who gets targeted primarely by the enemy?

[Nemesis7884]

On what does it depend who the enemy targets first? I thought maybe its who attacks the enemy first - but - fighting currently orgers - they ALWAYS attack my player character - even if the tank engaged them first - as soon as my character is in reach they attack her...why is that? Is it stat dependent? My character has one of the highest resolves of the team - is that it?

[Nemesis7884]

just tested this again - i walk into a room, full party, player character is third in line - various oozes in the room - tank attacks first - EVERY ooze targets my player character with their shot? why is that? the mechanic is really retarded - if i knew that i would have made her a tank...?

[DreamWayfarer]

just tested this again - i walk into a room, full party, player character is third in line - various oozes in the room - tank attacks first - EVERY ooze targets my player character with their shot? why is that? the mechanic is really retarded - if i knew that i would have made her a tank...?

As far as I know the enemies check for damage reduction, defenses, damage the character has done, and maybe the class, so giving your Watcher slightly heavier armor should help, or starting the fight with everyone but the tanks in stealth mode.

[anameforobsidian]

Enemies tend to attack lighter armored targets or those they're engaged with.  You may want to put on a piece of armor to discourage them.  Also, enemies seem to weigh the potential damage from a disengagement attack before disengaging.  It is possible to build a tank who is so armored but does so little damage that enemies don't really see a point paying attention to them.

 

The game favors armored melee damage dealers to tank and spank with glass cannons anyways; I would respec once you're out of the current situation.  If you want to keep the current approach, use their desire for your main character to kite.

[Loren Tyr]

Targetting preferences also vary by enemy though, and to some extent also by ability for a given enemy. There was a thread on this a while ago actually, just can't seem to find it at the moment though.

 

Edit: found it, it's here: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/86852-im-a-tank-why-would-i-want-resolve/?p=1810130

So in the Shade example given there, having good Freeze DR would reduce the chances of the Shade trying to drain you, but it might well still try to hit you the old fashioned way if your Will is low (or lower than other targets). So just slapping on a bunch of armor isn't by itself going to solve the problem of enemies targeting your main character.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Loren Tyr

[Tigranes]

It would be "retarded" if enemies just attacked the big dude with 8000 HP and 2 Attack without ever switching things up.

 

If you build characters such that there's a 3HP glass cannon at the back, well, wouldn't you just shoot that guy down? So then, you take advantage of the fact that every class has ways of protecting themselves minimally.

 

If your PC is actually comparably defence equipped to your 'tank', then it could be some kind of bug, but basically the AI looks at your party and tries to fight you in a halfway competent way.

[Wagner235]

It would be "retarded" if enemies just attacked the big dude with 8000 HP and 2 Attack without ever switching things up.

I don't know, it looks retarded for me the way it is now. I mean whats the point of positioning your squad members, if the result is the same - enemy will usually try to disengage your tank, and go directly to Aloth weakest party member. Just imagine that in the heat of the battle you are facing your opponent and suddenly he decides that "fck this guy, i'd just ignore common sense, stop defending myself and run directly to that guy. YOLO".

C'mon.It's just don't make any sense, and that guy would instantly receive a blade between his ribs.

By the way, if i remember, then in BG and IWD it was much better.

And yes, i do understand this was made for a reason, to make some balance and challenge, but for those who like to play games on "Normal" difficulty, this looks bad. The same reason i don't like "Hard" difficulty, because you can encounter in the forest, on the same place - two wyverns, four earth blights, three Pwagwas (or how do you write it), Troll and three Xaurips. Pls, just explain to me - why the hell do they even walk together? Its just don't make any sense.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Wagner235

[Loren Tyr]

Except that if the weak dude at the back is actually a squishy but powerful mage with the ability to obliterate you and all of your allies much more quickly, it's hardly ignoring common sense to try and kill him as quickly as possible, even if that increases the risk of getting a sword between your ribs en route. Besides, it's a game, you do have to suspend some disbelief here as well. If you're willing to buy that, say, someone could survive getting repeatedly shot in the face from point blank range with a pistol, then surely a slightly simplified representation of the dynamics of combat manoeuvring and such is hardly a stretch.

 

Aside from that, enemies *are* quite reluctant to break engagement to go beat on the squishy mage. And neither example the OP mentions actually feature that. He mentions a) a back line character being attacked from range by Oozes and b) ogres switching targets to his character when he walks into range. Neither involves breaking engagement.

