Lets go back to D&D shall we and look at how that worked...
Lets start with the 'tank'...the fighter. They were VERY good fighters (naturally) and had Very good defence but were kind of limited in doing much more then fighting.
Now the Cleric. Clerics were of course there for healing but they also were there for lots of utility spells to cause damage to the opponent. They also have great defence.
The rogue had exceptional damage but very situational but they were very mobile and provided a lots of utility skills for traps and other sneaky stuff.
Last we have the mage. They could also do lots of damage, a lot of it situational, but their main ability was to flexible and there to fill the gaps.
All classes could do damage, some more then others but a lot of the time that was due to the situation. Some creatures might be immune to normal weapons so the fighter was useless but the cleric was doing all the DPS.
All classes had ways of having great defence. A fighter and cleric by wearing lots of armour. A rogue by being mobile and dextrous and a mage by having lots of spells to stay out of harms way.
All classes except the fighter had lots of utility skills that could be used in and out of combat.
And how did combat work? It was usually positional. There was no taunt and so the fight stated by finding out there was combat about to happen and get people to move to engage or back up. then people were free to roam around but there were consequences. If you felt a mob was getting too close to the mage, you might peel off, risk an attack of oppertunity and engage. But that didn't mean the mage didn't have options just that the fighter liked to kill things and stop others from getting hurt. Not by yelling but by actually attacking.
In a nutshell agro and taunts were a mechanic used in early development that are according to SOE no longer needed. If that is true then it will be a situation where technology has finally allowed combat to actually be how it was first designed...which was to simulate real combat but in a highly fantastical setting.
Gonna be good.
If you want to cite D&D as an example, then let's throw in critical fumbles and all that went into real D&D combat. Roll a 1? Might kill YOURSELF, or your own party member, maybe lose a limb, etc... D&D is a very poor example to take combat mechanics from for this particular PVE focused crowd. in D&D there was permadeath, stat loss, full looting, etc. So if we really REALLY want to take D&D's example for combat, then I say take it all the way and I'm all for it.
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
Ping Pong tank ~
People are right I think, it doesn't really work. Kicking away mobs..lol...it doesn't make any sense.
You know if it worked they would have already did it in other action games.
Dave person is going to provide a reply soon he said. Let's see what his fix is, maybe I will say "ok this makes sense", I hope it is not becoming a ping pong ball.
They have done it in other games, action and non-action.
Warhammer, the IronBreaker's main strength was shield bashing and kicking enemies away. When a player would try to attack a healer, and that ironbreaker saved the day, it was a great experience. A noticeable experience.
Same with GW2. When you're getting heart-seekered by some thief and the guardian runs up and smashed it away with 2h hammer knock back, it's a good experience.
Agro based games are moronic. Unrealistic. Tired. Boring. Simplistic. There's a reason why PVP never looks like PVE in those games. Players are smarter than AI and they always play to win. Players never start off attacking a "tank". It's got the most defense and generally the lowest threat out of any character.
Taking away agro and making tanking an active role in the group makes much more sense. Sorry but you're just wrong. :P
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
Ping Pong tank ~
People are right I think, it doesn't really work. Kicking away mobs..lol...it doesn't make any sense.
You know if it worked they would have already did it in other action games.
Dave person is going to provide a reply soon he said. Let's see what his fix is, maybe I will say "ok this makes sense", I hope it is not becoming a ping pong ball.
If "kicking away mobs" was all we were referring too, then you would be correct. There are many other mechanics that have already been mentioned in this thread that you are completely ignoring, and which have nothing to do with "ping Pong".
Yes, I read all the posts. You said "root a mob so it targets the closest PC"
I'm sorry, but that is suuuuuuuuuuper clumsy. You might as well use an aggro system with a tank then.
Someone offer a real solution.
There have been a lot of options offered.. not all of which directly effects the mobs. Some effect team mates. some effect you. Some are debuffs and slows. There are ways with some ingenuity.
Originally posted by Waterlily Without taunt you fall into the DPS archetype, there's no way to shoehorn proper tanking into a game without an aggro stack. Some things just don't work.
Incorrect. Tanking just becomes an active, instead of a passive role.
Tanks in EQN will have abilities to "protect" the group, without relying on unrealistic and dated agro mechanics.
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
I am a bit confused how is agro unrealistic. In your example you said you see your team mate in trouble that team mate attracted the agro of the big bad boss is the way you get attacked. Its a description of something that happens in a fight. That happens when you heal or do damage or anything that makes the boss turn its attention to you . Why is agro unrealistic ?
Yes, that's "Agro" based on a real threat. In pvp, if you see someone healing and it's really saving the group, that "agro's you" and you attack the healer to try and cut them off from the support.
If everyone in the enemy team is doing 100 damage per hit, and some wizard nukes you for 2000 damage, that wizard just "agroed" you because he's the most dangerous person there, so you attack him or her.
What is the threat in a tank using "taunt" button to "generate agro". It's not a threat. So you don't attack the tank.
I got nothing against AI "agroing" based on real threats. What I have a problem with is a guy in full plate, who hits for half the damage of everyone else, to hold the attention of mobs for the whole fight and "tanking them", when it's clearly the least smart move the mob could do.
Have "agro", where people can generate real threat, and make the tanking role active, as I stated previously.
Tanking where a player holds agro the whole fight, spamming a "+threat" curse word button makes combat easy, predictable, unrealistic and it's not wanted.
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
Ping Pong tank ~
People are right I think, it doesn't really work. Kicking away mobs..lol...it doesn't make any sense.
You know if it worked they would have already did it in other action games.
Dave person is going to provide a reply soon he said. Let's see what his fix is, maybe I will say "ok this makes sense", I hope it is not becoming a ping pong ball.
They have done it in other games, action and non-action.
Warhammer, the IronBreaker's main strength was shield bashing and kicking enemies away. When a player would try to attack a healer, and that ironbreaker saved the day, it was a great experience. A noticeable experience.
Same with GW2. When you're getting heart-seekered by some thief and the guardian runs up and smashed it away with 2h hammer knock back, it's a good experience.
