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

Neurath wrote: »

The only predictability in pvp is the eventual tactics to be used. The problem is when those tactics will be and in what order. Sometimes new tactics will enter the mix in response to opposition tactics. There are tons of tactics and there are tons of variations in who will engage first.

The other thing that is predictable in PvP that is not predictable in PvE is the skillset that will be used against you.

If I look through the ability list of your class, that is a hard limit on the abilities you can use on me. When I come up gainst a new encounter, there is no list. I have to make the list. This is the aspect of top end PvE that makes it far less predictable than PvP. I literally have no idea what that encounter will do, no idea if I am about to walk in to an entire new mechanic.

PvP simply doesn't have anything like that. It has the same people using the same abilities and the same tactics.

It is predictable - at least in relation to top end PvE.

The longer you fight the same people or the same guilds, the more predictable it becomes. It gets to the point where if you introduce a new tactic, you can predict exactly how your rival will react to it, because you have been watching their decision making for months (or years).

Raid guilds are typically the best at focused fire and coordination. However, taunts are difficult to handle in large scale. A tank simply can't be in all places at once. Thus, you would not create broad tactics around taunt because taunt is not a constant.

Sure, taunt might sway localised fights but taunt won't sway larger fights. Javelin on the other hand can sway large fights because Shady Shrooms might creep forward and all of a sudden the target list is operational due to the pull.

If taunt worked as a forced target in PvP, I would be running a few tanks for PvP.

If you have a raid of 40 players with just one tank, then yeah, no balanced mechanic for taunting would sway a large fight. But then, no one player should be able to sway a fight that large.

In a larger fight with multiple tanks and some solid coordernation, taunt would potentially sway a fight - but that comes down to player ability.

Songcaller

Ability lists only matter if you can counter the abilities. Otherwise its just a matter of learning what to heal through, block and what to dodge. Much the same as pve. I must admit I can't calculate 500 players worth of abilities in large scale fights. Not without a combat tracker.

In a pvp guild you will find the leadership structure is different to a pve leadership structure. You mentioned 2 or 3 leaders before but a pvp guild will have leaders in every group. Group composition becomes more vital than in pve (unless there are buffs from each class which isn't the case in ashes).

Another aspect of predictability is the fight locations. You can literally predict when a guild will be at the raids, resource veins or the local town which can be dangerous for an opponent. The flip side to this is the spies method but a mixture of both remains best.

Taunts are only really good in pvp with support. I mentioned before about taunts being pointless in 1vs1. However, in large scale focused fire would be better suited to deal with specific targets more than a taunt. A taunt can only do so much for so long.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

In a pvp guild you will find the leadership structure is different to a pve leadership structure. You mentioned 2 or 3 leaders before but a pvp guild will have leaders in every group. Group composition becomes more vital than in pve (unless there are buffs from each class which isn't the case in ashes).

In my experience, most larger PvP guilds do indeed have essentially mid tier management. These guilds tend to be better at what I would consider skirmish PvP - fights between factions (guilds, alliances, whatever) that take place across a whole zone rather than a single large engagement. Such guilds are able to be somewhat effective in more places at once than guilds with a more centralized structure.

However, these same guilds also tend to be less effective when the fight is taking place in one location. At least in my experience.

What I will say in regards to PvE (at least in EQ2) is that group composition mattered. Not in a "every group needs a tank, healer, support and some DPS" kind of way that is how you often set up a PvP group, but in much more supportive manner. Most buffs in EQ2 were group only, rather than raidwide - and the game had hundreds of buffs. Setting your raid up to take full advantage of what buffs each player could put on others in their group was key.

On the other hand, the game also threw some curveball encounters. One comes to mind where the boss would spawn a second boss encounter, would pick one group within the raid at random, and only that group could damage the newly spawned second boss. You would then need to set every group in the raid up toi take this in to account, and groups would need to peel off from the main raid, deal with this new encounter with it's own mechanics (all while still dealing with the ranged mechanics of the main boss), kill the second boss and return back to the main raid and reingage the main boss - all before the nest second boss would spawn.

