Mob threat detection

Balrog21Balrog21 Member
edited May 23 in General Discussion
As some know I'm always wanting Intrepid to push the envelope. One thing that has always really irked me is mob dumbness...
When I played Secret World many years ago, they did it right. If a mob could see you it was coming after you.
In WOW this was horrid. Especially in the dungeons. Even worse for final boss battles. You all walk in the room and there is the final boss....Just sitting ready to die. I guess he hasn't heard you fighting your way to him/her, especially the mobs right outside the door. So it just sits there while you get all ready and in position...immersion killer for me. Hated it, actually. I do hope Intrepid make better use of mobs than previous mmo's with their detection.
Did this ever bother any of you or did you just accept it and plow through them?
«1

Comments

  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    I feel like this is a case of pick your poison. If they made detection more "realistic" they would have to either make the mobs a lot weaker or fewer otherwise the players would be easily overwhelmed. Which would you prefer? Pick your poison.
  • Balrog21Balrog21 Member
    I want to be on my toes, as it should be in the wild or in a dungeon.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member
    It would not be very "realistic" if a mob would run at you the second it saw you.
    Maybe make differences between different mob species.
    Humanoid mobs will attack you on sight.
    Predators will attack you if you get in a 30yard range.
    Herbivores will either run away or attack you if you get to 15yards.

    Another thing would be, if npcs could randomly go on a patrol. Patrol npcs like predators would then attack you on sight for example.
    KkvMmA5.png
  • Personally for me threat doesn't make sense. it never did.
    I understand people need this to enjoy the game, but it's just not logical at all.
    It would be much better to have a boss that targets enemies in smart ways, considering the last few rounds of attacks.
    I mean, why would a powerful enemy attack the tank who is doing little to no damage, while the other 7 members are shredding it apart?
    Guess people/devs are not ready to make that type of content yet.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    Personally for me threat doesn't make sense. it never did.
    I understand people need this to enjoy the game, but it's just not logical at all.
    It would be much better to have a boss that targets enemies in smart ways, considering the last few rounds of attacks.
    I mean, why would a powerful enemy attack the tank who is doing little to no damage, while the other 7 members are shredding it apart?
    Guess people/devs are not ready to make that type of content yet.

    This was answered the best by Jeff Kaplan way back in 2005 at Blizzcon when talking about WoW raid design.



    You can watch the full video if you like (it's really good and still holds up today) but the main takeaway with regards to "smart" bosses is that it's not that making the boss smart would be hard. It would in fact be very easy to program the boss to ignore the tanks and go 1-shot the healers at the start of the fight. But if they did that a) it wouldn't be very fun for the players, and b) it wouldn't be possible for the players to kill the boss. To quote Jeff in the video:
    "We want you to kill our raid monsters"

    If the developers didn't want you to kill their bosses it would be very very easy for them to make the bosses unkillable.
  • BlackBronyBlackBrony Member
    edited May 23
    If the developers didn't want you to kill their bosses it would be very very easy for them to make the bosses unkillable.

    I don't mean one shot party members, that I believe is the problem with game design. Bosses shouldn't one shot anyone that is not the tank.
    Lets says the rogue is doing high damage, then the boss would try to hit that member, if it's reasonable distance, or focus the next closest enemy.
    Not one shot, but doing enough damage to force the rogue to use some evasive skills.
    Boss could have X amount of skills that randomly uses.

    It's a lot different, and it could create more dynamic raids, where everyone is on their toes and nothing just using random rotations.

    Tanks could instead intercept damage, put up walls in case of projectiles to protect party members. Share their defenses, etc, etc.
    So many options.

  • Balrog21Balrog21 Member
    @Wandering Mist I remember watching that....I didn't say make them one shot us....but more dynamic.. @BlackBrony is on the right track, wow got lazy in their design mechanics...I will be putting up some thoughts on the red dragon short fight we saw in the live stream a few weeks ago. Yes, I know it's not finished but some ideas they could implement.
    I know they can't make all of the mobs dynamic, but for world bosses and raid bosses I do hope they take the necessary time to make them memorable and fun. Instead of the normal tank and spank.
  • noaaninoaani Member
    edited May 24
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    it's just not logical at all.
    Arguing logic in a game with fireballs and dragons is not logical.

    MMO's are games.

    Games have systems to make them enjoyable.

    Threat/hate is a system that exists to perform a specific function.

