Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Agro chase range and length

This topic has been closed.
    • 590 posts
    March 14, 2019 9:58 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Tanix said:

    MauvaisOeil said:

    I'm not for leashing range but I would like something like "more humanlike behaviour", even if I'm not sure of what can be done that would NOT be exploited in a positive way by players.

     

    Mob chasing you untill it becomes risky for them (players in sight maybe ? ), not leashing if you're low on life untill a threshold of proximity players, etc...

     

    I think, following to zone is too restrictive at low levels and too easy to exploit at high levels, while leashing is just too easy at both. Something unpredictable, mobs taking cover from ranged ennemies, using grapple to drag a player back in their camp, etc...

    Well, the problem as I said with leashing is that it removes the risk of going to a location "within" the zone. So, if lets say leashing is allowed, then the player only needs to know how long, and then run them mobs off on their way to their location. 

    With no leashes, you couldn't do that. As I said, if your camp was in the middle of the zone, the only way to get to the camp was to avoid the mobs using tools (invis, stealth, careful navigation by watching agro range, pathers, FD, etc...) or fight your way to the location. This took time, it was risky. 

    So how do you achieve that level of risk and responsiblity with leashes? See, the real risk is there are no leashes, no railings, no safety nets. The player has to deal with what they agro or run all the way to the zone. 

    What I loved about this is that it made people be careful in areas they weren't knowledgable in. It made exploring a dungeon for the first time nerve wracking because if you got lost, if you didn't have run speed, or something to help you get to the zone fast, you would have to fight what you agrod. There was no "easy run" to a camp without consequence. This is the essence of what EQ provided, that constant feeling of danger, that elation when you were able to get through a dangerous area (kithcor forrest), the knowledge that because your group was skilled, careful and responsible, your moving deep into a dungeon or area meant that most people would not be there around you. 

     

     

    The issue here is not the leashing, but how to avoid players outrunning mobs easily. If you can hardly physically escape a mob you've aggroed, then a realistic "I quit" of an ennemy is possible in AI.

     

    The common scenario we know from EQ is "I aggro, get hit once at most and not stunned, and run away with sow/selo's and stop caring".

     

    What if the ennemy would stun you, charge you, slow you down and you could only escape them if you really had a lot advance to begin with, or by jumping from walls, cliffs and taking the risk to die from falling ?

     

    The idea is not to create a safer behaviour, but something different that would be closer to realistic ennemy behaviour.

     

    Your examples or argument still doesn't deal with the issue I explained. A player running to somewhere within a zone. Even a player with Bard speed could not escape the fact that unless they zoned, the mobs they agro'd would eventually end up at their location. This forced a player to deal with their agro.

    Leashing at any point will still provide the player with a means to avoid this danger, regardless of how dynamic and active you make a mob while chasing. 

    Whether your intentions is safety or not, if realism makes the game more safe, then it defeats the point of game play and at the end of the day, this is a game first and foremost. 

    • 1966 posts
    March 14, 2019 11:28 AM PDT

    ((if realism makes the game more safe, then it defeats the point of game play))

     

    This is manifestly, demonstrably wrong.

    Let us take the ultimate extreme. You log into a game and are immediately killed. Wherever and whenever you log in. Is that fun? Not really. Yet by definition anything short of instant death is a game that is "more safe".

    What you meant is if realism makes the game *too* safe it defeats the point. Which we can all agree on.

    Yet the entirely subjective point remains - how safe is *too* safe. If you run for half a zone to get away from a mob - and are skilled or lucky enough to do this without aggroing other mobs, and the mob gives up on you, does this in and of itself make the game too easy. Regardless of other considerations such as how powerful the mobs are copmpared to the characters and how difficult it is to do things. You seem to be saying "yes" - any game where you can ever get away from any mob without zoning is too easy. To me this is ridiculous, of course.

    Even taking your approach - why isn't zoning a cop-out and something that makes the game trivial? Shouldn't the mob be able to zone and keep chasing? Why isn't zoning a type of exploit with a game that allows it far too easy? If you want a game where it is that easy to escape a mob go play WoW! 

     

     

     

     

    • 637 posts
    March 14, 2019 11:35 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    The issue here is not the leashing, but how to avoid players outrunning mobs easily. If you can hardly physically escape a mob you've aggroed, then a realistic "I quit" of an ennemy is possible in AI.

     

    The common scenario we know from EQ is "I aggro, get hit once at most and not stunned, and run away with sow/selo's and stop caring".

     

    What if the ennemy would stun you, charge you, slow you down and you could only escape them if you really had a lot advance to begin with, or by jumping from walls, cliffs and taking the risk to die from falling ?