Or there was the encounter that would swollow a member of the raid, whom then had to solo mobs inside said encounters stomach and rejoin the raid as soon as they were done. Successful soloing was key to success on that encounter.

Point is, players in a top end raid guild are used to being in a larger raid, but are also used to having to peel off with barely a moments notice to be either part of a smaller entity, or to act alone. We are also used to rejoining the larger raid, slotting back in to our appropriate position immediately.

I have never seen in a PvP guild able to do much of that. I have seen many guilds that function well as smaller groups, and a few guilds that function well as a single large unit. I've yet to see one that can seemlessly transition between the two. Not saying it is a make or break thing in a game like Ashes (hey, it may be), just pointing it out because people tend to have a very one dimensional idea of what raiding is like.

Taunts are only really good in pvp with support. I mentioned before about taunts being pointless in 1vs1. However, in large scale focused fire would be better suited to deal with specific targets more than a taunt. A taunt can only do so much for so long.

In other words, they would work as a part of a toolkit to encourage players to work together.

Umm, yeah, thats kind of my point. No one is saying taunts are some magic bullet, they just allow tanks to function as a part of a group or raid in PvP in a manner in which many would expect them to be able to function, yet in most games are unable.

Songcaller

You are right when you state a pure PvP Guild can't function like a PvE Raid. I've seen it before and i find it hilarious. However, PvX Guilds are efficient in both PvE and PvP. Whether those guilds reach the top tiers is another matter entirely but Ashes has more than one top guild which will compete for pole position.

The beauty of Warhammer Online's Taunt was it forced players to hit the taunter thrice to get rid of the taunt debuff or you could cleanse the taunt too. I'm all for counter play and interaction with player agencies. Just like CC has a counter mechanic, taunts should have a counter mechanic if forced target is implemented.

I see forced taunt to be CC. I see Warhammers taunt to be a debuff. I feel there should be overlap between the two to make a better experience for everyone. I do not like a forced taunt for a full 10 second duration. It would be the strongest CC in the game and it would be an unbreakable form of CC without a taunt cleanse/CC breaker.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

However, PvX Guilds are efficient in both PvE and PvP.

I've yet to come across anything I would consider a PvX guild, due to not having played a game with the type of PvE that demands much from players, and also has PvP as a requirement.

Just like CC has a counter mechanic, taunts should have a counter mechanic if forced target is implemented.

Right from the start I have suggested both cleanse as a counterplay, as well as the various detaunts that many classes in a half decent PvE game would have.

Taking two examples from EQ2 - mages had an ability to lower threat on a target, and assassins had an ability to transfer a portion of hate gain on to an ally.

Add these abilities to a game with fored target taunts in PvP, and the mage ability would simply remove the taunt. Tank taunts me, I use detaunt, we all move on with our day.

The assassin ability though, the tank taunts the assassin, rather than the assassin being force targeted on the tank, the tank is force targeted on the ally the assassin has their hate transfer on.

In *good* PvE games, hate has almost as many mechanics behind it as damage.

Also, I don't like a forced taunt for 10 seconds either. The only time I have talked about anything that could last 10 seconds is that being the duration of a taunt AND the immunity period after a taunt.

I am a big fan of the idea that most reasonable people tend to come to similar conclusions with the same information, but those same people can come to wildly different conclusions with less information - especially if assumptions are taking place of missing information.

Perhaps the information that no one is talking about 10 second taunts (2 or 3 seconds, realistically), and the suggestion is for there to be multiple counterplays to it are the information you were missing.

Then again, perhaps not.

Songcaller

I don't see the value of a 3 second taunt. Warhammer taunt was 15 seconds. I'm used to threat, hatred and irritation across various games. I had hoped for a complex iteration in Ashes but it appears to be a dashed prospect.

I feel your quest for a pvp implementation of a taunt is screwing pve over. I've said before you don't need to match pve and pvp. I prefer taunts with no duration hence why I prefer complex targeting systems.

