Engagement - Still not very useful

[mostundesired]

In the spirit of theorycrafting, let's go with the former, since there's already a suggestion assuming the latter. Do we increase the stickiness? Make it so that even enemies with the option to disengage/attack squishies without taking a hit are unable to or discouraged from doing so?

[KDubya]

I think you need to have enemies make the decision on whether to disengage and take the pain based on the damage threat from the engager.

 

A 3 Might Orlan Unbroken/Shieldbearer with a spear and a tower shield who has no offensive capabilities but has 8 engagements should not be able to keep 8 guys locked down. In this example the threat of damage from disengaging is minimal.

 

Remake that same Orlan Unbroken/Shieldbearer but give him high Might and lots of damage boosts and accuracy and you have a dangerous melee combatant who can hurt you bad if you eat a disengagement attack. This guy should be able to hold more enemies.

 

To overcome this there are lots of abilities that ignore engagement, there are leaps that bypass the frontline and Might affliction remove your ability to engage. Lots of ways to overcome.

[Boeroer]

I'm just thinking: What happens if you pair immunity against engagement (enemies can't engage you) with a lot of engagement slots on your side - and then run around and "collect" enemies like a magnet? Once they want to leave they get punished by disengagement but you won't if you go after some rushers who want to have your squishies for breakfast/lunch/supper.

 

Would that be viable? Maybe I'll try later...

[dam]

I'm just thinking: What happens if you pair immunity against engagement (enemies can't engage you) with a lot of engagement slots on your side - and then run around and "collect" enemies like a magnet? Once they want to leave they get punished by disengagement but you won't if you go after some rushers who want to have your squishies for breakfast/lunch/supper.

 

Would that be viable? Maybe I'll try later...

 

The thing is, engagement is not a lock-on.

 

It is merely a mechanic where, if one is considered engaged and tries to move away, they suffer an attack.

Bit like attacks of opportunity really.

 

Unless you're running an absolute powerhouse of a character with incredible might and perception, all you're threatening is to land a basic attack for 7-10 damage.

If the situation were reversed and I as a player had to deal with this, I'd simple take the 10 damage and ignore the tank entirely.

 

In order for your engagement to be threatening, you need to lower your tankiness.

If you lower your tankiness, then again I as a player will simply nuke your character and then focus on the backline.

[Boeroer]

Unless you're running an absolute powerhouse of a character with incredible might and perception, all you're threatening is to land a basic attack for 7-10 damage.

If the situation were reversed and I as a player had to deal with this, I'd simple take the 10 damage and ignore the tank entirely.

No.

 

You didn't study the fighter ability tree properly I guess...

Edited November 24, 2017 by Boeroer

[dam]

 

Unless you're running an absolute powerhouse of a character with incredible might and perception, all you're threatening is to land a basic attack for 7-10 damage.

If the situation were reversed and I as a player had to deal with this, I'd simple take the 10 damage and ignore the tank entirely.

No.

 

You didn't study the fighter ability tree properly I guess...

 

That's one spot-on guess, kindly allow me to do so right now, that I may apprehend the situation better

[Boeroer]

Hehe...

 

Unbroken has higher PEN on disengagement attacks and additionally: all fighters can buy an ability that increases disengagement damage and prones disengaging enemies.

[dam]

Yeah no, except for Guardian Stance and the Unbroken passive which seem both very good, I see nothing else exceptional here.

 

 

You're still going to need a fighter with :

- maxed resolve

- maxed constitution

- maxed perception if you want to land your disengagement attacks

 

Disciplined Barrage just doesn't work in this scenario, because it only lasts 15 seconds and you have no idea whenever a unit is going to try and disengage.

So unless you keep it up the whole fight (preventing you from using Vigorous Defense), it just won't do.

