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"?
Let me throw a disclaimer in here: I think taunt is absurdly overpowered as it is. What I am defending is the aggro system, not the ability itself as it appears in Dragon Age.
Ultimately, I think taunt and the whole aggro system *is* due to engine limitations. Realistically, as I said, you shouldn't be able to defend against an infinite number of attacks, enemies shouldn't be able to turn their backs on you or run by you without getting destroyed, and every auto-attack (and defense!) should wear you out. As far as I know, designers haven't figured out a way to implement both of those features effectively in a video game, and if they did, I imagine it would take a considerable amount of processing power. I don't think we're there yet.
If a complex and realistic system for combat is out of the question, a simpler system had to be implemented. The basic idea is of course that the AI will prioritize their targets based on who is the greatest threat or aggressor. I think NWN and maybe BG actually just did this from round to round simply based on who dealt the most damage in the previous round. Since then games have gotten better at it, adding attacks that are more or less threatening, causing healing to have an effect, modifying the threat based on range, and adding abilities such as taunt.
In theory, the aggro system is actually intended to provide a more intelligent AI, and in some cases, it works.
To compare DA:O to another system, World of Warcraft has a pretty elaborate setup. Damage, healing, and a number of specials all generate threat, modified by talents and range. The (single-target) taunt ability forces an enemy to attack you for two seconds and gives you threat equal to 90% of whoever they were attacking before. Also, it has challenging shout which forces everyone to attack the caster for 6 seconds, at which point they go back to whatever they were doing. Otherwise, a tank has to be switching targets and using aoe abilities to keep everyone attacking him.
DA:O has a somewhat similar system on the surface, even adding an effect for armor. Unfortunately, S&S warriors have no aoe attacks and no real good way to do a quick burst of damage like mighty blow or dw sweep. Instead, they just gave them taunt, a static, non-scaling ability that to me seems out of place with the rest of the aggro system.
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.
I lol'd.
Seriously though, if anyone thinks I'm doing something wrong, I'm all for hearing it, cause I'm sure I could be doing some things better. RE: 10 vs 2 - In that situation, I'd say the problem isn't taking a tank so much as taking a tank that is so weak that he needs a dedicated healer to survive... come to think of it, that might have been the way a number of us played the first time. Just not since then.
Retour en haut
Say "#@&% you" and take his head off