It's not a case of causing mismatched arguments, it's a case of one side doing anything to discredit the other side. It's not required because so far Steven agrees with your stance. I only know that forced taunt is hated in other games when it is suggested - hence why it is rare.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I don't see the value of a 3 second taunt. Warhammer taunt was 15 seconds. I'm used to threat, hatred and irritation across various games. I had hoped for a complex iteration in Ashes but it appears to be a dashed prospect.

I feel your quest for a pvp implementation of a taunt is screwing pve over. I've said before you don't need to match pve and pvp. I prefer taunts with no duration hence why I prefer complex targeting systems.

It's not a case of causing mismatched arguments, it's a case of one side doing anything to discredit the other side. It's not required because so far Steven agrees with your stance. I only know that forced taunt is hated in other games when it is suggested - hence why it is rare.

The duration of a forced target taunt really depends on the speed of combat. To be fair, I am thinking of games where melee classes are using an ability about every 0.35 seconds.

The thing with forced taunt being hated in games when it is suggested - that applies to all CC.

Things like that aren't in the game because people are supposed to enjoy being CC'd - they are in the game because people are supposed to overcome them,or to use them as tools.

Most people aren't able to see that though. All they see is the small amount of distaste when it happens to them, and so they hate on such ideas.

In my opinion, Ashes should have a full on charm CC - if you charm another player, you gain full control over them for a few seconds = or at least of their movement and abilities. That is the ultimate form of CC.

Songcaller

I've asked about control and misdirection magic through Dygz. I would love my Enchanter to be a proper Enchanter but I fear for a watered down version due to summoner/bard hybrid. We'll see what the devs can do.

The predominant argument on forced taunt targeting is the difference between pve and pvp. Not because of the fact its about ccs in general but because of player agency. A taunt can happen in real life but not everyone will react to the taunt. Its artificial in its very nature.

Either way, I broke from Guardian and Oracle due to the class compositions of Tank and Cleric. I can only hope Summoner and Bard have a better build more to my tastes. It will be a strange situation because I haven't been a dps class for twenty years or more.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

The predominant argument on forced taunt targeting is the difference between pve and pvp. Not because of the fact its about ccs in general but because of player agency. A taunt can happen in real life but not everyone will react to the taunt. Its artificial in its very nature.

This doesn't hold up very well as an argument.

The first thing to take in to account with this is the type of player you are talking about. Such a player needs to believe that Pvp in an RPG is player vs player, when it is in fact player character vs player character.

Lets assume you are objectively better at PvP than I am. If you are playing a class and I come along as the counter to your class and beat you, I didn't win because I was the better player, I won because I had the better character for the fight.

Same deal with gear. If my gear is better than yours and I beat you in PvP, that doesn't mean I am better at PvP than you, it means my character was better than yours.

By and large, players accept this. There is an inherent understanding that it is actually player characters that are fighting, not the players.

Sure, you may not get aggrivated by a taunt as a player, but I am not here to fight you as a player, I am here to fight your player character as my player character - and your player character is as subjectable to taunts as you spec them to be.

Songcaller

Well, you get into more complex matters because really there should be taunt resistance alongside forced taunt. I agree it can come under CC resistance though.

Furthermore, we are different because of RP I believe. My RP is often detached like I am, thus, taunts and tea bags have no effect on me or my toon. It's a built in condition. Yet, a forced taunt breaks the rp and the immersion.

Not such a bad thing but a differentiator at the core. I realise rp can be considered a niche and even I do not go full rp either. The main types of players against forced taunt aren't rpers though. They are mostly weak pvpers who do not want inherent strengths to make a tank overpowered.

I personally am against forced taunt due to the hybrid nature of the combat. I'm also against forced taunt due to fears of a limited applicational scope. However, between us we have almost covered all bases from CC, debuff, anti cc, debuff cleanse and resistances.

I can't really comment about hard counters except in general terms because I don't know which classes are hard counters to which other classes right now. I'm not sure the devs do either lol.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

The main types of players against forced taunt aren't rpers though.

If anything, I am saying that this is the case.

I'm not necessarily talking about RP though, I am talking about the way a player views playing a game. Someone that looks at the game as them as a person playing someone else as a person would not be wanting a taunt (or any CC).

