I'm curious to what combat system you would say is superior.
In games that have the trinity, you're typically pressing a pre-arranged set of skill buttons to either taunt/do damage or do damage.
If you're a healer, you wait till HP bars go down, then press a few buttons to make them go up.
Every class is predefined a role and role is extremely simple and easy to perform.
What game would you say shines over GW2's combat system?
Guild Wars 1. Slight alterations to the usual aggro system, but everyone still had fulfilling and necessary role in a team.
I think combo fields had the potential to be neat, but from what I experienced almost no one ever made any coordinated effort in their use beyond dropping them in the middle of a zerg/on top of a mob where they will obviously proc something through the usual skill spam.
But i'm not really seeing the major innovation in it personally over other games. Dropping an AE on the ground and proccing with something that will make it spit out a short might/retal or heal is more or less the same effect as having a shaman in EQ2 buffing team mates with bolster or shielding them with wards. Or exploiting weaknesses/chainning group buffs in Vanguard.
I suppose you could say you don't have to actually switch targets over to a group member with combo fields since they are ground targeted, but i'm not sure if that was ever the kind of thing anyone ever taken issue with in the usual trinity.
I agree that a lot of people generally didn't utilize the combo field or class specs to any real benefit. I had PUGs some time where the group would get knocked down to 20% health, my wife would drop a water field, then everyone else in the group would be dropping all sorts of other fields on top of it, and you'd end up giving everyone might instead of healing them....
When you play with a static group, voice chatting and really coordinate the team, it's one of the most rewarding systems.
But when you're grouped with some uncoordinated PUG, no voice chat, no coordination, it's just a bunch of RNG and pray that one of them accidently places the right field at the right time, or doesn't over-write a good field with one that's not needed at that time.
I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.
In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:
1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE event.
2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.
In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly imposible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).
So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?
I am one who did not offer an alternative with notes on how to create challenging PVE.
There are several reasons I did not and will not.
For one though, I do not feel the root of why PVE is not challening in most games lies in the aggro mechanic. I found GW2's PVE extremely easy as I found it in SWTOR, Rift, and WOW. I could argue PVE is more challenging without the aggro mechanics you enjoy but I will not make the claim as I would imagine the argument will go circular fast. I feel the root cause of why it is often so easy is predictable, patterned, non-varianced artificial intelligence.
To elaborate on why I cannot offer an alternative, Artificial Intelligence is a very complex topic which spans horizons far beyond my education and more importantly, the education of many game designers and developers. The task of creating an artificially intelligent opponent that is at an appropriate challenge level across a spectrum of varied human skill levels, that can stay challenging -- is an old challenge and it is a monumental one. It is for that reason we don't see it done often, if ever.
About aggro mechanic, i think that is the only one atm that allow challenging pvp cause if you have a tank with aggro control you can allow the other classes to do their jobs ad use their abilities,without a tank, a pure healer couldnt heal efficently cause he could be attacked by many mobs and being killed (the same for a pure dps that will not be ale to do dps on the boss) and if you introduce healers and dps that can survive alone you will have a GW2 system where collaboration between players is not very important. Obviously this is valid for tha tank too that have to rely on the healer to stay alive.
Furthermore if you dont have specific roles for the classes, boss fights cannot be very complex because you will not have classes suitable to their role, the tank will not enough resilent to resist to boss attacks and take aggro on him, the healer will not able to heals the tank efficently etc. so all will need to become simpler.
About the second part of your post, i think that it is interesting, but we are talking about a game that will be released soon so we cannot pretend that it will introduce mobs with artificial intelligence so sofisticated to be similar to a human players, so for a challenging PvE we have to look at a system that works and that is tested in many MMORPG.
If you have a group of 10 people grouping up to hunt a bear, and all the people have the identical weapons the fight could still be very interesting. The bear could lead the hunters through terrain where only half of the hunters are able to follow (due to fitness) or maybe across streams (where a few hunters drown). What I'm getting at is that complexity of fights is not limited because of having or not having roles.
Why do we need a tank? Really think about your answer. Here's what I come up with; it was a way for plated players to protect more squishy players. What if "tanking" was changed so you didn't need Plate armor to survive? EvE uses 3 forms of tanking; shield, armor and speed tanking. In fantasy MMO terms that would be a high HP regen but low starting HP (shield), high amount of HP to begin with little to no regen (armor) and speed.
Back to my bear story; how did hunters with spears contain a bear? Lots of people around it stabbing at it with long sticks (at least in the movies that's how it is shown), or perhaps one person as bait, and x number of other people with guns to shoot the bear before he mauls the bait. Why does tanking have to be about 1 person taking damage, while the rest of the group dishes damage back to the mob?
I would personally love to see smart AI that thinks in terms of survivability; which Player target will kill me first, and how do I neutralize that threat. I don't want to do away with archetypes that I've seen in games like Shadowbane; you had the fighters, who were your big bruiser DPSers; healers; rogues, who avoided damage by having high defense; mages who were your traditional casters. Each of those 4 archetypes had roles in a group, but you didn't need each type in a group, with the exception of a healer. I love games where Race and Class matter to playstyle and that not every class can do the job of another; it's one of the reasons I never even tried GW2. I want to have fighters, healers, rogues & mages, but I feel that Fighters shouldn't have to be pigeoned holed into the role of tank.
I'm curious to what combat system you would say is superior.
In games that have the trinity, you're typically pressing a pre-arranged set of skill buttons to either taunt/do damage or do damage.
If you're a healer, you wait till HP bars go down, then press a few buttons to make them go up.
Every class is predefined a role and role is extremely simple and easy to perform.
What game would you say shines over GW2's combat system?
I m not talking about combat system, i m talking about strategies in PvE and need of coordinations between classes with unique skills . I think that EQ and WOW (first WoW with 40 peeps raid) was far better than GW2 PvE.
