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.
^This^
As I mentioned before, trinity agro systems are cute and novel, but they are extremely fake, predictable, and unrealistic immersion breakers.
This may be one reason why I actually enjoyed GW2. I never felt "safe" in the game, regardless of what role I was playing. Sitting back 25 meters and shooting fireballs at a mob and the next moment that mob could be on top of me trying to kick my ass. This is real* combat. Where everyone is in the fray and everyone needs to be on guard.
You can nit pick the mechanics of GW2 all you want, but it's mechanics set out to create this type of more-realistic combat and it achieved that goal. Yes it has some flaws, but show me a game that doesn't have flaws. The point was that it was a step in the right direction to making more exciting and dynamic combat.
The trinity combat systems are fun in their own way, but we've been there done that in so many games.
Another player pointed out another good system that would be interesting (positioning for agro). I think it would bring a lot of skill and control into the tank role, and it could obviously be designed where the tank can only do so much and the other classes still have to defend themselves. It would be a much more interesting combat system.
Whatever direction EQN goes in, I hope the combat is fresh and exciting. I don't want to push 1 2 3 4 and have all monsters ignore me just because some other class wearing plate armor pushed a button labeled "Taunt".
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.
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
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.
thank you. this is exactly what i wanted to say.
it doesn't matter whether you want oldschool or not, the fact that GW2 players were given a completely different style of play and could or could not adapt was not the fault of the game. it was an inability to adapt to a completely different experience and set of mechanics.
"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
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
Sounds more like a PVE'er trying to describe how to PVP. Only bads or PVE'ers who occasionally queue in a theme park BG will try to focus a tanking warrior that runs into their group. Better PVP'ers will just ignore the tank and save him for last.
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
then i certainly would not want to count on those players in any game with a set of mechanics more complex than they can clearly handle.
if you pvp for any length of time or with any real seriousness you are going to quickly learn not to get distracted. (admittedly its easy to do so when you first start out.) but anyone who is still chasing the pally bubble across warsong gulch isn't someone who is paying attention and it is doubtful they are someone you would want on a difficult raid, even just a more complex tank'n'spank raid.
i would add the same for trying to chase a renewal druid between the towers of eye of the storm. you cannot win that way.
and i say all this from personal experience, i have been that idiot. but just a momentary reflection after one encounter like that should be enough to make you aware of what's happening.
so here's my argument: if an ancient elder dragon is not smart enough to have figured all this out in the millenia before you meet him, then i'd ask him for some kind of ID to check his real age. having idiot AI is not fun. and i will agree with part of a post above, neither is pure chaos (unless its part of the plan . but no one is suggesting pure chaos. there may be some, as there is in any severe combat scenario, but it should not be a given that if player X has tankiness therefore all evilness focuses on him.
honestly, if you called a real ancient dragon a name to distract her, chances are she's going to flick you aside with her tail and eat your mage.
"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.
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
You can't have AI attack players simply based on potential damage. Like I said, think it through, it boils down to nothing but chaos.
Suggesting tanks should somehow possess super blocking powers that prevent a mob from reaching their target is the same thing as suggesting a tanks have agro to prevent mobs from attacking others... only stupider.
No one player, not even a tank can stop more powerful mob. Even with collision, a tank can't logically prevent a powerful mob or monster from attacking a caster or healer. Thats ridiculous. Just scale it up.. think big. Giants, dragons, gods? Ya, this measily little tank is going to block the monster from getting at his potential victims.
The tank being able to keep the monster distracted, angry, and from focusing on those incapable of withstanding his beating is far more logical. Thats agro.
Thats not to say I don't agree, tank placement should be imperative. Having action combat where tanks stand in front of the rest of a party or raid should be integrated in, but the idea that a more powerful monster couldn't just throw the tank out of the way if he really wanted to is just silly. He needs a reason to not throw him out of the way - agro.
In fact, EQ had this mechanic as far back as Velious with mobs that flurried. You had to keep 3 tanks on top of the agro so when other players came up to nuke, they didn't get destroyed. Every time the mob flurried, the 3 tanks would take the damage. Agro is still imperative for that system, because the mobs would just go past the tanks and attack the rest of the party. /facepalm
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.
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
This times a thousand.
Agro (god I hate that term) threat should not be something a player can predict and as such the roles should come from interaction within that environment. Like you said the Boss should almost always try to kill healers and squishies first but it is the tanks role to intercede on their behalf, deflect blows, and protect their team mates.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
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.
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
You can't have AI attack players simply based on potential damage. Like I said, think it through, it boils down to nothing but chaos.
Suggesting tanks should somehow possess super blocking powers that prevent a mob from reaching their target is the same thing as suggesting a tanks have agro to prevent mobs from attacking others... only stupider.
No one player, not even a tank can stop more powerful mob. Even with collision, a tank can't logically prevent a powerful mob or monster from attacking a caster or healer. Thats ridiculous. Just scale it up.. think big. Giants, dragons, gods? Ya, this measily little tank is going to block the monster from getting at his potential victims.
