Aggro/Threat mechanics don't work in PvX

MMORPG's have traditionally used a system of mob AI called Aggro in which a mob will preferentially attack player characters which perform certain actions, primarily that of dealing damage to the mob but later expanded to things like healing friendly characters. This was a simple AI which fit the constraints of early computer processor cycles while producing mob behavior which was better than the most primitive system of just attacking the nearest target or most recent attacker. Such simplistic AI would have allowed trivially easy control of what character a mob attacked making for dull and unchallenging PvE.

Under aggro systems Tanking classes were given special skills which move them up the mob priority list despite a low damage output from the Tank. In essence they break the otherwise effective AI of a mob and force it into inefficiently attacking the character most resistant to that attack. So long as mobs are balanced around this mechanic the gameplay is reasonably compelling mix of puzzle, timing and teamwork and it makes the Tanks role of being a meat-shield far more skillful and enjoyable then it would otherwise be if it was completely passive.

The problem is that these whole dynamic collapses when the opponent is not an AI but instead another player with full awareness of how the game works and full freedom to attack whomever they wish. And yet Tanking IS a viable class in most PvP games because Tanks are built differently in such games so as to make opposing players either rationally choose to attack the tank rather than another target or allow the Tank to create situations in which opponents have no other option but to attack them thus expending offensive potential inefficiently.

AoC would be far better off replicating Tank design from PvP games such as Overwatch and LoL and pairing them with mob AI's that seek to replicate the rational choices that a human would make in combat that cause them to attack Tanks. This will allow Tank gameplay to be consistent from PvE to PvP.

Well established PvP Tank mechanics include targeted pull effects, silence or other enemy DPS reductions, 'vaulting' into the middle of enemy groupings, increased damage potential when surrounded, projectile shields and movement barriers.

Some new methods which might be explored would be 'blinding' type effects on opponents which allow only nearby characters to be seen and attacked. An effect which leashes a melee opponent to remain within a short distance of the Tank. A damage redirection from nearby allies towards the Tank. I'm sure other skills can be created which provide control of enemy damage which would be effective on both players and AI.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Nuub wrote: »

I don't recall where i heard the idea, but it was suggested that tanks give protection to their allies in pvp.

The problem I - and some others - have with this is that it takes a tank class performing a tank role in PvE to a tank class performing a support/buff role in PvP.

To me, all classes should perform the same role in PvE and PvP - or at least be designed to be able to perform the same role.

Kilion

Most things I've read in this ongoing discussion have boiled down to a few points that I personally deem viable.

1. The CC-machine

On the battlefield a tank has a big disadvantage: He is less mobile than basically all other Archetypes and has lower damage potential. But just like in PvE encounters, the tanks primary objective is damage denial to the group and that wheel doesn't need to be reinvented for PvP encountered, Tanks simply need tools that allow them to do the same in these situations.

So giving Tanks the ability to reduce movement speed, to temporarily disable mobility skills of others or to pull them back would be viable options to make them threats that are difficult to ignore.

2. The Shieldbreaker

A tank is an expert in defense so it wouldn't be too surprising if they also were expert in whittleling down defenses of others. This would make them especially dangerous against big, strong targets like other tanks, bruisers, bosses and structures. In a siege battle taking down tanks would make sense before they weaken the defense of structures too much. However, this effect should be - compared to others a slow build rather than a spike.

And for all those wondering "how can just being beefy oneself make someone able to reduce other peoples defense?" I would point to the 'magical nature' of the Essence where continuous immersing in one mastery will increase ones power over this field of expertise.

3. Commander

A tank in the hero story sense often is the brave one jumping in first, leading his fellowship into battle. It would be an interesting mechanic to have the presence of tanks boost the defense of nearby allies, making the task of taking down a tank first a reasonable proposition to cut through the rest of the enemies faster.

This might be a feature primarily explored through Cleric and Bard augments.

I think with various combinations of these 3 solutions we could see incentives in PvP to not ignore tanks on the battlefield.

Percimes

Iskiab wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.

I's say, it that case, the problem was the lack of friendly fire (pun intended). Elemental AoE should be AoE, problem solved.

Veeshan

Taunts in pvp imo should reduce a player dmg output to everyone else but person who has taunted (just 2 debuffs works here to a degree one for the person who taunted the other whio was taunted. One reduces dmg output by x amount to everyone else who doesnt have the taunter debuff on them (taunter debuff should have a indicator for people who have the taunted debuff on though.

