Eternity Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Pre-Release Thread [BETA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Lacrymas]

Frankly I don't remember any actual debate around this that didn't include, at some point, a it wasn't there argument.

You can't prevent mobs from rushing your backline and engaging your squishies, at least in the beginning. That's it. I don't know if they updated the AI to do that in PoE, but in Tranny the mobs did exactly that and slaughtered your mage. It obviously prevents easy kiting, but engagement is broken on CC, so whatever. In BG1 with SCS it's practically mandatory to kite Sarevok at some point, my last playthrough was with an evil party (i.e. overpowered one) and an insanely good fighter/druid tank who had like -15 AC with every easily acquired buff (I know you can go lower with some classes) and could facetank Sarevok, but when the buffs ran out (the fight is extremely long) I had to use Edwin with Boots of Speed to kite him. I don't know what I would've done if my charname couldn't facetank him, probably kite him to infinity, there simply isn't another option in that case. If Sarevok didn't glue himself to charname then kiting was the only option again.

 

[CptMace]

I don't question that you can make kiting necessary with SCS. I question the idea that it's a good gameplay mechanic.
Then again, I didn't say engagement worked fine or was a good gameplay mechanic either. I said the controversy it caused was fueled mostly by nostalgia, and not by actual critical analysis.

I mean, we were already talking about the engagement mechanic during the beta, with no knowledge of how the game, once released, would be filled with trash encounters over and over again. With or without engagement, you still end up with shit combat.
And yet again both situations have ups and downs. A newbie won't understand jackshit to how engagement works and get aoo'd all the time. But a newbie on IE games would be just as surprised as how enemies erratically changed their targets after X seconds of kiting unsuccessfully.
What actually matters is what you do with it. We all agree nothing significantly good was built upon the engagement system. I remember a few suboptimal skills related to it, and the presence of phantoms who could teleport behind the lines at the beginning. Beside that, it really seemed like a useless mechanic. But then again, that's not what the main grief was back then. I mean, we didn't know anything about the game's content during beta.

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't question that you can make kiting necessary with SCS. I question the idea that it's a good gameplay mechanic.

It's a problem of the AI, it's not necessarily an intentional gameplay mechanic. Even if it was you can't automate the process in the IE games, there is no "patrol here" function (afaik lol), so you still have to command the unit who is kiting. It makes a party without tanks viable imo.

 

[Parabalus]

You can't prevent mobs from rushing your backline and engaging your squishies, at least in the beginning. That's it. I don't know if they updated the AI to do that in PoE, but in Tranny the mobs did exactly that and slaughtered your mage. It obviously prevents easy kiting, but engagement is broken on CC, so whatever. In BG1 with SCS it's practically mandatory to kite Sarevok at some point, my last playthrough was with an evil party (i.e. overpowered one) and an insanely good fighter/druid tank who had like -15 AC with every easily acquired buff (I know you can go lower with some classes) and could facetank Sarevok, but when the buffs ran out (the fight is extremely long) I had to use Edwin with Boots of Speed to kite him. I don't know what I would've done if my charname couldn't facetank him, probably kite him to infinity, there simply isn't another option in that case. If Sarevok didn't glue himself to charname then kiting was the only option again.

Mobs rushing your mage is a sign of good design. Only problem with PoE engagement is that mobs don't ignore it nearly enough or have enough abilities which break it. A few rogues with invis or escape directly on your backline etc. There is a lot of that in WM but it should have also been sprinkled throughout the game.

 

[CptMace]

Iirc, you could shift click in order to simulate a patrol mechanic though. Just shift click around the room and, done, you're kiting. With the pause system, it's even easier.
Might be wrong though, I should give IWD another go one of these days.

 

[Lacrymas]

Mobs rushing your mage is a sign of good design.

Sure, but you can't prevent it, at least in the beginning, that's the problem. There are very dangerous backstabbers in SCS who gulp invis pots and backstab your squishiest char, but you can use purge invisibility (or kiting lol) to prevent it. Otherwise, yeah, engagement in PoE is there kinda for its own sake, you can still kite mobs around, very few abilities interact with it.

Iirc, you could shift click in order to simulate a patrol mechanic though. Just shift click around the room and, done, you're kiting.

Just tested it, you are right.

 

[Infinitron]

There was a lot of misdirection going around re: engagement during PoE's's development. Sensuki in particular made a big deal about how it interfered with his preferred playstyle of kiting around etc, when that was never the point of the mechanic. The point of engagement was to allow characters to block chokepoints more effectively, full stop, and the analysis of it should have revolved around that.

