Gameplay Question

TwoTubes

Has it been said if mobs lose aggro after a certain distance?  Can you run them off? or do you have to zone?

Hrimnir

I honestly don't know, I know leashing and such is a disputed topic, I personally would prefer it not be there. I believe the intention is not to have leashing.

Loke666

Zone wide trains are kinda silly so I hope they stay away from that.

Standard MMOs today are letting us get away too easy but we have trained entire zones after us with monsters that hardly would work together in some older games and that is frankly even worse. You get what I call "the Benny Hill effect" then...

Blueliner

You can have zone wide agro and not have huge trains, just give random mobs the ability to stun or root a person, no more trains, problem solved.

TwoTubes

Blueliner said:

You can have zone wide agro and not have huge trains, just give random mobs the ability to stun or root a person, no more trains, problem solved.

You must hate kiters:)

Honestly, I don't hate trains.  They make you be careful and pay attention...even in a slightly lower level zone that might normally be trivial.  A mass of mobs can still kill you.

I hope you can't run off aggro as easily as in most games.  Between leashing and limited death penalty I think those are 2 major reasons why games have become generally easy.

dhtx74

while I agree leashing make games too easy these days, there will always be people that intentionally train hordes of mobs into another group and kill them, seen it done in EQ many times

TwoTubes

dhtx74 said:

while I agree leashing make games too easy these days, there will always be people that intentionally train hordes of mobs into another group and kill them, seen it done in EQ many times

Intentional or unintentional, it really ups the sense of danger. 

This is one of those things that regulates itself eventually.  Once everyone has been on the server for a few years most people at the high end have had contact with each other before.  Reputations start to matter more after awhile. 

svann

I dont have a problem with leashing as long as the leash is a reasonable distance.  Heck if there isnt leashing people will just zone it off so whats the difference?  It just makes sense that in a big zone a mob would not follow you forever.  Should you be able to tag a mob once and have it follow you across the entire West Karana?  No, its ridiculous.  OTOH, if a mob does leash after  while you should be able to retag it before it runs back to keep the pull going.  The leash range should resize itself based on the last agro tag.

Xatsh

Leashing is horrible and removes almost all the danger from the game. Just run X distance away from the spawn and you are safe 100%. Failure to pay attention in modern mmos has basically no penalty outside the random boss mob you might run into.

Then again mobs chasing you forever is not much better.

They should chase you for a reasonable distance. I would like to see multiple types of agro as well with various way to get away from an encounter.

Sight - Agro by being in the line of sight. Will stop chasing you  if you get out of their line of site and they cannot find you where they last detected you. So sorta they run to where they seen you look for awhile if cannot find return to their original spot.

Scent - Agro from proximity. Will stop if something disturbs the sent trail like a water source ect.

Maby have some abilities which drop agro as well.

and so on.

After a distance I feel mobs should give up the chase so to say if the condition for them losing agro earlier is not met. But I would say it is needs to be a very large distance. 15-20 fold larger then current mmos at the minimum.

kridak

They should have a leash by aggro level....

Just ran by a mob and got aggro....aggro is low so it will only chase you a bit....

You were fighting the mob and ran away....mob chases you a long way 

there could be some different criteria as well.

Could make it more interesting....

Sovrath

Demogorgon said:

Can't we please NOT have leashing in this game!! That mechanic is so easy mode it's a freakin joke.

Just make mobs despawn when they lose aggro when out of a certain radius of their spawning area to prevent griefing. Also put a light timer on them aggroing back a new target when they respawn so that some one strolling in the area doesn't get insta ganked.

Problem solved. ( and the end of an easy mode gaming bad joke )

How is your solution "not" easy mode? It's the easiest mode there is.

It is also immersion breaking. Instead of the monsters losing interest and heading back to their lair they "vanish".

Loke666

Xatsh said:

...
Scent - Agro from proximity. Will stop if something disturbs the sent trail like a water source ect.
..

That actually sound really fun.

Thebeasttt

Would be too easy to abuse, like a ranged class pulling scent mobs to water source and soloing them from the other side. Still a great idea nonetheless.

Dullahan

I don't remember them saying for certain one way or the other, but I imagine whatever they will choose will not be the trivial leashing system we see in most MMOs today.

There are actually quite a few threads on this topic on the official forums. We've discussed a variety of different options, including dynamic leashing mechanics that depend on the type of mob. For instance, an animal may continue tracking you, while after you get a certain distance away, a humanoid may stop following, especially if you break line of sight for too long.