Could even go with log horizon anime effect where taunt does a debuff on the player and if they hit anyone but the person who taunted they take dmg

superhero6785

I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.

It may be difficult to balance with AoE's. A pure damage debuff would mean the AoE does less damage to other players, even if you 'target' the Taunter with the AoE.
Ideally I think it should only reduce damage if the Taunter isn't INCLUDED in the targets. So if you hit the Taunter with a meteor, anyone nearby would also take full damage. This would create more strategy when fighting Tanks. DPS may want to hold their AoE until after they are Taunted, and then unleash them on the Tank in hopes to maximize damage to others. Likewise, the Tank would want to reposition to stay clear of nearby allies. Much more fun gameplay, IMO.

Noaani

superhero6785 wrote: »

I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.

The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.

superhero6785

Noaani wrote: »

superhero6785 wrote: »

I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.

The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.

The main role for a Tank to fulfill in PvE is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies. How is that different than exactly what you described? Keep the threat (enemy player) focused on you and avoid standing on top of your allies so they don't get AoE'd...sounds EXACTLY like what a Tank should be doing.

I think you're so used to Tanks fulfilling a different role in PvP than PvE that the idea of fulfilling the same role seems wrong.

Iskiab

Percimes wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.

I's say, it that case, the problem was the lack of friendly fire (pun intended). Elemental AoE should be AoE, problem solved.

That’s what another MMO did (I’ve forgotten the name of it) that added friendly fire. What I’ve noticed that happens is games make systems changes to fix one issue and end up creating 3 new ones.

The trinity works, why mess with it? Don’t touch PvE. For PvP a tank means someone who’s hard to kill and low damage, give them a reason to not be completely ignored and good enough.

For those who want tanks to be protectors in PvE, I’m sorry but MMO PvP has never been like this and never should be. Give tanks some cc so they can disrupt and that’s it.

Noaani

superhero6785 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

superhero6785 wrote: »

I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.

The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.

The main role for a Tank to fulfill in PvE is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies. How is that different than exactly what you described? Keep the threat (enemy player) focused on you and avoid standing on top of your allies so they don't get AoE'd...sounds EXACTLY like what a Tank should be doing.

I think you're so used to Tanks fulfilling a different role in PvP than PvE that the idea of fulfilling the same role seems wrong.

Right, so, the main role of a tank in PvP is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies.

Yeah, totally agree there.

However, if you read what I said, if taunts in PvP function as a debuff to damage, the way tanks will be used is as a DPS debuffer.

These are very clearly different roles.

The way tanks will be used if their tents simply debuff damage output wont stop the opposition going after a healer, it will just make it so the opposition does less damage while they do so.

That debuff isnt enough in and of itself to make me want to focus on the tank first rather than a healer. There is no way it can both be balanced AND make me want to do that.

Percimes

I don't see many ways for tanks to play the same in PvE and PvP, at least not as long as their core mechanic is "threat" management in its current form.

If there was a threat source that could convince players to prioritize the tank as a target, it would be easy to simply convert mobs to find that offensive too, they'll believe anything their scripts tell them after all. But as long as PvE threat isn't acknowledge by players, tanks will have, if not a different role, a different playstyle in PvP.

If tanking could be done without the need of threat, meaning protecting the group mates regardless of enemy attention, mobs could also be convince that this was offensive and should generate threat in the same manner healing generate threat.

Yet, even with these changes, I'm not sure tanks will ever play the same because of a very different context between PvP and PvE: numbers of targets to keep "aggro" from. Keeping the focus of a limited number of compliant mobs isn't the same as a large numbers of players, each with their own weird aggro rules and none giving a hoot about you if you ask them.

Edit: I know what would make players want to focus on the tanks... Downing a tank should award XPs and they should drop stuff, that'll surely get players' attention!

