Alternative to aggro?

Vermillion_Raventhal

I guess I should say point system aggro that is damage, taunt, heal. I know most encounters these days are so fast aggro doesn't matter. Just wondered if there could be another way to determine who NPCs attack.

Lack of diversity among NPC also hamper this as usually they are all the same. I mean a stealth NPC might target your light armor party members or mages those week in resistance.  

I don't know what do you think could possibly be used in place of the popular method of aggro or it's just fine as it is?

Temp0

I think that, as a base system, the popular method is fine as is. The middle of your post addresses the point that I think is important here, the lack of diversity among enemy AI strategies. There are certainly MMOs that offer greater variety in rules and gimmicks related to threat/hate (what you called aggro) and I generally think this makes for richer content.

If you were wanting to completely change the basic rules of how threat/hate systems work you probably are going to have to change the entire environment with it (ex: making the game more action oriented where all characters are responsible for their own defense). This is ok (and also has been done) but its not really something I am looking for.

Ultimately I would prefer a familiar system with greater variety (both dynamically in how systems work and through the introduction of interesting gimmicks that change how things work for individual encounters for intrigue/freshness).

Sovrath

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I guess I should say point system aggro that is damage, taunt, heal. I know most encounters these days are so fast aggro doesn't matter. Just wondered if there could be another way to determine who NPCs attack.

Lack of diversity among NPC also hamper this as usually they are all the same. I mean a stealth NPC might target your light armor party members or mages those week in resistance.  

I don't know what do you think could possibly be used in place of the popular method of aggro or it's just fine as it is?

Honestly, I would prefer intelligent mobs to be intelligent and try to attack targets that make sense.

Monsters are probably more single minded about things and they might attack the closest.

I don't really believe in the taunt system. I think it should be more like Tera where the warriors put themselves between the attacker and whoever they are trying to protect.

iixviiiix

it's depend on what type of battle , locked room or open world .

Wizardry

FFXi

1 Typical i see you aggro
2  I hear you aggro
3 I sense your injured aggro
4 I sense your using class/job ability aggro
5 True hearing,i can hear you even if your using some form of silence
6 True Sight,i can see through invisible
7Positioning aggro/triggers,example the mob doesn't like anyone in behind it.

Then of course the group mechanics with aggro points determined by doing anything related to the encounter.If you do more then of course you are higher on the hate list.

SO what a lot maybe most people want is intelligent AI scripted into the mobs.First of all it needs to make sense,the more sentient beings would be more intelligent.

There is a fine line to everything in gaming because in the end it is just a script with numbers.So there would need to be triggers but then those triggers need a sort of rng factor otherwise it ends up nothing more than a on/off switch.trigger.

So for example a highly intelligent human mage foe might think,hmm damaging melee,i better throw up a strong ring of fire to keep the melee at bay or cast a physical damage reduction spell on itself.
FFXI already touches on pretty much any idea you can think of and not just done on bosses,even the non boss mobs sometimes have very good AI scripts.

However it still comes down to simple on/off triggers like for example ,npc hits a threshold of 50% health so then it automates a healing spell.The mob is down to 25% health and uses a powerful AOE attack to try and slow down the enemy or maybe a heavy aoe attack-down affect.

IMO too complicated is not really needed,just make the players think a little bit,they see a mob with a fiery sword then yeah i might need some fire protection,ideas like that.

TwistedSister77

A bunch of Raids do this with different mechanics, I can name some off the top of my head.  It's just not tank and spank.

In general though, if you want AI to bypass the trinity and "try" to kill healers and dps first... welcome to pvp my friend

In all jest, that would suck for trinity based games...  even with trinity based games, some make it hard to keep agro (and there are sometimes spawns/adds)

Ungood

in DDO, there is Threat Generation scale. Manly it is DPS, but it also other things, like casting control spells, IE: Stun, charm, etc. and believe this or not, healing generates threat.

There are also Enhancement lines, weapons, abilities, and other things, the like that can help increase and decrease your threat generation based on what you do.

This means that two players could do the same DPS and one can generate a LOT more hate than the other.

Now DDO has an Intimidate ability, but this is rank based (IE: You need to put ranks into this skill to use it) there are also Enhancements, abilities, and gear that can increase this stat, and that is rather important, because players that plan to use it, need to have it high enough for it to have an effect. The mobs can also roll to resist the Intimidate effect as well.