 

 

A minmaxed Coastal Aumaua (for the knockdown resist) comes at :

- 10 might

- 18 con

- 3 dex

- 18 per

- 10 int (I don't want to dump this, otherwise Prone won't last as long)

- 19 resolve

 

 

Now granted, the guy is really tanky, more so than the generic fighter, that's cool.

 

However :

- he's a one trick pony

- he won't hit that hard (well, can't have everything)

- and very importantly: engaged enemies can still target your melee dps , my rogue got smashed in the face by an enemy that was already engaged by my MT, which is normal, he was in range

 

 

The build's cool though, if I ever went for a MT PC, I'd probably use an Unbroken, or Unbroken/Monk.

[mostundesired]

Instead of maxing con, I'd leave it at 10 and max might. Surviving might be harder, but I'm already pretty unlikely to get hit because of resolve. I would just have to compensate with better healing. (I.e., multiclassing or party members or maybe even being a moon godlike)

[dam]

Instead of maxing con, I'd leave it at 10 and max might. Surviving might be harder, but I'm already pretty unlikely to get hit because of resolve. I would just have to compensate with better healing. (I.e., multiclassing or party members or maybe even being a moon godlike)

 

What about damage spikes ?

I've had, in POE2, the mercenary fighter go down in a *single hit* , I repeat, a *single hit* because my Monk redirected (turning hand) a  melee attack to him.

If it wasn't a single hit (it's kinda hard to tell, battle speed as it is), it occured in the space of a single second, couldn't do a thing.

 

 

After one has done his share of raiding in Vanilla WoW, one learns to become wary of damage spikes in RPGs

Your MT goes down, the fight's over 8/10 times.

[mostundesired]

Hopefully, the resolve, passive, and modals will be enough to keep that from being a problem. Can't one shot my tank if they can't hit him.

 

Oh, and on enemies still targeting your melee DPS, what about auras that increase ally deflection? Or debuffs to enemy accuracy? Or both?

Edited November 24, 2017 by mostundesired

[dam]

Hopefully, the resolve, passive, and modals will be enough to keep that from being a problem. Can't one shot my tank if they can't hit him.

 

Oh, and on enemies still targeting your melee DPS, what about auras that increase ally deflection? Or debuffs to enemy accuracy? Or both?

 

The thing is, I very rarely run paladin cohorts (or PCs), so I mostly rely on Blind or like effects.

 

It helps, of course it does, and yet running a rogue has been and remains to this day, in most RPGs, a micromanagement intense experience

[KDubya]

 

Yeah no, except for Guardian Stance and the Unbroken passive which seem both very good, I see nothing else exceptional here.

 

 

You're still going to need a fighter with :

- maxed resolve

- maxed constitution

- maxed perception if you want to land your disengagement attacks

 

Disciplined Barrage just doesn't work in this scenario, because it only lasts 15 seconds and you have no idea whenever a unit is going to try and disengage.

So unless you keep it up the whole fight (preventing you from using Vigorous Defense), it just won't do.

 

 

A minmaxed Coastal Aumaua (for the knockdown resist) comes at :

- 10 might

- 18 con

- 3 dex

- 18 per

- 10 int (I don't want to dump this, otherwise Prone won't last as long)

- 19 resolve

 

 

Now granted, the guy is really tanky, more so than the generic fighter, that's cool.

 

However :

- he's a one trick pony

- he won't hit that hard (well, can't have everything)

- and very importantly: engaged enemies can still target your melee dps , my rogue got smashed in the face by an enemy that was already engaged by my MT, which is normal, he was in range

 

 

The build's cool though, if I ever went for a MT PC, I'd probably use an Unbroken, or Unbroken/Monk.

 

 

No reason to minmax him into uselessness.