Ludullu

How about this:

a tank has an "aggro stance"
it's an aura with a somewhat small aoe
as long as there's an enemy (mob or flagged person) within that aoe - the aura works
aura has 4 stages (indicated by a colored (blue, green, yellow, red) circle around the tank)
1. if the tank has not received a threshold of dmg (say, 1k after all reductions) within the last 5 secs - the aura moves to stage 2
2. tank's allies have a "reduce incoming dmg" buff. if the tank hasn't received enough dmg (say, 2k now) - stage 3
3. tank is now redirecting dmg from allies to himself, with an additional reduction on the incoming dmg. if the tank hasn't received direct incoming dmg (say, 4k) - stage 4
4. tank gets timer of 3 seconds. This timer can be removed if the tank gets hit with 3 different debuffs. After those 3 seconds the tank will "explode", dealing x2 of the dmg he absorbed in the previous stage in the aura's aoe. Aura's stage gets reset.
each stage's duration can be balanced however Intrepid wants
if the tank receives enough dmg the stage go down one step

This would prevent the tank from just running away from attackers, while also encouraging dodge builds or high skill dodging/kiting gameplay. And this would make enemies pay attention to the tank, which will help his allies do their own stuff easier.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

How about this:
a tank has an "aggro stance"

it's an aura with a somewhat small aoe

as long as there's an enemy (mob or flagged person) within that aoe - the aura works

aura has 4 stages (indicated by a colored (blue, green, yellow, red) circle around the tank)
if the tank has not received a threshold of dmg (say, 1k after all reductions) within the last 5 secs - the aura moves to stage 2

tank's allies have a "reduce incoming dmg" buff. if the tank hasn't received enough dmg (say, 2k now) - stage 3

tank is now redirecting dmg from allies to himself, with an additional reduction on the incoming dmg. if the tank hasn't received direct incoming dmg (say, 4k) - stage 4

tank gets timer of 3 seconds. This timer can be removed if the tank gets hit with 3 different debuffs. After those 3 seconds the tank will "explode", dealing x2 of the dmg he absorbed in the previous stage in the aura's aoe. Aura's stage gets reset.

each stage's duration can be balanced however Intrepid wants

if the tank receives enough dmg the stage go down one step

This would prevent the tank from just running away from attackers, while also encouraging dodge builds or high skill dodging/kiting gameplay. And this would make enemies pay attention to the tank, which will help his allies do their own stuff easier.

While I am all for complex mechanics, when it comes to solving an issue, the simplest solution is always the best (imo).

To me, the simplest solution to the issue of allowing a tank to perform the same role in PvP as they do in PvE is to make it so that taunts have as similar a function as possible between what they have in PvP and what they have in PvE.

Anything other than this is not really solving the issue.

However, if the above were in place, I would assume that AoE damage would keep the tank at stage 1. Essentially, all it would do is slightly increase the amount of AoE damage we bring - we would likely still just ignore the tanks.

Edit to add; a MASSIVE advantage to giving taunts a similar function in PvE and PvP is that it means the abilities with hate components to them will still be of value.

As an example, in a game where attacks are dealing 1k damage, an ability with a 100 damage attack and a 1k taunt may be of value in PvE, but in PvP it is worthless. Make it so that taunt component has a function in PvP and all of a sudden that whole ability - taunt and damage components - is useful.

Same with a detaunt that a DPS class may have (should have). If an ability lowers your hate to a target by 1k, that is a worthless ability in PvP. Make it so taunts (and thus detaunts) have the same function in PvE and PvP, and that ability becomes useful.

Same with a hate transfer. If a class has the ability to transfer some or all of it's generated hate to a target ally for a period of time, that is again a worthless ability in PvP. However, make it so taunts have the same function in PvP as in PvE, and that ability has a great function in both.

if you look at threat as a forced target, what we have in the above is a tank that can deal an amount of damage, and also force you to target them for a period of time it could even be that the strength of the taunt is the amount of damage you need to deal to the tank before you break the force target).

However, you also have a DPS that has the ability to detaunt and gain the ability to target freely again, and you have a DPS class that has an ability where the rival tank may attempt to taunt them, but then instead find that they themselves have had their target locked on the player the DPS had that hate transfer on.

With this, the complexity of the situation is baked in to the existing abilities that can be spread out over all of the classes.

To me, this is a MUCH more interesting, engaging, exciting and unpredictable system than anything else - due simply to the fact that it is turning the hate/taunt/aggro mechanic that is spread over all ((or almost all) classes in to something that functions in PvP, rather than just trying to shove in some viability to tanks so they are worth using in PvP.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

However, if the above were in place, I would assume that AoE damage would keep the tank at stage 1. Essentially, all it would do is slightly increase the amount of AoE damage we bring - we would likely still just ignore the tanks.

