Your Gripes With CoC2
- Thread starter Savin
- Start date
Player mode does the same so your suggesting one in such a situation should only play in manual mode?
NPCs making silly or unwanted choices in games have long been a thing and certainly aren't better here. Player and Auto are no different to me.
Yes, if your Companions are behaving in an unwanted manner you should just tell them what to do.
One should expect at least for companion builds to be more compatible in other modes aswell, as to 'always' having to take control so Azyrran in Lightbearer Set to prevent it from dying because of an perk that doesn't make much sense being present in an healer set is an bit in how can i put it 'an complicated design' for the character set to be in and for the player playing with it, wich could be easily solved.... .
People arguing with something that is an bit bad with an suck it up advice and walk the hard road, while in other times they comlpain about not liking playing in auto mode bcause it takes a lot of time and other complains.
when something is clearly broken and one seeks to deny or just avoid whit no solution it just demostrates to themselfs their capacity of vision an analysis towards an problem, While once more it is really easy to solve sadly... .
People arguing with something that is an bit bad with an suck it up advice and walk the hard road, while in other times they comlpain about not liking playing in auto mode bcause it takes a lot of time and other complains.
when something is clearly broken and one seeks to deny or just avoid whit no solution it just demostrates to themselfs their capacity of vision an analysis towards an problem, While once more it is really easy to solve sadly... .
Except they are compatible with other modes, you just need to pick up the slack from their terrible choices. You're focusing on azyrran having a perk that increases her threat gen rather than focusing on the fact that azyrran is using argent smite on the first turn, which is both an attack and a party-wide heal which would raise her threat a lot even without the perk, so what's your tank doing to mitigate this as you're so determined to use auto mode?
I just set up a barely thought about tank build same team as you; kiyoko and azyrran, switched kiyoko's set to kanso instead of kami-no-michi, fought corrupted minotaurs, won easily in auto mode
Last edited:
Look man. If combat in an RPG is complicated enough that the player has to actually think in order to win, then AI-controlled companions will inevitably make bad decisions when you leave them to their own devices. It's kind of inevitable unless you make said companions super overpowered to compensate for their lack of brain.
Me personally, I tested it out and I'm not having any trouble keeping aggro off of her with a high Toughness Warrior and an At-Will that generates aggro (Frostwarden). The problem may be your build. Unless you're doing a stupid amount of damage, you need at least taunt in your tank build to stop allies from ripping it off you.
This is the last post i'l write about the above mentioned so to adress what i was trying to convey as it seems people have not comprehended that still.
It is not about companions doing bad choises as they do alot of them (and i play in dark mode thus the consequences also are severer but that is also acceptable) and it is ok for them to do so thus playing in player and auto mode that is accepted.
What is probably something that would not fit in the previous commentaries would be that something that probably should not be more so in an Healer's build that is something that gives it an initial high threat with it having an low survivability (the extra HP won't help much in surviving what can happen) against the possibilities of what the previous can lead to happening.
Wich than can be followed up in by having two abilities (Floral Grace and Banishing Light) wich could put Azyrran in the highest threat in your group for the starting turn (wich is what all this is about, not the following turns of the battle), thus giving this step an higher probability than 50% chance to happen in the overall equation (not counting on the Ultimate and an lesser chance to use it's At-Will) for it to happen.
Than comes your current Tank build wich in an game of several possible way's of variety of builds you cannot say it is an Tank end of discussion.
Although one can come into an agreement it should probably have an initial high threat independently of the other party members action for it being an tank and also it should stay as first in threat in the first turn even if it the last to act on that said turn, and an mid/long term way of threat generation but that is not the point in this problem as it all boils down to initial threat.
So one also can say that initiative of each involved members is also an thing that will play an factor in that first turn thus if your Tank acts after so said Azyrran and some of the enemies it will not prevent the discussed actions wich can lead Azyrran's demise from happening if she gets even an speck of higher aggro than the initial aggro the tanks has (especially when Sundered and high level enemies and more so if a big group is involved in the equation).
So it can only depend on it's initial threat and wait in the waiting line to act when using the Auto and Player Modes, else the only option is for the player to use the Manual Mode in every zone/battle that could inculde said factors that can lead to Azyrran's demise wich in itself contradicts in having to choose an playstyle and also can become bothersome to repeat the whole game of so necessary, or in other words:
a) Like to play in the other modes as some give you an immersion of playing in an team where others act upon their own but all in an setting that does not contradict the logic of the modes play styles (as in having said Perks that go against it like the one on Azyrran).
b) Want a break from Manual Mode an play without having to worry in doing input for everyone.
For both off the above you can still lose battles in such modes where the player only gives input to its main character or none at all, when determining: the factors of bad choises of the npc's/player, the levels of all involved and the abilities/gear and builds used along the battle.
But being 'one shotted' at the start of the battle is an complete other thing aside of the above.
For SeveringCrisis's testings:
As what has been said the point of the problems is the initial turn (and combat where certain factors like Sundered and multiple enemies [preferable high level] come into play).
You wrote that you had -33 initiative thats good start for testing purposes of this (as what matters is the initial turn not having passed that due to good rng or the rest of the fight for what matters) and the initial turn order of all involved, than comes the probability of the usage of one those two abilities that can put her at the top of the threat meter in that instance (wich the initial threat depends on the PC's build or companion set build, wich for the PC like what was explained has to be taken in acount the possibility of numerous possible 'viable' builds and not the it is an tank argument it thus does X indeterminantly, there should be an minimum 'bar' to what the other abilites of PC and companions can do so to be functional and on par with the variety of possible Tank builds initial threat if last in the initial the order like in this ex.), the rest is the conlusion of what happens whit all that said (where that Perk does not help in a bit in that point of time).