    While it is ok to have specific situations that take a system like this and turn it on it's head, if a game simply didn't have systems like this, it wouldn't be fun to play.

    Games like WoW do an exceptionally poor job at making this work though (well, at everything). A good game will see the tank have a taunt that is an insult - and only works on targets that can understand a language that the tank can speak (a practical reason to learn as many languages as possible). This kind of thing - where you are actually doing a thing to make the target want to attack you - is far better than just using an ability that increases hate by X amount. The mechanics behind the two are the same though, the difference is that one has some fluff text to go with the ability description.

    Other games (and this seems to be Ashes) have tanks physically put themselves or other barriers between the mob and that tanks allies, so if the mob wants to attack that rogue that is doing all of that damage, the mob would have to take the tank out first because the tank isn't letting the mob get to that rogue.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    The only game that I know of that managed to make "smarter" mobs that didn't rely on a threat system was the Original Guildwars. Mobs in that game used a priority system where they would attack targets with low max health and armour first within a certain range, which was usually the healers and casters.

    This completely changed the dynamic of the fights. Warriors and Paragons (the frontliners) pretty much only existed to try to bodyblock mobs to stop them from getting to the backline, which only works in tight corridors. If you were fighting in an open area they were practically useless. On top of that, healers spent the majority of their time kiting and self-healing which often lead to their teammates dying.

    I would like to see another game try this kind of priority targeting system but I doubt it will happen any time soon. It was a very weird experience.
  • IkcenIkcen Member
    In the old Lineage 2 if you tried to go solo, entire horde of mobs would go after you. It was cool. I really hate the MMORPGs with Diablo vibe - a solo player just delete everything. This is a horrible design for a MMORPG. And makes parties in general useless for PvE.
  • afarafar Member, Pioneer
    @noaani justyfying lazy game design/lazy writing with 'it's just a game' is weak.
    A game could have better systems, a horror movie could have better plot, and saying things like "if main character did the most reasonable thing there would be no movie" is stupid. I saw movies when both parties did most reasonable things, these are the best kind of movies. Solution to stupid boss mechanic might be something like @BlackBrony said. @Wandering Mist and @Ikcen are also right
    Magic is logical if it's a part of game world
    Stupid mobs not so much, and saying that if mobs were smarter, they would be impossible to beat by WoW players, is an insult to WoW players
  • afarafar Member, Pioneer
    There sure need to be stealth and other mechanics, not just pure ramboing. Far Cry 1 was interesting in that aspect. Different classes might have different ways to solve problems, and there should be possible to rampage through dungeon, but it shouldnt be only or easiest way.
    If in stealth games (like hitman) you can kill everyone, on hardest difficulty, without being e sport level player, that is a bad game, not all games are like that so it's not like 'its just a game'
  • noaaninoaani Member
    afar wrote: »
    A game could have better systems
    Could it?

    I can't think of a better system for determining what player character a mob will attack than a well designed threat list system.

    It's like anything, if it's well designed it can be great, but if it's poorly designed it can be shit. I have never and will never condone a poorly done example of any system, but I also won't claim a game could have a better system if I have nothing to start that new system off with.

    Every improvement I can think of to deciding which player a mob should attack would be best implimented by factoring it in to a threat list rather than attempting to create a new system.
    The only game that I know of that managed to make "smarter" mobs that didn't rely on a threat system was the Original Guildwars. Mobs in that game used a priority system where they would attack targets with low max health and armour first within a certain range, which was usually the healers and casters.
    A lot of games use proximity as a metric in threat generation, though it is often too small to be noticed. GW just kind of dropped everything else that other games did.

    Using lowest HP seems a little cruel to me, as the worst geared player will be the focus of attacks.

  • I always thing of threat as annoyance.
    So a mob looks at how annoying an enemy is depending on their Dmg, Healing and what else they do (depending on what the game aknowledges).
    A tank simply stands on top of the threat list because they are professional smack talkers and really know how to make a mob angry at them.
    A game with good Mob Ai would also take into account how easy a target is to take out and how important the targets role in a group is (a group with one healer is more dependant on that healer than a group with two healers).
    But a good game with good Mob Ai would give its players and especially the tank to influence their treath and how the mob can go about their attack.