This might only work if we're talking about 2 melee parties fighting. Otherwise it's some form of kiting around, where aoes just might not hit the tank enough to go over the threshold (well, that is if the aoes do not take up the entire damn screen).

But otherwise I definitely agree. I'm used to "the tank forces you to target him" and deeper gameplay based on that would be great. I'm not sure how that would work with the action side of combat, but I do like the "amount of threat = the amount of dmg to remove the forced targeting" idea.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, if the above were in place, I would assume that AoE damage would keep the tank at stage 1. Essentially, all it would do is slightly increase the amount of AoE damage we bring - we would likely still just ignore the tanks.

This might only work if we're talking about 2 melee parties fighting. Otherwise it's some form of kiting around, where aoes just might not hit the tank enough to go over the threshold (well, that is if the aoes do not take up the entire damn screen).

But otherwise I definitely agree. I'm used to "the tank forces you to target him" and deeper gameplay based on that would be great. I'm not sure how that would work with the action side of combat, but I do like the "amount of threat = the amount of dmg to remove the forced targeting" idea.

With player collision being a thing, if AoE's aren't hitting the tank, I would assume the tank is out of range of enemies, disabling the aura.

As for action combat, rather than being a forced target, it could simply be a forced direction to face.

Rainwolffield

Tanks simply need more snap to the tank type mechanics. A chain pull that the target can’t get away from in x seconds. They need better interception abilities. I. WOW’s TBC the Paladin tanks could see a mob run towards his healer, or DPS, and simply drop a bubble on the player. This cleared the players agro and infuriated the mob.
Tanks also did things like hamstring which simply slowed the mob but he could ten be out maneuvered. So in my personal opinion if you want things to work in PvE and PvP as a tank, he should be the character that just annoys the crap out of others. Slows, chain pulls. Interruptions, knocking targets over etc. but the one thing he should do above all else as a leader are shouts/commands. Abilities that get the players in group to focus harder, regen mana faster, to dodge better and take less dmg. His shouts or. Commands, even call em banners he uses to “signal” should have high agro, wipe so agro and even make the player heal better, DPS better or CC longer.
Because he’s the commander of the group so give him commander functions. TBC’s agro table was handled way better than WoTLK and I hope that AoC’s is handled better than that. The tank shouldn’t out agro everyone just because he’s a tank. And their damage shouldn’t be negligible, nor should a healers or supporters. Just shouldn’t be as high as a pure DPS character.

prymortal

Read this online, I tend to agree, tl:dr Risk Vs Reward & Balance. The risk of dying should be equal to the 100% reward of trolling & annoying players.
If Tanks want to cry to be OP & douches, let them suffer for it, it is only fair. No heals, def or armor when they use trollable skills. Same for ninja type classes.

Mag7spy

Unsure why I'm still seeing people thinking the game physically effecting your camera or who you target as being good or even remotely fun. That is bound to make things feel clunky and annoying. Throne and liberty won't even have that more thank likely lol.

This all comes across as trying to buff taunts and give them weird functionality in place of them having none in pvp. Tanks don't need a taunt you can look at other types of games like overwatch or mobas how they approach tanks.

Rather than trying to add new ability effects exclusive for pvp with taunts just make the current set more effective. Ie if a player under effective of a taunt is hit by your ability, those abilities or more effective against that player. ie longer cc, slow, more dps, etc. Allowing the core of your tank kit to b more effective with what you can do rather than trying to add weird functions or clunky feels of a taunt.

ie i can only imagine in a war with tanks doing some aoe taunts and just physically not having control of your character. Losing control is not fun in any game.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Unsure why I'm still seeing people thinking the game physically effecting your camera or who you target as being good or even remotely fun. That is bound to make things feel clunky and annoying. Throne and liberty won't even have that more thank likely lol.

This all comes across as trying to buff taunts and give them weird functionality in place of them having none in pvp. Tanks don't need a taunt you can look at other types of games like overwatch or mobas how they approach tanks.

Rather than trying to add new ability effects exclusive for pvp with taunts just make the current set more effective. Ie if a player under effective of a taunt is hit by your ability, those abilities or more effective against that player. ie longer cc, slow, more dps, etc. Allowing the core of your tank kit to b more effective with what you can do rather than trying to add weird functions or clunky feels of a taunt.

ie i can only imagine in a war with tanks doing some aoe taunts and just physically not having control of your character. Losing control is not fun in any game.

