MMO worlds broken? Nay I say!
It would be better if some things required higher levels of taunt/hate to draw their attention rather than simply ignoring taunt/hate altogether. In effect, they could be resistant to taunt, and have intrinsic preferences that are mechanically like taunting themselves to attack something. So something with an "attack the healer" preference wouldn't simply ignore the tank and kamikaze the defender, it would act as if healers were taunting them with mag X, and the tanker would notice they would need to generate at least mag X+1 to get their attention (this is an oversimplification: the way taunt works doesn't quite align with this idea as I understand taunt and hate).
|
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
This mechanic (some mobs ignore taunt/aggro mechanics) works fine in many WoW fights, but they're not the rule. I can only think of one boss that ignores aggo, but that boss is a) only one phase in a four-phase fight, and b) can't one-shot anyone without telegraphing it far in advance, allowing people to get out of the way. Okay, maybe Onyxia as well during her air phase.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
I'd like to address some of these.
Aggro: Asheron's Call didn't have aggro like the new games do. You attack something and it would attack back. Some foes would attack you for getting too close, and there were times that you could get foes to attack each other. Running between two groups and getting one to fire could, result in the other group being hit. They would then aggro on the group that attacked them. Virindi Executors were great for this.
There were also no true tanks. There were strong melee characters, but the foes would attack the characters that hurt them the most. One super monster had to be pushed into a wall, then pined in place by high def characters that didn't attack. The monsters would focus on the damage dealing mages and archers, but couldn't get to them because of the wall of melee guys just standing shoulder to shoulder. He had no ranged attacks, but his sword was basically instant death.
Static Worlds: Again from AC. There were world changing events. An insectoid race called the Olthoi invaded one patch. There were several underground hives that were level restricted. Until the hive was cleared, the Olthoi in that area made any real form of travel very dangerous. When a team was able to successfully beat a hive, that area was secure. The name of the players on the team that beat the hive would then be broadcast across the server.
In another case, there was a town that had become the gathering point for player trades. Congestion got so bad that the town was destroyed. Literally. A giant monster came in without waring and leveled the place. Years later it was being rebuilt but was still mostly ruins.
In yet another, one patch saw the addition of a statue in the center of every town. These statues would unleash swarms of living statues on the people in the towns, until the mechanism inside the statue base was destroyed. Again, this happened one time per town per server.
Finally, Dice rolls: AC didn't really seem to use them for combat. It used the FPS style of an actual projectile. It was possible to dodge spells and arrows by running behind trees and zig-zagging. Some spells were able to track a little bit.
Button Lock: Melee weapons had a slider that ranged the attacks from weak and fast, to strong and slow. The problem was that there was one attack.
Spells had no recharge, and could be cast repeatedly with no effect other than mana drain.
Now, AC was not without it's faults. Since there was only one attack, it was possible to set it to auto fire, and it would attack target a until it was dead, then move to the next foe that attacked, and so on. As long as there was stamina to use, the player didn't actually have to do anything. Mages took a great deal more effort to play and took a very long time to develop. Your choices were either Fast and boring, or tedious and powerful.
The problem with AC was that every character had the potential to be a tank mage. My axe fighter could self buff with a full set of level 6 (7 was highest then) spells. A level 1 character with a full set of buffs and a pocket healer could go from level 1 to level 20 in under an hour.
I had a thrown weapon character (Considered the worst of the three ranged weapon sets) that could go into a cave and spend a full 45 minutes in one spot, attacking non stop as hoards of Olthio rushed at me to die. I wasn't uncommon to be under attack by 20 or more critters at once while solo.
That became the norm for the game, and a progressive cycle of making harder foes, then giving more powerful tools to beat them went into effect. Eventually the line between veterans and new players was nearly insurmountable.
My first short story (detective fiction) came out in Jan-2012. Other stories and books to follow, I hope. Because of "real writing". COH was a big part of that happening.
It would be better if some things required higher levels of taunt/hate to draw their attention rather than simply ignoring taunt/hate altogether. In effect, they could be resistant to taunt, and have intrinsic preferences that are mechanically like taunting themselves to attack something. So something with an "attack the healer" preference wouldn't simply ignore the tank and kamikaze the defender, it would act as if healers were taunting them with mag X, and the tanker would notice they would need to generate at least mag X+1 to get their attention (this is an oversimplification: the way taunt works doesn't quite align with this idea as I understand taunt and hate).
|
Of course, I'm not entirely clear as to how, exactly, the system works, so I may be missing something. It just seems to me that, if enemies are able to resist taunting, then they will be practically immune to anything short of very high-magnitude taunts. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as that would put them out of reach of things like Taunt auras and so on, and I'm not sure if it won't put them out of reach of being taunted by anything other than a Tanker.
