56 réponses à ce sujet

[mosspit]

I believe is that it is the best aggro talent in the game. What say you?

[Yrkoon]

mosspit wrote...

I believe is that it is the best aggro talent in the game. What say you?

LOL

Well, whether it's the best aggro talent in the game, and whether it's needed are 2  rather  different questions, yes?


It probably is the best.  (what's its competition?  Threaten?)  I typically use it in those annoying, but rare  times  when the mobs decide to run right past my tank in order to get to Morrigan or Wynne--who are in the back doing their healing/crowd control jobs.  Or  in those few instances where you're supposed to win a fight and keep  some weak  NPCs alive at the same time  (the  Redcliffe village battle, and the refugees battle  that the Chantry asks you to go on.)


Is it needed?  No not really.  Most of the time I forget to use it, and get  by just fine without it.  Some games I don't use it at all and still do  great.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 mars 2010 - 07:09 .

[sajahVarel]

Depends, taunt is the only active aggro talent (threaten needs to be active for a while to really make a difference)... so that make it the best by default (unless you're using shale, but I don't think it's the point of the topic)...



For the topic question, is taunt needed ? Depends on if you need to aggro. you need to aggro if you have a tank in your party and no other char can stand while being hit. Now if your party is CC based, a tank and an aggro talent are optionnal. If you want to play oldschool (there was no taunt in baldur's gate, torment, might & magic etc...), you can use the field to hide and use movement tactics, traps and crafted items.



The main point is, as long as the ennemy is dead and you're alive, who cares how you did it ?

[Axekix]

It's definitely the most powerful aggro generating tool in DA. With it I personally can't pull threat off of Alistair and my war is in massive armor dishing 200+ damage crits. Though it's not absolutely necessary I suppose.



My first playthrough actually I had no idea how powerful it was so I never specced it on any of my tanks and still cleared everything... with a lot of reloads.



Now I always play with it though. It makes positioning enemies/controlling the field so much easier and it's only 2 talents deep so there's no reason not to.

[kombra]

No you don't need it (I have never used, even on Nightmare). IMO, it's a rather silly Talent anyway (why should enemies ignore a Mage who flinging Inferno at them?).



Rogues have Stealth to drop aggro (pairing up a Rogue with a tank using special attacks works nicely).



Mages have Mind Blast to drop aggro and a ton of crowd control spells. (Of course, mages making mistakes die VERY quickly.)

[mosspit]

kombra wrote...

No you don't need it (I have never used, even on Nightmare). IMO, it's a rather silly Talent anyway (why should enemies ignore a Mage who flinging Inferno at them?).

Nope they should not ignore mages logically. In a similar manner what is Taunt beyond what it does? I would like to think of it as a warcry that mess up an enemy's mind in order to make them think that the tank is the most threatening.

[mosspit]

Yrkoon wrote...

Is it needed?  No not really.  Most of the time I forget to use it, and get  by just fine without it.  Some games I don't use it at all and still do  great.

Personally, taunt IS needed in some of my playthrus. For, a dps cun rogue deals ALOT of single target dmg but is very fragile. There is no way my tank can draw aggro away otherwise. Otherwise I just scrap the tank and build my team to CC. It depends.

[sajahVarel]

there is 2 way to drop aggro on a rogue, combat stealth (when it works the mobs change target, just don't attack right away) and feign death (killing the mobs is also a good aggro dropper). It does cost a lot of stamina by the way.

[mosspit]

sajahVarel wrote...

there is 2 way to drop aggro on a rogue, combat stealth (when it works the mobs change target, just don't attack right away) and feign death (killing the mobs is also a good aggro dropper). It does cost a lot of stamina by the way.

Right? What is your strategy for a party of 2 mages, 1 rogue dpser and 1 tank?

[soteria]

Unless and until the designers build in a way to heavily penalize enemies for trying to run past a warrior to attack a mage, I have to disagree that taunt is "silly."  In theory it's silly that a warrior can dodge attacks from 5 enemies as easily as he can one, too, but I've yet to see a game mechanism that penalizes you for having to fend off attacks from multiple enemies at once...

