Curse

Muk Utep · Dec 27, 2006, 09:16 PM // 21:16

I'm bringing the dead horse up for another beating because I didn't see any active threads about it, and I believe it's a serious issue. It's obviously up to personal preference whether or not you like the current aggro system, but I most certainly don't so I'm going to address my concerns.

As most online gamers know, almost all MMORPGs of this genre has an aggro system based on threat levels, where it's a question about managing your aggro. Enemies will attack whoever poses the biggest threat, either by dealing high damage, using a lot of detrimental effects on them (think conditions/hexes) or heals the party a lot. This creates a game within the game, and it takes a lot of skill to master this aggro system, allowing people to easily tell skilled players from the not-so-skilled. You suddenly have a responsibility of either keeping aggro (as a tank) or avoiding it, at the risk of causing deaths or becoming a healing sponge if you fail.

Guild Wars, however, has a system that is so random and simple that it becomes a matter of abusing NPC AI in order to "tank" effectively. You need to body block, you need to position people outside of aggro ranges, or you need to rely on luck and hope that the enemy starts attacking you. We all know that enemies generally attack whoever has the lowest armor, which means that having high armor contradicts its purpose - it's no longer a good thing because you can withstand high amounts of damage, but because the opponents won't even try to attack you! Suddenly we see fights becoming a chase with warriors running behind an enemy who's chasing the kiting monk, and I find this extremely annoying and ridiculously silly.

There was a thread a while back concerning this issue, and a lot of suggestions were made. Some said a "dumb" taunt-skill was the right fix, while others disagreed and said it would ruin PvE. My proposal is a system that takes into account both proximity (meaning the distance from you to your target) and the amount of threat you pose. High damage, high healing, or lots of conditions/hexes would all contribute to determining who gets attacked. It would bring a lot more skill back into the game because you'd have to know how to control yourself or risk taking aggro from the tank, or how to deliver the highest amount of "hate" in order to keep the enemy's attention fixed on you.

So I'm asking for an aggro system that actually makes the game require skill, that puts some tactics into PvE, and that you can learn/manage to prove yourself a valuable player. Don't make us choose between abusing poor AI or accepting that our monks and elementalists are permanent tanks. I know that in some cases it's possible for a warrior to be able to tank, but nine times out of ten, the above-mentioned scenario is what really happens. Tanking is technically possible, but too clumsy and illogical, and not even worth attempting if you're playing with heroes and henchmen.

lightblade · Dec 27, 2006, 09:19 PM // 21:19

If you're talking about DoA, then that's the only way you're can get through it.

sh4d0whunta · Dec 27, 2006, 09:22 PM // 21:22

/signed good idea never seen one thread like this posted though u say there were others(i believe u just saying ya know).

Muk Utep · Dec 27, 2006, 09:22 PM // 21:22

I'm talking about the entire game. The only reason the current system works is because you can actually make it despite your casters tanking 90% of the time. Once you get to DoA, as you mentioned, using dubious and ridiculous methods is the only way.

Muk Utep · Dec 27, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by sh4d0whunta

/signed good idea never seen one thread like this posted though u say there were others(i believe u just saying ya know).

There have been plenty of posts, but most of them weren't very thorough, and I don't like bumping in any case. Try do a forum search for "taunt" and see.

darktyco · Dec 27, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

When I first started playing GW (which was recently) I was totally shocked by the lack of a real aggro system. I haven't been around long enough to grasp how the player community feels about it, but I am definitely interested. IMHO I think it would be good for a deeper aggro system to be introduced to the game. I don't think it should be a direct clone of the systems in other games but something more would be nice. Maybe in GW2

Ensign · Dec 27, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muk Utep

Enemies will attack whoever poses the biggest threat

Actually, no, they don't. Enemies in most MMOs attack the *lowest* value target, the one that poses the *least* threat. This target is also almost universally the *least* effective target for an enemy to attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muk Utep

Don't make us choose between abusing poor AI or accepting that our monks and elementalists are permanent tanks.