Agro based games are moronic. Unrealistic. Tired. Boring. Simplistic. There's a reason why PVP never looks like PVE in those games. Players are smarter than AI and they always play to win. Players never start off attacking a "tank". It's got the most defense and generally the lowest threat out of any character.
Taking away agro and making tanking an active role in the group makes much more sense. Sorry but you're just wrong. :P
Let's take a step back and look at your 'active tanking' next to what the major thoughts on this 'emergent AI' are going to be like. The way we think it's going to work is the mob will be smart enough to move around, target based on triggers, etc.
Well, if it's trigger based, then taking a lot of damage, being interrupted, etc. is most likely going to work the EXACT same way as stacking aggro. You might not be 'taunting', but you'll keep doing things to keep those trigger ounts high so the scripted AI will keep focusing on you.
Now, if you're beating the hell out of a mob, tripping it, knocking it down, blocking it's movement towards another member.... and it STILL doesn't focus on you, then I call this emergent AI crap broken and failed. It's just not tactically sound to keep turning your back to an immediate threat again and again, giving it the opportunity to take advantage of you while you try to run across an open field instead of turning to face said threat and work to get it off you FIRST.
So there we have a full example of threat and aggro mechanics within your new godly 'emergent AI' crap.
The only way it works in your favor is if for some reason each and every mob in game can insta root you and move on toward its higher perceived threat, which would just be utterly retarded and unrealistic. The day a cow can root me in place is the day I get Smedley to sell EQN to the Hello Kitty dev team.
In that case yes a button alone is not right agreed or like the tanker in City of X "aha!!!" I always found that odd but the fire tank would also tank with his fire shield that did damage and stunning or pushing something and getting in front of them works too. Well in Warhammer I could punt people as a healer away from me. The archer class also could do that punt people into the lava for instance.
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
Ping Pong tank ~
People are right I think, it doesn't really work. Kicking away mobs..lol...it doesn't make any sense.
You know if it worked they would have already did it in other action games.
Dave person is going to provide a reply soon he said. Let's see what his fix is, maybe I will say "ok this makes sense", I hope it is not becoming a ping pong ball.
They have done it in other games, action and non-action.
Warhammer, the IronBreaker's main strength was shield bashing and kicking enemies away. When a player would try to attack a healer, and that ironbreaker saved the day, it was a great experience. A noticeable experience.
Same with GW2. When you're getting heart-seekered by some thief and the guardian runs up and smashed it away with 2h hammer knock back, it's a good experience.
Agro based games are moronic. Unrealistic. Tired. Boring. Simplistic. There's a reason why PVP never looks like PVE in those games. Players are smarter than AI and they always play to win. Players never start off attacking a "tank". It's got the most defense and generally the lowest threat out of any character.
Taking away agro and making tanking an active role in the group makes much more sense. Sorry but you're just wrong. :P
Let's take a step back and look at your 'active tanking' next to what the major thoughts on this 'emergent AI' are going to be like. The way we think it's going to work is the mob will be smart enough to move around, target based on triggers, etc.
Well, if it's trigger based, then taking a lot of damage, being interrupted, etc. is most likely going to work the EXACT same way as stacking aggro. You might not be 'taunting', but you'll keep doing things to keep those trigger ounts high so the scripted AI will keep focusing on you.
Now, if you're beating the hell out of a mob, tripping it, knocking it down, blocking it's movement towards another member.... and it STILL doesn't focus on you, then I call this emergent AI crap broken and failed. It's just not tactically sound to keep turning your back to an immediate threat again and again, giving it the opportunity to take advantage of you while you try to run across an open field instead of turning to face said threat and work to get it off you FIRST.
So there we have a full example of threat and aggro mechanics within your new godly 'emergent AI' crap.
The only way it works in your favor is if for some reason each and every mob in game can insta root you and move on toward its higher perceived threat, which would just be utterly retarded and unrealistic. The day a cow can root me in place is the day I get Smedley to sell EQN to the Hello Kitty dev team.
The "Emergent AI" and the AI scripts used for combat will be 2 different things, but I get your point.
Yes obviously if a warrior kicks a mob away, then runs in and shield bashes the mob into the ground, it should draw some agro. I'm not saying mobs have to completely avoid / not attack tanks. I'm saying that pushing a "curse word button" and having that mob sit there the whole fight attacking that tank is stupid.
I don't even need to argue for this kind of system, EQN is going to have a great combat system and it's not going to have tanks sitting there "tanking" the mobs for the whole fight. So I'm happy.
Also, the demos did not show "real combat", it was just a demo for showing off attack animations, collision, the destructible environment, etc etc.
They're still working on combat for the game. What you guys saw at SOE live is not what "real combat" in the game is going to look like.
However, if you're hoping for WoW2 with a plate wearer spamming taunt buttons and all other party members watching dps meters, you're going to be sad.
However many games don't only use a 'curse ' button they have like hamstring which cripples in WoW or stun or bleed or face bash among others or a snare its was never just one button in the games I played if I'm not mistaken. I always played a healer so my recollection may be wrong. Also you can have like a lift and smash down (do not recall which game that was). Knockdown which made the mob lie on the ground oh yes that was city of X. Or you disorientate them so they are confused for a bit never just a curse. or you blind them by throwing sand in their eye or flashbang. So there are various ways to tank really not just shout one curse word.
Only way to do tanking w/o threat/taunts is to have proper collision detection and line of sighting in the game, where then you would physically have to stand in front of and block a mob/npc/player from advancing past you or shooting/casting around you.
You would then need the tools to withstand the npc/mobs attacks (defensive abilities) and enough offensive abilities to make the target want to focus on the person punching them in the face.
Knockbacks/stuns would be the bane of tanks, which would probably work out as long as there was a counter mechanic (like say a support oriented group mate could dispel the stun/mezz off you), and the tanking characters have tools like gap closers and cripples.
Tanking multiple mobs would be very challenging, as you'd have to have access to stuns, cripples, gap closers, perhaps even AoE abilities in a frontal arc that would help you focus multiple npc/mob's hate onto you.