    There are multiple realistic ways how tanks could take a mobs attention:
    1: Beeing just Loud and Anoying. (Your Moma..., screaming loudly, looking flashy)
    2. additionaly Beeing actually a hindrance. (Having abilities that stop the mob from approaching their target, possibly something that janks them back to the tank, throwing thinks at the mob (stones, stink bombs, seasoming bombs,..).
    3. Beeing constantly in the way (Body blocking (is that a thing in AoC?), using a skill to cover the mobs target)

    Picture yourself in the shoes of the mob. You have to finish a project but there is this mosquito flying around. It buzzes into your ear it lands on you and tries to suck blood and if it succeds it will leave these itchy little bulges on your body. It migth be faster to ignore the mosquito and focus on your work (killing the healer) but if it is annoying enough you start hunting it down, it will just be a few seconds... mins .... half an hour... ok where is that little bastard.

    See it in that way.
    A tank is not the priority target, actually the least important target. you should never focus the tank before killing everything else.
    So a good Tank (for pve or pvp) needs to tools to be anannoying little p.o.s. and make everyone from mob to (enemy) player think: "Don't worry Healer, I'll get you... but first that a******."

    That would not change much how Tanks play in pve in most mmorpgs already (don't know about pvp) but depending on how you make threat accumulate it either becommes a believable system or a "push one button to be on top of the threat list" abomination.
  • MosephMoseph Member
    edited May 24
    So I just watched the May 23 video tweet from Ashes that showed the Band of Brigands (sounds like a guild name) being dispatched and noticed something. 36 seconds in Steven attacks a mob, while a fobbit who isn't very far away just sits there oblivious. If I survived an encounter like that, I would would a nice conversation with the fluffer who just let someone kick the crap out of me without even saying anything. I understand threat range and all that, but it still bothers me.
  • I find it funny that the highest priority target (the one is most threat) is doing exactly zero damage.
    How is that a threat?
    Is the tank blinding you, lowering your damage, impeding movement? Nope, it's just a guy with a mechanic. It's the most meta game play ever, and it's awful.

    Real mechanics would target enemies using other rules. Think something like how players behave in PvP. Do they go for tanks? No, they go for healers, and damage dealers.
    That would be a most interesting raid, but well, if you do that, DPS meter lovers won't be able to crunch their numbers
  • MosephMoseph Member
    edited May 24
    It depends... So if the "tank" is mitigating the damage you can dish out or blocking you from stopping the ones that are hurting you, wouldn't you want to take that person out first?

    It's also similar to an armored vehicle. If contacts are using an armored vehicle for cover as they move and fire on your position, what do you do? Do you fire at the people when you can, or take out the vehicle?

    At least that's the way I justify it in my head.
  • leonerdoleonerdo Member, Settler
    edited May 25
    I'd like a system with a more complex threat system as well. When FFXIV all but removed the threat system (Tanks now generate 10x as much emnity/threat, just from their "tank stance" which can always be on and costs nothing) I was sad to see it happen. I think it's kinda boring when a tank just magically holds the enemies attention perfectly despite doing nothing to earn it.

    I think ideally, for a good mix of realism and fun gameplay, a game should have a threat system with a lot of different hooks. In addition to generating threat with damage and healing, you should also generate more by being close to the enemy/easier to hit, interrupting attacks, and perhaps doing certain mechanics that vary per enemy. Maybe there's precious items which the boss was hoarding in his lair, and you can smash them to generate more threat. Maybe a rabid animal boss could have more aggro on a bleeding/wounded target, because of predatory instincts. (The gameplay goal would be to keep everyone at full health except the tank.) And of course, there should still be threat-generating and threat-dropping abilities.

    It's possible that humans are harder to "trick" into attacking the tank, but you can still force them to do so with a combination of threat-altering abilities, keeping ranged players far out of range, and having the melee use hit-and-run tactics.

    Put all that together and it might be especially interesting for a Rogue character who naturally generates a lot of threat (by being in close-quarters and doing a lot of damage), which they can manage with shadowy tricks, hit-and-run tactics, and boss-specific threat mechanics.

    Fighters would be in a similar situation, but they probably end up taking aggro occasionally. So they have to decide when it's safe to burst the enemy and take a few hits in return, and when they need to back off. They can probably sustain a few hits easily, unlike a Rogue, so for them it's more about controlling when they take aggro and how they mitigate damage while the tank regains control.

    This actually happened a fair bit in Tera, where threat was heavily based on outgoing damage. So the tank might not generate much threat if they were busy blocking all the time. And when a DPS ripped aggro, they had to use their few evades/blocks while the tank built up threat again. Good tanks managed to mix together a good DPS rotation, blocking only when they needed to, and couple bonus-threat abilities, so that they never lost aggro. But it wasn't taken for granted that every tank could do so perfectly.