Your suggestion is to make it much, much easier to abuse poor AI, in fact to build that AI abuse into game mechanics, so that there's no longer any choices to be made?

Peace,
-CxE

Antheus · Dec 27, 2006, 10:36 PM // 22:36

I recently started playing on assassin again.

Agro works as it should. That also means that it's not hard to survive, just know how mobs react. And yes, that means managing agro on a sin, with hero/henchies and without tanking.

Definite no for removal mob AI and replacing it with taunt.

The lack of agro management can only exist behind the keyboard. This is of course applicable to casters as well, if they are tanking, the problem is not with the AI. I can definitely confirm this with 5 casters having completed NF, some with Protector. Of course, running 3 sups is bad, and does make you an agro magnet, but that's not the problem with AI.

As a side note, a very complex agro system exists in GW. It takes into consideration damage dealt, class roles, current and maximum health, armor levels, positions, conditions, skills, etc. Anything that simplifies that is by definition "dumbing down". But mobs behave consistently and predictably. Just learn how they do it.

penguo · Dec 27, 2006, 10:38 PM // 22:38

[QUOTE=Ensign]Actually, no, they don't. Enemies in most MMOs attack the *lowest* value target, the one that poses the *least* threat. This target is also almost universally the *least* effective target for an enemy to attack.

Not really, in MMO's once the first pull happens the monsters on just the closest, but it is the tanks job to build threat and taunt them off of the squishier players. Threat causes them to attack the target building the most, healing or damage, doing both increase threat.

Hand of Ruin · Dec 27, 2006, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Actually, no, they don't. Enemies in most MMOs attack the *lowest* value target, the one that poses the *least* threat. This target is also almost universally the *least* effective target for an enemy to attack.

Since when are warriors the lowest valued target? Something tells me that warriors are a very high priority target... maybe it's just the fact that nearly every pvp team will bring some form of warrior hate, whether it be a shut-down like blinding surge or wards... Warriors may not be the target of spikes, but they are important to shutdown quickly... this makes them a very high priority target indeed...

Quote:

Your suggestion is to make it much, much easier to abuse poor AI, in fact to build that AI abuse into game mechanics, so that there's no longer any choices to be made?

Peace,
-CxE

Now I think you're just arguing for the sake of it... what choice exactly are you talking about?

"OMG I WANT THE CHOICE TO HAVE ENEMIES ALL PILE ON ME WHEN I PLAY A MONK WTFOMFG ANET?????"

One of the roles warriors play is to absorb damage for the team... should all warriors come here and throw a fit because they only have two energy regen and cant CHOOSE to play a healer? Seriously, what you said is just ridiculous to me...

Deleet · Dec 27, 2006, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hand of Ruin

Since when are warriors the lowest valued target? Something tells me that warriors are a very high priority target... maybe it's just the fact that nearly every pvp team will bring some form of warrior hate, whether it be a shut-down like blinding surge or wards... Warriors may not be the target of spikes, but they are important to shutdown quickly... this makes them a very high priority target indeed...

Now I think you're just arguing for the sake of it... what choice exactly are you talking about?

"OMG I WANT THE CHOICE TO HAVE ENEMIES ALL PILE ON ME WHEN I PLAY A MONK WTFOMFG ANET?????"

One of the roles warriors play is to absorb damage for the team... should all warriors come here and throw a fit because they only have two energy regen and cant CHOOSE to play a healer? Seriously, what you said is just ridiculous to me...

You know, there are different builds for warriors right? PvE warriors are usually not a threat..

Making aggro "manageable", would result in tanks tanking all the time, making the game so much more easier.

Gun Pierson · Dec 27, 2006, 11:02 PM // 23:02

What do we players do? We focus on the monk first because he can simply keep his allies alive longer and at the same time he's weak. It's in our best intrest he gets down fast also to decrease their numbers fast so you get numeric superiority. Unless there's a very dangerous target in the group who needs to be taken care off quickly, like say an ele npc with searing flames. You can put an interupter on him or spike him to death hoping the monk can't outheal you.