If you are reading this with a PvP eye, you can see where this may create problems.
These kinds of tanks would be absolute BEASTS in PvP.
You'd have to limit the damage output of tanks to not make them really overpowered, which would really hurt their viability for solo play in PvE.
WAR initially took this approach with tanks at launch, but it took them a little while to figure out tanks were doing too much damage. Tier 1 PvP as a tank (Black Ork FTW) was incredibly OP at launch.
By the time they nerfed damage output because of it, PvE became a horribly slow mess even with a 2H instead of sword&board.
UO actually did very well with tanking via line of site and collision detection.
On Siege Perilous we used to use a tactic in PvP where we'd surround the 4 squares around another player, preventing them from leaving our death-square and just pound on them.
You'd have to also give non-tank melee DPS damage bonuses for attacking from the rear/side to prevent any player who engaged in melee DPS from being a de facto tank due to the collision detection.
But that'd work well for off tanking and emergency tanking situations in PvE and PvP.
I think tanking w/o taunting is certainly possible, but you really, and I mean REALLY have to get the mechanics right.
Tanks will have to see which team mate is in trouble, run in and shield bash, kick away, intercept damage, etc. It will be active tanking, but it's still going to be tanking.
So clearly you're wrong. You can have a tanking role, without it being based on something as unrealistic as agro.
Ping Pong tank ~
People are right I think, it doesn't really work. Kicking away mobs..lol...it doesn't make any sense.
You know if it worked they would have already did it in other action games.
Dave person is going to provide a reply soon he said. Let's see what his fix is, maybe I will say "ok this makes sense", I hope it is not becoming a ping pong ball.
They have done it in other games, action and non-action.
Warhammer, the IronBreaker's main strength was shield bashing and kicking enemies away. When a player would try to attack a healer, and that ironbreaker saved the day, it was a great experience. A noticeable experience.
Same with GW2. When you're getting heart-seekered by some thief and the guardian runs up and smashed it away with 2h hammer knock back, it's a good experience.
Agro based games are moronic. Unrealistic. Tired. Boring. Simplistic. There's a reason why PVP never looks like PVE in those games. Players are smarter than AI and they always play to win. Players never start off attacking a "tank". It's got the most defense and generally the lowest threat out of any character.
Taking away agro and making tanking an active role in the group makes much more sense. Sorry but you're just wrong. :P
Let's take a step back and look at your 'active tanking' next to what the major thoughts on this 'emergent AI' are going to be like. The way we think it's going to work is the mob will be smart enough to move around, target based on triggers, etc.
Well, if it's trigger based, then taking a lot of damage, being interrupted, etc. is most likely going to work the EXACT same way as stacking aggro. You might not be 'taunting', but you'll keep doing things to keep those trigger ounts high so the scripted AI will keep focusing on you.
Now, if you're beating the hell out of a mob, tripping it, knocking it down, blocking it's movement towards another member.... and it STILL doesn't focus on you, then I call this emergent AI crap broken and failed. It's just not tactically sound to keep turning your back to an immediate threat again and again, giving it the opportunity to take advantage of you while you try to run across an open field instead of turning to face said threat and work to get it off you FIRST.
So there we have a full example of threat and aggro mechanics within your new godly 'emergent AI' crap.
The only way it works in your favor is if for some reason each and every mob in game can insta root you and move on toward its higher perceived threat, which would just be utterly retarded and unrealistic. The day a cow can root me in place is the day I get Smedley to sell EQN to the Hello Kitty dev team.
The "Emergent AI" and the AI scripts used for combat will be 2 different things, but I get your point.
Yes obviously if a warrior kicks a mob away, then runs in and shield bashes the mob into the ground, it should draw some agro. I'm not saying mobs have to completely avoid / not attack tanks. I'm saying that pushing a "curse word button" and having that mob sit there the whole fight attacking that tank is stupid.
I don't even need to argue for this kind of system, EQN is going to have a great combat system and it's not going to have tanks sitting there "tanking" the mobs for the whole fight. So I'm happy.
Also, the demos did not show "real combat", it was just a demo for showing off attack animations, collision, the destructible environment, etc etc.
They're still working on combat for the game. What you guys saw at SOE live is not what "real combat" in the game is going to look like.
However, if you're hoping for WoW2 with a plate wearer spamming taunt buttons and all other party members watching dps meters, you're going to be sad.
I'm not picking on you, I'm making fun of the people that don't realize that hitting a button called taunt is no different from hitting a button called bash as far as the generic mechanics are involved. So mobs have a few more options... so what? There's really only 2 routes they can take if someone is dead set on playing the tank role, and that's to take the bait and follow the same old stack on the tank tactics, or it'll show the new AI is flawed and the mobs will let a guy run behind it, hacking it to death because the mob wasn't 'smart' enough to turn around and protect itself from what was right there to begin with. Tanking is tanking. The button(s) names make no difference when the mechanics and end results are the same.
I'm not picking on you, I'm making fun of the people that don't realize that hitting a button called taunt is no different from hitting a button called bash as far as the generic mechanics are involved. So mobs have a few more options... so what? There's really only 2 routes they can take if someone is dead set on playing the tank role, and that's to take the bait and follow the same old stack on the tank tactics, or it'll show the new AI is flawed and the mobs will let a guy run behind it, hacking it to death because the mob wasn't 'smart' enough to turn around and protect itself from what was right there to begin with. Tanking is tanking. The button(s) names make no difference when the mechanics and end results are the same.
Exactly.
The way to play a "tank" role in a group should be-
I choose to put myself in between the enemy and my friends, and make them face me and want to attack me because I am beating in their face.
Could be heavy armor, light armor, shields, 2-handers, hell even 100% magic...
But loopback1199 is right, if the mob/NPC AI doesn't recognize that "hey, this dude in my face is beating the shit out of me, I need to deal with him first" then it is poorly crafted AI that makes the tanking role useless - and thus not a role.
Smart AI could maybe stun the tank, and then move on to try and get at someone else - as long as there is a counter for that (like say maybe from the someone else (healer) the mob is trying to get to)
But it'd have to work in PvP too, which means player collision + line of site.