 

From a gameplay perspective it would also be quite predictable, boring and easy if enemies just stupidly attacked whomever they saw first. Which is precisely what they did in BG and IWD by the way, fixating on their target like an obsessive-compulsive and ignoring everyone else. How is that common sense?

[PangaeaACDC]

When I've played (on Hard now) the enemies have mostly focused on my tank and off-tank (the fighter and paladin companions), but especially the bastards that can teleport are causing all sorts of issues. In a certain deep dungeon I came across a whole pack of cheat gwlas yesterday, and they tore us to pieces, three times. BOOM, and the whole party is paralysed, and they're teleporting this way and that, and quickly knocking out the weaker guys, like a mage and ranger. Not cool. Seem to have 1000 HP each too. It certainly adds difficulty, but mostly it just adds frustration I think.

 

It hasn't been a big problem for me though, as the enemies mostly are funneled into my tank and off-tank. But take absurdly OP abilties, teleport at will, and a truckload of enemies, and you're quickly in totally out of control combat situation. If this is something you see quite often, I can certainly see the frustration, because I got a strong urge to punch the screen yesterday.

 

Reminded me of those boundlessly frustrating intelligence draining enemies in BG2, that it was nigh on impossible to defend against.

[Loren Tyr]

It's only frustrating if you keep trying the same tactic over and over. The whole point of it, I'd say, is for you to adapt to different challenges. If every encounter was just a matter of drawing aggro with some tanks and pelting the enemy with your heavy-hitting backline, where's the challenge in that? If combat doesn't have the potential to get out of control, it'll eventually just devolve into a grind. Besides, in this way it will also vary what will and won't be a challenge for a particular party. For example those Gwla's, in my current playthrough I can generally just have my main character tank breeze through them on his own, while in other playthroughs I did have to work harder on defeating them. 

 

So no, I'd say it's not at all like the BG2 Mindflayers. That was much a binary thing: either you had Chaotic Commands up and they were so feeble you could gouge them to death with a spork; or you didn't, and they ate your brain. There wasn't really a challenge in it, just a nuisance. Though not nearly as annoying as the stupid level-draining vampires, of course. 

[Climhazzard]

Vampyr's and enemy Monks do their absolute best to beeline right to your squishiest character, ranged enemies tend to do this as well.  Everything else usually just targets the first guy they laid eyes on, and occasionally will go for your squishier characters if they're free from engagement.  This is from the perspective of someone who absolutely never uses hatchet/large shield min/maxed tank characters, usually a beefy melee dps (monk/barb), and a couple of guys/gals with a medium shield and an extra engagement slot (paladin/chanter).

 

I like to stealth around in fast game mode and only unstealth my tankier members right at the start of an encounter so they receive all the initial enemy hate.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Climhazzard

[Tigranes]

 

It would be "retarded" if enemies just attacked the big dude with 8000 HP and 2 Attack without ever switching things up.

I don't know, it looks retarded for me the way it is now. I mean whats the point of positioning your squad members, if the result is the same - enemy will usually try to disengage your tank, and go directly to Aloth weakest party member. Just imagine that in the heat of the battle you are facing your opponent and suddenly he decides that "fck this guy, i'd just ignore common sense, stop defending myself and run directly to that guy. YOLO".

C'mon.It's just don't make any sense, and that guy would instantly receive a blade between his ribs.

By the way, if i remember, then in BG and IWD it was much better.

And yes, i do understand it this was made for a reason, to make some balance and challenge, but for those who like to play games on "Normal" difficulty, this looks bad. The same reason i don't like "Hard" difficulty, because you can encounter in the forest, on the same place - two wyverns, four earth blights, three Pwagwas (or how do you write it), Troll and three Xaurips. Pls, just explain to me - why the hell do they even walk together? Its just don't make any sense.

 

 

If your big fat guy up front is armed with a huge tower shield and a toothpick and poses little offensive threat, then of course the opponent's going to say 'fck this guy'.

 

If the big guy is actually posing a significant offensive threat, the AI tends to focus on him (or split their attention), depending on the enemy type.

 

Enemy group composition is a separate matter, where there's pros and cons either way (totally unnatural groups vs. 'omg yet another group of just mushrooms')

[Wagner235]

Ok, maybe you guys right. But right now, this whole disengagement thing reminds me of Vanilla World of Warcraft. It was the same tactics - Tank aggro Boss/Pack of Mobs for some time and only after that period of time, DPS classes would be able to safely join the battle. And of course, if some DPS classes over reacted and for some reason Tank lost the aggro, then you have what i have in POE now, where some random thugs went for my mage, ignoring Eder who was desperately trying to save the day.