 

I'd go with an Unbroken/PsyBlade

 

Hearth Orlan - get 10% hit to crit when sharing  a target OR Pale Elf for the extra elemental armor OR whatever you want

Unbroken gets you the big disengagement attack and +2 armor from shield

Use a club and shield, swap to stiletto and shield when need more penetration. Club gives you option of reducing will on attack and has +5 accuracy

 

Might 10 you get +40% from Biting Whip so the +3 per Might is not as useful​ (Might now is multiplicative rather than additive so there are good reasons to add)

Con 15 - health is life, more is always good

Dex 13 -little bit faster actions

Per 15 -more accurate

Int 15 - longer durations and bigger AoE

Res 10 - easier ways of gaining deflection

 

The +2 shield armor bonus effectively gives you the next tier armor without the increased attack malus.

 

Soul Whip makes you hit hard, clubs are fast and accurate. You have Cipher abilities like Psychovampiric Shield to buff your Resolve. You have Disciplined Strikes to increase accuracy and get 50% hit to crit that lasts 20+ seconds and you can keep recasting. You have good defenses and armor and with Defender stance you get another 3 engagements to go with the extra from Unbroken.

 

This guy can tank good enough while doing good damage and has Cipher powers. You can even avoid the Cipher powers and just use Soul Annihilation for the massive Raw damage melee attack.

Edited November 26, 2017 by KDubya

[dam]

Yeah that's one good, balanced build indeed; and yet it is my opinion that Soul Annihilation is sort of wasted on a character who's not focused on dealing damage (as in, high perception, high might).

 

The rationale behind this is, the raw damage from SA benefits from multipliers, including sneak attack.

 

In the game's current incarnation, I cannot imagine using SA with anything other than a rogue to be honest.

Seems like a waste of focus when it (supposedly) drains all your focus pool.

[mostundesired]

Long post incoming, split into two parts.

 

CONTEXT

So after a lot of testing, I'm finding that most encounters have about of five or six enemies, and my Crusader has no problem holding six of them at once (Maybe more? At least one enemy tends to stay at range instead of engaging). In general, I'm finding more than 5 engagement slots is redundant due to some of the enemies being ranged attackers, but I'm not sure if that will hold for all encounters. I'm seeing three major problems so far. 

 

First, in order to ensure all those enemies latch on to my tank, I have to keep my Scout in stealth until my Crusader engages all of them. Not a huge deal, basically means you send your front-line fighters into combat first. Second, if an enemy isn't already engaged even after that (read:ranged attacker), they might go after my Scout anyway. Now usually, that's not too big of a deal either, as long as I can win against them in a DPS race. If I can't out damage them, it's a problem. Third, melee combatants that are engaged by my Crusader have a habit of turning around and attacking/engaging my Scout. It's not that I'm not hitting them with my Tank, it's that my tank isn't generating as much threat because of a lower rate of damage. But then if I make my Scout run away, the enemies just turn around again and keep attack my Crusader.

 

Additional details, there are times when rather than having the defender modal on, I have the modal that increases deflection and accuracy. Usually because my Scout can't lay on enough hurt without getting hit (see reasons above), or because the enemy is immune/resistant to certain damage types, and I don't have a decent weapon set equipped to offset that. In those cases, I still have +2 engagement from Unbroken and Shieldbearer. Since more then 5 engagement slots tends to be superfluous, and I still have a bonus to deflection, I can set my tank into "damage mode" and still be able to do his job tanking. In doing this I lose out on being able to knock enemies prone should they try to disengage. You don't want Defender because of the additional engagement slots, you want Defender because of it's CC ability. So on paper, what you want to do for best tanking ability is be Unbroken/Shieldbearer, turn on Defender, and send them in before any other party member. However, the AI really doesn't want to disengage (so far), so then the Defender modal becomes more of a decoration than something useful; if it weren't for the damage reduction, you'd be better off adding accuracy and deflection.

 

CONCLUSION

Now that I have all that outlined (a lot of which I'm assuming is already known), the biggest problem isn't the engagement system itself. AI doesn't want to disengage and you can grab all the enemies you want by sending your tank/frontliners in first. The biggest problem is getting enemies to want to hit your tank more than your damage dealers.