     

    The idea is not to create a safer behaviour, but something different that would be closer to realistic ennemy behaviour.

    I like your perspective on the concept of mobs knowing that they will never catch you.  Ultimately I would like to see carelessly agroing being more dangerous than just knowing that they will follow you all the way to the zone line, would be great if they would actually zone with you if their AI was still mad at you.  Even more brutal, you are prevented from zoning if you have agro.  Now people really will have to pay attention.

    Additionally some form of complex, not easily predictable or repeatable, tethering would power down the value of Feign Death, Vanish and similar abilities.  There are going to be a lot of different abilities that can negate the danger of unwanted agro already just not universally.  Having a way to possibly escape from a bad situation is a part of adventuring.  Hugging a zone line because you are afraid of using the roads breaks immersion for me more than just about anything and was a big pet peeve of me in EQ. Wish Pantheon could be a world without zone lines.

    • 1322 posts
    March 14, 2019 2:46 PM PDT

    Tanix : Your examples or argument still doesn't deal with the issue I explained. A player running to somewhere within a zone. Even a player with Bard speed could not escape the fact that unless they zoned, the mobs they agro'd would eventually end up at their location. This forced a player to deal with their agro.

    Leashing at any point will still provide the player with a means to avoid this danger, regardless of how dynamic and active you make a mob while chasing. 

    Whether your intentions is safety or not, if realism makes the game more safe, then it defeats the point of game play and at the end of the day, this is a game first and foremost.

     

    Because it doesn't directly answer a specific issue you chose doesn't make it a failure, as it's flexible enough to include mob getting reinforcement and gathering before falling again on a specific character instead of leashing. That's a possibility, as many others are.

     

    The fact is I won't loose time shaping game systems that won't make it to the game, I only do some when I need to and usually it's closer to pen&paper. I'm throwing wild ideas, which could improve the replayabillity of the game on some aspects. No one needs a remasterized EQ, even if the game is still big in the heart of many, including me, modern technology allow far more diversity and I'm more interested into making the game more fun with realistic AI and such, than having a bland hard game lacking depth. Both is better than just one, Imho.

     

    Trasak : I like your perspective on the concept of mobs knowing that they will never catch you.  Ultimately I would like to see carelessly agroing being more dangerous than just knowing that they will follow you all the way to the zone line, would be great if they would actually zone with you if their AI was still mad at you.  Even more brutal, you are prevented from zoning if you have agro.  Now people really will have to pay attention.

    Additionally some form of complex, not easily predictable or repeatable, tethering would power down the value of Feign Death, Vanish and similar abilities.  There are going to be a lot of different abilities that can negate the danger of unwanted agro already just not universally.  Having a way to possibly escape from a bad situation is a part of adventuring.  Hugging a zone line because you are afraid of using the roads breaks immersion for me more than just about anything and was a big pet peeve of me in EQ. Wish Pantheon could be a world without zone lines.

     

    Thanks, the fact I'm entitled to the origins of MMORPG, beeing RPG where everything is human controlled implies I want an experience that is close to an RPG concept, with modern features and gameplay allowing for more tactical and dynamic choices.

    The danger part should obviously not be tuned to the point it becomes a frightening experience at all times, and running away from a fort while hiding in the woods could bring a few watchmens with torchs checking local bushes before returning to base, withouth making it a non-stop chase.

    • 49 posts
    March 14, 2019 2:57 PM PDT

    No mobs leash...they chase, if they get sick of chasing they summon you. You fight and win great if you fight and lose...well it’s called a corpse run and you best bring a group.


    This post was edited by Soaren at March 14, 2019 3:00 PM PDT
    • 1059 posts
    March 14, 2019 4:55 PM PDT

    As with so many other debates we have around these forums, I think that the best solution is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but something more nuanced.

    I feel that how an enemy behaves when attacked should depend entirely on its type and disposition.  Further, I think that the rules should be different in large overland zones vs. in dungeons.

    Some examples:

    - Some enemies should only pursue you outside of their immediate path or spawn location if they have allies with them.  Meaning that if you ambush the orc scout, and then run, he might be smart enough to not chase you without help.  But you can bet he'll remember your face.  And in fact, he might even go get his buddies and *then* come chase you down.

    - Some enemies absolutely should pursue you to the zoneline, and perhaps even beyond.  If you kill all of her cubs, the Dire Wolf Matron will have your scent and she will not stop until you are dead or she is.  If you kill the Goblin Chief's son, his best assassins will be dispatched to track you down, no matter where you try to hide.

    - Some enemies should pursue you as far as it makes sense.  If you attack a family of bears, they're likely to chase you out of the forest.  But if you get enough distance, they'll probably give up at the edge of the trees.

