Mob threat detection

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

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.

Moseph

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.

afar

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

Ventharien

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.

Ventharien

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.

BlackBrony

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.

Noaani

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.

Jamation

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.

Caeryl

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

grisu

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".

Moseph

grisu wrote: »

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.

I like this idea.
Basically tanks are just assholes talking shit the whole time, sitting there pissing off the boss.
"Hey... Hey... Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.”

grisu

Moseph wrote: »

Basically tanks are just assholes talking shit the whole time, sitting there pissing off the boss.
"Hey... Hey... Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.”

That's what I did in WoW for some skills like taunts or 2minute cd skills that really boost my defence. I just put in a tiny script that bound a /shout xxx to it's activations.

It was really fun and a reason why I want macros in a game whenever possible.

"Oooh you are sooo mighty, can't even scratch the fur of a bear. How the heck did you ever get to lead this bastion? Won a lottery?"

Not proud of it, but sometimes when I hit just the right words with a new taunt people didn't know yet we had a wipe because people just burst out laughing and getting distracted. (totally proud of it and worth it)

Caeryl

grisu wrote: »

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.

Petition to make neon colored armor add to your threat generation (/s)

unknown

This content has been removed.

Noaani

grisu wrote: »

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?

The boss has a combat tracker.

grisu

Yes you are sarcastic, but fact is red cars are stopped more often than any other coloured car. That is a statistical fact because it instinctively draws more attention to it regardless of it doing something wrong or not. It is hardwired into us to look at red more intensely. Evolution right there and it could be a subtle mechanic to help or hinder tanking. (if a game set out to do that, learning about those things in enemies)

Noaani

EQ2 had "Slurred Insult" as one of the tank class skills - the class was kind of supposed to be like a drunken master type thing.

I was disappointed that there was no dialogue associated with it unless the player created macros like above (the ability to tie in a text command to an ability should be standard in all MMO's imo).

To me, this could be one way for developers to put a bit of personality in to the game. I'd love to see one of the tank taunts simply called "Insult", and then have the developers put in hundreds of typed insults that the tank can say at random (purely as text, not voice or anything). Have a few that are specific to factions/races/religions what ever, and it could add so much to the game.

I'm sure the developers at Intrepid would enjoy a competition to come up with the best generic, non-offensive insult they can... no doubt some of us here would also jump at the chance to come up with some.

---

As for the color thing, yeah, it absolutely should matter. Animals should attack bright big shiny things first in general - as much of a game system requirement as anything (tanks are usually big shiny things, holding other big shiny things).

It would be interesting if appearance items actually had an effect on hate like this.

Balrog21

@grisu , I think you might want to reread my original post.
My original idea was about detecting, not during a fight, and what leads up to this fight.
What's wrong with wanting something better?

Moseph

Caeryl wrote: »

grisu wrote: »

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.

Petition to make neon colored armor add to your threat generation (/s)

Or colorful plumes on our backs like Peacocks open up as a taunt.

Noaani

Moseph wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

grisu wrote: »

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.

Petition to make neon colored armor add to your threat generation (/s)

Or colorful plumes on our backs like Peacocks open up as a taunt.

This sounds like a great idea.

If it happened, I can see DPS not referring to tanks as meat shields any longer. If they have plumage like a peacock, they will just be called cocks!

Child Item