Modifié par soteria, 06 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[beancounter501]

Well, I think taunt is kind of silly. I like how they did it in NWN with the free attacks of opportunity for trying to run past a warrior.



And you are penalized for fighting multiple enemies - they get flanking attack bonus. But I agree it is silly a warrior could dodge 5 enemies at once. In reality the warrior would be grappled and killed.



Taunt is not necessary, but it is the best aggro by far.

[mosspit]

beancounter501 wrote...
And you are penalized for fighting multiple enemies - they get flanking attack bonus. But I agree it is silly a warrior could dodge 5 enemies at once. In reality the warrior would be grappled and killed.

Taunt is not necessary, but it is the best aggro by far.

Wait flanking bonus? Do you mean that higher numbers automatically gives some kind of atk bonus or higher numbers cause enemies to bunch up and possibly atk from the rear?

[beancounter501]

Higher numbers cause enemies to bunch up and attack from the rear.

[sajahVarel]

Right? What is your strategy for a party of 2 mages, 1 rogue dpser and 1 tank?

Well, I'm not much of a tactician (not that I can't, just that I don't care), mostly my chars are builded for roleplay purpose so I usually don't play the common tactics dps / tank etc... (unless it is for roleplay), I prefer to use the field and go agressive, I mean while bother and wait for them to hit your tank and not anyone else, you have 2 mages, go CC stop everyone and kill them one by one, and don't be afraid to use traps, potions or poisons in battle (I made a playthrough mainly trapping under the enemy feet in battle, when my guy was aggroed I just had to pass through one, well 3 or 4 actually, of my traps and kill him while he was knocked).

I mean the only thing that matters in a battle is that you win, not that you use a particular skill or formation. How you do it, well nobody cares...

[kombra]

mosspit wrote...
Wait flanking bonus? Do you mean that higher numbers automatically gives some kind of atk bonus or higher numbers cause enemies to bunch up and possibly atk from the rear?

Attackers behind your back get an attack bonus of up to 20 (rogue with combat movement). There is no other attack bonus for ganging up on a single guy.

[Random70]

mosspit wrote...

I believe is that it is the best aggro talent in the game. What say you?

What, you mean I can't just post random crap on these boards? I actually have to defend a position?

All right, you asked for it. I mentioned in that other thread that I object to 'aggro' talents (especially Taunt) for philosophical and efficiency reasons. I'll expand on both here...

I) Philosophical
Prior to DA:O my most recent foray into the RPG realm was with BG2. Sometime between then and now this whole concept of 'aggro'  with associated neat stuff like 'Taunt' and 'Holding Threat' and 'Tank' and 'Healbot' has materialized. I can honestly say that I am somewhat less than totally overwhelmed with this development. To be perfectly candid, I think it sucks.
Ever since the ancient, old days (the 80's) people have been dying for more cpu cycles so their games would have features like better graphics, better physics modeling and most importantly, smarter AI. The first two have progressed quite nicely, while the last, unfortunately has stagnated at best and has, worst case, taken a big step backward. And, also unfortunately, most people seem to be more than willing to accept an AI that behaves in such a foolish manner. A couple quick examples...

You've nearly beaten down that Alpha when he suddenly says "That's it, I'm 'disengaging'". What are you going to do now?
 A) Say "Damn, I almost had him" and go attack something else or
  Say "#@&% you" and take his head off
I'm going to go way out on limb here and suggest that most players are going to take 'B'...while at the same time holding the expectation that the AI select option 'A'. What's up with that?

Another? You're travelling cross country when you get jumped by an Emissary and a half dozen hurlocks. You come to the decision (correctly) that you need to take out that Emissary before he does something evil to you and your buddies so you send your melee guys to kill him. After you close half the distance, some hurlock off to the side throws a deadly....insult. What are you gonna do now?
 A) Continue on to the Emissary because he's going to demolish you or
  Redirect everybody to the hurlock because he 'taunted'
What? Seriously?!? Why is 'B' even an option? Would you ever do something that stupid? Then why in the hell would you expect the AI to do something that dumb?