    - Enemies should behave relatively intelligently.  Those bandits are probably smart enough to not follow you through the gate into town.  But they're also smart enough to sit outside and wait for you to come out from behind those guards, too.

     

    The key for me is that behavior should vary based on the mob type, on its disposition, on where you are, and on what you do.  Mobs that are sentient NPCs should behave like they actually have brains instead of mindlessly pursuing a vendetta against every random adventurer they see.  Mobs that are territorial should let you go if you get far enough outside of your territory.  Mobs that you have severely wronged in some way (for example, killing their families) should be far MORE likely to chase you to the ends of the earth than mobs that you just happened to smack once or twice.

     

    The main point is, NPC AI has come a long, long way since 1999.  It should be entirely possible to make things both more interesting and more dynamic without giving players a free pass to abuse the system.  My vote is for innovation in this area, rather than stagnant and predictable gameplay.

    And just to be clear that I don't want easy mode.  I absolutely support mobs pursuing *across* zone lines when the situation warrants it.  I realize that's technically hard to do, but it's not impossible.

    • 634 posts
    March 14, 2019 5:11 PM PDT
    Maybe once you get a certain distance between you and the mobs they could give up the chase?
    • 590 posts
    March 15, 2019 8:45 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    ((if realism makes the game more safe, then it defeats the point of game play))

     

    This is manifestly, demonstrably wrong.

    Let us take the ultimate extreme. You log into a game and are immediately killed. Wherever and whenever you log in. Is that fun? Not really. Yet by definition anything short of instant death is a game that is "more safe".

    What you meant is if realism makes the game *too* safe it defeats the point. Which we can all agree on.

    I can see how you come to such a conclusion by cherry picking that one sentence. Unfortunately, that was not the context of the discussion.


    MauvaisOeil said:

    Tanix : Your examples or argument still doesn't deal with the issue I explained. A player running to somewhere within a zone. Even a player with Bard speed could not escape the fact that unless they zoned, the mobs they agro'd would eventually end up at their location. This forced a player to deal with their agro.
    Leashing at any point will still provide the player with a means to avoid this danger, regardless of how dynamic and active you make a mob while chasing. 
    Whether your intentions is safety or not, if realism makes the game more safe, then it defeats the point of game play and at the end of the day, this is a game first and foremost.
     

    Because it doesn't directly answer a specific issue you chose doesn't make it a failure, as it's flexible enough to include mob getting reinforcement and gathering before falling again on a specific character instead of leashing. That's a possibility, as many others are.

    Not sure your point here. My contention was that leashing allows that very player to run off a mob and still get to an area in the zone without zoning. Having the mob go back and get reinforcements, sure.. ok... so they do that, THEN after 20 mins or so, they start tracking that player to his camp, find him and then attack him and the group there. 

    See, realistic, smart AI, etc...

    Such immersion!

    Though how many will want this as a play mechanic? Not very practical as a game play mechanic is it? 

    Akilae said:

    More annoying, yes, but not more dangerous.  If they chase to zone then you zone out and back in. Problem solved.  The zone line is still effectively a leash point.

    What makes you think you will be near a zone line all the time?

    How are you going to zone out if you are deep in a zone like EQ Seb or in the middle of a zone? You just going to zone really quick? Sure, if you are the type of player because you don’t like the idea of having consequence of this feature, you camp near zone lines to be safe all the time, by all means, but keep in mind that this is little risk and you won’t likely gain any good rewards in such play.

    Trasak said:

    @Tanix

    Ensuring risk for running across an area carelessly can be accomplished in many ways other than infinite follow.  Mob and player speed should be a function of the difficulty of the area.  A slow moving powerful hitter will encourage hit and run combat.  A mob that actively jumps or sprints to chase down a player or switch agro targets rapidly will be very dangerous.

    I think VR should heavily consider putting in run/sprint as a stamina drain function.  Magical speed plus walk speed will still be less than most mobs sprint speed.  The caveat is that you can only sprint for so long before your stamina runs out.  Both the sprint and walk speed for mobs can have variations as well as the creature’s stamina for running.  Basically the difference between a cheetah, a lion, a bear, and a horse.

    Even if you are speed walking across a zone with magical enhancements you will not be able to sprint all the way across. When to use your sprint should be the tactical decision, and if you use it wrong then you are lunch.

    Ok, sure... lets go with that. So if a mob is very likely to catch you anyway, the argument over leashes is irrelevant. Don't have a leash on mobs, the player then will get caught with your mechanics. Since your mechanics are infallible, the mob not having a leash won't matter, but.. if they are circumvented, then well, that secondary helps keep people responsible. 