The tank being able to keep the monster distracted, angry, and from focusing on those incapable of withstanding his beating is far more logical. Thats agro.
Thats not to say I don't agree, tank placement should be imperative. Having action combat where tanks stand in front of the rest of a party or raid should be integrated in, but the idea that a more powerful monster couldn't just throw the tank out of the way if he really wanted to is just silly. He needs a reason to not throw him out of the way - agro.
Or go on trying to reinvent the wheel.
that smacks more of disappointment in a system you feel failed you, not someone who fundamentally thinks tank'n'spank is the only true path of enlightenment to mmo glory.
to be clear i dont want to appear to be attacking you. im not, but it just seems from what you have been saying that you have definitely tried other forms and found them lacking.
and i won't argue with you there completely. new forms are just that, new, therefore they don't always work well or even work as intended.
i dont think that means we just chuck the whole thing and go back. let's keep pushing forward and find a better way to do something new.
"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.
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
^exactly what's described there.
PvP'rs complain that PvE AI is no challenge. im arguing that we should make it a challenge.
"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
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
Sounds more like a PVE'er trying to describe how to PVP. Only bads or PVE'ers who occasionally queue in a theme park BG will try to focus a tanking warrior that runs into their group. Better PVP'ers will just ignore the tank and save him for last.
That's seem like a lame counter argument. In Rift the warrior was very strong and tough. The warrior was like a PvE tank but with PvE damage. It had a weakness of lack of support. But to ignore the warrior would be foolish and would lead to your own downfall.
in group PvP, I use to lead my group with warriors leading the charge, or Melee clerics and other Melee fighters like Rogues.
the same tactic as the trinity expect in pvp;
Melee fighters ==Tank (same as the trinity here really when you think about it) tank == CC attention seekers.
Healers == healers.
range fighter == DPS / CC/ debuffers
melee warriors and Justicar/tank Melee build clerics lead the charge. The Justicar draw attention from being a Melee fighter that also a cleric. That is auto threat alone by being a cleric.
You also build hate from your massive AoE heals, which also keeps you alive and makes you hard to kill like a tank in PvE. Ignore the cleric and it will simply beat on you and cc you while healing the team.
the warrior on the other hand is a more offensive PvP tank than the cleric. It lays down the cc and burst damage. So if your team attacks the warrior tank's target, just like in PvE, that makes the warrior seem even more of a threat because you seem to not be able to escape their blades.
healers draw aggro as well like in PvE. Healers have to be smart in how they choose who lives and who dies. They need to keep the tank alive and well while worrying about themselves as well. Long as tank is alive the attack can be pushed into enemy territory. Debuffers need to do their job of making the tank seem more of a threat. Also defending healers.
its lots of tactics. And it all comes down to trinity mechanics. I explained this before on the rift forum. It's easier to show than to type in words how people react in combat with real humans. It's very similar to the trinity concept, just without the artificial hate chart but real hate/threat charts.
i don't k ow anybody in rift vanilla PvP that didnt see the warrior as a huge threat/hate target.
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
Sounds more like a PVE'er trying to describe how to PVP. Only bads or PVE'ers who occasionally queue in a theme park BG will try to focus a tanking warrior that runs into their group. Better PVP'ers will just ignore the tank and save him for last.
That's seem like a lame counter argument. In Rift the warrior was very strong and tough. The warrior was like a PvE tank but with PvE damage. It had a weakness of lack of support. But to ignore the warrior would be foolish and would lead to your own downfall.
in group PvP, I use to lead my group with warriors leading the charge, or Melee clerics and other Melee fighters like Rogues.
the same tactic as the trinity expect in pvp;
Melee fighters ==Tank (same as the trinity here really when you think about it) tank == CC attention seekers.
Healers == healers.
range fighter == DPS / CC/ debuffers
melee warriors and Justicar/tank Melee build clerics lead the charge. The Justicar draw attention from being a Melee fighter that also a cleric. That is auto threat alone by being a cleric.
You also build hate from your massive AoE heals, which also keeps you alive and makes you hard to kill like a tank in PvE. Ignore the cleric and it will simply beat on you and cc you while healing the team.
the warrior on the other hand is a more offensive PvP tank than the cleric. It lays down the cc and burst damage. So if your team attacks the warrior tank's target, just like in PvE, that makes the warrior seem even more of a threat because you seem to not be able to escape their blades.
healers draw aggro as well like in PvE. Healers have to be smart in how they choose who lives and who dies. They need to keep the tank alive and well while worrying about themselves as well. Long as tank is alive the attack can be pushed into enemy territory. Debuffers need to do their job of making the tank seem more of a threat. Also defending healers.
its lots of tactics. And it all comes down to trinity mechanics. I explained this before on the rift forum. It's easier to show than to type in words how people react in combat with real humans. It's very similar to the trinity concept, just without the artificial hate chart but real hate/threat charts.
i don't k ow anybody in rift vanilla PvP that didnt see the warrior as a huge threat/hate target.