II) Effiecency
Ok, enough of the conceptual BS - gameplay is where it's at, right? So, question: When rendered down to it's most basic level, what's the objective of combat? Take all of the enemies hitpoints away from him before he takes yours, yes? So by that reasoning, taking way the enemies hitpoints or 'killing stuff' should be of primary importance when building your characters. However, you may rightly point out that lying dead on the floor is going to be somewhat detrimental to 'killing stuff' so 'not dying' should also be near the top of your priority list. Actually, that's the entire list. Fortunately, by maximizing 'killing stuff' you, for the most part, take care of 'not dying' seeing as you will not be taking damage when all your enemies are dead.

Problems begin to arise when you start focusing too heavily on 'not dying'. You worry about your mage getting beat up, so you build a 'tank' (most likely S/S) who can 'hold threat' by 'taunting'. This character may be good at 'not dying' but is not as effective at 'killing stuff' so more enemies are running around for a longer period of time, thus your team is taking more damage. To counter this, your mage then turns into a 'healbot', taking her away from her primary responsibility which is, you guessed it, 'killing stuff'. And now you've lost the initiative....

So how do you win without Taunt?

1) Don't use 'Tanks'
S/S warriors are frickin' terrible on offense. Build a warrior that can actually kill stuff.
2) Use your mage properly
Quit screwing around with 'buffing' and 'healing' and go on offense. Your mage can shut down half (or more!) of the battlefield in seconds. Do so, then start unloading damage. And why do so many people worry about protecting their mage? There's about a thousand threads on this forum with the basic message of "OMG mages R sooo OP!" and yet for some reason they need a dedicated 'tank' to protect them? You can solo NM with a mage without too much difficulty. Now imagine soloing a mage with three controllable, death-dealing meatshields out front...
3) Use your talents
Now that your mage has locked down half the battlefield, have your melee guys use their Knockdown/Stun/Crit abilities. Your enemies can't hurt you if they're lying on the floor unconcious. And this isn't a late game tactic, either. Some of the best talents in the game are available at Tier 1
4) Direct traffic from the back
Your front liners can, for the most part, get by just fine using a handful of basic tactics. On the other hand there are simply too many talents and too many variables for your mage to ever do this efficiently.
5) Build better characters
This starts with attribute allocation. Never invest in CON. For anybody. Ever. Stop putting DEX on your 2H. Nobody but mages should ever get MAG. Nobody but mages and 2H should ever get WIL and even these two have been over-allocated if spend more than ~5 points. I hear people scream "Min-Max!" I'll respond by saying that 'Well Rounded' is a euphemism for 'Mastered the art of sucking at everything, equally'
This also means going with builds that makes sense. Yeah, I'm looking at you cunning rogue. The DPS King. Rogues are inherently just this side of mages on the squishiness scale due to low HP and AC. So why compund that further by using a build that leaves them with, lets be kind here, questionable ATT and DEF capabilities? These guys need major babysitting. By 'babysitting' I mean a 'tank' using 'taunt' and your mage 'buffing' and 'healing'. See points 1 and 2 above
6) Other stuff
You can completely destroy your enemies using 1-5 above and yet you still have things like traps, bombs, poisons and LoS available in your toolbox.

How do you win without Taunt?
How can you not win without Taunt?

[soteria]

I) Philosophical...

Philosophically, I disagree with complaining about taunt on realism grounds unless you also complain about other unrealistic game mechanisms, like, say, hitpoints, no bonuses for ganging up on someone, inability to climb over minor obstacles, never dying unless the whole party goes down, a shared bag of holding inventory, carrying around weightless gold, being able to miss a bowshot from point-blank range from the rear, becoming unflankable, becoming unhittable...



Where do you draw the line on where a unrealistic game mechanism is acceptable or not? I find a lot of times the line is drawn on the side of "I don't like this, and it's unrealistic." If someone cites lack of realism for a reason for disliking any game mechanic, my first question is whether or not other unrealistic mechanism are acceptable. If they are, then realism vs unrealism isn't really significant, is it?

