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

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Also you can code things such that 'moving away from the Tank' also builds Mark empowerment bonus, just not Enmity.

Y'know, if you were the type to ask your engineering team to do that in order to make the gameplay experience more enjoyable for players with certain preferences.

I would definitely be that kind of evil person

Azherae wrote: »

You'd trust me to it, right? You should trust them tenfold. So the mechanic is still perfect, they just have to do everything else correctly and make a good fun engaging balanced kit that will make Tanks useful in PvP and they're done.

Yeah, I'm sure it's gonna be the easiest thing to do for them. And then balance it all in the context of augments. And other classes. And pve. And build it in such a way that leave space for future growth and great changes. I'm certain it's gonna be E to the Z

(ok my last post went a little far and made me slightly queasy so I'mma dial it back and be slightly more serious)

The benefit of the design type so far in my runs has been that the only thing you really need to think about or balance is the impact of CDR itself.

It is one of the rare cases where you generally do not have to care how overpowered the ability has the potential to become in a long fight because it is entirely in the control of the Marked player, presuming your 'Threat Values' weren't terrible to begin with.

And since it ties directly into Cooldowns for abilities that are chosen by the Tank player, and in Ashes (and our design space) we mostly know what abilities will be available due to Tanks having a clear skill tree, it's sufficient to not worry about it.

More Damage would please some tanks and not others. More defense or percentage reductions in damage help some situations and not others. More CC or buffing other people's attacks makes the game less interactive for the Tank and turns them into a Totem.

More CDR is literally telling the Tank "Oi, that person wants to ignore you playing the game/having an impact with whatever you chose to do. Whaddya say I make you able to do it even more/faster?"

And even better for the opposing side, if the enemy Tank was useless in some way due to their build, i.e. you have easy counters for their Abilities, you know that you actually can ignore them because all they will do is use the same non-effective abilities more often. Then one can balance just the abilities and not grind out thousands of slightly different 'but what happens when the Tank has this much extra melee damage from being ignored?'

Everyone gets to play their style, and everyone gets the outcome they expect (though not necessarily want) with the correct tradeoffs.

Now if only I could find a way to make it so that Marking PvE enemies and then having someone else shred them didn't result in boosted Tank DPS, while still being understandable to most players...

I'm kidding of course, our design space explicitly works around that, it's Ashes that would need to actually solve anything like that. But they have Javelin on Tanks still so it's probably fine.

Depraved

Neurath wrote: »

A tank in l2 did decent damage in top gear. Hence my push for balance on damage and defence. You are in contestation with people who want a pve tank to be viable in pvp. That's without the pvx tag added by the way. It doesn't come down to pvp/pve gear. It comes down to the class skills and right now the class skills are pvx on the tank in Ashes.

only in olys, not in ow specially with healers healing you...

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

A forced target taunt looks and works well for tab target. It's not so good for action camera.

Keep in mind, forced camera shift for action camera is only one possible option.

As I said earlier in this thread, forcing a reticle shift is another option, though one I've not put much thought in to considering.

Since I've not personally spent much time on action games with anything other than a fixed reticle, I dont consider myself qualified enough to have an opinion on it without a discussion taking place.

Noaani

Azherae wrote: »

"The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them."

So, I'm sure you know, the way I look at suggestions is to find ways to counter play them based on my MMO experience.

My first thought with this is that I will just send my worst player in on a Paladin to put that mark on your paladin, thus forcing those two Paladin to basically ignore everyone but each other, basically taking both out of the larger fight.

I'm sure you and your people have come up with other ways this would be played, but that is how I see myself playing it.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them."

So, I'm sure you know, the way I look at suggestions is to find ways to counter play them based on my MMO experience.

My first thought with this is that I will just send my worst player in on a Paladin to put that mark on your paladin, thus forcing those two Paladin to basically ignore everyone but each other, basically taking both out of the larger fight.

I'm sure you and your people have come up with other ways this would be played, but that is how I see myself playing it.

I'll send my worst tank on your tank and they both taunt each other infinitely so they cant do anything else.