 

In talking about whether or not we want taunts, I think we're overlooking the fact that aggro management is already a thing in the game: you generate threat by doing more damage. The best tanks have maximum engagement, and maximum damage. Let's assume you max out might and perception on your tank. Well, what you want next is to max out either resolve or constitution, or maybe a healthy dose of both, to mitigate incoming damage. There's not really a point in pumping intelligence at all AFAIK, because you'll never need to drop someone prone with Defender, so you can dump int, most likely dump dex, and pump up your Mig, Dex, Con, and Res.

 

So what I'm finding to actually need fixing, is the Defender modal. If enemies never want to disengage, knocking them prone when they do is useless. This might warrant a new thread, but I think what needs changing is either making the AI more prone to attempting disengagement, or change the Defender modal to do something other than making enemies go prone. If the former, reinforce the desire to attack enemies with lower AR. Suddenly, making enemies go prone is useful again. If the latter, make Defender generate more threat per damage done. Now ranged enemies are less likely to try and pick off my backline from a distance, and engaged melee enemies won't turn around to attack my melee DPS as often. I'm leaning more towards the former, because one can always just stack more damage dealt onto their tank to maintain threat.

 

**TL;DR** Engagement works fine as long as you send your tank in first, but it doesn't actually stop enemies from attacking your squishies even when engaged, and the way AI handles being engaged makes the Defender modal underpowered.

[dam]

Long post incoming, split into two parts.

 

CONTEXT

So after a lot of testing, I'm finding that most encounters have about of five or six enemies, and my Crusader has no problem holding six of them at once (Maybe more? At least one enemy tends to stay at range instead of engaging). In general, I'm finding more than 5 engagement slots is redundant due to some of the enemies being ranged attackers, but I'm not sure if that will hold for all encounters. I'm seeing three major problems so far. 

 

First, in order to ensure all those enemies latch on to my tank, I have to keep my Scout in stealth until my Crusader engages all of them. Not a huge deal, basically means you send your front-line fighters into combat first. Second, if an enemy isn't already engaged even after that (read:ranged attacker), they might go after my Scout anyway. Now usually, that's not too big of a deal either, as long as I can win against them in a DPS race. If I can't out damage them, it's a problem. Third, melee combatants that are engaged by my Crusader have a habit of turning around and attacking/engaging my Scout. It's not that I'm not hitting them with my Tank, it's that my tank isn't generating as much threat because of a lower rate of damage. But then if I make my Scout run away, the enemies just turn around again and keep attack my Crusader.

 

Additional details, there are times when rather than having the defender modal on, I have the modal that increases deflection and accuracy. Usually because my Scout can't lay on enough hurt without getting hit (see reasons above), or because the enemy is immune/resistant to certain damage types, and I don't have a decent weapon set equipped to offset that. In those cases, I still have +2 engagement from Unbroken and Shieldbearer. Since more then 5 engagement slots tends to be superfluous, and I still have a bonus to deflection, I can set my tank into "damage mode" and still be able to do his job tanking. In doing this I lose out on being able to knock enemies prone should they try to disengage. You don't want Defender because of the additional engagement slots, you want Defender because of it's CC ability. So on paper, what you want to do for best tanking ability is be Unbroken/Shieldbearer, turn on Defender, and send them in before any other party member. However, the AI really doesn't want to disengage (so far), so then the Defender modal becomes more of a decoration than something useful; if it weren't for the damage reduction, you'd be better off adding accuracy and deflection.

 

CONCLUSION

Now that I have all that outlined (a lot of which I'm assuming is already known), the biggest problem isn't the engagement system itself. AI doesn't want to disengage and you can grab all the enemies you want by sending your tank/frontliners in first. The biggest problem is getting enemies to want to hit your tank more than your damage dealers.