The only thing that I miss in this game now, is the music from Benny Hill Show, because this is exactly what it looks like during some encounters.

Anyway what i like to say is - Aggro is Bad.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Wagner235

[demeisen]

I have found a simple solution.  Play on Path of the Damned, and there are plenty enough enemies for everybody to end up with a bunch up in their face.  No need to be stingy with them, plenty to go around.

​

​(OK, ok, I jest, but it does make CC pretty important, which seems like a good thing.  Tank aggro tactics get boring fast).

​

​

Edited July 28, 2016 by demeisen

[Loren Tyr]

Ok, maybe you guys right. But right now, this whole disengagement thing reminds me of Vanilla World of Warcraft. It was the same tactics - Tank aggro Boss/Pack of Mobs for some time and only after that period of time, DPS classes would be able to safely join the battle. And of course, if some DPS classes over reacted and for some reason Tank lost the aggro, then you have what i have in POE now, where some random thugs went for my mage, ignoring Eder who was desperately trying to save the day.

The only thing that I miss in this game now, is the music from Benny Hill Show, because this is exactly what it looks like during some encounters.

Anyway what i like to say is - Aggro is Bad.

 

No, it's not. Again, what would you propose? That enemies just blindly keep pounding on whatever tank you fed to them? Inherently DPS builds sacrifice defense for offense, of course they're going to be at risk if tanks fail to keep the enemy engaged and you have no contingency to stop them. Have an off-tank intercept them, knock them down, hobble them and run away, charm one of them, confuse them, get them stuck, maybe throw up some extra defenses and kill them... there are plenty of options for either even at the first wizard/priest/cipher spell level. And some nice item-bound options, like the Soulbound scepter you get early in act 2. Though your tanks really should be doing their job better if melee types break through that frequently. As long as you maintain engagement they really don't move off all that often (and with Overbearing Guard they also tend not to get very far if they do); good positioning and use of space and a judicious use of abilities like Knock Down should keep most mobs reasonably contained, and mixing in some crowd control and AOE from your casters and having a heavy hitter pick off stragglers quickly should usually keep your squishies in one piece. 

[Faldorn]

Have you tried picking talents with your tank that increase the number of enemies he/she can engange? This would not help against ranged or teleporting enemies, but certainly against melee type enemies. It does work really well for me on POTD. But as someone else pointed out: On POTD, there are certainly enough enemies to go around most of the time  - that is if you can't block them effectively at a choke point or such.

[PangaeaACDC]

Have you tried picking talents with your tank that increase the number of enemies he/she can engange? This would not help against ranged or teleporting enemies, but certainly against melee type enemies. It does work really well for me on POTD. But as someone else pointed out: On POTD, there are certainly enough enemies to go around most of the time  - that is if you can't block them effectively at a choke point or such.

 

Really like "Defender" modal on my tank (Eder), and usually he's able to keep quite a few guys busy with that. If the OP doesn't have that, maybe respec and give it a shot. Quite useful.

 

 

It's only frustrating if you keep trying the same tactic over and over. The whole point of it, I'd say, is for you to adapt to different challenges. If every encounter was just a matter of drawing aggro with some tanks and pelting the enemy with your heavy-hitting backline, where's the challenge in that? If combat doesn't have the potential to get out of control, it'll eventually just devolve into a grind. Besides, in this way it will also vary what will and won't be a challenge for a particular party. For example those Gwla's, in my current playthrough I can generally just have my main character tank breeze through them on his own, while in other playthroughs I did have to work harder on defeating them. 

 

So no, I'd say it's not at all like the BG2 Mindflayers. That was much a binary thing: either you had Chaotic Commands up and they were so feeble you could gouge them to death with a spork; or you didn't, and they ate your brain. There wasn't really a challenge in it, just a nuisance. Though not nearly as annoying as the stupid level-draining vampires, of course. 

 

IIRC, even with Chaotic Commands, the brain eaters could punch through with natural 20s. It certainly helped a great deal though, plus/or Berserk or whatever it was called. They always gave me a fright though, because it was always such a pain to beat them. Vampires and their level drain was horrible too (and it's tempting to say the worst was having to re-do spells all the bloody time after getting your levels back), but the worst was a certain demon in a certain basement. Wall of summons and hope for the best.