And again, I just don't know.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Finally, Dice rolls: AC didn't really seem to use them for combat. It used the FPS style of an actual projectile. It was possible to dodge spells and arrows by running behind trees and zig-zagging. Some spells were able to track a little bit.
|
It's a good idea in theory, especially for a single-player or close-network game, but for a game with players from, quite literally, around the world, that can be problematic.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I think the problem here is mechanical. As Castle (was it?) explained it, Taunt was an effective threat MULTIPLER, leading to threat ratings that were completely out of proportion with those of no-taunting players, even if they had an otherwise high threat rating. I don't remember the exactly numbers, but I seem to recall thousands being mentioned as a treat rating.
Of course, I'm not entirely clear as to how, exactly, the system works, so I may be missing something. It just seems to me that, if enemies are able to resist taunting, then they will be practically immune to anything short of very high-magnitude taunts. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as that would put them out of reach of things like Taunt auras and so on, and I'm not sure if it won't put them out of reach of being taunted by anything other than a Tanker. And again, I just don't know. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
--NT
They all laughed at me when I said I wanted to be a comedian.
But I showed them, and nobody's laughing at me now!
If I became a red name, I would be all "and what would you mere mortals like to entertain me with today, mu hu ha ha ha!" ~Arcanaville
Because the game is designed assuming that they won't. If the tank can't keep those mobs off the priority targets, what is the point of the tank?
|
Having a single class of mob immune to your trick doesn't make your trick worthless, it just means you can't have one trick. It also means that you don't want that one class popping up everywhere in the game -- that's just annoying (and its also something I discussed near the bottom of the original post).
This is great, but balance has to be kept in mind. Remember how the PvE balance minimum is supposed to be soloing "heroic" (now +0 x1) missions?
|
Well, if you have frequent cases where you have to fight 2 spawns at once if you miss the hold or kill shot on that one mob (assuming you can pick out the mob that will be calling/running for help), suddenly the minimum is raised, requiring some buffs to some player builds.
|
That now means that normal spawns are going to become less challenging. This is fine, to me (I don't think every spawn should be a challenge, I think there should be varying levels of difficulty throughout a mission to keep things interesting), but may not be fine to the devs. They may like their 3 minions = 1 player minimum.
|
Also, I hope that if it is done, it isn't over-done. I'd like this situation to be an occasional surprise, not something you expect to happen 10 times in one mission.
They could add interesting tricks that mobs can do, but I do hope a lot of thought goes into how it will affect overall gameplay. |
I'm a little late to this party, but I'll post anyway
The game already supports all the tools it needs to make fights more interesting, and little or no code needs to be written to accommodate it (although backfilling previous content might be a little tedious). Quantums and Voids are AT specific enemies that spawn at about the correct rate (once or twice per mission), the same could be done for other ATs.
The mechanic for summoning reinforcements without messing with spawn proximity already exits - Rikti Communication Officers (And Clockwork Dukes (or princes, whichever summon)). They open a portal, reinforcements spill out. A similar mechanic could work for some other groups (skyraiders "teleport" in as a summon, Tsoo ninjas "drop" from the ceiling, CoTs can summon the MM pets, etc)
Other mechanics that could be used to pose a difficulty for certain ATs: Have a minion/lieutenant that summons singularity, or that even justs casts repel - most melee heroes will have a problem, most ranged wont. Have a minion that has a mag 20 hold (long recharge). If a tank taunts without looking first,they may get held. Have more enemy healers and buffers. Have a minion that can cast a long duration debuff like the kind you can get from a lab reactor. Depending on how individually challenging/annoying these various ideas are, they could spawn with almost any group, or they could be more like quants/voids and only spawn once or twice a map.
That's why my suggestion doesn't quite work right with CoX's current aggro environment. Its possible to make it work using the taunt-effect override mechanism, but since that mechanism has significant hysteresis (you need a very large taunt to override a previous taunt) it doesn't have the fine control necessary to make this work very well. Otherwise, the multiplier for taunt is too high to allow for any real leveraging of the hate mechanism itself in this context.
|
Outside of CoH specifics, I'm continually disappointed that Aggro has become a stat instead of simply an expectation of programmed enemy behavior. I don't consider WoW to be the bane of MMOs or anything, but I do blame it for allowing players to view Aggro as a stat and micromanage enemy behavior accordingly. Any computer opponent is going to base its action on rules, but making those rules transparent to the user wipes any notion of "intelligence" from the term AI. Enemy behavior should be a learned skill based on prior experience, not something you're queued up on like low HP.