    That reminds me, threat can also have a recency-bias (like normal humans/animals). i.e. threat should decrease over time, so that "what happened 60 seconds ago" is basically irrelevant to current threat levels. This keeps threat as a kind of constant battle, rather than having the Tank build up a bunch of threat at the beginning and keep it the whole time. It also allows for a bit of gameplay requiring the DPS burst-phases to match up with Tank burst or extra-threat mechanics. Otherwise the DPS will rip aggro temporarily (until the boss "forgets" all that burst damage, or the Tank does his own burst damage).

    So yeah, basically, immersion is nice, but gameplay is more important. The best is when you can find immersive reasons to add more gameplay.
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I find it funny that the highest priority target (the one is most threat) is doing exactly zero damage.
    How is that a threat?
    Is the tank blinding you, lowering your damage, impeding movement? Nope, it's just a guy with a mechanic. It's the most meta game play ever, and it's awful.

    Real mechanics would target enemies using other rules. Think something like how players behave in PvP. Do they go for tanks? No, they go for healers, and damage dealers.
    That would be a most interesting raid, but well, if you do that, DPS meter lovers won't be able to crunch their numbers

    Btw, this isn't about DPS meters. (Although, combat trackers can be helpful when determining how the tank lost aggro.) Nor does it have anything to do with PvP. (Obviously, real players are going to fight more intelligently than NPCs.)

    The first half of you comment was fine. But the last half is ridiculous.
  • noaaninoaani Member
    leonerdo wrote: »
    I think ideally, for a good mix of realism and fun gameplay, a game should have a threat system with a lot of different hooks.
    This is basically my thoughts right here.

    The actual system is fine, it's just that some games don't take the system far enough.

    Hate generating and reducing abilities should be the backbone of the system - but that is purely so that players have direct control of the situation.

    From there, damage should be the next major consideration, followed by healing and buffing. Sadly, this is where most games leave it.

    To me, proximity should also be a major factor, but there should also be a generic "annoyance" factor in there as well. If a tank is physically standing in the way of a mob, that mob should then want to take on that tank even more than the sum total of that tanks other hate generating abilities would suggest - because the tank is preventing the mob from attacking the target it wants. As such, there would be a difference between who the mob wants to attack, and who the mob is going to attack.

    I also like the idea of different mob types having different priorities of generating hate - but only if there is an in game explanation on this (a lore book on different animals fighting habits, as an example). This could be something as obvious and profound as wild animals always wanting to attack who ever is closest to their young, regardless of what damage they may be taking on them self (and those young should all be seasonal as well) - or it could be as subtle as a particular mob type (or specific encounter) hating a specific color and so generating significantly more hate towards anyone wearing that color.

    Could also be interesting to see intelligent races have different hate/thread gains towards different player races - there could be a massive number of reasons for this to happen, and could make both combat and the games lore more interesting.

    With the group size and potential for support classes in Ashes, it would also be possible to implement an EQ system of reinforcement. If you take on a group of enemies, there is a good chance that one or more of them will run over to the next group of enemies and get them to join the fight - the best way of stopping this involved CC'ing that runner.

    This has the dual purpose of making CC almost essential to group content (which in turn means players know how to deal with CC better), but it also gives players an immersion based reason as to why that next group of mobs over didn't help - they were waiting for someone to come running asking for help, but no one ever did, so they just didn't bother (not perfect, but requires less of a suspension of disbelief than many other things in an MMO).

  • leonerdo wrote: »
    I

    Btw, this isn't about DPS meters. (Although, combat trackers can be helpful when determining how the tank lost aggro.) Nor does it have anything to do with PvP. (Obviously, real players are going to fight more intelligently than NPCs.)

    The first half of you comment was fine. But the last half is ridiculous.

    All I'm saying is that threat makes no sense and gives players control they shouldn't have. You're fighting a boss that needs 20 people to kill, and that boss is only targeting the only thing that is not killing them.

    DPS meters and threat/hate are all about control. Players should not have control during the battle. Battles should be chaotic and ever changing.
    Sure, some strategies might work better, but no. Control should not be a thing during raids.
    I know people won't like it, but it would be much more interesting imo.