I think we mostly agree that having mobs run 20 meters from the point of aggro and turn around is a bad system that takes any consequence or danger out of traveling or aggroing mobs.

Oh, and I do believe I remember them saying this mechanic would be harsher in dungeons, so you can expect pulling too many mobs will probably result in your death.

tokini

in the camp of a variety of aggro leashes

yes, a predatory animal may chase you until it possibly sees an easier target.  an elk or some such territorial creature may only chase a short way. 

different orcs could have different leashes.  a group of orcs, with 3 grunts and a hunter, the grunts may chase a short way, but the hunter may track/chase the players for as long as possible.

various undead, a zombie that wants to eat your flesh will never stop, a ghost that haunts a specific area would remain in that area.

a Golem created to guard a specific doorway or chest, might not chase at all (or a very short way) - because it would be going against its 'programming', as it were.

no reason for every mob to chase players to the ends of the earth, no reason for every mob to behave the same.

dcutbi001

I, for the most part, don't want leashing, but I would like there to be a way to break the mobs pursuit of you once there is enough distance between the two of you. That being said, if you choose to stop running and not zone, once you start fighting other mobs you need to know the mob you outran still has you on it's hate list, and it may hunt you down at an inopportune time. You may end up looking for a rez if you're not making good decisions.

Benjola

dcutbi001 said:

I, for the most part, don't want leashing, but I would like there to be a way to break the mobs pursuit of you once there is enough distance between the two of you. That being said, if you choose to stop running and not zone, once you start fighting other mobs you need to know the mob you outran still has you on it's hate list and it may hunt you down at an inopportune time. You may end up looking for a rez if you're not making good decisions.

Probably not many have noticed before but this is exactly how EQ aggro works (or worked).
In the big open zones like karanas you don't have to zone to drop mob's aggro.
EQ mobs stop chasing you if you make large enough distance from them.
They do however re-aggro you (if you don't zone) from a much bigger distance then their usual aggro range.

Hrimnir

Wouldn't it be cool if the mobs could essentially "consider" you and decide whether to chase or leash depending on that?  I.e. if you're level 50 and it's level 30, maybe it goes "you know, perhaps I don't want to actually catch up to this guy".  Vs the other way around it may chase you to the end of earth.

There are some arguments to be made for leashing, several have been made here, I do think if they do implement it needs to be a pretty large distance, i.e. maybe the length of EC vs not the length of WK.

Dullahan

Hrimnir said:

Wouldn't it be cool if the mobs could essentially "consider" you and decide whether to chase or leash depending on that?  I.e. if you're level 50 and it's level 30, maybe it goes "you know, perhaps I don't want to actually catch up to this guy".  Vs the other way around it may chase you to the end of earth.

There are some arguments to be made for leashing, several have been made here, I do think if they do implement it needs to be a pretty large distance, i.e. maybe the length of EC vs not the length of WK.

That is something that could be expanded upon, but it did exist in EQ in a rather primitive form. Most hostile mobs would not attack a higher level player (as you well know).

TwoTubes

That would be sort of funny.  A higher level player walks through a lower level zone and the mobs con them and run away!

Hrimnir

@Dullahan yeah, I do remember, it was actually just a proximity sensor, you could still get them to agro it was just an issue of distance vs your level to their level.  So If you were 40 and they were 25 they might only agro if you got say 5 feet away or closer, and if you were 50 and they were 25 then it might be 2 feet or closer (im making up numbers, but you get my point).

I was more thinking of the idea is maybe they agro you, but how far they decide to chase, and if they decide to chase is based on a reverse consider.

I mean if you think real life, if you make threatening gestures or movements towards a black bear, they're gonna defend themselves, however black bears very rarely initiate attacks against humans unprovoked (this is not true for brown bears btw, for anyone reading).

This could be an interesting twist just to spice things up, etc.

Also, other things, undead chasing you to the end of the earth would make sense, vs, maybe the rogue druids that are pissed your are in their beautiful forest stomping around would only chase you out of the forest and no further.

Or maybe the Orc in its fort only chases you just outside the fort, i.e. until the "threat" is removed.

In real life animals have to make a decision to fight because they know that even if they win an injury could be fatal, either from infection, etc, or if lets say a tiger can't walk or hunt due to the injury and dies of starvation.  So, they're not particularly keen on getting into a fight they're not reasonably certain they will spectacularly.

Anywhoo, I'm just rambling now, so i'll shut up.