And what's the difference between Playing a cleric in EQ, and being told that you heal people when their HPs get low, or speccing a character in GW2 to throw out regens, utilize water-field blast finishers and using skills to heal your allies?
The only difference I see is that one system the class tells you what you will do, and the other lets classes change to fit different roles as they see fit. Both systems require team work and looking out for each other, but one allows for more class diversity.
If we're just speaking on those terms, I don't personally mind either and I'll be happy if EQN has either (or something else).
But I feel that GW2 was an evolution to a more realistic, fun and dynamic fighting experience (while still benefiting from different play styles)
In GW2 i dont think that you can spec your char. to be a real healer that can heal efficently all your party as in EQ or WoW, this is why all the classes have at least an healing skill.
I really think that the GW2 class system will never allow you to play a more than 5 player PvE content or a really challenging boss fight (even for 5 players), cause classes are not sufficient specialized in their role and need to be hybrid in order to be efficent.
About the combat system, i think that is quite good and fun but a bit too action based for my taste...for example i dont like the dodge for every classes, i dont think that dodging an attack rolling on the ground is very realistic for a warrior that wear an heavy armor and i prefer that dodge, parry or block skills should be based on the char. ability scores and spec. not on the player's reflexes.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Originally posted by someforumguy Well the poll shows it. Holy trinity class system with tank-spank aggro management, Yeah, that will be a sandbox alright
There in lies some of the problem in discussing this; aggro management is a pure PvE mechanic. You don't need the holy trinity in PvP games, you need good teamwork. As I've said before, I believe that PvP needs to be the primary element around which a sandbox is built; with PvE as the add on.
So if the game is sandbox with good PvP, how is that managed in respects to PvE. I just hope I won't ever have to use aggro mechanics in EQN because I will be enjoying the PvP side of the game too much.
I like trinity, could be open to other stuff, but despite owning GW2, I am not a expert on their combat system, as I could not stand the game long enough to do so. It felt too crowded with quests/hearts or whatever you wanted to call them for me, and I didn't really like the abilities/feel of any of the classes I played...Just didn't click and make me want to play.
Originally posted by someforumguy Well the poll shows it. Holy trinity class system with tank-spank aggro management, Yeah, that will be a sandbox alright
There in lies some of the problem in discussing this; aggro management is a pure PvE mechanic. You don't need the holy trinity in PvP games, you need good teamwork. As I've said before, I believe that PvP needs to be the primary element around which a sandbox is built; with PvE as the add on.
So if the game is sandbox with good PvP, how is that managed in respects to PvE. I just hope I won't ever have to use aggro mechanics in EQN because I will be enjoying the PvP side of the game too much.
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
If this is true, EQN will be centered on PvE, so it will need a good PvE mechanic. As an old EQ player i m particulary interested in PvE and PvP must have a marginal importance for me.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Originally posted by someforumguy Well the poll shows it. Holy trinity class system with tank-spank aggro management, Yeah, that will be a sandbox alright
There in lies some of the problem in discussing this; aggro management is a pure PvE mechanic. You don't need the holy trinity in PvP games, you need good teamwork. As I've said before, I believe that PvP needs to be the primary element around which a sandbox is built; with PvE as the add on.
So if the game is sandbox with good PvP, how is that managed in respects to PvE. I just hope I won't ever have to use aggro mechanics in EQN because I will be enjoying the PvP side of the game too much.
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
If this is true, EQN will be centered on PvE, so it will need a good PvE mechanic. As an old EQ players i m particulary interested in PvE and PvP must have a marginal importance for me.
If the game turns out as you want, then that's great for you. I will play the game if it's fun for me. At this point it's too early to tell what EQN will be, PvP or PvE. However, I'm hoping that it will be more PvP than PvE, and that old EQ1 players will not want to play EQN. I'm hoping that Smedley's interest in EvE is more than just how to make money, and has to do with PvP elements being in the game from the ground up (i.e. alliances that control territory). Now if that is how the game turns out and it doesn't interest you, then you don't have to play'; on the flip side if EQN is just another PvE/Raid game, then I will probably not stay longer than a month (I will at least try it out).
Your quote only points to going back to a style of gameplay which could mean that they want players to enjoy the world, and not "rush" to end game. Nothing there cements that the game will be focused on PvE. I take it to mean that the world will have more open world dungeons, instead of instances.
Imagine the scenario where raiding/questing is available in EQN, which you would love, but in order for you to get to certain Raids, you had to go through my guilds/alliances owned territory but were denied access. That would be golden. I know one side of the fence isn't gonna be happy; again I'm just hoping that it's the PvE crowd not happy this time as the world will be a PvP territory control game.
But back to your OP. Sandbox needs more than just a single tank holding aggro. There are other ways to do it, and should be explored in a sandbox game.
I'm curious to what combat system you would say is superior.
In games that have the trinity, you're typically pressing a pre-arranged set of skill buttons to either taunt/do damage or do damage.
If you're a healer, you wait till HP bars go down, then press a few buttons to make them go up.
Every class is predefined a role and role is extremely simple and easy to perform.
What game would you say shines over GW2's combat system?
I m not talking about combat system, i m talking about strategies in PvE and need of coordinations between classes with unique skills . I think that EQ and WOW (first WoW with 40 peeps raid) was far better than GW2 PvE.
And what's the difference between Playing a cleric in EQ, and being told that you heal people when their HPs get low, or speccing a character in GW2 to throw out regens, utilize water-field blast finishers and using skills to heal your allies?
The only difference I see is that one system the class tells you what you will do, and the other lets classes change to fit different roles as they see fit. Both systems require team work and looking out for each other, but one allows for more class diversity.