You do know a Guardian is the best tank in GW2, even though everyone can play(or try to play) that role.
Also, EVERY single mmo game that comes out says they have "better" AI. It always turns out it's nothing groundbreaking. I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
But every MMO that comes out has had static spawns or scripted events for mob AI. This is a persistent world that learns over time and reacts to players, not pre-defined.
That is what they say(not the first btw). You can't really go around saying that is the reality until you have seen it. Otherwise it's like another poster said, faith.
True enough, and if these devs were only saying: "We have better AI... because... well, it's just better !", I'd be laughing too.
But 60% of the features in EQNext depend on that "better AI" working spectacularly. If StoryBricks doesn't deliver, EQNext is dead. Stone dead.
We can only draw arguments from our past experiences. In the reference frame of "scripted NPC combat", our arguments are valid. But that reference frame is no longer valid if adaptive AI works.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
You can tank just fine without taunts, we did it in FFXI.
Taunt or provoke in that game was terrible and on a 30 second cooldown.
Threat was based on spell cumulative and volatile enmity, especially heals and abilities.
You had to give your tank time to build up threat.
The whole force taunt mechanic is beyond stupid. We did fine without it and so can anyone, provided players get out of the mindset of going nuts right away and expecting to survive.
You do know a Guardian is the best tank in GW2, even though everyone can play(or try to play) that role.
Also, EVERY single mmo game that comes out says they have "better" AI. It always turns out it's nothing groundbreaking. I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
But every MMO that comes out has had static spawns or scripted events for mob AI. This is a persistent world that learns over time and reacts to players, not pre-defined.
That is what they say(not the first btw). You can't really go around saying that is the reality until you have seen it. Otherwise it's like another poster said, faith.
True enough, and if these devs were only saying: "We have better AI... because... well, it's just better !", I'd be laughing too.
But 60% of the features in EQNext depend on that "better AI" working spectacularly. If StoryBricks doesn't deliver, EQNext is dead. Stone dead.
We can only draw arguments from our past experiences. In the reference frame of "scripted NPC combat", our arguments are valid. But that reference frame is no longer valid if adaptive AI works.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
That's where I think you are wrong. The AI will learn. That's the whole idea behind the adaptive AI, to change behaviour according to the changed threat it's facing.
It was said that if you keep on doing the same thing, the AI will respond accordingly and counteract. Ranged NPC's will even kite you.
If the "adaptive AI" is simply 2 scripts instead of 1, then EQNext will achieve nothing more than GW2 did, and it will quickly be abandoned.
Originally posted by Darth-Batman I like it, theres really no place for taunts if youre dealing with a good AI.
EQ had a no-taunt raid.
Mobs targetted healers and CC. Rogues mobs would run around you and stab you in the back.
Tanks WERE trying to stun mobs....just like people are saying here.
People WERE trying to root mobs...just like people are saying here.
It's the Mastery of Corruption raid in Everquest.
It was never made again....because it was complete Chaos! So the dev team didn't do it ever again.
Peple need to recognise also, that the reason Everquest has these huge ridiculous raids with 54 players with this huge structure hierarchy is because of the stability that Trinity brings to the game.
You do know a Guardian is the best tank in GW2, even though everyone can play(or try to play) that role.
Also, EVERY single mmo game that comes out says they have "better" AI. It always turns out it's nothing groundbreaking. I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
But every MMO that comes out has had static spawns or scripted events for mob AI. This is a persistent world that learns over time and reacts to players, not pre-defined.
That is what they say(not the first btw). You can't really go around saying that is the reality until you have seen it. Otherwise it's like another poster said, faith.
True enough, and if these devs were only saying: "We have better AI... because... well, it's just better !", I'd be laughing too.
But 60% of the features in EQNext depend on that "better AI" working spectacularly. If StoryBricks doesn't deliver, EQNext is dead. Stone dead.
We can only draw arguments from our past experiences. In the reference frame of "scripted NPC combat", our arguments are valid. But that reference frame is no longer valid if adaptive AI works.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
That's where I think you are wrong. The AI will learn. That's the whole idea behind the adaptive AI, to change behaviour according to the changed threat it's facing.
It was said that if you keep on doing the same thing, the AI will respond accordingly and counteract. Ranged NPC's will even kite you.
If the "adaptive AI" is simply 2 scripts instead of 1, then EQNext will achieve nothing more than GW2 did, and it will quickly be abandoned.
Time will prove one of us wrong, I would not get your hopes up. AI like that has not been seen, don't think SOE found the holy grail just yet.
BTW everyone is using that "Emergent AI" like it actually means something, just like we used to use "Dynamic Events" in a very different way from reality.
You do know a Guardian is the best tank in GW2, even though everyone can play(or try to play) that role.
Also, EVERY single mmo game that comes out says they have "better" AI. It always turns out it's nothing groundbreaking. I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
But every MMO that comes out has had static spawns or scripted events for mob AI. This is a persistent world that learns over time and reacts to players, not pre-defined.
That is what they say(not the first btw). You can't really go around saying that is the reality until you have seen it. Otherwise it's like another poster said, faith.
True enough, and if these devs were only saying: "We have better AI... because... well, it's just better !", I'd be laughing too.
But 60% of the features in EQNext depend on that "better AI" working spectacularly. If StoryBricks doesn't deliver, EQNext is dead. Stone dead.
We can only draw arguments from our past experiences. In the reference frame of "scripted NPC combat", our arguments are valid. But that reference frame is no longer valid if adaptive AI works.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
That's where I think you are wrong. The AI will learn. That's the whole idea behind the adaptive AI, to change behaviour according to the changed threat it's facing.
It was said that if you keep on doing the same thing, the AI will respond accordingly and counteract. Ranged NPC's will even kite you.
If the "adaptive AI" is simply 2 scripts instead of 1, then EQNext will achieve nothing more than GW2 did, and it will quickly be abandoned.
Time will prove one of us wrong, I would not get your hopes up. AI like that has not been seen, don't think SOE found the holy grail just yet.