GrandSerpent

Noaani wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them."

So, I'm sure you know, the way I look at suggestions is to find ways to counter play them based on my MMO experience.

My first thought with this is that I will just send my worst player in on a Paladin to put that mark on your paladin, thus forcing those two Paladin to basically ignore everyone but each other, basically taking both out of the larger fight.

I'm sure you and your people have come up with other ways this would be played, but that is how I see myself playing it.

So, while I think this would be a valid tactic, the first Paladin also applying Mark and engaging the second isn't necessarily the only approach to that situation.

While focusing on a different target is giving the enemy Paladin some mechanical advantage, it isn't necessarily overpowering enough that a strong player couldn't counteract it via activating a defensive stance, trying to debuff the enemy, or similar. Other members of the party using CC to create an opportunity to disengage from the Paladin could also work, depending on the formation/terrain.

I think it comes down to an opportunity cost, mostly. The enemy Paladin marking the allied one can make things harder for them, but it also implies that they're not occupying someone else in the allied party, which, depending on the team composition, could be disadvantageous.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them."

So, I'm sure you know, the way I look at suggestions is to find ways to counter play them based on my MMO experience.

My first thought with this is that I will just send my worst player in on a Paladin to put that mark on your paladin, thus forcing those two Paladin to basically ignore everyone but each other, basically taking both out of the larger fight.

I'm sure you and your people have come up with other ways this would be played, but that is how I see myself playing it.

I'll send my worst tank on your tank and they both taunt each other infinitely so they cant do anything else.

It's turtles all the way down.

Songcaller

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

A forced target taunt looks and works well for tab target. It's not so good for action camera.

Keep in mind, forced camera shift for action camera is only one possible option.

As I said earlier in this thread, forcing a reticle shift is another option, though one I've not put much thought in to considering.

Since I've not personally spent much time on action games with anything other than a fixed reticle, I dont consider myself qualified enough to have an opinion on it without a discussion taking place.

Forced camera shifts are really bad. There's not one instance of it I can reference except Genshin where it is hilariously bad for other reasons.

The beauty of action is the ability to dodge attacks. Thus, skill rather than defence or resistances are king. It would look damn weird to have an aim bot on a tank where by the tank can't dodge.

Furthermore, you can't really call action combat action combat if you lose control of your targeting system for windows at a time. Where is the skill in such a circumstance? I'm sure the hybrid system in Ashes would be ridiculed if forced target is applied.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Where is the skill in such a circumstance?

Let's imagine you are a mage, and you want to kill in (in game, presumably).

Now let's imagine NiKr is a tank, and he is on my side.

He taunts you, meaning you are facing him - but you still want to attack me.

In order to attack me, what you need to do is maneuver yourself so that I am in between you and NiKr.

If anything, this allows for a greater display of player skill.

By all means argue that you dont like it, I'm not really attempting to shift subjective opinion - just making sure those opinions are formed with the right set of facts.

Also, there is no reason to assume a change in camera facing would have any impact on dodge at all. You may not see the incoming attack as easily, but that is kind of the point of taunting someone.

Noaani

GrandSerpent wrote: »

While focusing on a different target is giving the enemy Paladin some mechanical advantage, it isn't necessarily overpowering enough that a strong player couldn't counteract it via activating a defensive stance, trying to debuff the enemy, or similar.

If this were the case, then in all situations the whole thing could just be ignored.

Either it is strong enough that the Paladin would have to play in the way mentioned above, or it is weak enough that the Paladin could ignore the other Paladin, meaning everyone can ignore the Paladin.

Songcaller

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Where is the skill in such a circumstance?

Let's imagine you are a mage, and you want to kill in (in game, presumably).

Now let's imagine NiKr is a tank, and he is on my side.

He taunts you, meaning you are facing him - but you still want to attack me.

In order to attack me, what you need to do is maneuver yourself so that I am in between you and NiKr.

If anything, this allows for a greater display of player skill.

By all means argue that you dont like it, I'm not really attempting to shift subjective opinion - just making sure those opinions are formed with the right set of facts.