An AI that plays itself to death by focusing on the tank is simply a dumb AI in my humble opinion and is way to easy to beat. It can place a melee fighter on the tank to keep the tank busy while going for casters but that's as far as an AI should go.

The downside is that we can manipulate this behaviour too. I've beaten nightfall mostly by playing the bait myself as a leeroy jenkins smiting monk while my heroes and henchies came running in and took care of business. Yes I died several times but the goal was always reached. If you know you're a target, it's actually an advantage.

It's time the warrior should play other roles than just a tank. More like a bodyguard kinda way for example. Throw yourself between the danger and your party's weakest links. Don't wait for the danger to find you, look for it. Tanking gives the warrior class a negative image in this game, a warrior should be furious, not like a sac of potatoes that can hardly move and does zero damage.

I would like to end this with a quote from Dunkoro: 'The outcome of a battle is determined before the first soldier leaves the barracks'.

Bankai · Dec 27, 2006, 11:06 PM // 23:06

There's a problem with making a better aggro system.

First of all, this game is currently build around this aggro system. A lot of the same profession (enemies, that is), with high level and thus high attack power. I have currently no idea what the heck is the priority of the monsters. I believe it's currently Monks.

Now, let's see what happens if we take the system, of say, how a pvper chooses targets. He mainly trains monks, but when a foe is particularly annoying (blinding flash, for example) or someone is dealing a load of damage (Frenzying warrior anyone?) they change target to them.

The enemies meet the pve team. The warriors attack the intitial blocker, evaluate the party, and notice the setup.
Blocker
2 Nukers
3 monks
1 warrior damage dealer
Minion master

The first thing you'll notice is that there are 3 monks. That means that they won't all be healing a lot (usual setup is 2, I believe?). However, there are 2 nukers (MS, not GoR), and they get targetted first because of their burst of damage output. They will completely ignore the 3 monks, which should easily be able to outheal the damage, and go for the damage dealers, and since the damage on 2 eles is split between the 3 monks, there's no reason for the enemies to go after the monks. Then, after the initial burst, they will go for the warrior damage dealer. He has a high dps because of his frenzy heal sig, and the monks just put prot spirit on him and the occassional heal.

This is far too exploitable. Since the aggro system in other games is kind of dumb, it can't be used in GW. Why? GW is more team-based instead of Individual or 4-player based.

And I'm not talking about WoW or something, as I have no experience with it.

Sir Skullcrasher · Dec 27, 2006, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Guild Wars way of dealing with aggro!

1) input high level of enemies into one zone
2) put them close to each other so that there is no gap to run around them
3) mixed it up with healer, hexer, interrupt and other build among the groups
4) No friendly AI = running into multiple mods and you being killed
5) Repeat step one for the next zone.

Crazyvietguy · Dec 27, 2006, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Heres the thing. When GW started everything was just like how the OP said. The monsters always attacked the first target to run in (usually a warrior) and stayed on them. Ever since then Anet is tweaking the AI to become more challenging. Now im looking for a middle ground.

I think that the AI should vary for various enemies. Humans/Undead/Demons etc. Should be able to determine which character the party is most dependent on or does the most damage and attack them. Reason being that these monsters would be smarter than.. plants for instance.

Insects/Plants/Animals, should have a lower advance in AI. Making their attack patterns more focused on whoever catches their eye first. No doubt they should deviate from their original target and attack others. For the most part however they should stay on the "aggroing" person/persons.

The AI should be dependent on the type of species it is. I dont think that Termites have the ability to decide that because im a monk, they should come and attack me, however I think 9 ft tall demons do. Just my 2 cents

dudeimoncoke · Dec 27, 2006, 11:36 PM // 23:36

if the ai attacks the lowest priority target wouldnt it make sense to put prot spirit on a warrior and tell him to take off his armor?