If we're just speaking on those terms, I don't personally mind either and I'll be happy if EQN has either (or something else).
But I feel that GW2 was an evolution to a more realistic, fun and dynamic fighting experience (while still benefiting from different play styles)
In GW2 i dont think that you can spec your char. to be a real healer that can heal efficently all your party as in EQ or WoW, this is why all the classes have at least an healing skill.
I really think that the GW2 class system will never allow you to play a more than 5 player PvE content or a really challenging boss fight (even for 5 players), cause classes are not sufficient specialized in their role and need to be hybrid in order to be efficent.
About the combat system, i think that is quite good and fun but a bit too action based for my taste...for example i dont like the dodge for every classes, i dont think that dodging an attack rolling on the ground is very realistic for a warrior that wear an heavy armor and i prefer that dodge, parry or block skills should be based on the char. ability scores and spec. not on the player's reflexes.
Everyone has their own heal, but they're on such long cooldowns that if you don't have a strong support character or two in your group, it's going to be a bad day.
Obviously GW2 did provide challenging content for groups because the forums and youtube were flooded with complaints about how hard the dungeons were. Angry Joe is a guy who reviews video games on youtube and in his video you can watch him and his static group of friends/guildies doing the lvl 30 dungeon and wiping over and over to the point where the whole team's armor had broken and they were all butt naked. Not saying that guy is some sort of gold standard in gamer skill, but he's probably at least an average or slightly above average gamer, and it was still challenging for his static group. And AC is WAY easier than the FoTM dungeon set they put into the game....
Clearly the game's mechanics do allow for hard, skill based fights. Harder than 99% of other mmorpgs on the planet so far, in any case.
I agree with the everyone having dodge is silly though. I would have preferred some diversity in the defenses. For example, maybe a guardian with a shield can block, but a guardian with a staff or focus could put up a temp magic bubble... maybe ele's could blink away from an enemy attack... rogues would dodge roll, etc.
But the mechanic in my eyes is clearly superior to a game like, WoW or EQ2 or Vanguard, where you have a tank, and he pushes a button over and over and no one else takes damage just as long as they don't do "Too much damage". I like that in GW2, it felt more like a cinematic, realistic experience, where everyone had to pay attention and be a part of the fight.
Not sitting on the sidelines throwing magic bolts and cheer-leading the tank.
I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.
In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:
1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE event.
2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.
In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly impossible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).
So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?
Let me start by saying I like GW2's system, and I like trinity games, but I'm going to defend GW2 system against the nay sayers because I see a few glaring comments that pretty much prove that they didn't actually understand GW2's PVE system. (Probably through the fault of the game not spelling it out or hand holding players through the process, which is good imo, but with such a different and new system, it wasn't a good idea)
Here's the thing, the GW2 system is new, hasn't really been done before, and a lot of people didn't understand it.
There are still roles, and a lot of team coordination going on in GW2. In fact, many people complained about the dungeons being "too hard", and most of the complaints were due to a lack of understanding of how GW2 handles roles and team coordination.
The biggest thing that I saw people not understanding was the Field/Finisher mechanic (There are 9 fields and 4 finisher, which makes 36 different combos) . First thing with group coordination is that you can't activate more than one field at a time with a finisher. If you drop a water field so that your group can get some heal finishers, and some guy in your group drops a darkness field on top of it.... those heals aren't coming. Dropping the right fields at the right time, and using the right attacks in those fields at the right time play a huge part in PVE success.
Now GW2 doesn't have a "Tank" because you can't really manage agro. You can help give your character a higher chance of being attacked, but between AOEs and other factors, others are going to take damage. So the roles of the group come down to Support and DPS, but each class/build can "Support" in different ways.
My guardian for example is really good at providing lots of blast finishers, while other class's support roles might included dropping water fields and casting regens for the group.
Building a solid group takes a bit of work, and just like holy trinity games, you can't just throw any person in a group and expect to have an easy run at a dungeon. Not coordinating who's going to drop what fields, who's going to be putting out might/protection, who's going to be doing what finishers, etc, is no different than going into a dungeon in EQ with only wizards and rogues. It just has a different skin on it.
Also, the "You have to range a lot of encounters", is a statement that makes clear that the person wasn't taking advantage of different builds / team coordination in GW2. I have done every single dungeon run in the game, and my team can blow through them extremely fast with no deaths, and my whole team is melee except for my wife, who is a ranger, but she often uses shortbow/axe/warhorn at close range to get +might and other buffs from finishers and to quickly drop a water field when the team needs heals.
Bottom line is GW2 system works great, for those who understand it. It's action combat that doesn't allow "Safe" classes. Everyone fights, pays attention to attacks, and works together. There is nothing* wrong with holy trinity games. I enjoy those too, but lets not knock every game that isn't a carbon copy of game mechanics from 15 years ago.
If you think those "finishers" and groups coordinating to do it properly is new, then you haven't played EQ2. EQ2 had heroic opportunities that were the same thing, and depending on the final thing you wanted to proc, certain classes would have to start it. Some raid mobs even required you to land a specific one to stop them form stone skinning, so it may have to go fighter, healer, scout, mage, or scout, healer, fighter, etc etc.
If you think those "finishers" and groups coordinating to do it properly is new, then you haven't played EQ2. EQ2 had heroic opportunities that were the same thing, and depending on the final thing you wanted to proc, certain classes would have to start it. Some raid mobs even required you to land a specific one to stop them form stone skinning, so it may have to go fighter, healer, scout, mage, or scout, healer, fighter, etc etc.
The GW2 system was clearly more advanced. But yes, previous games had other combo systems.
EQ2 had heroic oppertunities, Vanguard had the combat advantage system, for example.
But GW2 is clearly the most dynamic and interesting out of all these systems and played a much larger role in the combat system.