You're on a roll today huh...

Overwatch and MOBAs actually have very precisely tuned Tank mechanics that depend on so many other things that it's hardly comparable.

In case anyone didn't know...

I'll write up some entire essays if people/Intrepid want, but suffice it to say that we should not be expecting anything approaching the Tank type play from those games in Ashes.

Forced Targeting is the easy fix for a Fantasy MMO. If you try anything else you are going to build something really interesting but not what players probably came to their Fantasy MMO for.

(you don't need to respond to this, Mag, I'm just 'on duty' today).

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Unsure why I'm still seeing people thinking the game physically effecting your camera or who you target as being good or even remotely fun. That is bound to make things feel clunky and annoying. Throne and liberty won't even have that more thank likely lol.

This all comes across as trying to buff taunts and give them weird functionality in place of them having none in pvp. Tanks don't need a taunt you can look at other types of games like overwatch or mobas how they approach tanks.

Rather than trying to add new ability effects exclusive for pvp with taunts just make the current set more effective. Ie if a player under effective of a taunt is hit by your ability, those abilities or more effective against that player. ie longer cc, slow, more dps, etc. Allowing the core of your tank kit to b more effective with what you can do rather than trying to add weird functions or clunky feels of a taunt.

ie i can only imagine in a war with tanks doing some aoe taunts and just physically not having control of your character. Losing control is not fun in any game.

You're on a roll today huh...

Overwatch and MOBAs actually have very precisely tuned Tank mechanics that depend on so many other things that it's hardly comparable.

In case anyone didn't know...

I'll write up some entire essays if people/Intrepid want, but suffice it to say that we should not be expecting anything approaching the Tank type play from those games in Ashes.

Forced Targeting is the easy fix for a Fantasy MMO. If you try anything else you are going to build something really interesting but not what players probably came to their Fantasy MMO for.

(you don't need to respond to this, Mag, I'm just 'on duty' today).

You physically aren't even trying to understand my view point, why quote me? If you are open to understanding what i mean and talking im down. else i don't see the point of talking about mobas with me that i've also been playing before you knew about them.

And again forced targeting is not a easy fix, it is a clunky mechanics. No one wants to play a game having their camera spun around every second from aoes taunts everywhere. If you are one of the few that are fine having someone affect you camera direction every second do not assume that is the majority

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Unsure why I'm still seeing people thinking the game physically effecting your camera or who you target as being good or even remotely fun. That is bound to make things feel clunky and annoying. Throne and liberty won't even have that more thank likely lol.

This all comes across as trying to buff taunts and give them weird functionality in place of them having none in pvp. Tanks don't need a taunt you can look at other types of games like overwatch or mobas how they approach tanks.

Rather than trying to add new ability effects exclusive for pvp with taunts just make the current set more effective. Ie if a player under effective of a taunt is hit by your ability, those abilities or more effective against that player. ie longer cc, slow, more dps, etc. Allowing the core of your tank kit to b more effective with what you can do rather than trying to add weird functions or clunky feels of a taunt.

ie i can only imagine in a war with tanks doing some aoe taunts and just physically not having control of your character. Losing control is not fun in any game.

You're on a roll today huh...

Overwatch and MOBAs actually have very precisely tuned Tank mechanics that depend on so many other things that it's hardly comparable.

In case anyone didn't know...

I'll write up some entire essays if people/Intrepid want, but suffice it to say that we should not be expecting anything approaching the Tank type play from those games in Ashes.

Forced Targeting is the easy fix for a Fantasy MMO. If you try anything else you are going to build something really interesting but not what players probably came to their Fantasy MMO for.

(you don't need to respond to this, Mag, I'm just 'on duty' today).

You physically aren't even trying to understand my view point, why quote me? If you are open to understanding what i mean and talking im down. else i don't see the point of talking about mobas with me that i've also been playing before you knew about them.

And again forced targeting is not a easy fix, it is a clunky mechanics. No one wants to play a game having their camera spun around every second from aoes taunts everywhere. If you are one of the few that are fine having someone affect you camera direction every second do not assume that is the majority

If you're gonna be this childish about it why did you even bump the post, dude?

Seriously...

Child Item