Someone that looks at a game as them playing a character fighting another character that is played by a person would accept that CC is a thing that could happen to their character. It isn't an RP thing, it is an understanding that you as a player and your character as a player character are in fact different entities.

If nothing else, this can be proven by the fact that when you log in to an alt of a different class, you have different abilities - because it isn't about you as a player, it is about your character as a player character.

And player characters can be CC;d, even if you as a player may not be perturbed by that specific action.

Songcaller

It entirely depends on the implementation. I haven't even seen a taunt yet and I doubt we will for a while. The devs struggled with active block and have made a bad dodge function. I wouldn't state the devs are decent at these types of critical systems.

I can understand your stance on the differential differences between player and toon. I would surmise that most people take these matters to heart - much like getting spawn camped or sniped across the map.

Furthermore, the general scope for input rng does excite overall. I do love input rng. I wouldn't go as far to force a tank to build stats for a taunt but I would hope for stats to resist a taunt. I guess the frequencies of a taunt will be rather rare and in some circumstances the 1vs1 would see the tank die.

It's difficult to quantity what would happen because it depends how much I can min/max dps, who is the hard counter to what and how strong the tank is in terms of defense. I'm quite Liberal in my targeting applications and I would take time out to dual a tank in a battle if the tank annoyed me enough.

I think it can be difficult to translate knowledge and skill into words. I think it is also easy to white wash certain notions which aren't backed by practical applications. In reality, the taunts should be in A2 so we can feel out the systems and iron out the creases.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Furthermore, the general scope for input rng does excite overall. I do love input rng. I wouldn't go as far to force a tank to build stats for a taunt but I would hope for stats to resist a taunt. I guess the frequencies of a taunt will be rather rare and in some circumstances the 1vs1 would see the tank die.

There is already talk of both Physical and Magical Disable modifiers, as well as both Physical and Magical Disable defense.

It would seem to me that these are designed around various CC abilities.

Songcaller

Yeah. I would build for physical and magical defence disables to match my dps output. Its in my theory crafting at the moment. I'm not sure whether taunt comes under physical or magical though. I had hoped for a flat cc resistance overall.

I think perhaps stats will be hard counters for other stats. Perhaps more so than class abilities vs class abilities. Nothing I have seen of the class abilities scream hard counter but we've only seen mage at phase 2. I guess passive abilities might provide hard counters too.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Yeah. I would build for physical and magical defence disables to match my dps output. Its in my theory crafting at the moment. I'm not sure whether taunt comes under physical or magical though. I had hoped for a flat cc resistance overall.

My hope is that there would be some taunts that fall in to each.

Makes for a richer game when there are multiple routes to a destination.

Songcaller

Makes it rather pointless to build against the cc in general. May as well just take the cc and hope for cleanses lol.

Percimes

Neurath wrote: »

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'.

Life is pain, Neurath. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
It's a too different paradigm, it would have impacts in all aspects of the game it was in. It would be a pillar. But as I said to NiKr, it's not a solution. It's more about daring to break genre conventions, look outside the box on how things could be approached to make some problems none issues. To be fair, it would also generate its own set of difficulties.

NiKr wrote: »

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.

I could go for a massively multiplier survival game. The multiplayers ones I've looked into seem to all focus more on other players being the real danger. But I'd love to spend time in a survival game world where people have more to gain in cooperating with other to fight off the mobs of the world. A fantasy one with magic instead of riffles, and mobs always pushing to gain territory over the players instead of patiently waiting to get killed.

Ludullu

Percimes wrote: »

I could go for a massively multiplier survival game. The multiplayers ones I've looked into seem to all focus more on other players being the real danger. But I'd love to spend time in a survival game world where people have more to gain in cooperating with other to fight off the mobs of the world. A fantasy one with magic instead of riffles, and mobs always pushing to gain territory over the players instead of patiently waiting to get killed.

Hope you get what you want

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

People that know how to PvP are not predictable, this most likely is a case of the depth of PvP you played had a system in place that did not allow for enough of a skill gap, tab being part of that reason. The more action elements the less predictable things will be with more elements you need to react and take account for than just doing your rotation.