BTW everyone is using that "Emergent AI" like it actually means something, just like we used to use "Dynamic Events" in a very different way from reality.
That's because it DOES mean something !
I could be wrong, but my impression was that they were adapting the StoryBricks technology to enhance the combat scripts. StoryBricks is a toolset that SOE has licensed for use in EQNext. To all intents and purposes, it IS the "holy grail" for MMORPG's.
You do know a Guardian is the best tank in GW2, even though everyone can play(or try to play) that role.
Also, EVERY single mmo game that comes out says they have "better" AI. It always turns out it's nothing groundbreaking. I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
But every MMO that comes out has had static spawns or scripted events for mob AI. This is a persistent world that learns over time and reacts to players, not pre-defined.
That is what they say(not the first btw). You can't really go around saying that is the reality until you have seen it. Otherwise it's like another poster said, faith.
True enough, and if these devs were only saying: "We have better AI... because... well, it's just better !", I'd be laughing too.
But 60% of the features in EQNext depend on that "better AI" working spectacularly. If StoryBricks doesn't deliver, EQNext is dead. Stone dead.
We can only draw arguments from our past experiences. In the reference frame of "scripted NPC combat", our arguments are valid. But that reference frame is no longer valid if adaptive AI works.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
That's where I think you are wrong. The AI will learn. That's the whole idea behind the adaptive AI, to change behaviour according to the changed threat it's facing.
It was said that if you keep on doing the same thing, the AI will respond accordingly and counteract. Ranged NPC's will even kite you.
If the "adaptive AI" is simply 2 scripts instead of 1, then EQNext will achieve nothing more than GW2 did, and it will quickly be abandoned.
Time will prove one of us wrong, I would not get your hopes up. AI like that has not been seen, don't think SOE found the holy grail just yet.
BTW everyone is using that "Emergent AI" like it actually means something, just like we used to use "Dynamic Events" in a very different way from reality.
That's because it DOES mean something !
I could be wrong, but my impression was that they were adapting the StoryBricks technology to enhance the combat scripts. StoryBricks is a toolset that SOE has licensed for use in EQNext. To all intents and purposes, it IS the "holy grail" for MMORPG's.
If it works, of course.
You do understand that we haven't found the holy grail if we don't know if it works...exactly what I'm trying to tell you, if Blizzard shows up tomorrow with titan and says we've reached the pinnacle of AI! It's still all hearsay.
I'm not picking on you, I'm making fun of the people that don't realize that hitting a button called taunt is no different from hitting a button called bash as far as the generic mechanics are involved. So mobs have a few more options... so what? There's really only 2 routes they can take if someone is dead set on playing the tank role, and that's to take the bait and follow the same old stack on the tank tactics, or it'll show the new AI is flawed and the mobs will let a guy run behind it, hacking it to death because the mob wasn't 'smart' enough to turn around and protect itself from what was right there to begin with. Tanking is tanking. The button(s) names make no difference when the mechanics and end results are the same.
I know you're not picking on me, because you're basically agreeing with me. Thanks.
Originally posted by Darth-Batman I like it, theres really no place for taunts if youre dealing with a good AI.
EQ had a no-taunt raid.
Mobs targetted healers and CC. Rogues mobs would run around you and stab you in the back.
Tanks WERE trying to stun mobs....just like people are saying here.
People WERE trying to root mobs...just like people are saying here.
It's the Mastery of Corruption raid in Everquest.
It was never made again....because it was complete Chaos! So the dev team didn't do it ever again.
Peple need to recognise also, that the reason Everquest has these huge ridiculous raids with 54 players with this huge structure hierarchy is because of the stability that Trinity brings to the game.
Agreed. I know people want something new and fresh, but the order from the Tanking/Healing relationship is comforting and reduces chaos. Players first attempt to reduce the chaos from taunt-less battles is Zerging. So I would argue, Zerg is a less organized tactic then role specialization (Tank + Healer + CC + + Debuf + DPS).
I'd rather us go forward then backward to zerging.
I suggest we look more to modern real life tactics, like Fire and Maneuver.
Ex of Party Attack.
1. Base of Fire: Archers fire at ogre, ogre ducks behind rock to avoid dying quickly
2. Flank: Swordmen sneak around to the right, use bird whistle to signal Lift and Shift
3. Lift and Shift: Archers hearing the bird whistle, continue shooting at Ogre but lift arrow fire up 3 feet. Ogre hopefully doesn't notice. All he hears is arrows zipping overhead.
4. Assault: Swordmen shortly after calling Lift and Shift, charge into the Flank of the suppressed Ogre.
5. Limit of Advance: Ogre gets sliced to pieces, swordmen send 2nd signal to Archers that they have reached the Limit of their Advance.
6. Archers come in and assist the Swordmen providing 360 security around Ogre.
7. One designated swordmen loots the ogre.
8. Entire party of swordmen and archers leave area before other ogres arrive.
Now the developers of EQNEXT have stated no aggro or taunts..and that players would not be forced into roles due to multi classing ability. That in a vacuum immediately makes you think GW2 combat all over again. However they also clearly stated that certain classes in EQN would actually be better in certain roles. This changes everything. IE if a heavy armor wearing class has better defensive abilities and mitigation, would it still be possible to tank without taunts and aggro meters? My personal opinion is yes even though it will take some learning and adapting. It will also take some creative defensive abilities.
So lets discuss some possibilities. To start I will say. That I have been playing a tank or hybrid tank as my main in every game since the early days of EQ! With the exception of my first character that was a cleric up untill shortly after kunark (by the way playing a healer I think laid a perfect foundation for ending up as a tank) and in GW2 I played a healing spec Sorceror. During my time playing the tank role. I have seen alot of really neat abilities. These abilities could easily be used in place with some thought.
Now going by what we know. The class you pick for your current primary will determine the weapons and armor available to equip. With armor most likely playing the key ingredient for mitigation. Some of this will still be speculation as we just really know so little at this time. If armor does play an important role. Which I'm of the opinions it most likel will. Then heavy armor plus possibly shield is probably the way to go.
as for some abilities that could aid you in tanking without taunts.
knockdowns, stuns, snares,attack intercepts/parries based on vicinity instead of just against you, attack blocks once again based on vacinities, these are the basic ones.