So did you encourage your team to focus on the tanks who were getting the heals or to go around them to get the dps'ers and healers? If you told your people to focus the tanks then you are exactly the type of player I love to come across in PVP,... just saying.
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.
And if you heal to much the mobs attacks you, if you dps to much the mob attacks you. It takes a team and knowing your team mates. The problem is you guys want it all to easy so you can do your dungeon finders and cross realms and everybody can just instantly do all content. Whats the diffrence between a Warrior and a Necro in EQ1? Whats the diffrence between a Warrior and a Necro in GW2?
Unless you have Addon's and If they EQnext has Addon's like gearscore and aggro ones, then I will just give up:(
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
Actually, in most games I just look for the guy wearing a dress or looks like a healer. If the game has tab target HUD indicators for class I look at that. If it doesn't I look at clothing, race, etc, to determine who dies first. I generally don't need to wait for them to cast a spell before I know who to kill. In fact, I prefer it when they use your method of "hanging back" and not fighting. It means my group takes less damage before I kill the caster.
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 trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
Sounds more like a PVE'er trying to describe how to PVP. Only bads or PVE'ers who occasionally queue in a theme park BG will try to focus a tanking warrior that runs into their group. Better PVP'ers will just ignore the tank and save him for last.
That's seem like a lame counter argument. In Rift the warrior was very strong and tough. The warrior was like a PvE tank but with PvE damage. It had a weakness of lack of support. But to ignore the warrior would be foolish and would lead to your own downfall.
in group PvP, I use to lead my group with warriors leading the charge, or Melee clerics and other Melee fighters like Rogues.
the same tactic as the trinity expect in pvp;
Melee fighters ==Tank (same as the trinity here really when you think about it) tank == CC attention seekers.
Healers == healers.
range fighter == DPS / CC/ debuffers
melee warriors and Justicar/tank Melee build clerics lead the charge. The Justicar draw attention from being a Melee fighter that also a cleric. That is auto threat alone by being a cleric.
You also build hate from your massive AoE heals, which also keeps you alive and makes you hard to kill like a tank in PvE. Ignore the cleric and it will simply beat on you and cc you while healing the team.
the warrior on the other hand is a more offensive PvP tank than the cleric. It lays down the cc and burst damage. So if your team attacks the warrior tank's target, just like in PvE, that makes the warrior seem even more of a threat because you seem to not be able to escape their blades.
healers draw aggro as well like in PvE. Healers have to be smart in how they choose who lives and who dies. They need to keep the tank alive and well while worrying about themselves as well. Long as tank is alive the attack can be pushed into enemy territory. Debuffers need to do their job of making the tank seem more of a threat. Also defending healers.
its lots of tactics. And it all comes down to trinity mechanics. I explained this before on the rift forum. It's easier to show than to type in words how people react in combat with real humans. It's very similar to the trinity concept, just without the artificial hate chart but real hate/threat charts.
i don't k ow anybody in rift vanilla PvP that didnt see the warrior as a huge threat/hate target.
So did you encourage your team to focus on the tanks who were getting the heals or to go around them to get the dps'ers and healers? If you told your people to focus the tanks then you are exactly the type of player I love to come across in PVP,... just saying.
Cc focus on enemy tank. Our tank focus on grabbing aggro of group. Debuffers debuff tank's target. As well as CC tank's target if possible. Support make sure debuffs are removed from team's tanks, while also healing the DPS. Healers focus on keeping themselves and the tank alive.
Wi this trinity in place we pushed the enemy focus back and kept control of the field. We had better tanks. Tanks == field controllers. Both for PvP as well as PvE. Which is why they are so important.
Yes and no. I would like to see the tanks be shook up a bit. Slam your shield in the face of a mob to draw its attention for a short duration, act as a human shield by blocking the part to your party, hamstring mobs so they slow down and attack you instead of trying to run for help. I don't want threat metres, I want realistic AI and skills to counter it. Tanking needs to be more than second rate DPS with inflated hate buffs and temp defence buffs.
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
Actually, in most games I just look for the guy wearing a dress or looks like a healer. If the game has tab target HUD indicators for class I look at that. If it doesn't I look at clothing, race, etc, to determine who dies first. I generally don't need to wait for them to cast a spell before I know who to kill. In fact, I prefer it when they use your method of "hanging back" and not fighting. It means my group takes less damage before I kill the caster.
Hanging back is usually not done out in the open... derp.
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
Actually, in most games I just look for the guy wearing a dress or looks like a healer. If the game has tab target HUD indicators for class I look at that. If it doesn't I look at clothing, race, etc, to determine who dies first. I generally don't need to wait for them to cast a spell before I know who to kill. In fact, I prefer it when they use your method of "hanging back" and not fighting. It means my group takes less damage before I kill the caster.
Hanging back is usually not done out in the open... derp.
Notice no one agreed with your theory.
