In a different thread actually talking about the different aspects of GW2 and SWTOR, the issue of aggroing was raised. Additionally, in a recent Kill-Ten-Rats dev chat, Ravious reported that on the issue of an aggro system, Jon, one of the devs, said this:
Quote:
Jon: How monsters reset is something we are still working on. It is a fine line between keeping players from gaming them by resetting aggro and not frustrating players who reset them unintentionally. It is our goal to find the best middle ground.
As for events, participation does not decay. Once you have participated in an event you are rewarded for it regardless of when it completes.
In this light, I thought it would be relevant to create a separate thread to specifically discuss an (or several modes of) aggro systems to help give Anet new ideas or reaffirm ideas they already had. Discuss away! (I will post more once I actually have more time.)|||As far as agro itself is concerned, I'm actually a fan of EQ's system. Sitting (which was a form of regenning mana / hp, for those who never played), damage, and healing all made the mob angrier, too. But some classes have Taunt, which pisses the mob off even more. A friend of mine used to Taunt mobs while they were mezzed (crowd control) so that, once the mez broke, they would go straight for him, as a tank.
As far as monsters resetting... I like how it is in GW1: You get a certain distance away from them, they forget about you.|||I don't like the standard aggro systems at all. You should never be able to just grab an enemy's attention by clicking a button. Instead of a question of characters having/getting high or low aggro, it should be a question of the mobs being active or reactive. Player action should push the mobs towards reaction; lack of player action should open up for mob action.
An example.
Two players see, in the distance, three centaurs. The centaurs are patrolling some area, as MMO mobs are wont to do. The players approach the centaurs and get close enough to be detected (action). The centaurs respond by deciding to attack the players (reaction). So far, everything is like in any other such game. Now. One of the players is a heavy-armor type (warrior or guardian). He attempts to make the enemy react more by behaving aggressively, like charging them and beating them around with his sword. The centaurs are forced to react by attacking him, thus allowing the other player, whom happens to be a scholar-type, to cast her spells in peace.
Now assume that the players are less "on", and behave like the typical tank&spank team. The chosen tank waddles in and just stands in front of the mobs. In that case the centaurs would take action instead. Exactly what action should be up to the type and amount of enemies, but can involve anything from simply focus attacking the caster instead, to more elaborate tactics such as dividing attacks or trying to outflank and surround the players (to make escape more difficult). The players can only force the enemies back into reactive mode by taking action of their own (which also would prevent players from exploiting the AI tactics).
The struggle where the players attempt to stay in control of the battle and where the AI enemies go from simply responding to the players' action to actually following a plan of their own, would make for a very interesting system, far more so than classic aggro.|||Is the GW:1 aggro system no longer compatible?
I thought the mobs and henchman AI usually did a nice job of picking targets, kiting, and fighting
Also why have a reset in an open world game?
If a mob chases you across 2 maps before killing you there's a good chance he doesn't remember his way back. . . I say let the zone keep him and spawn a new one if that dude was required for a quest.|||Quote:
Also why have a reset in an open world game?
If a mob chases you across 2 maps before killing you there's a good chance he doesn't remember his way back. . . I say let the zone keep him and spawn a new one if that dude was required for a quest.
QFT.
It's only more real if he stays there. He did run there after all. AI behaviour should be on the (imagined) terms of the enemies, not on the terms of the players.|||Whatever they do, I think they need to do something. In one of the videos from PAX East a player ran up to a centaur catapult and started beating on it. There was a centaur standing right next to the catapult, practically touching the player, and it never aggroed. After the catapult was destroyed, the player targeted the centaur, and then the fight was on. Hopefully that was just a demo-friendly setting, because it makes no sense at all.|||Quote:
If a mob chases you across 2 maps before killing you there's a good chance he doesn't remember his way back. . . I say let the zone keep him and spawn a new one if that dude was required for a quest.
I remember the days of Kal Online when some guys dragged a mob of higher-than-newbies level monsters to the starter town.
Can't spell slaughter without laughter!
Though I have no idea how the maps work in GW2.
Loading like say, Runescape, or are we keeping the portals?|||Quote:
Also why have a reset in an open world game?
I have the feeling that what Ravious (the guy who made the question in the interview the OP linked) meant by "reset" was not "lose agro", rather when the monster reappear after being killed. That wasn't an issue in GW1 since, due to the instances, monsters never respawned, but it may be an issue in a open world like the one GW2 is going to have.
Erasculio|||Quote:
I have the feeling that what Ravious (the guy who made the question in the interview the OP linked) meant by "reset" was not "lose agro", rather when the monster reappear after being killed. That wasn't an issue in GW1 since, due to the instances, monsters never respawned, but it may be an issue in a open world like the one GW2 is going to have.
Erasculio
I'm pretty sure Jon (not Ravious) didn't mean a respawn but an AI reset to non-aggressive. You don't want mobs following PCs across multiple maps. There's too much of a level disparage, it's easy mode griefing and it will cause problems in triggering events etc.|||well, "reset" in terms of aggro could refer to different things.
a) in a player vs mob 1v1... reset would refer to the mob losing interest in the player, and returning to its patrol, essentially, exiting combat alive, and regaining all health and energy lost during combat with the player... without a defined "reset" one player could go round up all the mobs on the map and train them around all day. while that might be fun for that one player, it would be considered "griefing" by everyone else. especially when someone else tries healing the first player, then earns aggro of the whole lot due to action (healing) being more action than the runner
b) in a boss fight, the tank may have solid aggro on the boss... so to make things interesting, the devs "reset" or "wipe" the aggro table without resetting the fight. the aggro is now back at zero for everybody, which changes the dynamics of the fight, since its no longer a simple tank and spank. ie the DPSers or healers will most likely gain aggro, and the players have to reorganize their efforts to regain control of the battle.
c) much like the first scenario, but for a boss, usually in other MMOs (especially in dungeons) there is a distinct line (like the "door" to the boss chamber) that the boss must not cross. if the boss's aggro target is kiting the boss, for example, the player has to make sure to not train the boss outside of the chamber, or outside of the boss's playground. if the boss crosses that line, it instantly "teleports" to is default position, with full health and energy, usually despawning any adds it may have spawned during the fight, but not always.
in terms of respawning... the word respawn is generally used.
No comments:
Post a Comment