    Hate is a meta game term that makes no sense, it might be the standard, but if players had no control, would be much better.
  • noaaninoaani Member
    edited May 25
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    Control should not be a thing during raids.
    I know people won't like it, but it would be much more interesting imo.
    GW tried that, so did GW2.

    In both cases it was abandoned because it was not fun.

    When you replace a system that is fun with one that is deemed more realistic, you are making a simulator, not a game.

    I'm all for a game company attempting to make a fireball casting, sword wielding, dragon killing simulator, as long as it is marketed as such. However, a game is not a simulator, and should not attempt to be one.

    Ashes, by the way, is a game.
  • MosephMoseph Member
    leonerdo wrote: »
    Maybe there's precious items which the boss was hoarding in his lair, and you can smash them to generate more threat.
    This would be really interesting. I have a huge habit of busting every jar i see... it's an addiction. If I see a jar... I break it. I've been conditioned. Now imagine if breaking those same jars while looking for loot was pissing off the boss. This would be great.
    leonerdo wrote: »
    Maybe a rabid animal boss could have more aggro on a bleeding/wounded target, because of predatory instincts. (The gameplay goal would be to keep everyone at full health except the tank.) And of course, there should still be threat-generating and threat-dropping abilities.
    I remember something like this from a game... where you had to be under the effects of a potion or poison. Maybe during the swtor rakghoul events.
    leonerdo wrote: »
    Good tanks managed to mix together a good DPS rotation, blocking only when they needed to, and couple bonus-threat abilities, so that they never lost aggro. But it wasn't taken for granted that every tank could do so perfectly.
    Not going to lie, I thought all tanks did this. One thing I did like about parses for SWTOR is that they showed that I was a capable damage dealer even when tanking.
  • afarafar Member, Pioneer
    I think best mobs are those that acts just like players. Difficulty level should be similiar to pvp, and i think that Steven thinks pretty similiar (remember when he said that players can play monster roles?)
    If mobs will be actually controlled by players, that will be interesting. In best case players who really want to hurt other guild/raid party :)
  • BlackBrony wrote: »
    All I'm saying is that threat makes no sense and gives players control they shouldn't have. You're fighting a boss that needs 20 people to kill, and that boss is only targeting the only thing that is not killing them.

    DPS meters and threat/hate are all about control. Players should not have control during the battle. Battles should be chaotic and ever changing.
    Sure, some strategies might work better, but no. Control should not be a thing during raids.
    I know people won't like it, but it would be much more interesting imo.

    Hate is a meta game term that makes no sense, it might be the standard, but if players had no control, would be much better.

    Almost any Threat/Hate system has an in game explanation, either you are insulting them, or magically enraging them, so they make perfect sense. If bosses were smart, they would only kill anyone who heals first, and use every single cooldown ability like a player burning someone down would. And we would never beat another boss encounter. So already, you have another, using your logic, non nonsensical situation. Why would a boss even care about dps? It has millions of health, and deals massive damage.

    Threat has existed as a place holder of more detailed concepts that would require different system setups. Body blocking, shielding, or creating walls or barriers to name a few. And honestly there's nothing wrong with it. Games like WoW messed up when they continued using it, but made it so it was almost impossible to tear that threat away from the tank, making every class much less involved. Tanks sit holding aggro, dps fire away mindlessly and healers press a few buttons while watching youtube lol.
  • BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't mean one shot party members, that I believe is the problem with game design. Bosses shouldn't one shot anyone that is not the tank.

    Those are literally the people most disposed to being one shot. In most any game.
  • Ventharien wrote: »

    Almost any Threat/Hate system has an in game explanation, either you are insulting them, or magically enraging them, so they make perfect sense.

    I find hard that a boss so powerful that you can't stun/root/or any other CC falls for an insult or a magic that forces it to attack someone who can't die.

    There can be new ways, even dying could be part of the mechanics. What I mean is that the design has become stale.

  • noaaninoaani Member
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    Ventharien wrote: »

    Almost any Threat/Hate system has an in game explanation, either you are insulting them, or magically enraging them, so they make perfect sense.

    I find hard that a boss so powerful that you can't stun/root/or any other CC falls for an insult or a magic that forces it to attack someone who can't die.

    There can be new ways, even dying could be part of the mechanics. What I mean is that the design has become stale.

    In any fantasy setting, the observer must exercise an amount of suspension of disbelief.

    There are always things that will have holes in thier logic that you could pick at, but it is on us to decide if it is worth picking at those things or not.