    I am not against numerous mechanics in play, I just think the "realism" argument is used subjectively by people to promote their wishes. 

    I mean, how many people here want leashes because of "immersion", but then also want the game to have 3rd person cameras and features? Me thinks people aren't being honest here. 


     

     

    • 590 posts
    March 15, 2019 8:47 AM PDT

    Hokanu said: Maybe once you get a certain distance between you and the mobs they could give up the chase?

     

    That is called leashing, what is being discussed at the moment. 

     

    • 590 posts
    March 15, 2019 9:04 AM PDT

    Nephele said:

    As with so many other debates we have around these forums, I think that the best solution is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but something more nuanced.

    I feel that how an enemy behaves when attacked should depend entirely on its type and disposition.  Further, I think that the rules should be different in large overland zones vs. in dungeons.

    Some examples:

    - Some enemies should only pursue you outside of their immediate path or spawn location if they have allies with them.  Meaning that if you ambush the orc scout, and then run, he might be smart enough to not chase you without help.  But you can bet he'll remember your face.  And in fact, he might even go get his buddies and *then* come chase you down.

    - Some enemies absolutely should pursue you to the zoneline, and perhaps even beyond.  If you kill all of her cubs, the Dire Wolf Matron will have your scent and she will not stop until you are dead or she is.  If you kill the Goblin Chief's son, his best assassins will be dispatched to track you down, no matter where you try to hide.

    - Some enemies should pursue you as far as it makes sense.  If you attack a family of bears, they're likely to chase you out of the forest.  But if you get enough distance, they'll probably give up at the edge of the trees.

    - Enemies should behave relatively intelligently.  Those bandits are probably smart enough to not follow you through the gate into town.  But they're also smart enough to sit outside and wait for you to come out from behind those guards, too.

     

    The key for me is that behavior should vary based on the mob type, on its disposition, on where you are, and on what you do.  Mobs that are sentient NPCs should behave like they actually have brains instead of mindlessly pursuing a vendetta against every random adventurer they see.  Mobs that are territorial should let you go if you get far enough outside of your territory.  Mobs that you have severely wronged in some way (for example, killing their families) should be far MORE likely to chase you to the ends of the earth than mobs that you just happened to smack once or twice.

     

    The main point is, NPC AI has come a long, long way since 1999.  It should be entirely possible to make things both more interesting and more dynamic without giving players a free pass to abuse the system.  My vote is for innovation in this area, rather than stagnant and predictable gameplay.

    And just to be clear that I don't want easy mode.  I absolutely support mobs pursuing *across* zone lines when the situation warrants it.  I realize that's technically hard to do, but it's not impossible.

     

    Ok, lets take that a step further. 

     

    If you agro a human mob, and they are intelligent. They go back, get reinforcements, grab some tracking party and then continue on after your trail to get you. Along the way, if they run into other players who may be camping an area, or just sitting in a safe spot, they go over and attack them. The range they agro will then be as far as they can realistically see. I mean, why can't a mob see you down the hill because you are a couple hundred feet away? Can't they see that far? 

    What about a mountain lion? You do know that some animals will track their prey. So, lets say you are on the other side of a mountain range, and a mountain lion sees you or gets your scent. They will now beging to track you. They will stealth until they get into a position where you are vunerable and unaware, then they will pounce. Just think how realistic this would be where some player is sitting in some "safe" spot medding and all of a sudden is killed by a mountain lion? Dynamic content, realistic, etc...

    Though is it practical to game play in this game?

    Now I like your suggestions, but if they have limits and they allow a player to do escape the mob by running it to its limit, well... what benefit does that serve other than "realism"? Does not it make where game play is made easier because the player now knows that they can just run things off unless they are specific mobs? Did we not just make the world safer for travel for the sake of "realism"?

    If realism is the goal, we should definitely force first person and not allow anyone to see outside of that perspective. Also, if they are intently focused on a book or something, trying to memorize very detailed and technical magic, their attention should be to the point where they can not see away from the book without losing focus and having to start over again. It isn't realistic for a caster to meditate and yet be completely aware of all their surroundings without additional magic being used? Is it? Realism. /shrug

     

     


    This post was edited by Tanix at March 15, 2019 9:05 AM PDT
    • 172 posts
    March 15, 2019 9:35 AM PDT

    I never had any problem with how it was done in EQOA, where mobs were leashed and would chase you for a fair distance, but would eventually stop and return to their point of initial aggro. To be honest, though I don't think I've ever played a game where mobs chased the player forever (or until zoning), I've never really seen the point of it, and it seems to me both unrealistic and needlessly harsh. If I'm exploring a zone solo and wander too close to some mobs and accidentally aggro several, should my only recourse be to drop what I'm doing and run all the way to the zone line so they don't kill me? I'd honestly like it better if I could eventually shake them by running far enough away (within the zone) from where I aggroed them without having to completely abandon my objective and head for the next county, which seems more like a nuisance than a challenge. And finite chase ranges don't need to make the danger trivial, because the player would still need to find a clear path to run away without aggroing any more mobs in the process, which can be very difficult in some areas.