But yes, I'm not claiming everything GW2 did was a "world first". Most games tend to build on, improve and innovate on top of previous games.
But lets not confuse Doom's weapon system with what Crysis has.
I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.
In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:
1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE event.
2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.
In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly impossible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).
So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?
Let me start by saying I like GW2's system, and I like trinity games, but I'm going to defend GW2 system against the nay sayers because I see a few glaring comments that pretty much prove that they didn't actually understand GW2's PVE system. (Probably through the fault of the game not spelling it out or hand holding players through the process, which is good imo, but with such a different and new system, it wasn't a good idea)
Here's the thing, the GW2 system is new, hasn't really been done before, and a lot of people didn't understand it.
There are still roles, and a lot of team coordination going on in GW2. In fact, many people complained about the dungeons being "too hard", and most of the complaints were due to a lack of understanding of how GW2 handles roles and team coordination.
The biggest thing that I saw people not understanding was the Field/Finisher mechanic (There are 9 fields and 4 finisher, which makes 36 different combos) . First thing with group coordination is that you can't activate more than one field at a time with a finisher. If you drop a water field so that your group can get some heal finishers, and some guy in your group drops a darkness field on top of it.... those heals aren't coming. Dropping the right fields at the right time, and using the right attacks in those fields at the right time play a huge part in PVE success.
Now GW2 doesn't have a "Tank" because you can't really manage agro. You can help give your character a higher chance of being attacked, but between AOEs and other factors, others are going to take damage. So the roles of the group come down to Support and DPS, but each class/build can "Support" in different ways.
My guardian for example is really good at providing lots of blast finishers, while other class's support roles might included dropping water fields and casting regens for the group.
Building a solid group takes a bit of work, and just like holy trinity games, you can't just throw any person in a group and expect to have an easy run at a dungeon. Not coordinating who's going to drop what fields, who's going to be putting out might/protection, who's going to be doing what finishers, etc, is no different than going into a dungeon in EQ with only wizards and rogues. It just has a different skin on it.
Also, the "You have to range a lot of encounters", is a statement that makes clear that the person wasn't taking advantage of different builds / team coordination in GW2. I have done every single dungeon run in the game, and my team can blow through them extremely fast with no deaths, and my whole team is melee except for my wife, who is a ranger, but she often uses shortbow/axe/warhorn at close range to get +might and other buffs from finishers and to quickly drop a water field when the team needs heals.
Bottom line is GW2 system works great, for those who understand it. It's action combat that doesn't allow "Safe" classes. Everyone fights, pays attention to attacks, and works together. There is nothing* wrong with holy trinity games. I enjoy those too, but lets not knock every game that isn't a carbon copy of game mechanics from 15 years ago.
If you think those "finishers" and groups coordinating to do it properly is new, then you haven't played EQ2. EQ2 had heroic opportunities that were the same thing, and depending on the final thing you wanted to proc, certain classes would have to start it. Some raid mobs even required you to land a specific one to stop them form stone skinning, so it may have to go fighter, healer, scout, mage, or scout, healer, fighter, etc etc.
Both EQ2 and GW2 got this part wrong.
EQ2's heroic opportunities and GW2's starter/finisher mechanics were not fun, especially in the GW2 zerg that we all know.
They basically amounted to a combo like a fighting game (street fighter) except instead of you hitting up up down a+b, it was lay field down....shoot through field, or all players hitting a skill in an order in short succession. How is that any fun at all. Leave that crap in Street Fighter....
And GW2....everyone can revive? Everyone can self heal? everyone can tank? Everyone can DPS? Sounds more like a zerging game to me. I played many of the dungeons and, while there were some encounters that were interesting, many were just a cluster....
Agro control oldschool style needs to come back and be in full effect. I would totally enjoy also some oldschool EQ1 team vs team server mechanics so that guilds form in different ways based on the various team mechanics and PvP is exciting and adds another level of tension to an already fun game. Maybe there will be separate servers or maybe there will be starting safe areas and as you branch out further you go to partial pvp and then total pvp.
If you think those "finishers" and groups coordinating to do it properly is new, then you haven't played EQ2. EQ2 had heroic opportunities that were the same thing, and depending on the final thing you wanted to proc, certain classes would have to start it. Some raid mobs even required you to land a specific one to stop them form stone skinning, so it may have to go fighter, healer, scout, mage, or scout, healer, fighter, etc etc.
HO's, XI's Skillchains, and XIV's upcoming limit break system I agree are much better group mechanics than the combo fields of GW2. It requires a bit more coordination/timing, and the effects were usually something unique you couldn't achieve with normal abilities. Lotro's fellowship abilities were a bit neat as well I guess now that I think about it, though getting people to bother with the more complex patterns wasn't very common outside of planned boss fights.
everyone can revive? Everyone can self heal? everyone can tank? Everyone can DPS? Sounds more like a zerging game to me. I played many of the dungeons and, while there were some encounters that were interesting, many were just a cluster....
Agro control oldschool style needs to come back and be in full effect. I would totally enjoy also some oldschool EQ1 team vs team server mechanics so that guilds form in different ways based on the various team mechanics and PvP is exciting and adds another level of tension to an already fun game. Maybe there will be separate servers or maybe there will be starting safe areas and as you branch out further you go to partial pvp and then total pvp.
Everyone can't do everything at the same time. You have to build your character to your play style/preferences or to what the group needs.
You can't have a character that tops DPS, tanks mobs and heals everyone at the same time. The more you specialize in one role, the more other roles you could have been suffer.
Yes, many people did think GW2 was a frustrating cluster. You can go on youtube and watch people wiping over and over again on lvl 30 content.
But that wasn't the fault of the game. That was a fault of the players encountering a new type of system and not knowing wtf to do, along with the devs who thought it would be cool to give players what they always beg for. "More challenge.