Here are some more advanced abilities that could come into play or maybe cross class abilities.
damage transference. Allies close by take damage and you take a portion of it.
damage wards. Stop damage to self of an ally.
reactive heals. Self or ally gets healed anytime they take damage for duration or amount.
enrage like ability. Any enemy not attacking you takes alot more damage from your attacks.
Debuffs. Targets not attacking you do substantially less damage. Or slows target attacking speed.
self buffs to increase own survivability.
or taking from vanguard reactive rescues..
The fact is, at this time we have been told no taunts and no traditional aggro management, and that the mobs are smarter. We have also been told there are classes that are better at certain roles. Untill we know more about the AI and what sets it off we can speculate that certain things other than taunts will tick mobs off. This will be part of learning this new game.
However to sit here and claim its going to be like GW2 when the devs have said... No..no its not.. Is just well absurd. There are definately other ways to allow for creative tanking
On a side note. I enjoy GW2
I like the way you are thinking. I also think that things that just prevent the mob from moving away will play a big role in tanking. EX a warrior trips mob with his sword. there's no agro (but the mob might be mad at the dork who tripped him as he was about to go mash a caster) but the mob is effectively tanked. Or, a SK makes unholy tentacles that root a mob in place (including facing, so rogue folks can stab him). Or a gladiator type simply headlocks the mob and whacks it with a gauntleted fist, exposing its back to everyone else.
all of these can "in effect" tank a mob even with no agro meter or taunt.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Tanking with minimal use of taunts is actually the trend in trinity-based MMOs these days. Even stodgy old WOW now incorporates aggro accumulation into many single target and AOE abilities. You mostly aggro through DPS + aggro enhancement of DPS abilities.
Taunts at high levels are typically reserved for the occasional misbehaving mob that needs to be pulled back but even in those cases, pull or rush or just plain DPS abilities accomplish the job without needing to lose DPS just taunting.
I'm very much in "wait and see" mode when it comes to aggro management in EQN... and no, I don't like the GW2 system.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Tanking with minimal use of taunts is actually the trend in trinity-based MMOs these days. Even stodgy old WOW now incorporates aggro accumulation into many single target and AOE abilities. You mostly aggro through DPS + aggro enhancement of DPS abilities.
Taunts at high levels are typically reserved for the occasional misbehaving mob that needs to be pulled back but even in those cases, pull or rush or just plain DPS abilities accomplish the job without needing to lose DPS just taunting.
I'm very much in "wait and see" mode when it comes to aggro management in EQN... and no, I don't like the GW2 system.
Taunts I always felt were an "A&*tard" moment for some knuclehead and never should been a reliance. Taunts when they served only as a temporary debuff that focuses to mob on the tank served this, but when they changed it where you gained met the aggro of the misbehaving party member destroyed the original version of the taunt.
Funny how people think there will be tanking in EQN, there will be as much tanking in EQN as GW2 has tanking. Maybe you will be doing it to some degree but not with any reliability. Perhaps EQN will do the formula that ANet provided with changing the trinity of "tank, heal, DPS" to "control, heal, DPS" to a better degree which I think is how the trinity should evolve.
I think people underestimate how hard is it to have AI that simulates an actual player or something that even comes close.
No MMO has yet come close to the AI in the original Half Life, where enemies can flank and outflank (no traditional tanking), where they can't be drawn into obvious kill zones (no traditional pulling) and where they can actually be outwitted by moving from your last known position while hidden (whole load of new emergent tactics). Sure, Half Life didn't simulate actual players, but it did an extremely good job of simulating real-world tactics in a game.
I don't know if EQN will live up to it's own hype regarding its AI, but if it does combat will be fundamentally different from the standard tank and spank, rinse and repeat tedium that MMOs have become. Instead of reaching for abstract, stylised MMO tactics, players will have to adapt to more real-world tactics and formations. Regarding the perfectly understandable fear that it'll be a DPS zergathon without traditional tanking, that will only be true if the AI doesn't have counter tactics for the zerg. And there *are* counter tactics for the zerg - the whole history of human warfare has developed around it, so there's plenty for the AI designers to work from.
If EQN does pull this off (I remain healthily sceptical) then it's going to shake a lot of players out of their comfort zones, and this is exactly what MMOs need.
Comments
If you want to cite D&D as an example, then let's throw in critical fumbles and all that went into real D&D combat. Roll a 1? Might kill YOURSELF, or your own party member, maybe lose a limb, etc... D&D is a very poor example to take combat mechanics from for this particular PVE focused crowd. in D&D there was permadeath, stat loss, full looting, etc. So if we really REALLY want to take D&D's example for combat, then I say take it all the way and I'm all for it.
They have done it in other games, action and non-action.
Warhammer, the IronBreaker's main strength was shield bashing and kicking enemies away. When a player would try to attack a healer, and that ironbreaker saved the day, it was a great experience. A noticeable experience.
Same with GW2. When you're getting heart-seekered by some thief and the guardian runs up and smashed it away with 2h hammer knock back, it's a good experience.
Agro based games are moronic. Unrealistic. Tired. Boring. Simplistic. There's a reason why PVP never looks like PVE in those games. Players are smarter than AI and they always play to win. Players never start off attacking a "tank". It's got the most defense and generally the lowest threat out of any character.
Taking away agro and making tanking an active role in the group makes much more sense. Sorry but you're just wrong. :P
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
There have been a lot of options offered.. not all of which directly effects the mobs. Some effect team mates. some effect you. Some are debuffs and slows. There are ways with some ingenuity.
Yes, that's "Agro" based on a real threat. In pvp, if you see someone healing and it's really saving the group, that "agro's you" and you attack the healer to try and cut them off from the support.
If everyone in the enemy team is doing 100 damage per hit, and some wizard nukes you for 2000 damage, that wizard just "agroed" you because he's the most dangerous person there, so you attack him or her.