    From a realism standpoint, it also seems weird to me that a mob could literally follow you anywhere within a zone (and then suddenly no longer be able to follow once you hit the zone line and get that magical loading screen), as if they have some innate tracking ability that lets them always sense where you are as they chase you over hill and dale. One alternative to the simple leash mechanic (if the AI could manage it) might be to have line of sight be a factor in how far a mob can chase you. If the mob loses sight of you, they might be able to continue the chase until they reach that rock you ducked behind, but if they can't see where you went once they get there, they'd have to give up. Enemies are programmed something like this in Zelda BoTW, and it's a really fun mechanic in that game.

    I do also like BamBam's idea of having chase behavior tied to NPC type. It makes sense that some enemies would be more dogged in their pursuit than others.

    • 637 posts
    March 15, 2019 9:45 AM PDT

    @Gyldervane

    EQ is the only game I have played that had mobs chase you relentlessly until you zoned.  Even the text based mud I played they would only chase you for a certain number of rooms.  Some would chase more rooms than others.

    Most of us think that some form of dynamic leashing would make the game better and more enjoyable.  When it comes down to it agro and chasing is really a function of AI and the more interesting the AI is then the better the game will be over all.  There is also nothing saying that a disposition like Berserker or Zealot wouldn’t chase you until one of you died but if so I would want them to follow through zone boundaries and they should be pretty rare.

    • 590 posts
    March 15, 2019 10:13 AM PDT

    Trasak said:

    @Gyldervane

    EQ is the only game I have played that had mobs chase you relentlessly until you zoned.  Even the text based mud I played they would only chase you for a certain number of rooms.  Some would chase more rooms than others.

    Most of us think that some form of dynamic leashing would make the game better and more enjoyable.  When it comes down to it agro and chasing is really a function of AI and the more interesting the AI is then the better the game will be over all.  There is also nothing saying that a disposition like Berserker or Zealot wouldn’t chase you until one of you died but if so I would want them to follow through zone boundaries and they should be pretty rare.

    Careful to speak for everyone. 

     

    I gave some examples of dynamic AI, but I can promise you many making the arguments for leashing would not be open to them as I believe their point of leashing is exactly as I intially claimed, to make the game easier, to make it "less tedious" or "less harsh" as this is exactly what thier arguments have stated. 


    This post was edited by Tanix at March 15, 2019 10:16 AM PDT
    • 637 posts
    March 15, 2019 11:19 AM PDT

    Fulton said:

    A re-agro component would be cool as well.

    In the case of the guard, I agro the guard I run. He reaches his max chase range and turns back, but now I am on his "watch list" so now his agro range for me is larger, as if he is aware of my presence and watching or me, and possible even takes different actions based on this. Maybe if I agro him a couple times, then the next time he calls out assistance, and now I have another guard are 2 on my tail who may not be tied to thier guard spot and can give chase farther. Maybe even they send out a search party.

    Although one thing about agro that always kind of baffled me is how quickly a KOS npc would agro. I mean how do they know who I am, is there a post office with pictures of all their enemies tht they study everyday. :) 

    I did also want to say that the re-agro idea is an interesting concept. 

    A way I could see it working is that once a character successfully evades pursuit they get put on that factions wanted list for a few hours.  While on that wanted list their agro radius is treated as if the character where half its current level, or something similar.  This way pulling single out of a group would be extremely difficult if your agro and assist radii substantially larger than normal and maybe an increased chance to be spotted while sneaking.

    Certain skills like feign death could be used to clear your wanted status.

    There are actually a lot of different things that could be done with your level of “wanted” by different NPC factions.  That could end up bleeding into a system similar to the Vanguard diplomacy system I have heard about.

    • 1322 posts
    March 15, 2019 12:02 PM PDT

    Tanix : Not sure your point here. My contention was that leashing allows that very player to run off a mob and still get to an area in the zone without zoning. Having the mob go back and get reinforcements, sure.. ok... so they do that, THEN after 20 mins or so, they start tracking that player to his camp, find him and then attack him and the group there. 

    See, realistic, smart AI, etc...