I think numbers in general, as great as they are, tend to break player immersion significantly. I think players tend to forget that the big monster can't "see" that the mage is doing 134 dps to them, while the tank is "only" doing 74 dps. Clearly they should "see" that the mage is the greater threat, and not the shiny armored guy with the sharp sword that's screaming and flailing in their face. People lose the grasp on the idea that monsters attack that which most aggravates them, not the one that's necessarily the greatest threat.
It doesn't help that developers for the most part have started to treating their AI as a mechanic rather than a behavior concept. Again, I use WoW as an example because their raids have increasingly become variations of gaming the aggro mechanics. It's more prevalent in PvP, however, where characters built around AI controlling abilities struggle to deal with circumventing human intelligence. Lots of games, including this one, try to force player behavior by treating taunts as status effects that force a target lock, but that doesn't quite mimic the idea of aggro.
It'd be interesting if tanks were made more of a PvP threat by simply making them aggravating. Forcing the opponent to target the tank for a period of time appears artificial, but I think it'd be interesting if taunt attacks broke the opponent's target lock unless they were targeting the taunter (or someone else who had taunted them) already. If its too much, add a "concentration" style stat that acted as a certain degree of aggravation protection. It would be less forcing the opponent to target the tank and more about annoying the opponent enough to change their target on their own.
I think numbers in general, as great as they are, tend to break player immersion significantly. I think players tend to forget that the big monster can't "see" that the mage is doing 134 dps to them, while the tank is "only" doing 74 dps. Clearly they should "see" that the mage is the greater threat, and not the shiny armored guy with the sharp sword that's screaming and flailing in their face. People lose the grasp on the idea that monsters attack that which most aggravates them, not the one that's necessarily the greatest threat.
|
In such a model, the heavily armored thing standing next to you is only doing 74 because you are actively trying to make sure he doesn't squish you, while the guy in the robe far away is doing 134 because you're willing to ignore him for the time being. If you elect to ignore the heavily armored guy and try to shoot at the guy farther away, the heavily armored guy would then squish you for 200.
In CoH terms, tankers would only do less damage than blasters *because* foes paid them proper respect and treated them as the biggest threat, not because they *intrinsicly* did lower damage. They would intrinsicly do similar damage, but that intrinsic damage would never actually land unless they were ignored.
The model in my head for aggro and damage balancing has always been the WW1/WWII statistic that most bullets fired by soldiers were intended to prevent the enemy from shooting back effectively, not to actually kill the target (except by chance). In other words, you shoot at something not just to kill it, but to prevent it from using its offense against you. I think that model would work especially well in CoH. The reason why you attack the tanker is not because of taunt, but in effect to debuff their otherwise substantial damage. They are the biggest threat *logically* and not just because of a game mechanic. And this means (accepting that this is not the only issue in PvP) that even in PvP there's a good reason to attack the tanker rather than the defender on a team. By making it the *intelligent* decision to attack the tanker in PvE, you give them a reason to exist in PvP as well.**
I personally think the combination of reverse-bodyguard and an aggro system like this is so potentially interesting, it might even be worth experimenting with it in a game already well-established like CoH. If it were up to me, I'd introduce it as an optional mechanism: something tankers could opt into, or alternatively a new archetype could be created that used the mechanic, to see if players find it superior to the traditional aggro system. If players actually liked it, I'd kick the current aggro system to the curb.
** Although I'm mentioning tankers, the general principle can work for all archetypes: simply ensure that whenever you want a critter to attack something over something else, you give it a good reason to do so mechanically, so its always the intelligent choice, not just an override. Eventually you build a situational table that says critters should attack the tanker under these situations, the defender under those, the blaster under these others, always because its the best situational choice for that critter.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Battlerock X - inv/str tank, Justice Server
http://battlerockx.blogspot.com - The Battlerock X Chronicles
http://guardiansofthedawn.wordpress.com - fan-based comic book series "The Guardian Powers"
http://twitter.com/BattlerockX
--
"With Me - Against Me" Mission Arc 230667
I've always thought that the way this should be managed is to assume that you can only focus your attention on a limited number of things, and things you aren't paying attention to are by definition a more serious threat (because you can't see what they are doing).
In such a model, the heavily armored thing standing next to you is only doing 74 because you are actively trying to make sure he doesn't squish you, while the guy in the robe far away is doing 134 because you're willing to ignore him for the time being. If you elect to ignore the heavily armored guy and try to shoot at the guy farther away, the heavily armored guy would then squish you for 200. In CoH terms, tankers would only do less damage than blasters *because* foes paid them proper respect and treated them as the biggest threat, not because they *intrinsicly* did lower damage. They would intrinsicly do similar damage, but that intrinsic damage would never actually land unless they were ignored. |
-D
Darkonne: Pinnacle's (unofficially) mighty Dark Miasma/Radiation Blast enthusiast!