I think Obsidian also lost sight of the mechanic's original purpose, but that might be because they had so many technical problems with it and with pathfinding in general that they didn't want to fuck around with it anymore.

 

[Lacrymas]

Did someone have a problem with blocking chokepoints in the IE games? I never thought it was an issue.

 

[CptMace]

Now I genuinely feel sorry to have rebooted a sterile debate.

 

[Lacrymas]

Also, how does it help block chokepoints when the vast majority of classes can only engage 1 enemy at a time?

 

[Infinitron]

Now I genuinely feel sorry to have rebooted a sterile debate.

Eh, it's okay.

I think what happened is that while Josh Sawyer originally pitched engagement as an essentially logistical solution for the unreliability of chokepoint defense in the IE games, he was really more attracted all along to the idea of engagement as a proper character ability for "projecting threat over a space". If that's now the purpose of engagement, it makes more sense for it to be the exclusive purview of the Fighter class, which is what PoE2 is doing.

 

[prodigydancer]

Remember the butthurt caused by the engagement system ? Yeah this sounds really dumb now that we played through the game and know what its actual flaws are.

Just because I rarely post about it these days (because what's the point? obviously Sawyer thinks it's great so it's here to stay), doesn't mean my opinion about the engagement system has changed. It's probably the only thing I really dislike about PoE.

 

[Lacrymas]

Ah, right, only fighters can engage in PoE2, which makes them the bast tanks .......again.

 

[CptMace]

Just because I rarely post about it these days (because what's the point? obviously Sawyer thinks it's great so it's here to stay), doesn't mean my opinion about the engagement system has changed. It's probably the only thing I really dislike about PoE.

Nobody said people's opinion changed. I said, and thank you for confirming it, that there's actually no point discussing engagement when the game features so much trash filler encounters and poorly written dialogs.

Now I actually didn't think there were people who'd be more annoyed by the engagement, which is rather trivial in reality, than by the problems mentioned above (or itemization of the base game, character progression and its tons of boring skills, unlimited stash access and hoarding which was the thing we were talking about btw etc etc...)

But then again, engagement, no engagement... at the end of the day you'll have to fight your 20th adra animat mate.

 

[prodigydancer]

No, I don't think that PoE combat is bad. Without the engagement system (and with better pathfinding, of course) it would be pretty much perfect.

 

[Parabalus]

Ah, right, only fighters can engage in PoE2, which makes them the bast tanks .......again.

Dislike if that's the case, every melee class should have at least one engagement slot so they can't be brainlessly kited.

No, I don't think that PoE combat is bad. Without the engagement system (and with better pathfinding, of course) it would be pretty much perfect.

There has to be some form of melee stickiness, I much prefer engagement rather then giving everyone ridic movespeed (haste + improved haste) so they can attack normally.

 

[Lacrymas]

Engagement never really bothered me because it was just like Attacks of Opportunity from 3E, but what did bother me was the extremely neutered engagement limit and how that made fighters the best tanks. I'm sure Prime Junta will disagree, speaking of which, PM me that paladin tank build you were talking about.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm sure Prime Junta will disagree, speaking of which, PM me that paladin tank build you were talking about.

Paladin tank build? I don't recall mentioning one of those, and as it's the most obvious way to build a paladin I don't know if you need help with it.

I think I may have mentioned this one though: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83620-class-build-darcozzi-commendatore/

It is a variant of a tankier build: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83526-the-darcozzi-forward-observer-could-use-some-input/

 

[Lacrymas]

Paladin tank build? I don't recall mentioning one of those, and as it's the most obvious way to build a paladin I don't know if you need help with it.

I think I may have mentioned this one though: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83620-class-build-darcozzi-commendatore/

It is a variant of a tankier build: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83526-the-darcozzi-forward-observer-could-use-some-input/

We were talking in another thread about how I tried to make a paladin tank, but fighters outshine them in so many different ways in the tanking department that I failed to do it, and you (or maybe someone else who mentioned you) said that you created a very good one which rivals fighters. I'm 100% positive that it was said (no matter who said it) that you created a paladin tank. Are one of those the one we were talking about?

EDIT: Found it, turns out it's in this thread -

I kind of like it that way. The "you can be anything you want to be" approach in PoE was putting me off.

Actually, PoE1 doesn't "allow" anyone else to be a tank, that's why I said it's "yet again". I tried to make a paladin tank, didn't work out, Eder was still better simply because he's a fighter.

Well, there is that Veteran's Recovery talent that helps out with tanking. Besides that, I've read several build guides that describe how to make a good Paladin tank, and I think Prime Junta talked about how to make a Paladin that's a better tank than a Fighter.