In an short resume to all this:
The important aspect of this 'conversation' is that in that specific set Azyrran has an Perk wich does more harm than good at the first turn (rng is an aceptable and expected in such modes, yet that is not the point as the point is that at the initial turn things can go wrong due to an version of an Perk wich probably should not be in an healer to begin whit as it can top that said character in aggro for that turn and lead to an k.o. situation before the Tank gets it's own turn to react thus relying on it's initial threat only).
So in said first turn there are several factors in wich the outcome of it can play out.
And in those factors the solution of which the maiority indicate it to be (wich is not on par with the situation on hand) is indicating that it is an simple move along as the game is so, thus without realising there is something wrong in the sake of good gameplay design logic.
As is the logic of pure mathematical calculations of probability wich is being used to explain this.
Take what you can and want from what is presented in this, as the only thing one can do whit others is let them work with their point of views and understanding.
My Tank's build for this at the time:
It is not about companions doing bad choises as they do alot of them (and i play in dark mode thus the consequences also are severer but that is also acceptable) and it is ok for them to do so thus playing in player and auto mode that is accepted.
What is probably something that would not fit in the previous commentaries would be that something that probably should not be more so in an Healer's build that is something that gives it an initial high threat with it having an low survivability (the extra HP won't help much in surviving what can happen) against the possibilities of what the previous can lead to happening.
Wich than can be followed up in by having two abilities (Floral Grace and Banishing Light) wich could put Azyrran in the highest threat in your group for the starting turn (wich is what all this is about, not the following turns of the battle), thus giving this step an higher probability than 50% chance to happen in the overall equation (not counting on the Ultimate and an lesser chance to use it's At-Will) for it to happen.
Than comes your current Tank build wich in an game of several possible way's of variety of builds you cannot say it is an Tank end of discussion.
Although one can come into an agreement it should probably have an initial high threat independently of the other party members action for it being an tank and also it should stay as first in threat in the first turn even if it the last to act on that said turn, and an mid/long term way of threat generation but that is not the point in this problem as it all boils down to initial threat.
So one also can say that initiative of each involved members is also an thing that will play an factor in that first turn thus if your Tank acts after so said Azyrran and some of the enemies it will not prevent the discussed actions wich can lead Azyrran's demise from happening if she gets even an speck of higher aggro than the initial aggro the tanks has (especially when Sundered and high level enemies and more so if a big group is involved in the equation).
So it can only depend on it's initial threat and wait in the waiting line to act when using the Auto and Player Modes, else the only option is for the player to use the Manual Mode in every zone/battle that could inculde said factors that can lead to Azyrran's demise wich in itself contradicts in having to choose an playstyle and also can become bothersome to repeat the whole game of so necessary, or in other words:
a) Like to play in the other modes as some give you an immersion of playing in an team where others act upon their own but all in an setting that does not contradict the logic of the modes play styles (as in having said Perks that go against it like the one on Azyrran).
b) Want a break from Manual Mode an play without having to worry in doing input for everyone.
For both off the above you can still lose battles in such modes where the player only gives input to its main character or none at all, when determining: the factors of bad choises of the npc's/player, the levels of all involved and the abilities/gear and builds used along the battle.
But being 'one shotted' at the start of the battle is an complete other thing aside of the above.
For SeveringCrisis's testings:
As what has been said the point of the problems is the initial turn (and combat where certain factors like Sundered and multiple enemies [preferable high level] come into play).
You wrote that you had -33 initiative thats good start for testing purposes of this (as what matters is the initial turn not having passed that due to good rng or the rest of the fight for what matters) and the initial turn order of all involved, than comes the probability of the usage of one those two abilities that can put her at the top of the threat meter in that instance (wich the initial threat depends on the PC's build or companion set build, wich for the PC like what was explained has to be taken in acount the possibility of numerous possible 'viable' builds and not the it is an tank argument it thus does X indeterminantly, there should be an minimum 'bar' to what the other abilites of PC and companions can do so to be functional and on par with the variety of possible Tank builds initial threat if last in the initial the order like in this ex.), the rest is the conlusion of what happens whit all that said (where that Perk does not help in a bit in that point of time).
In an short resume to all this:
The important aspect of this 'conversation' is that in that specific set Azyrran has an Perk wich does more harm than good at the first turn (rng is an aceptable and expected in such modes, yet that is not the point as the point is that at the initial turn things can go wrong due to an version of an Perk wich probably should not be in an healer to begin whit as it can top that said character in aggro for that turn and lead to an k.o. situation before the Tank gets it's own turn to react thus relying on it's initial threat only).
So in said first turn there are several factors in wich the outcome of it can play out.
And in those factors the solution of which the maiority indicate it to be (wich is not on par with the situation on hand) is indicating that it is an simple move along as the game is so, thus without realising there is something wrong in the sake of good gameplay design logic.
As is the logic of pure mathematical calculations of probability wich is being used to explain this.
Take what you can and want from what is presented in this, as the only thing one can do whit others is let them work with their point of views and understanding.
My Tank's build for this at the time:
Last edited:
Don't know have not tested it, but that woudl depend on it's turn order and if Wide Sweep would affect the ability for Azyrran to dodge any incoming damage.
Still not an reliable solution if so.