    I mean, I've always wondered how a mage covered in cloth can cast all those fireballs without ever setting themself on fire - or how that same cloth can somehow provide protection against fire.

    These things don't make sense from a logical perspective, but do make sense from a game system perspective.

    Assuming developers do at least a cursory job of providing an explanation of these things, it is up to us to take that disbelief we have, and suspend it - either by simply agreeing that this is how it is in this world, or coming up with our own reasoning to compliment that which the writers have given.

    I mean, if you have to tell yourself thay all bosses are egomaniacal and so always respond to insults, then just tell yourself that.
  • JamationJamation Member
    I've seen a lot of talk about realism, but from what I've read it still seems like people are looking at it from the perspective of a person sitting at their computer playing a video game.

    If you want realism consider this: You're a large ogre and a small group of humanoid types are attacking you. You're first instinct is to hit whatever is close because "realistically" you can't tell how much damage the archer does per arrow compared to the man swinging a very sharp, very dangerous, very head-chopping-off-able sword in your face. Your goal is to take out your opponent while also protecting your weak points. How can you do that if you ignore the people right next to you in order to charge after the "high dps" folks.

    That's where fight mechanics come in.

    AOE's, large line attacks, cone attacks, sneak attacks, etc etc. All of these are the enemies attempt at hitting those out of reach enemies while also defending themselves. The enemy that your killing is also constantly defending themselves. In their own sense they too are a "tank". If the enemy didn't care about "blocking" and mitigating their own damage they'd probably die very quickly from lack of protecting themselves.


    However, back to the original question of the thread: It depends?
    There have been a lot of times where I thought it was silly how close you could get to a boss without causing it to attack you. However, I wouldn't want this to be on every enemy or if it was it would be a scale-able effect.

    From what I've gathered (and I might be hella wrong) but the world's been growing and adjusting on it's own without (insert character race) involvement so a lot of enemies might be cautious of a potential new threat. I've seen videos of deer and birds nuzzling photographers and walking right up to them because they had never seen a human in that part of the world. I also know a lot of the predatory species aren't out to just kill anything they see, but they'd defend their territory or hunt for food.

    If they did go with a detection scheme I think it'd be cool to have it be an "AoE" type thing depending on the development of the node. New nodes would have friendly types that wouldn't run away but might notice you if you get too close while the hostile enemies would only attack if you got close to it, but certain enemy types might "stalk" you or they'll attack if you're near their pack/home. And as the nodes progress you'd see more typical interactions like friendly types would flee at the sight of a human while predator types might actively seek you out for food or have a wider detection rate due to their decreasing land. And if enemies did become aggressive towards you I'd want it to be realistic in the sense that if I'm level 100 and a level 5 cheetah sees me it's not going to attack me as it can tell "hey I can sense that this human is a lot more dangerous than that child I ate the other day". Because nothing becomes more annoying when you're out and about and all of a sudden you hear battle music because a level 2 frog is jumping at you but can't damage you but is also preventing you from doing other things.

    But overall, this isn't a zombie apocalypse game. So I don't expect things to see me and instantly attack. If they did, then I'd think they were pretty dumb mobs.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member
    edited May 27
    Jamation wrote: »
    I've seen a lot of talk about realism, but from what I've read it still seems like people are looking at it from the perspective of a person sitting at their computer playing a video game.

    If you want realism consider this: You're a large ogre and a small group of humanoid types are attacking you. You're first instinct is to hit whatever is close because "realistically" you can't tell how much damage the archer does per arrow compared to the man swinging a very sharp, very dangerous, very head-chopping-off-able sword in your face. Your goal is to take out your opponent while also protecting your weak points. How can you do that if you ignore the people right next to you in order to charge after the "high dps" folks.

    That's where fight mechanics come in.

    AOE's, large line attacks, cone attacks, sneak attacks, etc etc. All of these are the enemies attempt at hitting those out of reach enemies while also defending themselves. The enemy that your killing is also constantly defending themselves. In their own sense they too are a "tank". If the enemy didn't care about "blocking" and mitigating their own damage they'd probably die very quickly from lack of protecting themselves.


    However, back to the original question of the thread: It depends?
    There have been a lot of times where I thought it was silly how close you could get to a boss without causing it to attack you. However, I wouldn't want this to be on every enemy or if it was it would be a scale-able effect.