 

[Prime Junta]

We were talking in another thread about how I tried to make a paladin tank, but fighters outshine them in so many different ways in the tanking department that I failed to do it, and you (or maybe someone else who mentioned you) said that you created a very good one which rivals fighters. I'm 100% positive that it was said (no matter who said it) that you created a paladin tank. Are one of those the one we were talking about?

Oh, that. The key to tanking as a paladin is following the ethos and Deep Faith. Then just pick tanky stats, abilities, and talents. With Deep Faith + the ethos, you'll get higher defences than anyone else. Might want to wear a trollhide belt for endurance regen if you want to.

 

[Quillon]

A newbie won't understand jackshit to how engagement works and get aoo'd all the time. But a newbie on IE games would be just as surprised as how enemies erratically changed their targets after X seconds of kiting unsuccessfully.

Yet I haven't seen any complaints from newbies, the ones who complained about engagement were also backing their arguments with how dat old games didn't have it.

Ah, right, only fighters can engage in PoE2, which makes them the bast tanks .......again.

I think they said weapon types will have engagement, not fighters, tho I wouldn't be surprised if fighters will have an advantage like +1 engagement or something.

 

[Lacrymas]

I think they said weapon types will have engagement, not fighters, tho I wouldn't be surprised if fighters will have an advantage like +1 engagement or something.

Not currently, but Engagement is a much less common mechanic in Deadfire. Now only certain monsters, fighters, and characters with Engagement-specific weapons will Engage. In any case, it's difficult to implement a "slight re-positioning" mechanic without it being exploitable through micro or requiring a special interface. We'll have to see if it continues being an issue with our revised mechanics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/projecteternity/comments/5rnxw0/got_any_questions_for_obsidian/ddaz31c/

I guess you were right about the weapon thing, but I'm pretty sure fighters will be able to engage more targets, so if you want a tank as good as a fighter you better be ready to multiclass.

 

[Prime Junta]

---> tangent

IMO pure 100% tanks are kind of useless in Pillars in its current state. The enemy will simply ignore and bypass them, even if they manage to engage for a bit -- and the disengagement attacks won't hurt much because pure tanks will have shit damage.

I especially dig paladins in the tank role, however, because a lot of their abilities mesh really well with tanking: all of the Auras, most of the Exhortations, and stuff like that talent that gives the nearest companion +10 ACC on the enemy you're attacking. You can completely dump DEX and PER and half-dump MIG, pump RES and INT and half-pump CON, and you'll be extremely hard to squash while being able to do a lot of stuff to support the party. I dunno, maybe a 100% tanky fighter will be even better at tanking (at least until someone attacks some other defence than DEFL), but they'll be fairly useless otherwise.

Fighters work best IMO when you're building them for damage with only some off-tank abilities. You can still tank in a pinch by swapping weapon sets, while having consistently high damage output otherwise.

 

[Parabalus]

---> tangent

IMO pure 100% tanks are kind of useless in Pillars in its current state. The enemy will simply ignore and bypass them, even if they manage to engage for a bit -- and the disengagement attacks won't hurt much because pure tanks will have shit damage.

I especially dig paladins in the tank role, however, because a lot of their abilities mesh really well with tanking: all of the Auras, most of the Exhortations, and stuff like that talent that gives the nearest companion +10 ACC on the enemy you're attacking. You can completely dump DEX and PER and half-dump MIG, pump RES and INT and half-pump CON, and you'll be extremely hard to squash while being able to do a lot of stuff to support the party. I dunno, maybe a 100% tanky fighter will be even better at tanking (at least until someone attacks some other defence than DEFL), but they'll be fairly useless otherwise.

Fighters work best IMO when you're building them for damage with only some off-tank abilities. You can still tank in a pinch by swapping weapon sets, while having consistently high damage output otherwise.

This is good imo, pure tanks were also useless in IE games. "Tanks" is a MMO term which doesn't really have any place in this type of RPG.

Hopefully Deadfire AI is better at ignoring engagement from no-damage chars.

 

[Lacrymas]

It depends on what you mean by "pure tanks being useless in the IE games". They funnel AoE fodder to be slaughtered and can facetank bosses. It's also not really possible to create a "pure tank", i.e. all mitigation no damage, because you need high physical attributes (high con for hp, high str to use the heaviest armors, high dex for -AC) which immediately make you be able to hit and hit hard. My tank fighter/druid I'm currently running through the BGs has the highest kill % in the party, I don't rest after every fight, however, so that's why Edwin isn't the highest.