Also, there is no reason to assume a change in camera facing would have any impact on dodge at all. You may not see the incoming attack as easily, but that is kind of the point of taunting someone.

It's all well and good to talk about small scale fights. In large scale fights the mage would be behind a lot of melee, thus, anyone moving to get behind the mage would have to survive a lot of enemies. Its suicide in motion.

A camera change is so bad its not even funny. Why would anyone attack the tank due to a camera change? Furthermore, how will the tank protect anyone with a camera change? AoEs can still be planted free aim, tab target skills can still be used and pot shots can be taken by the attacker.

Either you need to force target on the tank or just not have force target. A halfway house just won't cut it and would be a detriment to the combat. There are reasons it works in tab and we might end up with tab but there are reasons it won't work in hybrid and we have hybrid now.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Where is the skill in such a circumstance?

Let's imagine you are a mage, and you want to kill in (in game, presumably).

Now let's imagine NiKr is a tank, and he is on my side.

He taunts you, meaning you are facing him - but you still want to attack me.

In order to attack me, what you need to do is maneuver yourself so that I am in between you and NiKr.

If anything, this allows for a greater display of player skill.

By all means argue that you dont like it, I'm not really attempting to shift subjective opinion - just making sure those opinions are formed with the right set of facts.

Also, there is no reason to assume a change in camera facing would have any impact on dodge at all. You may not see the incoming attack as easily, but that is kind of the point of taunting someone.

It's all well and good to talk about small scale fights. In large scale fights the mage would be behind a lot of melee, thus, anyone moving to get behind the mage would have to survive a lot of enemies. Its suicide in motion.

I mean, in a large scale fight (at least the point of the fight you are talking about here), mages shouldn't be in range of taunts.

If you are a mage getting taunted, it's either small scale PvP, or the somewhat shambolic end of large scale PvP that often happens.

Or you and your guild have been outplayed.

As to why anyone would go after the tank if they are able to force you to target them (please keep in mind that this is the point - camera movement is tangential), it's fairly simple.

If I am trying to kill a healer or a DPS, and every time I so for a big hit the tank forces me to target them instead (canceling the cast in the process), it wont take me long at all to realize that I will not be able to kill that healer while that tank is preventing such attacks.

This means the only way to get to the healer is to either kill the tank first (via attacking it first), or via outplaying said tank (via distracting it with an attack while allies stealth their way to where they can attack the healer).

Either way, both methods involve attacking the tank - something the currently broken paradigm of MMO PvP does not require.

A key thing here though us that having this in the game will still require players to display an amount of skill.

Songcaller

I've seen the rear get taunted after pulls a lot. The whole point tank is dangerous is the pull right now. A healer can be pulled into nuke range, a dps can also be pulled into nuke range. A dead dps or healer doesn't need a taunt though.

If your melee are silly enough to ignore a tank then expect your rear to be pulled apart. Such is the way of a battle in large scale. We can talk of how tank can be ignored and how forced target is required to make tank less ignored but the reality is forced target won't perform said action.

The only viable way to make tank less ignored is to make tank an actual threat on the battlefield. Not by making the tank a beat stick that can't hold its own in a fight. The hard counter to tank will have a field day and the taunts would be made redundant. I've never been one fir durational taunts anyway, I prefer threat booster taunts.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I've seen the rear get taunted after pulls a lot.

In what games?

Songcaller

L2, SWTOR and Warhammer Online.

Some of these instances were all on the tank, other instances were pulls from a third party and a taunt applied by the tank after the pull.

Percimes

NiKr wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Would it be an interesting implementation of a taunt?

I mean, I could maybe see this working as some "once in 5 minutes and only for <10s" skill, but definitely not a frequently repeatable thing. Not seeing or being able to target anyone else is insanely OP and even if healers just switch to aoe heals and running around, w/o seeing where their teammates are the team (and/or healer) will die real quick.

Also, this would most likely lead to window tanks that just cast this shit on super high value people. We had that kind of thing in L2 with a class that could steal 7 (out of 36) buffs on a semi-short cd. It was annoying as hell, but at least it wasn't p2w there. In Ashes it would be.