    From what I've gathered (and I might be hella wrong) but the world's been growing and adjusting on it's own without (insert character race) involvement so a lot of enemies might be cautious of a potential new threat. I've seen videos of deer and birds nuzzling photographers and walking right up to them because they had never seen a human in that part of the world. I also know a lot of the predatory species aren't out to just kill anything they see, but they'd defend their territory or hunt for food.

    If they did go with a detection scheme I think it'd be cool to have it be an "AoE" type thing depending on the development of the node. New nodes would have friendly types that wouldn't run away but might notice you if you get too close while the hostile enemies would only attack if you got close to it, but certain enemy types might "stalk" you or they'll attack if you're near their pack/home. And as the nodes progress you'd see more typical interactions like friendly types would flee at the sight of a human while predator types might actively seek you out for food or have a wider detection rate due to their decreasing land. And if enemies did become aggressive towards you I'd want it to be realistic in the sense that if I'm level 100 and a level 5 cheetah sees me it's not going to attack me as it can tell "hey I can sense that this human is a lot more dangerous than that child I ate the other day". Because nothing becomes more annoying when you're out and about and all of a sudden you hear battle music because a level 2 frog is jumping at you but can't damage you but is also preventing you from doing other things.

    But overall, this isn't a zombie apocalypse game. So I don't expect things to see me and instantly attack. If they did, then I'd think they were pretty dumb mobs.

    That thing about levels is something I think FFXIV did well, at lower levels the mobs would smell it and attack once you go into their aggro range. As you leveled up your threat went up and theirs went down. At a point in level difference, they would never make the first aggressive move.

    Take that with a grain of salt though because I only played to about lvl20.

    Smart enemies in that each type—that is: intelligent mobs (ex humanoids), predator mobs (ex monstrous beasts), semi-passive mobs (ex beasts), and prey mobs (ex deer)—would all have different engagement conditions, and have different reactions to a difference in level.

    They shouldn’t be pulling computer-chessmaster moves, but enemies should be more inclined to attack heavy damage bursters if they don’t use threat reduction tools. We know tanks will be able to bodyblock, so hopefully it’s a more engaging process than “hit your aggro button every 10s”.


    Edit: Because I’m evidently I’m prone to 4yr old grammar mistakes
  • grisugrisu Member
    I mean, if we are talking "realism" and immersion breaking for you, how would you as a boss, know that it was the ranger that dealt all that damage to you? If 8 people hit on you, you will be able to feel that it was that arrow there from that guy that hurt the most? Not to mention 40 people in a raid.
    Do you know how pain reception works, or the sense of touch at all? Apparently not.
    Aside from that you are so massive that each and every individual attack is nothing to you. Just over the course of 10-15 minutes it accumulates.

    I can get behind the argument that healers might be a priority target for enemies that have brain functions that go beyond instincts, but first of all, yeah Guild Wars, and second of all, yeah guild Wars 2. Horrific. 3rd of all, if you have never seen people chasing some "damage dealer" while a healer watching them and throwing around heals unbothered right next to that... yeah. Smart humans.

    I always just saw tanks as excelling in deceiving, taunting and controlling a mob to have it focused on you. That's their skill set beside having big shields and heavy armour. Making the mob believe you as the tank are the most important target or being the bullwark that won't let you pass to get to whatever you want to attack.

    The animal kingdom has lot's of examples supporting perceived threat as a survival mechanism. Animals that make themselves bigger, flash colours, change shape or move in certain ways to deter danger away by making themselves more noticeable and or threatening. We always like to think of ourselves as superior and smarter but fact is a harmless spider jumping at you will still make most of you run away screaming.
    A boss on the other hand might think nothing of you and just dispatch you one by one no matter what you are. Being vain and not realizing the actual danger.

    There are tons of reason that can go into this but in all honesty looking for realism in a fantasy game without understanding how reality works as well as looking for immersion without even understanding the reasons for it being the way it is just screams "I want it my way, not immersive".

    It's the same argument with big weapons "it's not realistic and immersive to wield weapons that are bigger than yourself", so is anyone hit by a dragons paw surviving somehow. Do you know how much force is behind a creature of that size? You are mush inside your armour, end of story. So realistic, so immersive, such fun.

    It's a game, use your fantasy a little and come up with reasons instead. If you want to make an argument for new mechanics, new approaches to a wheel, do so without leaning on "realism and immersion".
    I can be a life fulfilling dream. Grisu
    I can be a life devouring nightmare. Zekece#1819
Sign In or Register to comment.