 

In talking about whether or not we want taunts, I think we're overlooking the fact that aggro management is already a thing in the game: you generate threat by doing more damage. The best tanks have maximum engagement, and maximum damage. Let's assume you max out might and perception on your tank. Well, what you want next is to max out either resolve or constitution, or maybe a healthy dose of both, to mitigate incoming damage. There's not really a point in pumping intelligence at all AFAIK, because you'll never need to drop someone prone with Defender, so you can dump int, most likely dump dex, and pump up your Mig, Dex, Con, and Res.

 

So what I'm finding to actually need fixing, is the Defender modal. If enemies never want to disengage, knocking them prone when they do is useless. This might warrant a new thread, but I think what needs changing is either making the AI more prone to attempting disengagement, or change the Defender modal to do something other than making enemies go prone. If the former, reinforce the desire to attack enemies with lower AR. Suddenly, making enemies go prone is useful again. If the latter, make Defender generate more threat per damage done. Now ranged enemies are less likely to try and pick off my backline from a distance, and engaged melee enemies won't turn around to attack my melee DPS as often. I'm leaning more towards the former, because one can always just stack more damage dealt onto their tank to maintain threat.

 

**TL;DR** Engagement works fine as long as you send your tank in first, but it doesn't actually stop enemies from attacking your squishies even when engaged, and the way AI handles being engaged makes the Defender modal underpowered.

 

 

With regards to enemies turning around and hitting your Scout instead of your MT, aye I've got the same problem here.

Thing is, it is expected and natural behaviour.

 

If they didn't, we're roll our eyes and be like "lol real ? ok easy game, boring"

 

I am not sure it has to do with your MT generating threat though, I'm not even sure there's a threat counter tied to damage done at all.

It may be that instead, your characters are scored in terms of :

- squishiness

- dangerousness

- ease of access

 

Or perhaps a bit of both, seeing how enemies will sometimes retarget.

 

 

A rogue being both squishy and dangerous, and right there nearby, it makes all the sense in the world to hit them.

In fact, that is exactly what we do when one engages our tank in melee.

We click on our tank, and we make him attack the rogue specifically (even for not much damage, because every little helps), because a rogue is more dangerous than another shield-bearing enemy with high armor rating and regeneration.

 

 

 

With regards to "make enemies hit your MT instead of your DPS", hmmm I don't know.

The mechanic doesn't seem to have changed overmuch from POE1 to be fair.

 

You'd start dps'ing a target that was latched on to your MT, they'd turn around, you'd burn through them.

 

 

As in, your MT's purpose is to buy time for you to pick off the enemies one by one.

Once you've started on one, chances are he'll retarget or plain disengage from your MT.

That's when you need to burn him down, or CC/debuff him.

 

 

I for one do not have a problem with that mechanic.

 

Having enemies keep hitting my MT like fcktards while there's a rogue critting them for 80+ a pop would, to be entirely honest, piss me off grandly.

It'd be unrealistic, it'd be cheesy, it'd take away from the tactical dimension of the game.

We all clamor for more realistic, more intelligent, more human-like AI behaviour.

Behaviour looks good to me

 

 

Reason I always have at most one melee dps (as in, a squishy one like a rogue or cipher) in my team, requires a lot of micro-management.

[mostundesired]

With regards to enemies turning around and hitting your Scout instead of your MT, aye I've got the same problem here.

Thing is, it is expected and natural behaviour.

 

If they didn't, we're roll our eyes and be like "lol real ? ok easy game, boring"

 

Sure. I'm saying there's no tactical recourse for dealing with this (besides CC of course). Maybe CC is good enough, but the point is that it makes the Defender modal pointless because when I make my Scout retreat, enemies don't follow.

 

I am not sure it has to do with your MT generating threat though, I'm not even sure there's a threat counter tied to damage done at all.

It may be that instead, your characters are scored in terms of :

- squishiness

- dangerousness

- ease of access

 

Or perhaps a bit of both, seeing how enemies will sometimes retarget.