Of course it would be OP, it has to be.

Let's not forget we're talking about the skill that, in PvE, can compel a raid boss to focus on the player that, not only doesn't hurt it much, but can actually survive a few of its attacks, all the while ignoring all the other players that keep that brave tank alive and those who do hurt it. It may sounds like a roleplay BS explanation, but it shows the scale and impact of taunt in a PvE context.

We can't go to these heights in PvP (not that anyone really ask for that much), but if people want tanks to be more than a cute distraction, the archetype will need to be perceived as a real threat and not a simple annoyance that can be, if not completely ignored, dealt with when time can be spared to tackle its high defence/HP. People want the wet noodle to become the main target. And it must be done without upping its damage output, turning it into a CC machine or a debuffer, etc. There isn't much that can be done unless you're ready to break a few paradigms...

Removing the meat shield power fantasy paradigm is the easiest way to "fix" the tanks. But as long as people wish to "protect" others ONLY by being the masochist tough one, we'll be limited.

Another paradigm with way more impact we could fiddle with is the concept of life (HP). The norm in almost all games is that characters are either 100% effective or dead. So long as you have 1 HP and the required resources, your skills work at full power, you move at full speed, your aim is perfect. That's why in PvP burst damage is king, while it's easier to deal with slow and steady damage over time. But if we were to add a ... lets call it pain scale... that gives maluses as it goes up (kind of like the heat scale in Battletech for those familiar with the tabletop version) and that the tanks had high resistance to pain by default. Pain could make skills/spells cost more mana, or be cast slower, or receiving more pain add a chance for them to fizzle mid casting. With more pain, moving speed could decrease. Weapon hit could deal less damage. Range attacks be less accurate. Now, while everyone suffer effectiveness attrition as the battle progress, tanks keeps going and going. Their subpar damages barely going down and them going about and around the battlefield at full speed.

Buffs to ignore pain. Hexes that create temporary one. Berserks whose attack increase with pain... It's a complete different paradigm, one in witch defensive type character have a place. Not seeing this ever happening in AoC, but the though experiment is fun.

Songcaller

So, you're approached to no forced taunt is to nerf everyone else but a tank based around health lost? Sounds bizarre. Tank would just be buffed in the opposite way to normal.

Percimes

Neurath wrote: »

So, you're approached to no forced taunt is to nerf everyone else but a tank based around health lost? Sounds bizarre. Tank would just be buffed in the opposite way to normal.

Aye for the last part, and as such, you'd better deal with them soon because if you don't they will slowly, but steadily, deal with you all.

But I don't see pain as baked into the HP bar, more a separated thing working in parallel, with skills/potions to reduce it, alleviate it, ignore it temporary. Goes away fast with heals, but regen on it's own faster than HPs usually do. Defensive type classes, not as affected by it, would have a more consistent, but still viable, gameplay style than others. Burst would have a harder reign.

But changing such a basic paradigm of gaming is not a solution for taunt skills in the current one. Too different approach.

Songcaller

Would pain affect the PvX System or just the PvP System? By PvX I mean both PvE and PvP. Also, why did you name the concept 'pain' because 'pain' makes some people fight harder and better. Of course, 'Wounds' make people suffer more than 'pain' but some people like 'pain'.

I think the idea is kind of bad in some ways but good in other ways but then we might need other systems like you mentioned to be effective. Kind of links in to the reagents topic in the other thread. I'm not really for excess additions just to fight optimally though. I still like my Threat Stacks idea which is based on the PvX System rather than the PvP or PvE Systems. Threat Stacks can be useful in the PvX Realm without nerfing the whole class system overall.

Though, the threat stacks debuff can be applied to multiple players in terms of aoe so long as the aoe generates threat stacks.

Ludullu

Percimes wrote: »

But changing such a basic paradigm of gaming is not a solution for taunt skills in the current one. Too different approach.

It sounds really survival-gamey and afaik not that many people like this kind of stuff in their mmos.

Child Item