The status-quo for trinity games is down right unrealistic and illogical. Not saying that Unrealistic/illogical is bad. A game doesn't have to be a simulation.
For example, Battlefield 3 is not even close to what military combat is like. But it's a game. You learn the mechanics, discover strategies, learn the game and play to win/have fun. Same with trinity MMORPGs. The combat is no where near cinematic or even realistic or logical by any means.
You can see in the same games what more logical, realistic combat would look like when you see the PVP in those trinity games, which never looks anything like PVE. In PVP you got people running around, everyone is taking damage, everyone has to pay attention to dangers and engage in active combat or lose. In PVE, it always looks different, neater, more controlled and less frantic because you're playing against scripted AI that does not follow the same combat logic that humans follow. They sit there and bash on a guy wearing full plate and ignore healers and DPS simply because he pushed a taunt button. It's not logical at all.
This is not an objectively bad thing. Games don't have to be realistic to be fun. Most games aren't even close to realistic when compared to similar real life events they try to portray in their look/theme. I just wanted to refute your logic argument, because it's so far off from correct.
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
Actually, in most games I just look for the guy wearing a dress or looks like a healer. If the game has tab target HUD indicators for class I look at that. If it doesn't I look at clothing, race, etc, to determine who dies first. I generally don't need to wait for them to cast a spell before I know who to kill. In fact, I prefer it when they use your method of "hanging back" and not fighting. It means my group takes less damage before I kill the caster.
Hanging back is usually not done out in the open... derp.
Notice no one agreed with your theory.
The status-quo for trinity games is down right unrealistic and illogical. Not saying that Unrealistic/illogical is bad. A game doesn't have to be a simulation.
For example, Battlefield 3 is not even close to what military combat is like. But it's a game. You learn the mechanics, discover strategies, learn the game and play to win/have fun. Same with trinity MMORPGs. The combat is no where near cinematic or even realistic or logical by any means.
You can see in the same games what more logical, realistic combat would look like when you see the PVP in those trinity games, which never looks anything like PVE. In PVP you got people running around, everyone is taking damage, everyone has to pay attention to dangers and engage in active combat or lose. In PVE, it always looks different, neater, more controlled and less frantic because you're playing against scripted AI that does not follow the same combat logic that humans follow. They sit there and bash on a guy wearing full plate and ignore healers and DPS simply because he pushed a taunt button. It's not logical at all.
This is not an objectively bad thing. Games don't have to be realistic to be fun. Most games aren't even close to realistic when compared to similar real life events they try to portray in their look/theme. I just wanted to refute your logic argument, because it's so far off from correct.
I don't need anyone to agree with me on the internet. Upwards of 20 years of online games, I don't need anyones endorsement.
Thankfully for me, "my theory" is logic, not a theory. As a programmer, I'm intimately acquainted with it.
My rebuttal showed conclusively how laughable your suggestion was, and how similar agro is to common sense response in a combat scenario. Even the similarities to PvP are undenyable. Sorry reality took a dump on "your theory." Unfortunately, all of your suggestions of a better alternative are even more unrealistic or simplistic and easy to circumvent than agro. Tanks relying solely on collision to block a mob from damaging a group or raid of players standing behind you? Imagine how much we'd be laughing at that mechanic 15 years later if it was adopted in MMOs instead of traditioinal agro, rofl. In reality, the attacker would just run around you and dirt nap your pals. A bigger, stronger mob would just step over you or push you out of the way. LOLing right now picturing a dwarf tank somehow blocking a dragon or a giant from moving by. You shall not pass!
Agro is unfortunately the only logical solution to mob AI (because it is logic, and AI). Agro also isn't some new thing, its just the modern vernacular for the logic or combat AI of an NPC (like i said earlier). Its existed since the dawn of video games in nearly all AI in one form or another. By all means, think of a better system, but the chaos mechanic or focusing a caster or healer simply for being physically weaker, like a player would in PvP, introduces more problems than solutions. The solutions being suggested must work with the agro system (logic), not replace it.
You can create hundreds of random scenarios where mobs could alter their tactics (agro system), but every time you will come to the same conclusion no matter how you change it, the AI's decisions will still boil down to some variation of an agro system. Maybe it will be to attack casters first, maybe it will be to attack short players. Perhaps evil monsters attack good aligned players and vice versa. Whatever the decision is, its still an agro system, and players will learn and overcome it all the same. For instance, even the "shield wall" or tank(s) utilizing collision and blocking mob pathing is a form of "agro". Its forcing the mob to focus the player(s) as one would with taunt, by impeding their progress towards squishier targets. It does not replace agro (logic) system, it enhances it adding a new dynamic. Adding dynamics to it is great, but chaos makes for some unhappy campers.
The other alternative, which is even worse, is to accept random or chaotic npc agro systems, and change all classes or their mechanics to allow them the ability to mitigate or avoid damage, thus breaking down the typical role system found not only in MMORPGs, but even old pen an paper rpgs (which also used a system of agro). It leaves you with the only logical alternative being a bunch of armored classes, or everyone dodging around until their robe wearing asses get splattered for zigging when they should have zagged. The conclusion of this path is a more realistic one for sure, likely more action combat oriented as well, but ultimately results in the breakdown of roles (as you suggested) and the classic fantasy genre as we know it. Not an option to me.