Either threat generation is a thing, or there's a weird bug that makes (Minor Threat) pop up in the combat log when my Scout pops off.

 

With regards to "make enemies hit your MT instead of your DPS", hmmm I don't know.

The mechanic doesn't seem to have changed overmuch from POE1 to be fair.

 

You'd start dps'ing a target that was latched on to your MT, they'd turn around, you'd burn through them.

 

 

As in, your MT's purpose is to buy time for you to pick off the enemies one by one.

Once you've started on one, chances are he'll retarget or plain disengage from your MT.

That's when you need to burn him down, or CC/debuff him.

Underlined the relevant part. My point is that they don't disengage, no matter how little damage my tank does. Which wouldn't be a problem, but it makes the Defender Modal useless. The defender modal upgrade being a useless investment is what I'm trying to highlight, because the AI is entirely content in just trying and failing to put a dent my Tank for half an hour.

 

With that, I think I will start a new thread with Defender modal upgrade as the topic.

 

Engagement works just fine, to reiterate my stance and stay on topic.

Edited November 26, 2017 by mostundesired

[ShakotanSolari]

Either threat generation is a thing, or there's a weird bug that makes (Minor Threat) pop up in the combat log when my Scout pops off.

 

I believe that's just the Orlan passive...   

 

[mostundesired]

Oh, I knew I had that but didn't know that's what it was called. Thanks for clarifying.

[KDubya]

Yeah that's one good, balanced build indeed; and yet it is my opinion that Soul Annihilation is sort of wasted on a character who's not focused on dealing damage (as in, high perception, high might).

 

The rationale behind this is, the raw damage from SA benefits from multipliers, including sneak attack.

 

In the game's current incarnation, I cannot imagine using SA with anything other than a rogue to be honest.

Seems like a waste of focus when it (supposedly) drains all your focus pool.

 

It might be missing out on the +50% sneak attack but it still hits like a truck. Plus sneak attacks are not automatic, they are conditional upon having some sort of affliction up.

 

 

 

My teams tend to be mainly durable damage dealing melee, no squishies allowed

 

The durable part might come from an above average Constition, deflection, armor or some combination.

 

A rogue trying to get a sneak attack off doesn't do much more damage if any than a Witch under the effect of Frenzy and possibly Blooded.

Edited November 26, 2017 by KDubya

[Boeroer]

Do engaged enemies try to turn or even disengage your tank if you flank with your scout and attack them with a reach weapon?

Edited November 26, 2017 by Boeroer

[mostundesired]

Just saw your post, Boeroer. I was actually about to head to sleep, but I just had to test it out. Similar to using a ranged weapon, enemies don't give a flying ferret about my Scout as she beats the life out of them. An Earth blight did cast a spell to damage her, but immediately went back to focusing on the Crusader afterwards.

 

Interestingly, an enemy that joined combat late somehow got hit by a disengagement attack from my Crusader without even being in engagement. It happened while it was chasing my Scout around my Crusader. Seems like a bug.

[Boeroer]

Nice testing.

[dam]

 

With regards to enemies turning around and hitting your Scout instead of your MT, aye I've got the same problem here.

Thing is, it is expected and natural behaviour.

 

If they didn't, we're roll our eyes and be like "lol real ? ok easy game, boring"

Sure. I'm saying there's no tactical recourse for dealing with this (besides CC of course). Maybe CC is good enough, but the point is that it makes the Defender modal pointless because when I make my Scout retreat, enemies don't follow.

 

 

Well, apparently this kind of behaviour is not satisfactory for you ?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am satisfied with this.

It means the MT did his job of keeping mobs in one place, far from the backline.

 

Now, if someone from the backline comes to them, well, they had it coming ^^

[mostundesired]

I started a new thread to specify my issue. It's not specifically the AI, its that spending a point to upgrade Defender stance to guardian stance is a waste because of the behaviour. We can discuss it more there if you like.