Efficiency

Sure, you'll kill stuff faster if you sub something else in for the S&S tank--maybe. Having a tank makes it much easier for everyone else to get into flanking positions, for a mage to use cone attacks, or for a rogue to use grenades. That has been my experience, at least. I don't really use a tank until level 10 or so, after which point the game becomes much easier. I use a tank in pretty much all of my videos--I'm genuinely curious, can you point out how I'm losing the initiative?

So how do you win without Taunt?

Points 1-5 are sound advice to anyone, playing a tank or not. Well, except for the part about cunning rogues, which admittedly do need a tank to work really well. I have always argued that a good part of the reason to build rogues with cunning rather than dex is for utility, though, and it also takes a lot of cunning to stealth in front of elite bosses. Additionally, objectively speaking a cunning rogue *will* do higher damage in the sort of situation a tank can provide.

[kombra]

soteria wrote...
I have always argued that a good part of the reason to build rogues with cunning rather than dex is for utility, though, and it also takes a lot of cunning to stealth in front of elite bosses.

If Stealth is the reason, you have always argued wrong.

There is no cunning at all involved in Stealth (except the small prereq for the talents). With level 4 Stealth, you can enter stealth against anyone except Elite Bosses. You can enter Stealth outside the perception range of the Elite Boss and remain undetected when you enter it. (Of course, there is a long list of things that cause you losing Stealth.)

[soteria]

If Stealth is the reason, you have always argued wrong.

There is no cunning at all involved in Stealth (except the small prereq for the talents). With level 4 Stealth, you can enter stealth against anyone except Elite Bosses. You can enter Stealth outside the perception range of the Elite Boss and remain undetected when you enter it. (Of course, there is a long list of things that cause you losing Stealth.)

A reason is not the reason, and even if that one point is wrong, it doesn't negate the other benefits of cunning--so no, I wouldn't say I've always argued wrong.

Modifié par soteria, 06 mars 2010 - 08:44 .

[beancounter501]

Good poins to Random70 and to Soteria for the unrealistic gameplay. But a lot of things you listed are to remove the annoyances for the player. Weightless gold, one bag inventory, whole party wipes are not realistic - but I am glad they are there. I would like to see the unhittable and unflankable removed. There needs to be some roll that no matter what you're defense you still get hit. Like rolling a twenty was always a hit and rolling a 1 was always a miss in D&D.



But taunt is just - dumb. But like you said it is very effective, no arguing with that.

[Yrkoon]

Random70 wrote...

mosspit wrote...

I believe is that it is the best aggro talent in the game. What say you?

What, you mean I can't just post random crap on these boards? I actually have to defend a position?

All right, you asked for it. I mentioned in that other thread that I object to 'aggro' talents (especially Taunt) for philosophical and efficiency reasons. I'll expand on both here...

I) Philosophical
Prior to DA:O my most recent foray into the RPG realm was with BG2. Sometime between then and now this whole concept of 'aggro'  with associated neat stuff like 'Taunt' and 'Holding Threat' and 'Tank' and 'Healbot' has materialized. I can honestly say that I am somewhat less than totally overwhelmed with this development. To be perfectly candid, I think it sucks.
Ever since the ancient, old days (the 80's) people have been dying for more cpu cycles so their games would have features like better graphics, better physics modeling and most importantly, smarter AI. The first two have progressed quite nicely, while the last, unfortunately has stagnated at best and has, worst case, taken a big step backward. And, also unfortunately, most people seem to be more than willing to accept an AI that behaves in such a foolish manner. A couple quick examples...

You've nearly beaten down that Alpha when he suddenly says "That's it, I'm 'disengaging'". What are you going to do now?
 A) Say "Damn, I almost had him" and go attack something else or
  Say "#@&% you" and take his head off
I'm going to go way out on limb here and suggest that most players are going to take 'B'...while at the same time holding the expectation that the AI select option 'A'. What's up with that?

Another? You're travelling cross country when you get jumped by an Emissary and a half dozen hurlocks. You come to the decision (correctly) that you need to take out that Emissary before he does something evil to you and your buddies so you send your melee guys to kill him. After you close half the distance, some hurlock off to the side throws a deadly....insult. What are you gonna do now?
 A) Continue on to the Emissary because he's going to demolish you or
  Redirect everybody to the hurlock because he 'taunted'
What? Seriously?!? Why is 'B' even an option? Would you ever do something that stupid? Then why in the hell would you expect the AI to do something that dumb?