I think the system should fit the game.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Amaranthar

AI is definitely the way to go. 

I've talked before about a random rolls, but modified (die rolls) by circumstances, system. 
Built from the ground up, as in low INT MOBs having a basically "fight or flight" set of options, and add options as the INT of species goes up. So that even a highly intelligent MOB might fall back to "fight or flight" under the right circumstances. 

Things like armor types, healing ability, damage output, weakness, would all be part of the modifications to options. And MOB choices could change (if rolled under modifications) with every happenstance, such as fellow MOBs dying, healing keeping a Player from dying, how the numbers are affected, etc. 

Vrika

Positioning and blocking enemies is good alternative for some games, but for MMOs with real-time battle system it doesn't work.

At the end aggro is a good system if you want the players to be able to specialize and be different from each other.

Iselin

It's pretty tough to totally do away with aggro/taunt systems if your game is going to allow for glass cannon builds but it doesn't have to be as dominant as the MMOs that make tanks god-like in their ability to aggro everything and survive it via a heal-bot.

There are many things to dislike about ESO but their system makes group play a lot more interesting for everyone including healers and tanks.

For one things there is no AOE taunting whatsoever. The taunts that exists are single target and short duration. Tanks need to use short duration CC, roots and brief stuns and grapple pulls to control and group mobs but in chaotic fights with several adds there will always be some mobs that get away so everyone needs to be ready to defend itself at all times using active blocks, dodges, movement, etc.

Everyone gets used to doing things like walking mobs to the tank and staying tighter in the group than what you see in god-like tank MMOs.

Additionally in almost all group content bosses have taunt immunity periods where they will ignore the tank and go attack someone else. They start you off with that from the very first dungeons you're allowed to do at level 10 and they go up in trickery from there. There are several dungeons where taunt and CC immune adds spawn and do things like pin someone to the ground and kill that player unless the rest of the group reacts quickly and kills those adds in time.

But ESO being a fairly open player-build system gives you the tools to defend yourself with your own CC, self shield bubbles, etc. so that no player needs to be a helpless glass cannon - you can build that way but no one does after they've run a couple of dungeons.

Group play is all about bringing order to chaos so whatever system is used players need to have tools to do that. Aggro/taunt is still around because it works without requiring a 5 tank group

Ungood

Remali said:

You can do it like DnD where aggro is random but you have to break away from the trinity and every class should be able to defend wether by high hp armor evasion or illusion tricks for the mages

Just a minor note:

D&D has both Intimidate and Bluff. Where Bluff (if successful) gets the mobs to turn away from you and attack the next person on the aggro list, and Intimidate (if successful) puts you momentarily on top of the Aggro list, staying there is another matter. 

Also in Tabletop D&D, the Aggro of a mob is only as random as the DM wants it to be.

Rhoklaw said:

Guild Wars 2 pretty much doesn't follow the traditional trinity system and I for one can't stand the chaos in combat. In my opinion, GW2 PvE combat system is simply horrible, makes zero sense and forces the game into the ménage à trois where everyone is a tank, dps and healer. Which in turn destroys player individuality.

Ironically, as an old school gamer who would spend tons of time and in-game effort to make my characters more self sufficient in games that were very trinity designed, I loved that in GW2 everyone could cover their own ass.

But I admit, the Chaos in PvE content was there, at least at the start it was there.

Since HoT, they have added in role like classes like Druid Healers, and the like, and Raid/Strike Mission bosses will lock agro on the player with the highest toughness, this making it stupid easy to "tank".

Vrika said:

At the end aggro is a good system if you want the players to be able to specialize and be different from each other.

I have to agree that aggro is a good system, mainly because it exists in real life, that people can pull aggro off others, a prime example of this is when they do the running with the bulls in Spain, or in Rodeo's where the Rodeo Clowns pull Aggro from the rider. 

Youtube is full of plenty of situations where people have pulled aggrro from threats (be it Wild Animals to Angry/Insane Humans), so that others could get to safety.

So, since this is something we already know of in real life, it makes sense that it would exist in a game world.

Mendel

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

Ungood

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

Mendel

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Ungood

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Hybrid, Action/Tab Target system (You could use both) with assisted targeting (IE: You will hit whatever you are facing, you don't need to actively aim)  and on top of that, it had line of sight ranged combat.