Well, be careful what you wish for! lol. You might just get it.
What I would like to see is positioning systems. As in, collision detection, physical blocking and guarding, etc. to replace taunt.
I think games should have a clear aggro system. I think mobs should know to attack the guy who is healing or blasting him with Mega-nuke B for a ton of damage. NPC AI should be aware enough of threat levels.
But, I'd like to see strategy and positioning important. It would make the use of tunnels and doorways, etc. more strategic, etc.
EQ1 had general collision detection, but it's been a long time since any high quality MMOs have messed with it that I can remember.
Protecting the group should be manual as a tanker. Tank positions himself between his enemies and his squishies -> Mob tries to move around him if aggro is high enough and isn't being focused.
I don't think a single mob should be trying to run and circle around the guy swinging a giant sword at its head, ever. Aggro should only be an issue when the mobs are grouped up(if the tank is in its face.)
Example 1: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the mob -> mob should focus on the tank in its face automatically, because you wouldn't turn your back on an enemy trying to stab you from two feet away.
Example 2: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the group of mobs. One mob would focus on the tank while his allies tried to get by him to the higher threat targets.
Example 3: (Close quarters)
--Obviously if the tank is blocking the path to his squishies, then mobs should just focus on the tank because there's no route to the higher threat targets.
Fairly simplistic AI, but would like it to take pathing into account and factor in collision detection with players.
One can dream, but I expect to see the same ridiculous systems we keep seeing over and over lacking any creativity or intelligent behavior. Side note: I'd rather collision detection only work Player <-> Mobs and not Player <-> Player for obvious reasons of annoyance and griefing.
What I would like to see is positioning systems. As in, collision detection, physical blocking and guarding, etc. to replace taunt.
I think games should have a clear aggro system. I think mobs should know to attack the guy who is healing or blasting him with Mega-nuke B for a ton of damage. NPC AI should be aware enough of threat levels.
But, I'd like to see strategy and positioning important. It would make the use of tunnels and doorways, etc. more strategic, etc.
EQ1 had general collision detection, but it's been a long time since any high quality MMOs have messed with it that I can remember.
Protecting the group should be manual as a tanker. Tank positions himself between his enemies and his squishies -> Mob tries to move around him if aggro is high enough and isn't being focused.
I don't think a single mob should be trying to run and circle around the guy swinging a giant sword at its head, ever. Aggro should only be an issue when the mobs are grouped up(if the tank is in its face.)
Example 1: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the mob -> mob should focus on the tank in its face automatically, because you wouldn't turn your back on an enemy trying to stab you from two feet away.
Example 2: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the group of mobs. One mob would focus on the tank while his allies tried to get by him to the higher threat targets.
Example 3: (Close quarters)
--Obviously if the tank is blocking the path to his squishies, then mobs should just focus on the tank because there's no route to the higher threat targets.
Fairly simplistic AI, but would like it to take pathing into account and factor in collision detection with players.
One can dream, but I expect to see the same ridiculous systems we keep seeing over and over lacking any creativity or intelligent behavior. Side note: I'd rather collision detection only work Player <-> Mobs and not Player <-> Player for obvious reasons of annoyance and griefing.
That's actually a rather creative solution. I like it.
Certain dungeons or raids might require multiple tanks to build shield walls and such. Mages could have abilities to increase a tanks collision box (by forcefield or size-increase). Things like that.
As I noted in my earlier post, I like the idea of an entire group playing a role in tanking. Not that the entire group tanks, but that they aid the tank in increasing his ability to tank.
Like if a mob makes it past the tank, a ranger could blast it back with a power-shot of sorts, then a mage could throw up a force field to help the tank wrangle the mob back in.
Edit:
We'll never see a system like this because lousy players would think it's "too hard", but this kind of group collaboration sure would be awesome
What I would like to see is positioning systems. As in, collision detection, physical blocking and guarding, etc. to replace taunt.
I think games should have a clear aggro system. I think mobs should know to attack the guy who is healing or blasting him with Mega-nuke B for a ton of damage. NPC AI should be aware enough of threat levels.
But, I'd like to see strategy and positioning important. It would make the use of tunnels and doorways, etc. more strategic, etc.
EQ1 had general collision detection, but it's been a long time since any high quality MMOs have messed with it that I can remember.
Protecting the group should be manual as a tanker. Tank positions himself between his enemies and his squishies -> Mob tries to move around him if aggro is high enough and isn't being focused.
I don't think a single mob should be trying to run and circle around the guy swinging a giant sword at its head, ever. Aggro should only be an issue when the mobs are grouped up(if the tank is in its face.)
Example 1: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the mob -> mob should focus on the tank in its face automatically, because you wouldn't turn your back on an enemy trying to stab you from two feet away.
Example 2: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the group of mobs. One mob would focus on the tank while his allies tried to get by him to the higher threat targets.
Example 3: (Close quarters)
--Obviously if the tank is blocking the path to his squishies, then mobs should just focus on the tank because there's no route to the higher threat targets.
Fairly simplistic AI, but would like it to take pathing into account and factor in collision detection with players.
One can dream, but I expect to see the same ridiculous systems we keep seeing over and over lacking any creativity or intelligent behavior. Side note: I'd rather collision detection only work Player <-> Mobs and not Player <-> Player for obvious reasons of annoyance and griefing.
That's actually a rather creative solution. I like it.
Certain dungeons or raids might require multiple tanks to build shield walls and such. Mages could have abilities to increase a tanks collision box (by forcefield or size-increase). Things like that.
As I noted in my earlier post, I like the idea of an entire group playing a role in tanking. Not that the entire group tanks, but that they aid the tank in increasing his ability to tank.
Like if a mob makes it past the tank, a ranger could blast it back with a power-shot of sorts, then a mage could throw up a force field to help the tank wrangle the mob back in.