Blueliner

"You must hate kiters:)

Honestly, I don't hate trains.  They make you be careful and pay attention...even in a slightly lower level zone that might normally be trivial.  A mass of mobs can still kill you.

I hope you can't run off aggro as easily as in most games.  Between leashing and limited death penalty I think those are 2 major reasons why games have become generally easy."

Hate? no. Do I think game play should be such that it deters kiters? yes. kiters are soloers, the game is supposed to be about grouping. not to mention as has been stated before EQ for example had bards who quickly developed the attitude of " I am judge jury and executioner" and trained anyone into oblivion if they so much as thought they were being slighted in any way. We do not need that.

TwoTubes

Blueliner said:

"You must hate kiters:)

Honestly, I don't hate trains.  They make you be careful and pay attention...even in a slightly lower level zone that might normally be trivial.  A mass of mobs can still kill you.

I hope you can't run off aggro as easily as in most games.  Between leashing and limited death penalty I think those are 2 major reasons why games have become generally easy."

Hate? no. Do I think game play should be such that it deters kiters? yes. kiters are soloers, the game is supposed to be about grouping. not to mention as has been stated before EQ for example had bards who quickly developed the attitude of " I am judge jury and executioner" and trained anyone into oblivion if they so much as thought they were being slighted in any way. We do not need that.

Part of the challenge I enjoy is figuring out how to solo in a game/zone aimed towards grouping.  Though I have never been much of a kiter. 

The game wants to encourage grouping and the social aspect.  There will always be people who solo (though maybe in lesser numbers than in some easier games.)  To say "the game is supposed to be about grouping" is twisting the message a bit.  People enjoy playing in a variety of ways.

That second part  is just stereotyping people who played bards.  That's not how it was.  Did you have a bad experience? 

I can't believe anyone who played EQ for a long time would actually say:
 "EQ for example had bards who quickly developed the attitude of " I am judge jury and executioner" and trained anyone into oblivion if they so much as thought they were being slighted in any way." 

Sounds like you let a couple bad apples ruin your experience.  It makes me wonder what you did to "slight" them hah?

Dullahan

Hrimnir said:

@Dullahan yeah, I do remember, it was actually just a proximity sensor, you could still get them to agro it was just an issue of distance vs your level to their level.  So If you were 40 and they were 25 they might only agro if you got say 5 feet away or closer, and if you were 50 and they were 25 then it might be 2 feet or closer (im making up numbers, but you get my point).

I was more thinking of the idea is maybe they agro you, but how far they decide to chase, and if they decide to chase is based on a reverse consider.

I mean if you think real life, if you make threatening gestures or movements towards a black bear, they're gonna defend themselves, however black bears very rarely initiate attacks against humans unprovoked (this is not true for brown bears btw, for anyone reading).

This could be an interesting twist just to spice things up, etc.

Also, other things, undead chasing you to the end of the earth would make sense, vs, maybe the rogue druids that are pissed your are in their beautiful forest stomping around would only chase you out of the forest and no further.

Or maybe the Orc in its fort only chases you just outside the fort, i.e. until the "threat" is removed.

In real life animals have to make a decision to fight because they know that even if they win an injury could be fatal, either from infection, etc, or if lets say a tiger can't walk or hunt due to the injury and dies of starvation.  So, they're not particularly keen on getting into a fight they're not reasonably certain they will spectacularly.

Anywhoo, I'm just rambling now, so i'll shut up.

Or how about some sort of system where lower level mobs, maybe in dungeons, flee at the sight of higher level players. Instead of causing surrounding mobs to aggro, once enough of them fleeing enter the hate list, they could band together to come back to fight a higher level player?

I think that would be a much better way of preventing high levels from monopolizing lower level content than something like a trivial loot code.

svann

Blueliner said:

"You must hate kiters:)

Honestly, I don't hate trains.  They make you be careful and pay attention...even in a slightly lower level zone that might normally be trivial.  A mass of mobs can still kill you.

I hope you can't run off aggro as easily as in most games.  Between leashing and limited death penalty I think those are 2 major reasons why games have become generally easy."

Hate? no. Do I think game play should be such that it deters kiters? yes. kiters are soloers, the game is supposed to be about grouping. not to mention as has been stated before EQ for example had bards who quickly developed the attitude of " I am judge jury and executioner" and trained anyone into oblivion if they so much as thought they were being slighted in any way. We do not need that.

As I remember it that was monks that were the problem.