Conclusion:
One does not simply do away with the agro system, one enhances it. Make it more dynamic. Add more variability. But remove it? Your suggestion is literally removing the intelligence from artificial intelligence.
Also, sorry you missed out on Everquest. It had no less than 6 roles, unlike this holey trinity you found out about in WoW or one of its subsequent clones. Oh, and not only did it have more roles, agro shifted based on things like the health of the mob, the health of players, how close they were, and whether they were sitting or standing. MMOs are devolving pals.
Originally posted by Ramanadjinn I don't enjoy the gimmicky taunt gameplay so I voted no.not opposed to aggro management altogether, but that "attack me" button is not fun for me. i don't like knowing what the AI is going to do and I don't like the overly scripted fights developers end up creating to make the game challenging to compensate for it.
Totally agree.
They better not make it like your typical WoW dungeoneering. It was too easy to keep aggro in that game. Made it just a matter of sitting back with a box of popcorn and running through the usual set of skills and taunts to tank mobs.
If that means I can once again play a character who snares, roots and messes the mobs,
yes please.
I don't think its needed to include GW2 into the discussion.
The lack of an aggro system or trinity isn't the reason GW2 didn't pan out as a lot of us hoped.
Well....maybe a little.
GW2 is one of the most successful MMORPGs to date and the dev team releases additional content (holiday themed and story expansion content) just about every month lol.
3 million copies sold? Sold. Not even F2P 3 million users. 3 million boxes sold at $59.99 to 39.99 a piece. Not including cash shop sales either.
Any game company would be lucky to see those kinds of numbers
Or if you mean't "Didn't pan out" as in some people here didn't like it. Ok cool. Gotcha. Different people like different things.
That's called Hype. A lot of the community left very early on once they realized it was boring. That's why they started doing these free content updates and spamming my email with COME BACK messages.
One does not simply do away with the agro system, one enhances it. Make it more dynamic. Add more variability. But remove it? Your suggestion is literally removing the intelligence from artificial intelligence.
Also, sorry you missed out on Everquest. It had no less than 6 roles, unlike this holey trinity you found out about in WoW or one of its subsequent clones. Oh, and not only did it have more roles, agro shifted based on things like the health of the mob, the health of players, how close they were, and whether they were sitting or standing. MMOs are devolving pals.
edit: school is in session, additions necessary
Conclusion.
Your idea of logical is wrong.
I played EQ from launch, starting March 16, 1999, and for about 4 years after that.
If you want to see logic in combat, look no further than PVP, which looks nothing like PVE in agro based games. (For a reason)
I wonder how the Lord of the Rings movies would look if all the mobs attacked Aragorn because of a taunt while Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Boromir, Merry and Pippin sat in the back, shooting arrows, throwing rocks, throwing daggers and shooting pewpew. While all the orcs, trolls and goblins just attacked Aragorn.
The only problem here is your lack of willingness to move on and learn new mechanics.
Comments
^This^
As I mentioned before, trinity agro systems are cute and novel, but they are extremely fake, predictable, and unrealistic immersion breakers.
This may be one reason why I actually enjoyed GW2. I never felt "safe" in the game, regardless of what role I was playing. Sitting back 25 meters and shooting fireballs at a mob and the next moment that mob could be on top of me trying to kick my ass. This is real* combat. Where everyone is in the fray and everyone needs to be on guard.
You can nit pick the mechanics of GW2 all you want, but it's mechanics set out to create this type of more-realistic combat and it achieved that goal. Yes it has some flaws, but show me a game that doesn't have flaws. The point was that it was a step in the right direction to making more exciting and dynamic combat.
The trinity combat systems are fun in their own way, but we've been there done that in so many games.
Another player pointed out another good system that would be interesting (positioning for agro). I think it would bring a lot of skill and control into the tank role, and it could obviously be designed where the tank can only do so much and the other classes still have to defend themselves. It would be a much more interesting combat system.
Whatever direction EQN goes in, I hope the combat is fresh and exciting. I don't want to push 1 2 3 4 and have all monsters ignore me just because some other class wearing plate armor pushed a button labeled "Taunt".
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
Ya, Logic.
Like attacking some guy holding a shield, wearing thick armor with shoulder pads up over his head taking near no damage from your blows, and ignoring the elf wearing a dress shooting fireballs at you because the guy wearing plate said something insulting about your mother.
Perfectly logical? I think not.
You want to see logic in action, play PVP. The tank is almost always the last guy to get attacked. Clothies and healers die first, generally followed by scouts, and tanks are left to die last, almost every time in every game.