Edit:
We'll never see a system like this because lousy players would think it's "too hard", but this kind of group collaboration sure would be awesome
More or less Guild Wars 1, and I agree I think it's great alternative.
That's actually a rather creative solution. I like it.
Certain dungeons or raids might require multiple tanks to build shield walls and such. Mages could have abilities to increase a tanks collision box (by forcefield or size-increase). Things like that.
As I noted in my earlier post, I like the idea of an entire group playing a role in tanking. Not that the entire group tanks, but that they aid the tank in increasing his ability to tank.
Like if a mob makes it past the tank, a ranger could blast it back with a power-shot of sorts, then a mage could throw up a force field to help the tank wrangle the mob back in.
Edit:
We'll never see a system like this because lousy players would think it's "too hard", but this kind of group collaboration sure would be awesome
I like what you are saying. That instantly brings to mind how Shaman in EQ had those shrink and grow spells. If you factor in group participation, there are a ton of options.
For example: spinning off of your force field comment, you could have the basic arrow deflection barriers and fire walls and such that mobs wouldn't want to cross. Plenty of mechanisms they could weave in, the more diversity they wanted to add.
But, like you said, the more complex and difficult they make it all, the less likely we will be to see it.
Still, it would be nice to see some legitimate teamwork and collaboration mechanics again.
Originally posted by Grailer GW2 is the worst game ever made . Solo MMO . Terrible .
GW2 is the best game ever made. Dungeons and group events. Awesome.
I actually don't feel it's the best game ever made and by no means is it the worst, though it is better than most. I was mainly just showing how easy it is to type nonsense.
Asking if you want aggro management in EQ Next is like asking do you want logic in EQ Next.
Aggro management isn't rocket science. Its actually one mechanic that doesn't need to be overhauled or revamped.
Give the guys with the shiny armor abilities, be it taunt, or certain attacks or spells that cause agro, and keep the bad monsters from squashing everyone else when they do things that hurt the monster or make him feel vulnerable.
Yes it is important,it is called ORGANIZED game play,i detest any game that does not have controlled organized game play.
As to someone complaining about GW2 examples,you do realize Arena Net was the one doing the bragging about their system?If Arena Net sees fit to brag about their system ,they can man up and accept criticism as well,you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Anet chose to go that route,so it is the game people will be using for their examples,and there is nothing wrong with using examples,that is how you discuss games and support opinions by using examples.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I loved the aggro management in EQ2 however as I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat I cannot vote in this poll.
I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.
this.
why? because only an idiot throws all the forces at his disposal towards one guy with a shield while ignoring everyone else healing guy-with-shield, OR ignoring them as they beat relentlessly on said idiot.
to me aggro control screams fake like almost nothing else in an mmo. its a complete immersion breaker and creates the single most boring combat scenarios ever dreamed up.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
I loved the aggro management in EQ2 however as I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat I cannot vote in this poll.
I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.
this.
why? because only an idiot throws all the forces at his disposal towards one guy with a shield while ignoring everyone else healing guy-with-shield, OR ignoring them as they beat relentlessly on said idiot.
to me aggro control screams fake like almost nothing else in an mmo. its a complete immersion breaker and creates the single most boring combat scenarios ever dreamed up.
To me, nothing screams fake and immersion breaker louder than illogical and completely unpredictable mobs.
Agro = logic
You can have mobs switch targets, attack other players or multiple players, or even everyone at once, but that doesn't mean you remove agro from the equation. A system without agro is chaos. Chaos is bad and stupid.
Comments
I agree that a lot of people generally didn't utilize the combo field or class specs to any real benefit. I had PUGs some time where the group would get knocked down to 20% health, my wife would drop a water field, then everyone else in the group would be dropping all sorts of other fields on top of it, and you'd end up giving everyone might instead of healing them....
When you play with a static group, voice chatting and really coordinate the team, it's one of the most rewarding systems.
But when you're grouped with some uncoordinated PUG, no voice chat, no coordination, it's just a bunch of RNG and pray that one of them accidently places the right field at the right time, or doesn't over-write a good field with one that's not needed at that time.
Very non-PUG friendly system, for sure.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
If you have a group of 10 people grouping up to hunt a bear, and all the people have the identical weapons the fight could still be very interesting. The bear could lead the hunters through terrain where only half of the hunters are able to follow (due to fitness) or maybe across streams (where a few hunters drown). What I'm getting at is that complexity of fights is not limited because of having or not having roles.
Why do we need a tank? Really think about your answer. Here's what I come up with; it was a way for plated players to protect more squishy players. What if "tanking" was changed so you didn't need Plate armor to survive? EvE uses 3 forms of tanking; shield, armor and speed tanking. In fantasy MMO terms that would be a high HP regen but low starting HP (shield), high amount of HP to begin with little to no regen (armor) and speed.
Back to my bear story; how did hunters with spears contain a bear? Lots of people around it stabbing at it with long sticks (at least in the movies that's how it is shown), or perhaps one person as bait, and x number of other people with guns to shoot the bear before he mauls the bait. Why does tanking have to be about 1 person taking damage, while the rest of the group dishes damage back to the mob?
I would personally love to see smart AI that thinks in terms of survivability; which Player target will kill me first, and how do I neutralize that threat. I don't want to do away with archetypes that I've seen in games like Shadowbane; you had the fighters, who were your big bruiser DPSers; healers; rogues, who avoided damage by having high defense; mages who were your traditional casters. Each of those 4 archetypes had roles in a group, but you didn't need each type in a group, with the exception of a healer. I love games where Race and Class matter to playstyle and that not every class can do the job of another; it's one of the reasons I never even tried GW2. I want to have fighters, healers, rogues & mages, but I feel that Fighters shouldn't have to be pigeoned holed into the role of tank.