Be sure to check out this mighty Arc:
#161865 - Aeon's Nemesis
I've always thought that the way this should be managed is to assume that you can only focus your attention on a limited number of things, and things you aren't paying attention to are by definition a more serious threat (because you can't see what they are doing).
In such a model, the heavily armored thing standing next to you is only doing 74 because you are actively trying to make sure he doesn't squish you, while the guy in the robe far away is doing 134 because you're willing to ignore him for the time being. If you elect to ignore the heavily armored guy and try to shoot at the guy farther away, the heavily armored guy would then squish you for 200. In CoH terms, tankers would only do less damage than blasters *because* foes paid them proper respect and treated them as the biggest threat, not because they *intrinsicly* did lower damage. They would intrinsicly do similar damage, but that intrinsic damage would never actually land unless they were ignored. The model in my head for aggro and damage balancing has always been the WW1/WWII statistic that most bullets fired by soldiers were intended to prevent the enemy from shooting back effectively, not to actually kill the target (except by chance). In other words, you shoot at something not just to kill it, but to prevent it from using its offense against you. I think that model would work especially well in CoH. The reason why you attack the tanker is not because of taunt, but in effect to debuff their otherwise substantial damage. They are the biggest threat *logically* and not just because of a game mechanic. And this means (accepting that this is not the only issue in PvP) that even in PvP there's a good reason to attack the tanker rather than the defender on a team. By making it the *intelligent* decision to attack the tanker in PvE, you give them a reason to exist in PvP as well.** I personally think the combination of reverse-bodyguard and an aggro system like this is so potentially interesting, it might even be worth experimenting with it in a game already well-established like CoH. If it were up to me, I'd introduce it as an optional mechanism: something tankers could opt into, or alternatively a new archetype could be created that used the mechanic, to see if players find it superior to the traditional aggro system. If players actually liked it, I'd kick the current aggro system to the curb. ** Although I'm mentioning tankers, the general principle can work for all archetypes: simply ensure that whenever you want a critter to attack something over something else, you give it a good reason to do so mechanically, so its always the intelligent choice, not just an override. Eventually you build a situational table that says critters should attack the tanker under these situations, the defender under those, the blaster under these others, always because its the best situational choice for that critter. |
The more damage without aggro concept is interesting. If you need a name for it, I'd call it the Coward's Reward to fit in with the armored knight concept tanking is built around. Run away from me and be struck down is the concept I assume. Solely in PvP though its a very interesting idea, though I'd want to limit ranged options to prevent abusive alpha strikes. Originally I was thinking of it as a sort of universal concept, but as a single inherent style power for a single class it makes a lot of sense. The only thing I'd be completely concerned about is how the system would deal with multi-tank teams and whether that might turn out to be pretty unstoppable.
That's a really cool model, but how do you handle the all Tanker (or equivilent) team? If an enemy only has so much attention to go around, wouldn't the extra damage from un-countered Tankers trump anything a Blaster could bring to the table?
-D |
You could also manipulate the numbers in conceptually palatable ways to account for teaming situations. For example, blasters could have the offensive advantage that their damage doesn't drop as much when they have "attention" than tankers do, to account for their offensive focus (they are just better at scoring good hits even if you focus on them and try not to get hit). That would allow you to still give blasters enough of an advantage that their offense tended to be superior overall in most circumstances.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Generally I think ideas like reverse bodyguard aren't all that popular simply because they don't animate well. They work mechanically, but they don't appear in an easy to understand manner.
|
Ironically, the one situation where reverse bodyguard has the best opportunity for visual effect is for the one kind of tanker we don't have: the force field tanker. And I have to believe that the reason we don't have FF tankers is because it would be extremely difficult to make FF tankers that wouldn't stomp all over FF defenders.
Its worth noting that my original suggestion for "reverse-bodyguard" had an extra catch: it would have a relatively low radius. The idea was that right now with the current aggro rules, its counter-intuitively dangerous to stand anywhere near the tanker, because they are drawing all the fire (including AoE fire). I wanted reverse-bodyguard to reverse that, and make the *safest* place to stand be next to the tanker, where reverse bodyguard's effects were strongest. And if players are standing relatively near the tanker, one way to animate RB's effects is to tell the animation system to send visual attacks intended for players under RB to the tanker, so that they "hit" the tanker instead of the player, and then either deflect off or are absorbed by the tanker (as an aside, I wish there was better deflection and absorption animations as well).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Also, I just Googled Crate Buster 2000 and it appears to not exist outside of BABs' head. Or that's the new codename for GoRo. Because if there is anything a video game player is used to fighting, it's crates.
City of Crates, due out Q2 2010.