Tanks in PVP generally perform realistic protection roles. Like they shield bash an enemy that's hitting the healer/dps class to stun him and take the heat off the weaker class. He charges at the enemy knocks him back. He casts protection spells on the team to help mitigate damage his allies would have taken. He positions himself between a foe and monster to take the hit that the caster/dps/healer would have taken.
THAT is logical.
A system where tanks are protectors of other classes, but are almost never the primary target of an enemy's attack, and mobs aim for the most vulnerable and weakest looking player.
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
The trini exist in PvP as well. The strong Melee warrior that is hard to kill, runs into a pack of enemy players and CCing them taunting them as the warrior bashes away at the groups HP. They turn their attention to pushing off this warrior, who is getting support heals and buffs from the high aggro healer/support who is hiding behind a wall of these warriors. The range fighters stay back and guard the healer while dishing out the large damage on the warrior's targets and applying cc to prevent the run offs from killing healers and group members.
sounds very much like the trinity to me. I played games like Rift's PvP back in the day and experienced this first hand. Being Melee and hard to kill and insulting, was very close role to PvE tanks. Fuctioned the same way. Run in , enemy players get annoyed at what you are doing, as well as the fact that they are having trouble killing you. That makes them want to destroy you more as you sit there mocking them with "lols" .
in trinity PvE the healer is usually the second top hate list next to tanks. Again just like PvP.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
thank you. this is exactly what i wanted to say.
it doesn't matter whether you want oldschool or not, the fact that GW2 players were given a completely different style of play and could or could not adapt was not the fault of the game. it was an inability to adapt to a completely different experience and set of mechanics.
"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
Sounds more like a PVE'er trying to describe how to PVP. Only bads or PVE'ers who occasionally queue in a theme park BG will try to focus a tanking warrior that runs into their group. Better PVP'ers will just ignore the tank and save him for last.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
then i certainly would not want to count on those players in any game with a set of mechanics more complex than they can clearly handle.
if you pvp for any length of time or with any real seriousness you are going to quickly learn not to get distracted. (admittedly its easy to do so when you first start out.) but anyone who is still chasing the pally bubble across warsong gulch isn't someone who is paying attention and it is doubtful they are someone you would want on a difficult raid, even just a more complex tank'n'spank raid.
i would add the same for trying to chase a renewal druid between the towers of eye of the storm. you cannot win that way.
and i say all this from personal experience, i have been that idiot. but just a momentary reflection after one encounter like that should be enough to make you aware of what's happening.
so here's my argument: if an ancient elder dragon is not smart enough to have figured all this out in the millenia before you meet him, then i'd ask him for some kind of ID to check his real age. having idiot AI is not fun. and i will agree with part of a post above, neither is pure chaos (unless its part of the plan
. but no one is suggesting pure chaos. there may be some, as there is in any severe combat scenario, but it should not be a given that if player X has tankiness therefore all evilness focuses on him.
honestly, if you called a real ancient dragon a name to distract her, chances are she's going to flick you aside with her tail and eat your mage.
"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
You can't have AI attack players simply based on potential damage. Like I said, think it through, it boils down to nothing but chaos.
Suggesting tanks should somehow possess super blocking powers that prevent a mob from reaching their target is the same thing as suggesting a tanks have agro to prevent mobs from attacking others... only stupider.
No one player, not even a tank can stop more powerful mob. Even with collision, a tank can't logically prevent a powerful mob or monster from attacking a caster or healer. Thats ridiculous. Just scale it up.. think big. Giants, dragons, gods? Ya, this measily little tank is going to block the monster from getting at his potential victims.
The tank being able to keep the monster distracted, angry, and from focusing on those incapable of withstanding his beating is far more logical. Thats agro.
Thats not to say I don't agree, tank placement should be imperative. Having action combat where tanks stand in front of the rest of a party or raid should be integrated in, but the idea that a more powerful monster couldn't just throw the tank out of the way if he really wanted to is just silly. He needs a reason to not throw him out of the way - agro.
In fact, EQ had this mechanic as far back as Velious with mobs that flurried. You had to keep 3 tanks on top of the agro so when other players came up to nuke, they didn't get destroyed. Every time the mob flurried, the 3 tanks would take the damage. Agro is still imperative for that system, because the mobs would just go past the tanks and attack the rest of the party. /facepalm
Or go on trying to reinvent the wheel.
This times a thousand.
Agro (god I hate that term) threat should not be something a player can predict and as such the roles should come from interaction within that environment. Like you said the Boss should almost always try to kill healers and squishies first but it is the tanks role to intercede on their behalf, deflect blows, and protect their team mates.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
that smacks more of disappointment in a system you feel failed you, not someone who fundamentally thinks tank'n'spank is the only true path of enlightenment to mmo glory.
to be clear i dont want to appear to be attacking you. im not, but it just seems from what you have been saying that you have definitely tried other forms and found them lacking.
and i won't argue with you there completely. new forms are just that, new, therefore they don't always work well or even work as intended.
i dont think that means we just chuck the whole thing and go back. let's keep pushing forward and find a better way to do something new.
