Do You Kill the Small Enemies or Large Enemy First?

[DefunctTheory]

Depends. I default to killing the chaff first, unless...

1. They're just going to respawn
2. They drop health that I will need to outlast the big guy

 

[FPLOON]

I kill the ones that will annoy me the most... and then everyone else... Or, if I'm on the defense, then I focus on staying alive while waiting for all of the enemies to get hit "accidentally"...

Other than that, if I'm constantly getting EXP from the respawning enemies, then I go for them while the non-spawning enemies get caught in the... CROSSFIRE!

 

[Scarim Coral]

I tend to kills the smaller enemies aka adds first.

There're many of them so their attacks has been multiple and since they're are weaker than the bigger enemy, killing them should be easier in theory (in certain games, the smaller enemies are just as bad as the big one).

 

[sanquin]

I usually go after what I can hit in games. Though if I have the choice (as in, enough time to use/think of strategy) I go for the small enemies first. They die easily, and allow me to focus more on the bigger enemies that usually need more focus to kill. "Strength in numbers" isn't just some movie phrase, it's a tried and true tactic. So the less the enemy has in numbers, the better for you.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As someone who plays a lot of RPGs and who makes them too...

It depends.

First, It depends on the number of small guys, how hard they hit, and (if it's an action game), whether they can pincer you for the big one to get a free hit in (*extends middle finger to the Dark Souls 1 Capra Demon*). How fast can I kill them, etc.

Then, I have to consider the big ones. How painful are their hits? Can I debuff them or lock down their strong skills somehow?

Finally, I have to consider my own abilities. Do I have some AOE stuff I can use to hit them all? How many will it take to wipe the herd? That kind of thing.

So it fluctuates based on the encounter. In fact, in a game I made, I can cite two encounters in a dungeon that demand different approaches.

1) Scorpion with 2 bees. Here, it's better to hit the bees first. They go down relatively quick, and while the Scorpion has poison and (I think, it's been a while) a multihit attack, it's not THAT deadly (especially if you debuff his attack). Whereas the bees will prevent you from evading and are generally a big nuisance. Ergo, they go first.

2) Dire Wolf with a bee and an imp. Dire Wolf goes first. Always. He does good damage but isn't immediately a big threat. Then, on turn 3, he Hastes himself and gets TWO actions each turn as well as double normal attacks. This suddenly makes him a HUGE threat. Ergo, he goes down first.

In fact, that dungeon's boss plays off that idea too, making you switch mid-fight. It's a big beefy high attack plant with two mook plants next to it, one that heals and buffs, and the other that does all kinds of nasty status effects. Oh, and the big plant puts up vines that "Cover" the smaller ones and make their defense go up to impossible levels. Now, taking on the big guy is a terrible idea, as the buffs from the smaller blue plant will make him LETHAL. So the idea is to silence the smaller ones to stop the buffs/debuffs until the main character can use a skill to remove the "Cover" status from the smaller plants, and kill the buffy one. THEN, you need to switch and focus on the big one (using silence on it) to stop it from reviving the smaller one you just killed. Once the big one is dead, the fight is essentially over.

^_^ This was a fun discussion!

 

[Saltyk]

Generally speaking kill the smaller weaker enemies first. While individually, they are barely a threat, they can be a nuisance in large numbers. It's also generally harder to avoid 10 small enemies than 1 big one. And those ten small enemies tend to be as damaging, or more damaging, as the big one. Plus, if they die relatively quickly, they are easy to deal with.

Exceptions abound, of course. If the weaker enemies respawn constantly, thinning them out, usually with AOE targeting the big one, is ideal. If they simply respawn at certain points, like boss HP thresholds, kill them all and refocus on the boss. If they get buffed by the big one, taking down the big one, dealing with the smaller as necessary, is a good strategy.

The long and short of it is that groups of enemies tend to be as big a threat as the big ones. So you can't take them for granted.

 

[Mangod]

I'm playing "Enter the Gungeon" currently, and I was thinking about what my general strategy should be when it comes to kill order. For simplicity's sake, let's assume you walk into a room - this can be in any game, regardless of POV or genre - and you are faced with many weak enemies and between one and a handful of large ones. Assume the small enemies don't present a threat in small numbers, have low HP, and don't attack particularly fast. Assume the large enemies are pretty tanky and can deal out a considerable amount of damage. Do you thin out the numbers or go immediately for the big guys?

Normally, I find myself thinning the herd. In games which have lots of enemies on screen e.g. Nuclear Throne, I can't keep my eyes on the whole screen at once, and tons of enemies seem to create their own singular hazard in the form of shots coming at irregular intervals at irregular directions. In addition, I tend to have problems focusing on dodging and aiming at the same time, meaning that I can spray and pray while focusing primarily on dodges.

The exception is when the large enemies are so dangerous per special abilities: tough to dodge AoE, mob buffs, mob spawning/necro, that I can't allow them to live for long.

What are your all's thoughts and reflexive actions?

Normally, I kill the smaller enemies first... and then I encountered the Swine King and Wilbur [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4PmT0epMkg]. Never again...

 

[go-10]

it's easier to deal with 1 big bad than 50 small squeaks

 

[Jei-chan]

I saw someone else mention Dragon Age earlier but I've been mainlining Inquisition lately alternating between two different classes and that changes how I react. On my mage, I trust Cassie and Blackwall to distract the big fellas (up to and including the Highland Ravager) and focus on the little ones because Chain Lightning gets them down pretty fast; on my warrior, I growl in frustration because no matter how often I taunt them archers continue to shoot Dorian so my tactic is basically to herd everything into one big circle and wait for Dorian to Immolate them. So on that note I suppose I echo what a lot of other people have said, that it depends what skills exactly are available to you.