II) Effiecency
Ok, enough of the conceptual BS - gameplay is where it's at, right? So, question: When rendered down to it's most basic level, what's the objective of combat? Take all of the enemies hitpoints away from him before he takes yours, yes? So by that reasoning, taking way the enemies hitpoints or 'killing stuff' should be of primary importance when building your characters. However, you may rightly point out that lying dead on the floor is going to be somewhat detrimental to 'killing stuff' so 'not dying' should also be near the top of your priority list. Actually, that's the entire list. Fortunately, by maximizing 'killing stuff' you, for the most part, take care of 'not dying' seeing as you will not be taking damage when all your enemies are dead.

Problems begin to arise when you start focusing too heavily on 'not dying'. You worry about your mage getting beat up, so you build a 'tank' (most likely S/S) who can 'hold threat' by 'taunting'. This character may be good at 'not dying' but is not as effective at 'killing stuff' so more enemies are running around for a longer period of time, thus your team is taking more damage. To counter this, your mage then turns into a 'healbot', taking her away from her primary responsibility which is, you guessed it, 'killing stuff'. And now you've lost the initiative....

So how do you win without Taunt?

1) Don't use 'Tanks'
S/S warriors are frickin' terrible on offense. Build a warrior that can actually kill stuff.
2) Use your mage properly
Quit screwing around with 'buffing' and 'healing' and go on offense. Your mage can shut down half (or more!) of the battlefield in seconds. Do so, then start unloading damage. And why do so many people worry about protecting their mage? There's about a thousand threads on this forum with the basic message of "OMG mages R sooo OP!" and yet for some reason they need a dedicated 'tank' to protect them? You can solo NM with a mage without too much difficulty. Now imagine soloing a mage with three controllable, death-dealing meatshields out front...
3) Use your talents
Now that your mage has locked down half the battlefield, have your melee guys use their Knockdown/Stun/Crit abilities. Your enemies can't hurt you if they're lying on the floor unconcious. And this isn't a late game tactic, either. Some of the best talents in the game are available at Tier 1
4) Direct traffic from the back
Your front liners can, for the most part, get by just fine using a handful of basic tactics. On the other hand there are simply too many talents and too many variables for your mage to ever do this efficiently.
5) Build better characters
This starts with attribute allocation. Never invest in CON. For anybody. Ever. Stop putting DEX on your 2H. Nobody but mages should ever get MAG. Nobody but mages and 2H should ever get WIL and even these two have been over-allocated if spend more than ~5 points. I hear people scream "Min-Max!" I'll respond by saying that 'Well Rounded' is a euphemism for 'Mastered the art of sucking at everything, equally'
This also means going with builds that makes sense. Yeah, I'm looking at you cunning rogue. The DPS King. Rogues are inherently just this side of mages on the squishiness scale due to low HP and AC. So why compund that further by using a build that leaves them with, lets be kind here, questionable ATT and DEF capabilities? These guys need major babysitting. By 'babysitting' I mean a 'tank' using 'taunt' and your mage 'buffing' and 'healing'. See points 1 and 2 above
6) Other stuff
You can completely destroy your enemies using 1-5 above and yet you still have things like traps, bombs, poisons and LoS available in your toolbox.

How do you win without Taunt?
How can you not win without Taunt?

This is a terrific post.  Thank you.

I will note, that in actual pen and paper  RPGs  (most notably, D&D),  Creatures with animal intelligence or lower  (like  skeletons, zombies and golems) are  going to be too DUMB to be effected by any sort of  verbal taunt when  their own survival/hunger  is at stake.

But  in DA:O  you can taunt a common wolf, and he will  stop trying to EAT your mage in order to go after your big badass warrior.    Go figure.    Perhaps the AI in computer games is  *too* smart sometimes?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 mars 2010 - 09:48 .

[hexaligned]

soteria wrote...

Unless and until the designers build in a way to heavily penalize enemies for trying to run past a warrior to attack a mage, I have to disagree that taunt is "silly."  In theory it's silly that a warrior can dodge attacks from 5 enemies as easily as he can one, too, but I've yet to see a game mechanism that penalizes you for having to fend off attacks from multiple enemies at once...