"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
^exactly what's described there.
PvP'rs complain that PvE AI is no challenge. im arguing that we should make it a challenge.
"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
Also, while we're comparing PvE to PvP to trash agro, lets look at how it really goes down in PvP.
In PvP, if you see a caster you attack them. In PvE, if you engage a mob and a caster immediately nukes the mob, it attacks them. Their damage will over- what class? Overagro. In PvE casters don't nuke immediately. In PvP, they generally do, thus you attack them first. Thats actually one of the things I avoided doing the most as a caster in PvP. I'd wait until the fighting was hot and heavy and people were distracted, then I'd come out discreetly and let the bodies hit the floor. Theres nothing I love more in pvp as melee dps than seeing casters jump out in the beginning of pvp like suprise, muthaf*ka, and I just down them immediately. Quite similar to how it works in PvE...
Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd have agro abilities play a role in PvP as well. That would be a more intelligent system. When that rogue is running at your cleric, you taunt and spin him around and shift his target to you. Even if its only for a second.
That's seem like a lame counter argument. In Rift the warrior was very strong and tough. The warrior was like a PvE tank but with PvE damage. It had a weakness of lack of support. But to ignore the warrior would be foolish and would lead to your own downfall.
in group PvP, I use to lead my group with warriors leading the charge, or Melee clerics and other Melee fighters like Rogues.
the same tactic as the trinity expect in pvp;
Melee fighters ==Tank (same as the trinity here really when you think about it) tank == CC attention seekers.
Healers == healers.
range fighter == DPS / CC/ debuffers
melee warriors and Justicar/tank Melee build clerics lead the charge. The Justicar draw attention from being a Melee fighter that also a cleric. That is auto threat alone by being a cleric.
You also build hate from your massive AoE heals, which also keeps you alive and makes you hard to kill like a tank in PvE. Ignore the cleric and it will simply beat on you and cc you while healing the team.
the warrior on the other hand is a more offensive PvP tank than the cleric. It lays down the cc and burst damage. So if your team attacks the warrior tank's target, just like in PvE, that makes the warrior seem even more of a threat because you seem to not be able to escape their blades.
healers draw aggro as well like in PvE. Healers have to be smart in how they choose who lives and who dies. They need to keep the tank alive and well while worrying about themselves as well. Long as tank is alive the attack can be pushed into enemy territory. Debuffers need to do their job of making the tank seem more of a threat. Also defending healers.
its lots of tactics. And it all comes down to trinity mechanics. I explained this before on the rift forum. It's easier to show than to type in words how people react in combat with real humans. It's very similar to the trinity concept, just without the artificial hate chart but real hate/threat charts.
i don't k ow anybody in rift vanilla PvP that didnt see the warrior as a huge threat/hate target.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
So did you encourage your team to focus on the tanks who were getting the heals or to go around them to get the dps'ers and healers? If you told your people to focus the tanks then you are exactly the type of player I love to come across in PVP,... just saying.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
And if you heal to much the mobs attacks you, if you dps to much the mob attacks you. It takes a team and knowing your team mates. The problem is you guys want it all to easy so you can do your dungeon finders and cross realms and everybody can just instantly do all content. Whats the diffrence between a Warrior and a Necro in EQ1? Whats the diffrence between a Warrior and a Necro in GW2?
Unless you have Addon's and If they EQnext has Addon's like gearscore and aggro ones, then I will just give up:(
Actually, in most games I just look for the guy wearing a dress or looks like a healer. If the game has tab target HUD indicators for class I look at that. If it doesn't I look at clothing, race, etc, to determine who dies first. I generally don't need to wait for them to cast a spell before I know who to kill. In fact, I prefer it when they use your method of "hanging back" and not fighting. It means my group takes less damage before I kill the caster.
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 want tanks to beable to taunt and hold threat against other players in PvP .
So the players would have to kill the tank first before finishing off the rest of the group . AoE should still damage everyone tho .
This would bring a great dynamic to PvP .
Cc focus on enemy tank. Our tank focus on grabbing aggro of group. Debuffers debuff tank's target. As well as CC tank's target if possible. Support make sure debuffs are removed from team's tanks, while also healing the DPS. Healers focus on keeping themselves and the tank alive.
Wi this trinity in place we pushed the enemy focus back and kept control of the field. We had better tanks. Tanks == field controllers. Both for PvP as well as PvE. Which is why they are so important.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Hanging back is usually not done out in the open... derp.
Having specialized classes that can effectively deal with said aggro are awsome as well.
Mmm.... Specialized classes, nothing but love there. B-)
Interesting thing as well is that it's easy to tell if a person knows their class if you have differentiated classes.
Cheers
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
Notice no one agreed with your theory.
The status-quo for trinity games is down right unrealistic and illogical. Not saying that Unrealistic/illogical is bad. A game doesn't have to be a simulation.
For example, Battlefield 3 is not even close to what military combat is like. But it's a game. You learn the mechanics, discover strategies, learn the game and play to win/have fun. Same with trinity MMORPGs. The combat is no where near cinematic or even realistic or logical by any means.