 

[Orga777]

Size means nothing. I always kill which ever enemy is the biggest problem first and work my way down.

 

[Ironman126]

I saw someone else mention Dragon Age earlier but I've been mainlining Inquisition lately alternating between two different classes and that changes how I react. On my mage, I trust Cassie and Blackwall to distract the big fellas (up to and including the Highland Ravager) and focus on the little ones because Chain Lightning gets them down pretty fast; on my warrior, I growl in frustration because no matter how often I taunt them archers continue to shoot Dorian so my tactic is basically to herd everything into one big circle and wait for Dorian to Immolate them. So on that note I suppose I echo what a lot of other people have said, that it depends what skills exactly are available to you.

I haven't play Inquisition, but that sounds pretty much exactly like what I do in Origins and DA2. Mages are OP, even more so when you have Sten/Aveline to be literal walls of meat for the mooks to bang their heads against.

OP: I've been playing a lot of World of Tanks/Armored Warfare lately and I usually tend to prioritize the smaller, faster, less armored targets over the larger one. Sure, a heavy/main battle tank might have a 120mm gun with a lot of damage, but chances are pretty good the tank also has tons of armor and hit points and that's going to take time to kill. Hell, half of the non-main battle tanks in Armored Warfare have MBT guns, so killing them first means not having to worry about punishing flanking shots. Plus, if you're lucky and have a sufficiently derpy gun, you can 1-shot a lot of the smaller vehicles.

 

[Leg End]

It largely depends on the game. Usually I'll probably quickly slaughter some of the little guys, or all of them if it's quick.
But in say, EVE Online, you need to use careful judgement. Picking off the small frigates in a DED site can trigger nastier spawns of even worse elites to pin your ass down while you realize you got cocky and now your ass is being violated by several elite Drone swarms and you notice several nasty things appeared on dscan as you were too panicked apparently to take a quick look at local and notice there are five people who weren't there a minute ago.

Kill what's most likely to get you killed when shit hits the fan, basically. Because it always will hit the fan.

 

[Saelune]

So, having attempted to fight the Capra Demon in Dark Souls 1 a few minutes ago, my new answer is go for the small enemies, then die. Fuck the Capra Demon. Mostly wanted to vent, but that fight is very on topic, since its two small enemies and one big enemy in a tight area. You want to kill the little ones cause you need all the room you can, but actually doing it is another matter.

 

[Frankster]

Thin the herd first and leave the toughest/biggest (they tend to correlate) enemies for last is a good general rule for anything.

Ultimately the time you take focusing on the big enemy leaves you open to be swarmed and you got less room to move around.
Clearing the weaker enemies gives you breathing space and then allows you to focus on the biggest single threat.

 

[M0rp43vs]

Unless the big guy respawns the little guys when they are killed, I always go for the little guys first.

In bullet hell games and shooters, those little niggles add up into a zerg rush of ass pain. The big guys may hurt more but they are easier to manage, especially if they have a predictable sort of pattern. But ten different tiny patterns going off at different times? My skills aren't as good as they used to be and my brain can't keep up.

Taking the Gungeon example, the only big guy I have a problem with is that Tiki face guy and maybe the totem pole shooters but there is usually a lot of cover in the rooms where you face them. The sword guy is easy to cheese and I don't even have a problem with the infamous Lead Maiden. But a bunch of shotgunkins, a Hollowpoint and Rambo bullets firing at random? Total health sink for me. Which is why I always try to find a gun that can at least oneshot a bulletkin.

Even in RPGs, the little guys that spawn with big dudes have some annoying things like Healing, Buffing, debuffing, status effects or, If it's an SMT game, goddam reviving the big guy.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Small Enemy first. They're reduce your mobility, safe area, and general capabilities. Clearing them out then worrying only about the big bad is much more reasonable for most cases.

 

[Ryallen]

There are a lot of contributing factors to determine which enemy I kill first, but usually it boils down to two questions:

1. Do the small enemies respawn?
If the answer is yes, I ignore them completely. Unless the game is turn based, in which getting hit is all but certain, respawning enemies are never worth the effort used to kill them. Heck, I've even been killed by bosses while trying to kill the adds that they spawn.

2. What happens if I leave them alive?
If the answer is nothing, then I proceed as planned. If the answer is not nothing, then I drop everything and take them out as soon as possible, even if they do respawn. If they can give the boss some kind of buff or heal them or something out of my control, I immediately prioritize the adds and wipe them as soon as possible. The boss is strong enough, and letting him get buffed by his little buddies is only going to make things harder.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Depends. Is the large enemy acting as a spawner for the small ones? Then I ignore the small enemies and go for the big one. If it's just a case of there being just being a big enemy and some small ones then I go for the small ones first unless the big one is such a threat that I need to deal with it first.

Keep in mind that this also varies depending on the game, it's much easier to focus fire on smaller enemies in a turn based RPG than in a shooter.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

depends entirely on the enemies. If the little enemies exist just as a distraction, or the big guy provides powerful buffs to his allies? Big guy first. If the little guys consist of high-damaging, fragile attackers or healers, or if the big guy is able to be mitigated in some way, then I focus on the little guys first.

And if the Big guy and the little guys all heal each other? AoE like a champion. That's what Missiles/Firaga/Luminare/Tonkor is for.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

it really depends on the game, some rpg's and stuff the big guys will give buffs to the little guys while they are in the area, so killing the big ones takes top priority.

in *most* other aspects though, I woulds say thinning the herd works best, you're not splitting your concentration so much after that.