What is the threat in a tank using "taunt" button to "generate agro". It's not a threat. So you don't attack the tank.
I got nothing against AI "agroing" based on real threats. What I have a problem with is a guy in full plate, who hits for half the damage of everyone else, to hold the attention of mobs for the whole fight and "tanking them", when it's clearly the least smart move the mob could do.
Have "agro", where people can generate real threat, and make the tanking role active, as I stated previously.
Tanking where a player holds agro the whole fight, spamming a "+threat" curse word button makes combat easy, predictable, unrealistic and it's not wanted.
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
Let's take a step back and look at your 'active tanking' next to what the major thoughts on this 'emergent AI' are going to be like. The way we think it's going to work is the mob will be smart enough to move around, target based on triggers, etc.
Well, if it's trigger based, then taking a lot of damage, being interrupted, etc. is most likely going to work the EXACT same way as stacking aggro. You might not be 'taunting', but you'll keep doing things to keep those trigger ounts high so the scripted AI will keep focusing on you.
Now, if you're beating the hell out of a mob, tripping it, knocking it down, blocking it's movement towards another member.... and it STILL doesn't focus on you, then I call this emergent AI crap broken and failed. It's just not tactically sound to keep turning your back to an immediate threat again and again, giving it the opportunity to take advantage of you while you try to run across an open field instead of turning to face said threat and work to get it off you FIRST.
So there we have a full example of threat and aggro mechanics within your new godly 'emergent AI' crap.
The only way it works in your favor is if for some reason each and every mob in game can insta root you and move on toward its higher perceived threat, which would just be utterly retarded and unrealistic. The day a cow can root me in place is the day I get Smedley to sell EQN to the Hello Kitty dev team.
The "Emergent AI" and the AI scripts used for combat will be 2 different things, but I get your point.
Yes obviously if a warrior kicks a mob away, then runs in and shield bashes the mob into the ground, it should draw some agro. I'm not saying mobs have to completely avoid / not attack tanks. I'm saying that pushing a "curse word button" and having that mob sit there the whole fight attacking that tank is stupid.
I don't even need to argue for this kind of system, EQN is going to have a great combat system and it's not going to have tanks sitting there "tanking" the mobs for the whole fight. So I'm happy.
Also, the demos did not show "real combat", it was just a demo for showing off attack animations, collision, the destructible environment, etc etc.
They're still working on combat for the game. What you guys saw at SOE live is not what "real combat" in the game is going to look like.
However, if you're hoping for WoW2 with a plate wearer spamming taunt buttons and all other party members watching dps meters, you're going to be sad.
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
Only way to do tanking w/o threat/taunts is to have proper collision detection and line of sighting in the game, where then you would physically have to stand in front of and block a mob/npc/player from advancing past you or shooting/casting around you.
You would then need the tools to withstand the npc/mobs attacks (defensive abilities) and enough offensive abilities to make the target want to focus on the person punching them in the face.
Knockbacks/stuns would be the bane of tanks, which would probably work out as long as there was a counter mechanic (like say a support oriented group mate could dispel the stun/mezz off you), and the tanking characters have tools like gap closers and cripples.
Tanking multiple mobs would be very challenging, as you'd have to have access to stuns, cripples, gap closers, perhaps even AoE abilities in a frontal arc that would help you focus multiple npc/mob's hate onto you.
If you are reading this with a PvP eye, you can see where this may create problems.
These kinds of tanks would be absolute BEASTS in PvP.
You'd have to limit the damage output of tanks to not make them really overpowered, which would really hurt their viability for solo play in PvE.
WAR initially took this approach with tanks at launch, but it took them a little while to figure out tanks were doing too much damage. Tier 1 PvP as a tank (Black Ork FTW) was incredibly OP at launch.
By the time they nerfed damage output because of it, PvE became a horribly slow mess even with a 2H instead of sword&board.
UO actually did very well with tanking via line of site and collision detection.
On Siege Perilous we used to use a tactic in PvP where we'd surround the 4 squares around another player, preventing them from leaving our death-square and just pound on them.
You'd have to also give non-tank melee DPS damage bonuses for attacking from the rear/side to prevent any player who engaged in melee DPS from being a de facto tank due to the collision detection.
But that'd work well for off tanking and emergency tanking situations in PvE and PvP.
I think tanking w/o taunting is certainly possible, but you really, and I mean REALLY have to get the mechanics right.
I'm not picking on you, I'm making fun of the people that don't realize that hitting a button called taunt is no different from hitting a button called bash as far as the generic mechanics are involved. So mobs have a few more options... so what? There's really only 2 routes they can take if someone is dead set on playing the tank role, and that's to take the bait and follow the same old stack on the tank tactics, or it'll show the new AI is flawed and the mobs will let a guy run behind it, hacking it to death because the mob wasn't 'smart' enough to turn around and protect itself from what was right there to begin with. Tanking is tanking. The button(s) names make no difference when the mechanics and end results are the same.
Exactly.
The way to play a "tank" role in a group should be-
I choose to put myself in between the enemy and my friends, and make them face me and want to attack me because I am beating in their face.
Could be heavy armor, light armor, shields, 2-handers, hell even 100% magic...
But loopback1199 is right, if the mob/NPC AI doesn't recognize that "hey, this dude in my face is beating the shit out of me, I need to deal with him first" then it is poorly crafted AI that makes the tanking role useless - and thus not a role.
Smart AI could maybe stun the tank, and then move on to try and get at someone else - as long as there is a counter for that (like say maybe from the someone else (healer) the mob is trying to get to)
But it'd have to work in PvP too, which means player collision + line of site.
Here is the thing, we all sit here and imagine that "amazing" player like AI that is "needed" by the game to succeed(like every other game). Release comes around and quickly we found out there are a couple of nuances and changes to how mobs behave. Players adapt, dominate AI. It's not going to be a self learning AI to the point were it will adapt on the fly when players catch up to their tricks and SOE is not going to change it after release anytime soon. This AI, will just like any other be a matter of time(probably very fast) before players figure it out.