You can see in the same games what more logical, realistic combat would look like when you see the PVP in those trinity games, which never looks anything like PVE. In PVP you got people running around, everyone is taking damage, everyone has to pay attention to dangers and engage in active combat or lose. In PVE, it always looks different, neater, more controlled and less frantic because you're playing against scripted AI that does not follow the same combat logic that humans follow. They sit there and bash on a guy wearing full plate and ignore healers and DPS simply because he pushed a taunt button. It's not logical at all.
This is not an objectively bad thing. Games don't have to be realistic to be fun. Most games aren't even close to realistic when compared to similar real life events they try to portray in their look/theme. I just wanted to refute your logic argument, because it's so far off from correct.
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 don't need anyone to agree with me on the internet. Upwards of 20 years of online games, I don't need anyones endorsement.
Thankfully for me, "my theory" is logic, not a theory. As a programmer, I'm intimately acquainted with it.
My rebuttal showed conclusively how laughable your suggestion was, and how similar agro is to common sense response in a combat scenario. Even the similarities to PvP are undenyable. Sorry reality took a dump on "your theory." Unfortunately, all of your suggestions of a better alternative are even more unrealistic or simplistic and easy to circumvent than agro. Tanks relying solely on collision to block a mob from damaging a group or raid of players standing behind you? Imagine how much we'd be laughing at that mechanic 15 years later if it was adopted in MMOs instead of traditioinal agro, rofl. In reality, the attacker would just run around you and dirt nap your pals. A bigger, stronger mob would just step over you or push you out of the way. LOLing right now picturing a dwarf tank somehow blocking a dragon or a giant from moving by. You shall not pass!
Agro is unfortunately the only logical solution to mob AI (because it is logic, and AI). Agro also isn't some new thing, its just the modern vernacular for the logic or combat AI of an NPC (like i said earlier). Its existed since the dawn of video games in nearly all AI in one form or another. By all means, think of a better system, but the chaos mechanic or focusing a caster or healer simply for being physically weaker, like a player would in PvP, introduces more problems than solutions. The solutions being suggested must work with the agro system (logic), not replace it.
You can create hundreds of random scenarios where mobs could alter their tactics (agro system), but every time you will come to the same conclusion no matter how you change it, the AI's decisions will still boil down to some variation of an agro system. Maybe it will be to attack casters first, maybe it will be to attack short players. Perhaps evil monsters attack good aligned players and vice versa. Whatever the decision is, its still an agro system, and players will learn and overcome it all the same. For instance, even the "shield wall" or tank(s) utilizing collision and blocking mob pathing is a form of "agro". Its forcing the mob to focus the player(s) as one would with taunt, by impeding their progress towards squishier targets. It does not replace agro (logic) system, it enhances it adding a new dynamic. Adding dynamics to it is great, but chaos makes for some unhappy campers.
The other alternative, which is even worse, is to accept random or chaotic npc agro systems, and change all classes or their mechanics to allow them the ability to mitigate or avoid damage, thus breaking down the typical role system found not only in MMORPGs, but even old pen an paper rpgs (which also used a system of agro). It leaves you with the only logical alternative being a bunch of armored classes, or everyone dodging around until their robe wearing asses get splattered for zigging when they should have zagged. The conclusion of this path is a more realistic one for sure, likely more action combat oriented as well, but ultimately results in the breakdown of roles (as you suggested) and the classic fantasy genre as we know it. Not an option to me.
Conclusion:
One does not simply do away with the agro system, one enhances it. Make it more dynamic. Add more variability. But remove it? Your suggestion is literally removing the intelligence from artificial intelligence.
Also, sorry you missed out on Everquest. It had no less than 6 roles, unlike this holey trinity you found out about in WoW or one of its subsequent clones. Oh, and not only did it have more roles, agro shifted based on things like the health of the mob, the health of players, how close they were, and whether they were sitting or standing. MMOs are devolving pals.
edit: school is in session, additions necessary
Totally agree.
They better not make it like your typical WoW dungeoneering. It was too easy to keep aggro in that game. Made it just a matter of sitting back with a box of popcorn and running through the usual set of skills and taunts to tank mobs.
That's called Hype. A lot of the community left very early on once they realized it was boring. That's why they started doing these free content updates and spamming my email with COME BACK messages.
Conclusion.
Your idea of logical is wrong.
I played EQ from launch, starting March 16, 1999, and for about 4 years after that.
If you want to see logic in combat, look no further than PVP, which looks nothing like PVE in agro based games. (For a reason)
I wonder how the Lord of the Rings movies would look if all the mobs attacked Aragorn because of a taunt while Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Boromir, Merry and Pippin sat in the back, shooting arrows, throwing rocks, throwing daggers and shooting pewpew. While all the orcs, trolls and goblins just attacked Aragorn.
The only problem here is your lack of willingness to move on and learn new mechanics.
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