst Durance went down but it did not seem right.

Ignoring a low damage tank is one thing, ignoring a fast hitting monk quite another.

[AndreaColombo]

^ when exactly did engagement stop sucking?

[Kaylon]

For me engagement is just a small advantage for melee attackers (to compensate the fact it's harder to attack at melee than from range). It gives them a free attack with a small bonus when the target tries to run away from them. It's not supposed to make tanks hold the aggro like in MMOs. AI goes for squishiest targets first and it has nothing to do with the damage dealt by the tanks. You have to use other tactics to keep your party alive.

[Fiery Rain]

^ when exactly did engagement stop sucking?

 

Yeah, the more I play the more I see this. I mean, Engagement itself is fine, but Disengagement Attacks right now are almost completely useless - all they do is hinder, impede the movement and generally just get in the way.

[HawkSoft]

I like that the AI now attempts to stomp the squishes at every opportunity, it's what most players do after all.

What I object to is that it's almost impossible to stop them without a choke point AND that I then have to micromanage my damage dealers whose AI seems to have no clue what to do after the disengagement attack.

 

Later in the game (L8+) I've seen disengagement attacks take down wounded foes but not often.

[AndreaColombo]

Yeah, the more I play the more I see this. I mean, Engagement itself is fine, but Disengagement Attacks right now are almost completely useless - all they do is hinder, impede the movement and generally just get in the way.

 

That's not what I meant, though. Engagement is a terrible mechanic that doesn't belong in a RTwP game. It belongs in a TB game, which Pillars is not. Thankfully there's a certain mod that disables it

[HawkSoft]

That's not what I meant, though. Engagement is a terrible mechanic that doesn't belong in a RTwP game. It belongs in a TB game, which Pillars is not. Thankfully there's a certain mod that disables it

It's a very appropriate mechanic for an RPG like PoE that has a relatively realistic combat system.

Historically most melee casualties occurred when one side broke and ran so the victors got a *free hack*.

 

I don't see what difference RTwP or TB makes

[AndreaColombo]

I don't see what difference RTwP or TB makes

 

In TB, I could spend my every "action point" (or however they're called in the system in used) to get within melee range of you, just to see you spend your turn walking away from me. This chase could go on forever, and I could never get any attacks through. In this context, it makes sense to grant an attack of opportunity against a character who leaves melee range, so that they are discouraged from fleeing melee range before the attacker can attack at least once.

 

In RTwP, the cost of moving is moving. Or, to be more precise, the cost of moving is the DPS I'm not causing to my enemy because I'm busy moving around instead. Punishing it further makes absolutely no sense, especially when a disengagement attack triggers whenever my characters move one pixel to the left or to the right. I should be free to move around as I please, which I probably wouldn't do that much anyway because I prefer to solve my problems through violence (i.e. DPS.)

[HawkSoft]

 

I don't see what difference RTwP or TB makes

 

In TB, I could spend my every "action point" (or however they're called in the system in used) to get within melee range of you, just to see you spend your turn walking away from me. This chase could go on forever, and I could never get any attacks through. In this context, it makes sense to grant an attack of opportunity against a character who leaves melee range, so that they are discouraged from fleeing melee range before the attacker can attack at least once.

 

In RTwP, the cost of moving is moving. Or, to be more precise, the cost of moving is the DPS I'm not causing to my enemy because I'm busy moving around instead. Punishing it further makes absolutely no sense, especially when a disengagement attack triggers whenever my characters move one pixel to the left or to the right. I should be free to move around as I please, which I probably wouldn't do that much anyway because I prefer to solve my problems through violence (i.e. DPS.)

I understand your reasoning but do not agree with it. You do not turn you back on an enemy in a fight (certain martial arts moves excepted),

 

Where the AI has an *unfair* advantage is that it can precisely calculate engagement zones and so dance around our characters whilst we get penalised for a 1 pixel error as you point out.

[Raven Darkholme]

 

I don't see what difference RTwP or TB makes

 

In TB, I could spend my every "action point" (or however they're called in the system in used) to get within melee range of you, just to see you spend your turn walking away from me. This chase could go on forever, and I could never get any attacks through. In this context, it makes sense to grant an attack of opportunity against a character who leaves melee range, so that they are discouraged from fleeing melee range before the attacker can attack at least once.

 

In RTwP, the cost of moving is moving. Or, to be more precise, the cost of moving is the DPS I'm not causing to my enemy because I'm busy moving around instead. Punishing it further makes absolutely no sense, especially when a disengagement attack triggers whenever my characters move one pixel to the left or to the right. I should be free to move around as I please, which I probably wouldn't do that much anyway because I prefer to solve my problems through violence (i.e. DPS.)

 

This is totally true if you run with a party, only reason to run around is if you solo and don't have high damage output.

[Remix]

Engagement is really negated when you learn how to kite correctly. On potd I usually have a paladin act as my tank/debuffer/healer, a fighter as my dd/tank and a chanter acting as a 2nd line dd and off tank. I can usually funnel my enemies exactly where I want while my druid, cipher and wizard deal aoe damage and keep crowds under control. It seems like an effective strategy.