Offtopic, but Drakensang had a mechanic like that.  You had an avoidance score, and each attacker had an attack score, get more than two or three on a single char, and they aren't dodging or blocking crap.  If at least memory serves, been awhile since I played that game.

I have alot more fun in the game not using taunt, it randomizes things, it also makes you build your chars to be more balanced.  I got bored pretty quick with the old "run warrion in, taunt, blow stuff up" formula.  

[soteria]

Offtopic, but Drakensang had a mechanic like that. You had an avoidance score, and each attacker had an attack score, get more than two or three on a single char, and they aren't dodging or blocking crap. If at least memory serves, been awhile since I played that game.



I have alot more fun in the game not using taunt, it randomizes things, it also makes you build your chars to be more balanced. I got bored pretty quick with the old "run warrion in, taunt, blow stuff up" formula.

Interesting... I wish more games had mechanics like that. As for better ways to control the battlefield, I understand Warhammer Online tried to make it hard to just run by a warrior, making battle lines more important. Of course that was more geared for PvP, and I don't know how well they implemented it, but I liked the idea.



I agree that "run in and taunt" gets boring, but I think that's partially just because it works so well that it takes the challenge out of a lot of fights.

[kombra]

relhart wrote...
Offtopic, but Drakensang had a mechanic like that.  You had an avoidance score, and each attacker had an attack score, get more than two or three on a single char, and they aren't dodging or blocking crap.

You could only block one attack per round, two if you had a shield.

[Random70]

soteria wrote...
Philosophically, I disagree with complaining about taunt on realism grounds unless you also complain about other unrealistic game mechanisms, like, say, hitpoints, no bonuses for ganging up on someone, inability to climb over minor obstacles, never dying unless the whole party goes down, a shared bag of holding inventory, carrying around weightless gold, being able to miss a bowshot from point-blank range from the rear, becoming unflankable, becoming unhittable...

Where do you draw the line on where a unrealistic game mechanism is acceptable or not? I find a lot of times the line is drawn on the side of "I don't like this, and it's unrealistic." If someone cites lack of realism for a reason for disliking any game mechanic, my first question is whether or not other unrealistic mechanism are acceptable. If they are, then realism vs unrealism isn't really significant, is it?

Some of these examples are due to engine limitations, some for ease of use and some are just...curious. But Taunt, IMO, goes way beyond any of them. Why would the developers include (and game buyers demand?) a 'feature' that makes an already hmm, informationally challenged AI behave even more stupidly?

For the fun of it, I'll turn it back on you. Can you make a case for including a talent which essentially says "Hey, Bad Guys! Y'all attack this here heavily armored warrior while the other three of us cut you down with impunity"?

soteria wrote...
Sure, you'll kill stuff faster if you sub something else in for the S&S tank--maybe. Having a tank makes it much easier for everyone else to get into flanking positions, for a mage to use cone attacks, or for a rogue to use grenades. That has been my experience, at least. I don't really use a tank until level 10 or so, after which point the game becomes much easier. I use a tank in pretty much all of my videos--I'm genuinely curious, can you point out how I'm losing the initiative?

The idea behind the initiative bit is that, generally speaking, by 'tanking' and 'healing' you've turned that 10 on 4 encounter into a 10 on 2 because two of your people are no longer doing what they should: Killing Stuff. That said, a tactically superior individual can get away with just about any strat in this game.

soteria wrote...
Points 1-5 are sound advice to anyone, playing a tank or not. Well, except for the part about cunning rogues, which admittedly do need a tank to work really well. I have always argued that a good part of the reason to build rogues with cunning rather than dex is for utility, though, and it also takes a lot of cunning to stealth in front of elite bosses. Additionally, objectively speaking a cunning rogue *will* do higher damage in the sort of situation a tank can provide.

As a card carrying member of the DEX Rogue society, I couldn't resist taking a shot at the cunning guys. I could have just as easily picked on someone else, like Templars...or Bloodmages...or melee Arcane Warriors