You can tank just fine without taunts, we did it in FFXI.
Taunt or provoke in that game was terrible and on a 30 second cooldown.
Threat was based on spell cumulative and volatile enmity, especially heals and abilities.
You had to give your tank time to build up threat.
The whole force taunt mechanic is beyond stupid. We did fine without it and so can anyone, provided players get out of the mindset of going nuts right away and expecting to survive.
That's where I think you are wrong. The AI will learn. That's the whole idea behind the adaptive AI, to change behaviour according to the changed threat it's facing.
It was said that if you keep on doing the same thing, the AI will respond accordingly and counteract. Ranged NPC's will even kite you.
If the "adaptive AI" is simply 2 scripts instead of 1, then EQNext will achieve nothing more than GW2 did, and it will quickly be abandoned.
EQ had a no-taunt raid.
Mobs targetted healers and CC. Rogues mobs would run around you and stab you in the back.
Tanks WERE trying to stun mobs....just like people are saying here.
People WERE trying to root mobs...just like people are saying here.
It's the Mastery of Corruption raid in Everquest.
It was never made again....because it was complete Chaos! So the dev team didn't do it ever again.
Peple need to recognise also, that the reason Everquest has these huge ridiculous raids with 54 players with this huge structure hierarchy is because of the stability that Trinity brings to the game.
Time will prove one of us wrong, I would not get your hopes up. AI like that has not been seen, don't think SOE found the holy grail just yet.
BTW everyone is using that "Emergent AI" like it actually means something, just like we used to use "Dynamic Events" in a very different way from reality.
That's because it DOES mean something !
I could be wrong, but my impression was that they were adapting the StoryBricks technology to enhance the combat scripts. StoryBricks is a toolset that SOE has licensed for use in EQNext. To all intents and purposes, it IS the "holy grail" for MMORPG's.
If it works, of course.
You do understand that we haven't found the holy grail if we don't know if it works...exactly what I'm trying to tell you, if Blizzard shows up tomorrow with titan and says we've reached the pinnacle of AI! It's still all hearsay.
I know you're not picking on me, because you're basically agreeing with me. Thanks.
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
Agreed. I know people want something new and fresh, but the order from the Tanking/Healing relationship is comforting and reduces chaos. Players first attempt to reduce the chaos from taunt-less battles is Zerging. So I would argue, Zerg is a less organized tactic then role specialization (Tank + Healer + CC + + Debuf + DPS).
I'd rather us go forward then backward to zerging.
I suggest we look more to modern real life tactics, like Fire and Maneuver.
Ex of Party Attack.
1. Base of Fire: Archers fire at ogre, ogre ducks behind rock to avoid dying quickly
2. Flank: Swordmen sneak around to the right, use bird whistle to signal Lift and Shift
3. Lift and Shift: Archers hearing the bird whistle, continue shooting at Ogre but lift arrow fire up 3 feet. Ogre hopefully doesn't notice. All he hears is arrows zipping overhead.
4. Assault: Swordmen shortly after calling Lift and Shift, charge into the Flank of the suppressed Ogre.
5. Limit of Advance: Ogre gets sliced to pieces, swordmen send 2nd signal to Archers that they have reached the Limit of their Advance.
6. Archers come in and assist the Swordmen providing 360 security around Ogre.
7. One designated swordmen loots the ogre.
8. Entire party of swordmen and archers leave area before other ogres arrive.
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
I like the way you are thinking. I also think that things that just prevent the mob from moving away will play a big role in tanking. EX a warrior trips mob with his sword. there's no agro (but the mob might be mad at the dork who tripped him as he was about to go mash a caster) but the mob is effectively tanked. Or, a SK makes unholy tentacles that root a mob in place (including facing, so rogue folks can stab him). Or a gladiator type simply headlocks the mob and whacks it with a gauntleted fist, exposing its back to everyone else.
all of these can "in effect" tank a mob even with no agro meter or taunt.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Tanking with minimal use of taunts is actually the trend in trinity-based MMOs these days. Even stodgy old WOW now incorporates aggro accumulation into many single target and AOE abilities. You mostly aggro through DPS + aggro enhancement of DPS abilities.
Taunts at high levels are typically reserved for the occasional misbehaving mob that needs to be pulled back but even in those cases, pull or rush or just plain DPS abilities accomplish the job without needing to lose DPS just taunting.
I'm very much in "wait and see" mode when it comes to aggro management in EQN... and no, I don't like the GW2 system.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Taunts I always felt were an "A&*tard" moment for some knuclehead and never should been a reliance. Taunts when they served only as a temporary debuff that focuses to mob on the tank served this, but when they changed it where you gained met the aggro of the misbehaving party member destroyed the original version of the taunt.
Funny how people think there will be tanking in EQN, there will be as much tanking in EQN as GW2 has tanking. Maybe you will be doing it to some degree but not with any reliability. Perhaps EQN will do the formula that ANet provided with changing the trinity of "tank, heal, DPS" to "control, heal, DPS" to a better degree which I think is how the trinity should evolve.
No MMO has yet come close to the AI in the original Half Life, where enemies can flank and outflank (no traditional tanking), where they can't be drawn into obvious kill zones (no traditional pulling) and where they can actually be outwitted by moving from your last known position while hidden (whole load of new emergent tactics). Sure, Half Life didn't simulate actual players, but it did an extremely good job of simulating real-world tactics in a game.
I don't know if EQN will live up to it's own hype regarding its AI, but if it does combat will be fundamentally different from the standard tank and spank, rinse and repeat tedium that MMOs have become. Instead of reaching for abstract, stylised MMO tactics, players will have to adapt to more real-world tactics and formations. Regarding the perfectly understandable fear that it'll be a DPS zergathon without traditional tanking, that will only be true if the AI doesn't have counter tactics for the zerg. And there *are* counter tactics for the zerg - the whole history of human warfare has developed around it, so there's plenty for the AI designers to work from.
If EQN does pull this off (I remain healthily sceptical) then it's going to shake a lot of players out of their comfort zones, and this is exactly what MMOs need.