    Such immersion!

    Though how many will want this as a play mechanic? Not very practical as a game play mechanic is it?

     

    You tell me. Your point was you wanted difficulty at all cost, isn't that a layer of difficulty ?

     

    Mine is a will of immersion, roleplay behaviour and such, and it's interesting on this point.

    • 634 posts
    March 15, 2019 10:19 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    Hokanu said: Maybe once you get a certain distance between you and the mobs they could give up the chase?

     

    That is called leashing, what is being discussed at the moment. 

     

    I thought leashing was the mob being "tethered" to the point it spawns / patrols, not to the distance you put between you and the mob when running away and it is chasing you.  I meant in my comment if you have out run a mob to x metres distance between you and it, it will back off, irrelevant to the distance between it and the spawn location.

    I could be wrong with my understanding of leashing.

    • 590 posts
    March 16, 2019 6:25 AM PDT

    Hokanu said:

    Tanix said:

    Hokanu said: Maybe once you get a certain distance between you and the mobs they could give up the chase?

     

    That is called leashing, what is being discussed at the moment. 

     

    I thought leashing was the mob being "tethered" to the point it spawns / patrols, not to the distance you put between you and the mob when running away and it is chasing you.  I meant in my comment if you have out run a mob to x metres distance between you and it, it will back off, irrelevant to the distance between it and the spawn location.

    I could be wrong with my understanding of leashing.

    It is both. That is, a leash not only tethers something to a specific point, but it is also of a any specific length to which that something is tethered. That is at least what some of us were discussing, but the thread could also be talking about the distance a mob is before it realizes you are there and runs to attack you. So I guess initial agro distance is a component of this as well as how long the mob will chase someone once it is agrod. 

     

    • 590 posts
    March 16, 2019 6:41 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Tanix : Not sure your point here. My contention was that leashing allows that very player to run off a mob and still get to an area in the zone without zoning. Having the mob go back and get reinforcements, sure.. ok... so they do that, THEN after 20 mins or so, they start tracking that player to his camp, find him and then attack him and the group there. 

    See, realistic, smart AI, etc...

    Such immersion!

    Though how many will want this as a play mechanic? Not very practical as a game play mechanic is it?

     

    You tell me. Your point was you wanted difficulty at all cost, isn't that a layer of difficulty ?

     

    Mine is a will of immersion, roleplay behaviour and such, and it's interesting on this point.

    You position was I believe about using various mechanics that simulate what you think a given mob should do realistically. My point was that realism should never trump game play as it defeats the entire point (difficulty wasn't the point, difficulty was what some were claiming allowing a mob to chase throughout the zone would be, that it would be tedious, too hard, etc.. I only pointed out that those making such arguments werre merely looking to dumb the game down for their ease of play and had no real concern about the game play itself). So, in my question to you under that specific comment you made, was that your solution didn't attend to the exploits it specifically created by players to which a game like EQ did not allow (ie the bard being able to just agro everything, run to some area in the zone and by then the mobs would have all lost interest and walked back due to their leashes, according to your "realism" design. That is, while a person stayed within the zone, they could not simply dismiss the mobs that agrod on them. You said you didn't care about such, that realism was more important than game play to you. 

    That may be so, but then if that is your reasoning, there is no discussion to be had because your position is simply that of subjectively wanting the game to be a certain way regardless of it being harmful to game play because you just want to be immersed. That is good for you, but not so good for a game for one of the problems of modern games and why many of us old EQ players are looking to this game is because the "game" has been taken out of gaming today in order to cater to subjective demands for entertainment. 

    Some of us have no game like EQ to go to, no game that is being developed for gamers, focused on game concepts and designs of risk vs reward, but this game is that, it specifically states in its tenants that these are important. So, when you say you don't care about that, well.. while you have a valid "opinon" on what you would like, you are counter to what is trying to be achieved. 

    So, when you talk about realism, I do agree that this is important, but as I said, it should never trump game play or there is no point. Also, as I have pointed out previously, people subjectively use "immersion" as an excuse to justify their expectations, but... it is not consistent. That is, I see people argue about immersion and how the game play implementations ruin their "realism" experience, but then openly accept numerous and blatant immersion breakers (ie 3rd person camera, cameras of all angles, etc...).

    Point is, when I hear "I don't care about game play", what it says is that they don't care about the game, they just want to be entertained and to be honest, this is exactly the arguments that I saw turn modern gaming into what it is today. /shrug

     

    • 1966 posts
    March 16, 2019 7:17 AM PDT

    Arguments based on "immersion" are indeed subjective. But your arguments based on "gameplay" are equally so. We each have an opinion about immersion but we also each have an opinion about what makes good gameplay. Your argument that you care more about gameplay and MauvaisOeil cares more about immersion or entertainment strikes me as meaningless at best. 