My dude, your fighter game background is showing! How embarrassing for you!

Literally none of what you are talking about here applies to MMO PvP - this is even more true when you consider that we are talking about medium to large scale PvP.

In an MMO, especially at large scale, you are essentially fighting the same people all the time. If I am the second best guild on my server, it is only really the second and third best that I am going to be fighting against.

Those guilds are going to always have the same basic leadership and communication structure during PvP, and that is what shapes PvP variation - not skill caps or action combat.

If you are playing a fighting game with 500 people around your skill level, you have 500 people that will all play the game just a little differently. In an MMO, when we are talking guild scale PvP, you guild leadership is fighting guild leadership, not players. Realistically, guilds only have two or three sets of leadership that they are ever fighting against - and that gets really predictable.

This was already commented on so i don't really need to go into detail, but as usual you are looking at something and trying to simplify it down and than say it is the same. Akin to say dps dps, heals heal, etc.

Honestly this is from lack of war experience on your part but players and situations you find yourself in will be different with whom you fight and how battles will go. The most important part of winning fights in larger scale wars 50v50+ is about the micro management of how groups play and fight together, not the overall 50v50 strategy. When you are having wars with large amounts of players micromanagement will be even more important as well as the difference faces you will be fighting with the different wars across the land.

Though regardless yes there will be top guilds and with gear progression pretty much the more people you have playing hard the higher chance you have to win. If AoC is a popular as people hope it to be, that pool will become quite large on competitive guilds, but wars won't only be fought on the top but on lower level nodes as well which means new faces and different skill levels.

GrilledCheeseMojito

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

People that know how to PvP are not predictable, this most likely is a case of the depth of PvP you played had a system in place that did not allow for enough of a skill gap, tab being part of that reason. The more action elements the less predictable things will be with more elements you need to react and take account for than just doing your rotation.

My dude, your fighter game background is showing! How embarrassing for you!

Literally none of what you are talking about here applies to MMO PvP - this is even more true when you consider that we are talking about medium to large scale PvP.

In an MMO, especially at large scale, you are essentially fighting the same people all the time. If I am the second best guild on my server, it is only really the second and third best that I am going to be fighting against.

Those guilds are going to always have the same basic leadership and communication structure during PvP, and that is what shapes PvP variation - not skill caps or action combat.

If you are playing a fighting game with 500 people around your skill level, you have 500 people that will all play the game just a little differently. In an MMO, when we are talking guild scale PvP, you guild leadership is fighting guild leadership, not players. Realistically, guilds only have two or three sets of leadership that they are ever fighting against - and that gets really predictable.

This was already commented on so i don't really need to go into detail, but as usual you are looking at something and trying to simplify it down and than say it is the same. Akin to say dps dps, heals heal, etc.

Honestly this is from lack of war experience on your part but players and situations you find yourself in will be different with whom you fight and how battles will go. The most important part of winning fights in larger scale wars 50v50+ is about the micro management of how groups play and fight together, not the overall 50v50 strategy. When you are having wars with large amounts of players micromanagement will be even more important as well as the difference faces you will be fighting with the different wars across the land.

Though regardless yes there will be top guilds and with gear progression pretty much the more people you have playing hard the higher chance you have to win. If AoC is a popular as people hope it to be, that pool will become quite large on competitive guilds, but wars won't only be fought on the top but on lower level nodes as well which means new faces and different skill levels.

Except those same top guilds will be the ones fighting each other all the time, and the fights will end up predictable because it's the same person pool; the only differentiator at that stage is strategy rather than moment to moment direction.

I think your perspective is still colored by your experience in fighters; I'm surprised you believe that there will be that much of a difference when you play a (by your own admission) unpopular fighting game (~150 total players on steam over the past month), where the top players often pick what they consider the top tiers anyway and fight each other a bunch. There's nothing wrong with this, but what dominates in this environment is the top players' understanding that allows them to dismantle challengers, not anything about moment to moment execution. So, even by your experience I think it still doesn't apply here in MMO PvP battles.

Child Item