In GW2 i dont think that you can spec your char. to be a real healer that can heal efficently all your party as in EQ or WoW, this is why all the classes have at least an healing skill.
I really think that the GW2 class system will never allow you to play a more than 5 player PvE content or a really challenging boss fight (even for 5 players), cause classes are not sufficient specialized in their role and need to be hybrid in order to be efficent.
About the combat system, i think that is quite good and fun but a bit too action based for my taste...for example i dont like the dodge for every classes, i dont think that dodging an attack rolling on the ground is very realistic for a warrior that wear an heavy armor and i prefer that dodge, parry or block skills should be based on the char. ability scores and spec. not on the player's reflexes.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
There in lies some of the problem in discussing this; aggro management is a pure PvE mechanic. You don't need the holy trinity in PvP games, you need good teamwork. As I've said before, I believe that PvP needs to be the primary element around which a sandbox is built; with PvE as the add on.
So if the game is sandbox with good PvP, how is that managed in respects to PvE. I just hope I won't ever have to use aggro mechanics in EQN because I will be enjoying the PvP side of the game too much.
I like trinity, could be open to other stuff, but despite owning GW2, I am not a expert on their combat system, as I could not stand the game long enough to do so. It felt too crowded with quests/hearts or whatever you wanted to call them for me, and I didn't really like the abilities/feel of any of the classes I played...Just didn't click and make me want to play.
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
If this is true, EQN will be centered on PvE, so it will need a good PvE mechanic. As an old EQ player i m particulary interested in PvE and PvP must have a marginal importance for me.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
If the game turns out as you want, then that's great for you. I will play the game if it's fun for me. At this point it's too early to tell what EQN will be, PvP or PvE. However, I'm hoping that it will be more PvP than PvE, and that old EQ1 players will not want to play EQN. I'm hoping that Smedley's interest in EvE is more than just how to make money, and has to do with PvP elements being in the game from the ground up (i.e. alliances that control territory). Now if that is how the game turns out and it doesn't interest you, then you don't have to play'; on the flip side if EQN is just another PvE/Raid game, then I will probably not stay longer than a month (I will at least try it out).
Your quote only points to going back to a style of gameplay which could mean that they want players to enjoy the world, and not "rush" to end game. Nothing there cements that the game will be focused on PvE. I take it to mean that the world will have more open world dungeons, instead of instances.
Imagine the scenario where raiding/questing is available in EQN, which you would love, but in order for you to get to certain Raids, you had to go through my guilds/alliances owned territory but were denied access. That would be golden. I know one side of the fence isn't gonna be happy; again I'm just hoping that it's the PvE crowd not happy this time as the world will be a PvP territory control game.
But back to your OP. Sandbox needs more than just a single tank holding aggro. There are other ways to do it, and should be explored in a sandbox game.
Everyone has their own heal, but they're on such long cooldowns that if you don't have a strong support character or two in your group, it's going to be a bad day.
Obviously GW2 did provide challenging content for groups because the forums and youtube were flooded with complaints about how hard the dungeons were. Angry Joe is a guy who reviews video games on youtube and in his video you can watch him and his static group of friends/guildies doing the lvl 30 dungeon and wiping over and over to the point where the whole team's armor had broken and they were all butt naked. Not saying that guy is some sort of gold standard in gamer skill, but he's probably at least an average or slightly above average gamer, and it was still challenging for his static group. And AC is WAY easier than the FoTM dungeon set they put into the game....
Clearly the game's mechanics do allow for hard, skill based fights. Harder than 99% of other mmorpgs on the planet so far, in any case.
I agree with the everyone having dodge is silly though. I would have preferred some diversity in the defenses. For example, maybe a guardian with a shield can block, but a guardian with a staff or focus could put up a temp magic bubble... maybe ele's could blink away from an enemy attack... rogues would dodge roll, etc.
But the mechanic in my eyes is clearly superior to a game like, WoW or EQ2 or Vanguard, where you have a tank, and he pushes a button over and over and no one else takes damage just as long as they don't do "Too much damage". I like that in GW2, it felt more like a cinematic, realistic experience, where everyone had to pay attention and be a part of the fight.
Not sitting on the sidelines throwing magic bolts and cheer-leading the tank.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
If you think those "finishers" and groups coordinating to do it properly is new, then you haven't played EQ2. EQ2 had heroic opportunities that were the same thing, and depending on the final thing you wanted to proc, certain classes would have to start it. Some raid mobs even required you to land a specific one to stop them form stone skinning, so it may have to go fighter, healer, scout, mage, or scout, healer, fighter, etc etc.
Killing dragons is my shit
The GW2 system was clearly more advanced. But yes, previous games had other combo systems.
EQ2 had heroic oppertunities, Vanguard had the combat advantage system, for example.
But GW2 is clearly the most dynamic and interesting out of all these systems and played a much larger role in the combat system.
But yes, I'm not claiming everything GW2 did was a "world first". Most games tend to build on, improve and innovate on top of previous games.
But lets not confuse Doom's weapon system with what Crysis has.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Both EQ2 and GW2 got this part wrong.
EQ2's heroic opportunities and GW2's starter/finisher mechanics were not fun, especially in the GW2 zerg that we all know.
They basically amounted to a combo like a fighting game (street fighter) except instead of you hitting up up down a+b, it was lay field down....shoot through field, or all players hitting a skill in an order in short succession. How is that any fun at all. Leave that crap in Street Fighter....
And GW2....everyone can revive? Everyone can self heal? everyone can tank? Everyone can DPS? Sounds more like a zerging game to me. I played many of the dungeons and, while there were some encounters that were interesting, many were just a cluster....