You know how in some games that have tab target, if they shoot you, you can be running and they will still hit you no matter what?

In DDO the projectiles target the location, regardless if targeting was done with tab or action, thus you could side step projectiles and ray spells.

One of the most dynamic combat systems, easy enough to not even think about, and yet deep enough to go crazy with.

AlBQuirky

Aggro is a sticky-wicket. As someone else mentioned, many MMOs today have fights that are short enough to not even need aggro mechanics

I'm with Vrika on the physical aspects and positioning. That doesn't work and can be abused out of combat with collision detection.

So we are left deciding how to make mobs attack players in some semblance of order. I think that has to be factored into the very basic blood of any MMO.

I like what Iselin said:

Group play is all about bringing order to chaos so whatever system is used players need to have tools to do that.

That seems to be the salient point here: tools

Kyleran

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Which is why it isn't popular with many MMORPG players, keep that on consoles where it belongs.

cameltosis

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I guess I should say point system aggro that is damage, taunt, heal. I know most encounters these days are so fast aggro doesn't matter. Just wondered if there could be another way to determine who NPCs attack.

Lack of diversity among NPC also hamper this as usually they are all the same. I mean a stealth NPC might target your light armor party members or mages those week in resistance.  

I don't know what do you think could possibly be used in place of the popular method of aggro or it's just fine as it is?

I'm generally pretty happy with the typical way aggro is implemented, I think it's a good system for encouraging combat roles and interdependency.

However, A few years ago I designed (in my head...) a new system that I'd be curious to see how it works out. Let me know what you think.

This system relies on player collision.

The enemy would "intelligently" select their desired target - picking out the weakest, or most important player to target. The enemy would then attempt to move towards and attack that target.

In order to tank, players would have to literally stand in the enemy's way to prevent them getting to their desired target.

Players (and enemies) would have a kind of movement debuff aura around themselves. If you were standing directly in front of the player/enemy, your movement speed would be reduced by 50%. Standing at the sides, 25% debuff, behind them you can move normally.

When the enemy is prevented from reaching their desired target and enters the debuff aura of a player, the enemy would be forced to either engage that player, or try to find another route to their target.

The enemy would periodically make further attempts to reach their desired target, forcing players to keep moving to get in the way.

The game would also include CC in the form of knockbacks / knockdowns, as well as weight / strength statistics. So, a huge giant cannot be tanked, its just gonna walk through you. Equal weight opponents would need to use knockbacks to try to get through the line, or snares to be able to run around another person.

The purpose of such a system is two-fold. The first is to replicate "real life". You don't just walk passed someone who is hitting you with a sword! You cannot ignore someone who is trying to kill you! This is what the movement debuff aura is all about: if you enter my killzone, you are forced to slow down and engage.

The second purpose is to start bringing group formations into group content. With player collisions in place, groups can start doing things like forming shield walls, or forming a square to protect the healer in the middle. We can start blocking corridors and bridges.

I like to think that such a system would result in much more fluid combat, with movement and positioning being a much more important component compared to todays games. If an enemy breaks through your line, you're going to have to make a decision whether to reform or whether your backline players can handle it. Group content would need to be designed more around group vs group, rather than group versus 1 big boss.

Further improvements / depth would be things like altering the movement debuff based on weapon size and player size. If you're 6ft tall and wielding an 8ft polearm, your debuff area would be much bigger than if you were a hobbit with a dagger. Also, I'd like to see group formations provide more buffs, e.g. if you are in a line, you get defensive buffs, in a wedge, more offensive etc.

Ungood

cameltosis said:

The purpose of such a system is two-fold. The first is to replicate "real life". You don't just walk passed someone who is hitting you with a sword! You cannot ignore someone who is trying to kill you! This is what the movement debuff aura is all about: if you enter my killzone, you are forced to slow down and engage.

This is really where the whole idea should be.

I mean, unless there was some personal vendetta against a direct player by that mob, which, could be a lore induced thing, like some Specific Devil hates a Specific God, and will have a direst hate agro on any player that denotes worship to that God, but otherwise, real life would be, when you deal with what is hurting you first, and what is annoying you second..