    You each have somewhat different views about what constitutes good gameplay. That is the long and the short of it.

    You both want entertainment in a game. We all do. Why would anyone play a game if it did *not* provide entertainment? You merely may find different things entertaining. That is also the long and the short of it.

    So perhaps you should go back to arguing why *your* way is better gameplay or more entertaining than someone else's way without trying to depict those that disagree with you as preferring "modern" games and being willing to sell the rebirth of the golden age of EQ down the river. By the 10,000th time of seeing someone* translate disagreement into "Me EQ you modern ((grunt))" it gets more than a bit annoying. Those of us that want the rebirth of the *spirit* of EQ but feel that some of its design features were good but some were *not* as good as they could be had better not all go play WoW because there will be very *very* few people left to play Pantheon.

    *Many, many people this isn't an attack on you; the meme of translating disagreement into pidgeonholing the disagreeing poster is ubiquitous.

     


    This post was edited by dorotea at March 16, 2019 7:19 AM PDT
    • 590 posts
    March 16, 2019 8:43 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    Arguments based on "immersion" are indeed subjective. But your arguments based on "gameplay" are equally so. We each have an opinion about immersion but we also each have an opinion about what makes good gameplay. Your argument that you care more about gameplay and MauvaisOeil cares more about immersion or entertainment strikes me as meaningless at best. 

    You each have somewhat different views about what constitutes good gameplay. That is the long and the short of it.

    You both want entertainment in a game. We all do. Why would anyone play a game if it did *not* provide entertainment? You merely may find different things entertaining. That is also the long and the short of it.

    So perhaps you should go back to arguing why *your* way is better gameplay or more entertaining than someone else's way without trying to depict those that disagree with you as preferring "modern" games and being willing to sell the rebirth of the golden age of EQ down the river. By the 10,000th time of seeing someone* translate disagreement into "Me EQ you modern ((grunt))" it gets more than a bit annoying. Those of us that want the rebirth of the *spirit* of EQ but feel that some of its design features were good but some were *not* as good as they could be had better not all go play WoW because there will be very *very* few people left to play Pantheon.

    *Many, many people this isn't an attack on you; the meme of translating disagreement into pidgeonholing the disagreeing poster is ubiquitous.

     

    Context again is important Dorotea. 

    The poster specifically was using a subjective means to ignore a failing in the logic of their argument. The "pidgeonholing" as you put it was simply trying to get to this understanding. MauvaisOeil when I asked him how his features would conflict with various game play issues, he exactly stated that immersion was more important than game play. 

    Understanding this is "key" in the discussion because it frames the position and focus of the individual as it concerns the games development. Now you may not think it meaningful, but when a persons position directly conflicts with the stated tenants to which the game is trying to achieve, I think we have gone past simple "disagreements" in subjective expectations. That is, I think it would then be important for people to understand what this game is trying to achieve and how each individuals desires as to how the game should be may at times be in contention with that goal. 

    That was the purpose of that discussion line. MauvaisOeil simply wanting to blow it off may have seemed relevant to him, but to me it seemed like it was dismissing an important problem with the issue here. 

    I also stated I have no objections to his solutions, but I thought game play was important (considering the tenants) to consider in the over all discussion, which is again why the bard question he ignored was relevant to the discussion. 

    As many have stated numerous times Dorotea, we are not asking for another EQ, but we are asking for the important factors to which made EQ what it was to be translated to Pantheon. Those features, many of which you and some others have claimed as old and antiquated or often the key differences between the MMOs of today. So, when you argue them as bad, you are telling us you want more of the same that is common in modern MMOs which is conflict with the tenants. 

    So I am not arguing "EQ good, you bad", I am challenging the reason of those who ask for such features to explain them according to the tenants and within the bounds to which this game is trying to achieve its goals in game play. 

    When you say that leashing is good, and leashing IS a primarly modern MMO staple, then I challenge it and I do so by using arguments of game play and how it conflicts with "risk vs reward", "meaningful travel", etc.. If that challenge pokes holes in someones arguement and it makes them feel bad, that is not my concern. I am respectful, but I am diligent in holding a person to the logic of their position. I don't think it fair to honest and logical discourse to not challenge someone because it may make them feel bad, or because it may anger another. That I think would be counter to proper discussion and a poor approach to any form of adult discourse. 