Agro control oldschool style needs to come back and be in full effect. I would totally enjoy also some oldschool EQ1 team vs team server mechanics so that guilds form in different ways based on the various team mechanics and PvP is exciting and adds another level of tension to an already fun game. Maybe there will be separate servers or maybe there will be starting safe areas and as you branch out further you go to partial pvp and then total pvp.
HO's, XI's Skillchains, and XIV's upcoming limit break system I agree are much better group mechanics than the combo fields of GW2. It requires a bit more coordination/timing, and the effects were usually something unique you couldn't achieve with normal abilities. Lotro's fellowship abilities were a bit neat as well I guess now that I think about it, though getting people to bother with the more complex patterns wasn't very common outside of planned boss fights.
Everyone can't do everything at the same time. You have to build your character to your play style/preferences or to what the group needs.
You can't have a character that tops DPS, tanks mobs and heals everyone at the same time. The more you specialize in one role, the more other roles you could have been suffer.
Yes, many people did think GW2 was a frustrating cluster. You can go on youtube and watch people wiping over and over again on lvl 30 content.
But that wasn't the fault of the game. That was a fault of the players encountering a new type of system and not knowing wtf to do, along with the devs who thought it would be cool to give players what they always beg for. "More challenge.
Well, be careful what you wish for! lol. You might just get it.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I think taunt systems need to die.
What I would like to see is positioning systems. As in, collision detection, physical blocking and guarding, etc. to replace taunt.
I think games should have a clear aggro system. I think mobs should know to attack the guy who is healing or blasting him with Mega-nuke B for a ton of damage. NPC AI should be aware enough of threat levels.
But, I'd like to see strategy and positioning important. It would make the use of tunnels and doorways, etc. more strategic, etc.
EQ1 had general collision detection, but it's been a long time since any high quality MMOs have messed with it that I can remember.
Protecting the group should be manual as a tanker. Tank positions himself between his enemies and his squishies -> Mob tries to move around him if aggro is high enough and isn't being focused.
I don't think a single mob should be trying to run and circle around the guy swinging a giant sword at its head, ever. Aggro should only be an issue when the mobs are grouped up(if the tank is in its face.)
Example 1: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the mob -> mob should focus on the tank in its face automatically, because you wouldn't turn your back on an enemy trying to stab you from two feet away.
Example 2: (Wide open spaces)
--Tank is directly in front of the group of mobs. One mob would focus on the tank while his allies tried to get by him to the higher threat targets.
Example 3: (Close quarters)
--Obviously if the tank is blocking the path to his squishies, then mobs should just focus on the tank because there's no route to the higher threat targets.
Fairly simplistic AI, but would like it to take pathing into account and factor in collision detection with players.
One can dream, but I expect to see the same ridiculous systems we keep seeing over and over lacking any creativity or intelligent behavior. Side note: I'd rather collision detection only work Player <-> Mobs and not Player <-> Player for obvious reasons of annoyance and griefing.
That's actually a rather creative solution. I like it.
Certain dungeons or raids might require multiple tanks to build shield walls and such. Mages could have abilities to increase a tanks collision box (by forcefield or size-increase). Things like that.
As I noted in my earlier post, I like the idea of an entire group playing a role in tanking. Not that the entire group tanks, but that they aid the tank in increasing his ability to tank.
Like if a mob makes it past the tank, a ranger could blast it back with a power-shot of sorts, then a mage could throw up a force field to help the tank wrangle the mob back in.
Edit:
We'll never see a system like this because lousy players would think it's "too hard", but this kind of group collaboration sure would be awesome
http://f.cl.ly/items/3n15423i0G2i111y3c2b/computer.gif
More or less Guild Wars 1, and I agree I think it's great alternative.
I like what you are saying. That instantly brings to mind how Shaman in EQ had those shrink and grow spells. If you factor in group participation, there are a ton of options.
For example: spinning off of your force field comment, you could have the basic arrow deflection barriers and fire walls and such that mobs wouldn't want to cross. Plenty of mechanisms they could weave in, the more diversity they wanted to add.
But, like you said, the more complex and difficult they make it all, the less likely we will be to see it.
Still, it would be nice to see some legitimate teamwork and collaboration mechanics again.
GW2 is the best game ever made. Dungeons and group events. Awesome.
I actually don't feel it's the best game ever made and by no means is it the worst, though it is better than most. I was mainly just showing how easy it is to type nonsense.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
lol gw2.
Asking if you want aggro management in EQ Next is like asking do you want logic in EQ Next.
Aggro management isn't rocket science. Its actually one mechanic that doesn't need to be overhauled or revamped.
Give the guys with the shiny armor abilities, be it taunt, or certain attacks or spells that cause agro, and keep the bad monsters from squashing everyone else when they do things that hurt the monster or make him feel vulnerable.
Ez pz.
Yes it is important,it is called ORGANIZED game play,i detest any game that does not have controlled organized game play.
As to someone complaining about GW2 examples,you do realize Arena Net was the one doing the bragging about their system?If Arena Net sees fit to brag about their system ,they can man up and accept criticism as well,you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Anet chose to go that route,so it is the game people will be using for their examples,and there is nothing wrong with using examples,that is how you discuss games and support opinions by using examples.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
this.
why? because only an idiot throws all the forces at his disposal towards one guy with a shield while ignoring everyone else healing guy-with-shield, OR ignoring them as they beat relentlessly on said idiot.
to me aggro control screams fake like almost nothing else in an mmo. its a complete immersion breaker and creates the single most boring combat scenarios ever dreamed up.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
To me, nothing screams fake and immersion breaker louder than illogical and completely unpredictable mobs.
Agro = logic
You can have mobs switch targets, attack other players or multiple players, or even everyone at once, but that doesn't mean you remove agro from the equation. A system without agro is chaos. Chaos is bad and stupid.