 

Currently I'm playing without a Priest, so that limits my options a bit, and don't have the expansions either, meaning lower levels and surely lots of great equipment I can't get my hands on. Naturally I tried different tactics and approaches against those damn Gwlas, but it's hard to contain them when they can paralyse your entire party and teleport at will. I just gave up for the time being, and will try again later when we are topped up at level 12. We were level 10 so a pretty hard bunch, but they still tore through us.

 

Challenge is good, don't get me wrong, most combat in the game can be won on autopilot after all, but I've always despised teleporting enemies, so that's part of it.

[Fayer]

In my case, Durance is the guy who gets all the beating. Looks kinda sad though when my fighters are engaged in a combat with oozes, Durance gets in their vision range to drop a buff or heal and is instantly covered by acidic vomit that takes A LOT of his health(for the flavour reasons, I never changed his robe, 3 DR makes him squisher than a bug)

[KDubya]

In a world like PoE a good tactic is always "shoot the guy in the dress!" I'm glad that the AI tries to follow that simple plan. In combat do you attack the beefy fighter or do you prioritize the casters? I always try to kill the priests first followed by any other sort of spell caster, after they are down I can slaughter the melee at my leisure.

 

The easiest defense against that is to not build squishy glass cannons. Don't dump con and resolve and wear a dress. Have four frontline guys to intercept the enemy and establish a front, keep the ranged guys in the pocket like a quarterback. That'll work  against your typical enemies. Against the few teleporting or extremely mobile enemies you need to be prepared to defend your back line guys. Grab Arcane Veil for your Wizard or cast a big defensive buff.

[Climhazzard]

The wizards with 3 constitution and resolve while wearing a dress should expect to get wrecked when something looks their way.  If the enemies were all super predictable the game would get a little boring imo, they are already plenty predictable as is.  And with the current design absolute min/maxing is a little less desirable than it was when the game was first released.

 

Also every class has built in mechanics to take the heat off when they get attention, as well as an extra weapon slot for a hatchet/buckler.  Wizards have tons of OP defensive spells, Druids can shapeshift, Rangers have a pet, Priests can shift to a heavier shield and cast consecrated ground.  Just use them, along with some CC, and you'll be fine.  

[demeisen]

The easiest defense against that is to not build squishy glass cannons.

 

This helps quite a bit in my experience.  For my PoTD run with a PC wizard, I intentionally beefed up his defense all around, both in terms of stats, items, and spells.  It really helped.  Of course you still have to be careful, but I liked the challenge of having to use reasonable tactics, rather than one tactic all the time.

[KDubya]

If the Ai was really good they'd have arquebus or arbalest on switch from their main weapon and start of with volley fire at the softest targets that you have. That is the tactic that we use, having that used against us would be tough.

[Fenixp]

To be fair, I don't think scripting a difficult AI would be that difficult - player's party is always massively outnumbered and just scripting the AI to always ignore everybody and target characters in order of their squishiness would be easy and brutally effective. Then again, game AI is not scripted to be as effective and dangerous as humanly possible, it's mainly programmed to be fun to fight against, and having varied algorithms to decide how they'll pick their targets does make fights somewhat more varied.

[anameforobsidian]

To be fair, I don't think scripting a difficult AI would be that difficult - player's party is always massively outnumbered and just scripting the AI to always ignore everybody and target characters in order of their squishiness would be easy and brutally effective. Then again, game AI is not scripted to be as effective and dangerous as humanly possible, it's mainly programmed to be fun to fight against, and having varied algorithms to decide how they'll pick their targets does make fights somewhat more varied.

 

Sword Coast Stratagems is a pretty good warning against making AI too optimal.  It's great seeing mobs run around web, and not bunch up.  It sucks using 800 counterspells vs. contingencies on one lich and then having a fighter ice them in one hit.  There's a reason BG2 made its wizards overpowered but dumb.

[Mygaffer]

Ok, maybe you guys right. But right now, this whole disengagement thing reminds me of Vanilla World of Warcraft. It was the same tactics - Tank aggro Boss/Pack of Mobs for some time and only after that period of time, DPS classes would be able to safely join the battle. And of course, if some DPS classes over reacted and for some reason Tank lost the aggro, then you have what i have in POE now, where some random thugs went for my mage, ignoring Eder who was desperately trying to save the day.

The only thing that I miss in this game now, is the music from Benny Hill Show, because this is exactly what it looks like during some encounters.

Anyway what i like to say is - Aggro is Bad.

I'm curious what your thoughts on this are now, assuming you've played more of the game. Have you figured out how to control the crowds yet?