This is why Agro based on DPS is a reasonable approach. While some games have other factors, like for example, in DDO healing generates aggro, as such, a healer or cleric that is not healing is not going to generate aggro, a healer that is spamming their AOE biggest heal spell is going to generate a huge amount of agro, and good team play is knowing when and who to heal. Sometimes, letting that overzealous glass cannon thief die, and raise them later, is better use of your mana, and best for the team.

And while an AI would calculate killing the healer might be a desired goal, ideally if the DPS kill team is shredding down your HP while the cleric is running in a circle, it's really time to rethink how valuable it is to keep running after the Cleric.

But from what you all are saying, I am really starting to wonder how your games deal with agro, like.. How bad and unrealistic are the systems that you use.

Ungood

Kyleran said:

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Which is why it isn't popular with many MMORPG players, keep that on consoles where it belongs.

DDO has tab targeting for all you old farts.

Kyleran

Ungood said:

Kyleran said:

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Which is why it isn't popular with many MMORPG players, keep that on consoles where it belongs.

DDO has tab targeting for all you old farts.

Targeting is never the issue, it's the dodge and roll part I can't abide.

Iselin

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

Kyleran said:

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Which is why it isn't popular with many MMORPG players, keep that on consoles where it belongs.

DDO has tab targeting for all you old farts.

Targeting is never the issue, it's the dodge and roll part I can't abide.

I know you. You're that guy who packs the La-Z-Boy to the fight and just sits there with a spear shouting "come at me, bro!"

Ungood

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

Kyleran said:

Mendel said:

Ungood said:

Mendel said:

I don't know that current threat evaluation systems (agro) are the problem.  I think the problem is more fundamental than that.  Old school games are built around the premise that a standard fight is 6 characters against 1 active mob. An agro system is needed in such instances to determine which character the mob focuses on.

What if instead of a 6-on-1 battle, the standard fight was 6-on-6?  Every character would need to engage an opponent or take them out of the fight temporarily.  Specialists would need to clear their opponent in order to help out another character.  Fights could shift dynamically, one moment it might start as 6-6, then evolve into a 3-1, a 2-1 and a 1-4 (a defensive/blocking fight), and then evolve again into a 1-1 (to finish off an opponent), a 2-1 and 3-4 fight, as characters change engagements during the fight.

I think this could add much needed flexibility in the otherwise static nature of MMORPG fights.  Not only would characters need to coordinate more with other players, they would have different tactical stances available to accomplish their immediate goal.  Defensive to engage multiple opponents, several offensive modes to damage the enemy, Blocking maneuvers to prevent foes from disrupting the players, and maybe other stances (Tackle/Grapple/Knockdown comes to mind).

Changing from a 6-1 to a 6-6 philosophy requires a different mindset from the developers.  Individual mobs don't need to be able to threaten a group of PCs by having 5-6x the number of hit points, and PC damage could be more on par with an individual mobs' damage.  Such changes *might* even make PvP systems more equitable, and not requiring 2 different sets of combat mechanics (PC vs mob and PC vs. PC).

How DDO is not the King Shizzle Shitz of the gaming world is beyond me, because it has everything you just talked about, and so much more.

It's also Action based combat.

Which is why it isn't popular with many MMORPG players, keep that on consoles where it belongs.

DDO has tab targeting for all you old farts.

Targeting is never the issue, it's the dodge and roll part I can't abide.

DDO does not have dodge rolling for you all you old farts.

vqly

Also worth thinking about... what game designers can do is actually analyze what PLAYERS do during a multiplayers pvp scenario, and have the NPCs match the same kind of psychology.   Some times the players might just randomly target the closest person, or somebody they really don't like, or someone they perceived (wrongly) as weak, etc.  Applying real players aggro rules to NPCs would make for very interesting fights.

What if "most likely" rules are implemented, so who a mob chooses to attack will mostly follow some sort of logic statistically, but have small chance of following other logics such as distance, perceived weakness, anger from taunts or attacks, or just randomly feel like it.

I can see combats being more interesting (and hilarious) that way.

AlBQuirky

Just for kicks, who you target first in a fight?

In a boss fight, get rid off the chaff first, or concentrate on the boss?

Do you get rid of the healers who keep the opponent's health bar up?

Do you try to take the alpha strikers first?

I'm curious how different we approach fights from the usual AI "threat table?"