Muk Utep · Dec 27, 2006, 11:49 PM // 23:49

If you want to get into realism, which GW has very little of, tell me which of these two scenarios look correct:

The enemy, your generic Monster With Some Intelligence is standing in its lair. In comes a group of eight enemies. A warrior with a big, heavy sword charges up into its face and starts swinging at it with precise, painful attacks. The rest of the party is most likely standing at a distance, possibly even outside of the monster's immediate view. Some of them are wiggling their hands and chanting, and one of them is shooting a bow. The monster chooses that the warrior is the biggest and most easily reached threat and attacks him.

The enemy, your generic Monster With Some Intelligence is standing in its lair. In comes a group of eight enemies. A warrior with a big, heavy sword charges up into its face and starts swinging at it with precise, painful attacks. The monster decides that the skinny guy standing all the way in the back, wiggling his fingers and causing no effect that someone who doesn't know each skill would understand, somehow poses the biggest threat. Monster proceeds to wade through the group of people stabbing and slashing at it, chasing the skinny guy in the back despite the fact that he's now running at full speed while the rest of the party is constantly wounding and battering it from behind.

Discuss?

Edited to add and clarify:

I don't want a simplified system where enemies attack whoever runs in first. I want a system where your aggro is something you can reliably manage. It shouldn't be easy, it shouldn't be a "push this button to taunt your enemy into attacking you", but something that requires skill and understanding. I wouldn't mind seeing an increased difficulty of enemies to reflect this, as long as characters can actually play the role that the game developers' own words describe. Where does it say "Warrior: the guy who's usually attacked last. He wears heavy armor for no apparent reason since monks, wearing thin cloth robes (or nothing at all, depending on which armor they've chosen), run screaming away from the monsters that always seem to target them"?

It works in every other game out there. It creates a need for thinking and strategy, rather than the concept of GW: deal a shizload of damage as fast as possible so that the mob chasing your monk doesn't kill him before you've won. Alternatively, invent some weird gimmicky build that abuses monster AI, making them wade through the traps they've just seen you place, or getting stuck on the corner of a building so that your tanks can finally tank.

Omega X · Dec 28, 2006, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muk Utep

I don't want a simplified system where enemies attack whoever runs in first. I want a system where your aggro is something you can reliably manage. It shouldn't be easy, it shouldn't be a "push this button to taunt your enemy into attacking you", but something that requires skill and understanding. I wouldn't mind seeing an increased difficulty of enemies to reflect this, as long as characters can actually play the role that the game developers' own words describe. Where does it say "Warrior: the guy who's usually attacked last. He wears heavy armor for no apparent reason since monks, wearing thin cloth robes (or nothing at all, depending on which armor they've chosen), run screaming away from the monsters that always seem to target them"?

It works in every other game out there. It creates a need for thinking and strategy, rather than the concept of GW: deal a shizload of damage as fast as possible so that the mob chasing your monk doesn't die before you've won. Alternatively, invent some weird gimmicky build that abuses monster AI, making them wade through the traps they've just seen you place, or getting stuck on the corner of a building so that your tanks can finally tank.

In Guild Wars, the monk is usually the prime target of the AI. They will specifically go after squishies if they are close enough. Otherwise they will stand back and protect their group. I've seen it done many times. Though there are cases where the AI won't respond well to some actions its not programmed to look out for.

Gun Pierson · Dec 28, 2006, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muk Utep

A warrior with a big, heavy sword charges up into its face and starts swinging at it with precise, painful attacks.

A tank with painfull attacks? Can't remember I encountered one sorry, except in pvp. Your logic is true if it's a heavy dealing damage interupting warrior, but those still have to be born in GW pve.

Muk Utep · Dec 28, 2006, 12:15 AM // 00:15

Warriors are perfectly capable of dealing good damage while remaining the most suitable tank in the party.