    If you find my discussions to be emotionally challenging, as it seems I have angered you, well... I am sorry you feel that way and my only suggestion is that you do not read my discussions if it does such, but admonishing me and then demanding I conform to expectation you have as to what I should say, well... that is neither reasonable or mature. /shrug


    This post was edited by Tanix at March 16, 2019 8:45 AM PDT
    • 637 posts
    March 16, 2019 9:10 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    Arguments based on "immersion" are indeed subjective. But your arguments based on "gameplay" are equally so. We each have an opinion about immersion but we also each have an opinion about what makes good gameplay. Your argument that you care more about gameplay and MauvaisOeil cares more about immersion or entertainment strikes me as meaningless at best. 

    You each have somewhat different views about what constitutes good gameplay. That is the long and the short of it.

    You both want entertainment in a game. We all do. Why would anyone play a game if it did *not* provide entertainment? You merely may find different things entertaining. That is also the long and the short of it.

    So perhaps you should go back to arguing why *your* way is better gameplay or more entertaining than someone else's way without trying to depict those that disagree with you as preferring "modern" games and being willing to sell the rebirth of the golden age of EQ down the river. By the 10,000th time of seeing someone* translate disagreement into "Me EQ you modern ((grunt))" it gets more than a bit annoying. Those of us that want the rebirth of the *spirit* of EQ but feel that some of its design features were good but some were *not* as good as they could be had better not all go play WoW because there will be very *very* few people left to play Pantheon.

    *Many, many people this isn't an attack on you; the meme of translating disagreement into pidgeonholing the disagreeing poster is ubiquitous.

     

    I agree with your post. Also keep in mind that even when Verant (Brad's team) was in charge of Everquest they realized that mobs chasing you forever was a bad design and easily abused. That is why certain named bosses in Velious and the revamped planes would deagro if pulled past a certain point or would not follow at all and would just summon you.  The only reason infinite follow even existed was because it was a limitation of the AI written 20 years ago.

     

    I believe that dynamic follow distance makes for better game play than unlimited follow.

    I believe that unlimited follow encourages people to hug the zone walls rather than travel down the road enjoying the zone.

    I believe that unlimited follow encourages players to group up and play at the zone line, arguably exploiting the fact that the mobs will not follow them past the zone line.

    I believe that players being able to unlimitedly run faster than mobs is a poor design that encourages kiting and the freedom to run through zones not caring if you agro. This is not fixed by unlimited follow instead it causes trains on people who have not played poorly but just happen to be in the path of the speeding jerk.

    I believe that using symantics and arguing about the value of realism is a sign of a weak position and relentless quoting everyone section by section with the intent of refuting their opinions as not valid is a very anti social board posting behavior and if I could I would use the auto hide, auto block feature that unfortunately does not exist on this board.  All we can do is choose not to quote or respond to people who post with said behavior.

     


    This post was edited by Trasak at March 16, 2019 9:14 AM PDT
    • 1966 posts
    March 16, 2019 9:12 AM PDT

    ((As many have stated numerous times Dorotea, we are not asking for another EQ, but we are asking for the important factors to which made EQ what it was to be translated to Pantheon. Those features, many of which you and some others have claimed as old and antiquated or often the key differences between the MMOs of today. So, when you argue them as bad, you are telling us you want more of the same that is common in modern MMOs which is conflict with the tenants. ))

     

    I agree with you - we should have a game with many EQ features that are not commonly seen in today's MMOs. 

    I agree with you - we should not have another EQ. We should have something even better.

    We both agree that many EQ features were good - and need to be kept lest we we have another "modern" MMO that is only marginally better than what is out there now. We agree that slow travel is critical. We agree that slow leveling is critical. We agree that avoiding a story-based game centered on the character is critical. We agree that avoiding overemphasis on quests is critical. We agree that avoiding a "golden path" is critical. We agree that dying should hurt - this is critical.

    We do *not* agree on how long mobs should pursue and whether some mobs should not pursue very far at all. We do *not* agree on solo content though we do agree that group play should be more central to the game than either solo play or raids. We do not agree on various issues related to ownership of mobs, killstealing, content denial and the like. I consider all of these important but less important than the issues we do agree on - and feel that if Pantheon has all the things we agree on it is very far indeed from a "modern" MMO and is a true successor to Vanguard and EQ. You disagree and feel that Pantheon will be too little an improvement to be worth playing unless it has more than the design features we agree with. Fair enough - only a fool expects uniform agreement. 

     

    ((I am respectful))

     

    I agree.

     

    ((If you find my discussions to be emotionally challenging, as it seems I have angered you))

     

    Not in the slightest. 

    None of this is personal at all we just have widely varying views on how many Vanguard and EQ faetures Pantheon needs to have to make it more than a slightly improved version of WoW. 

    I prefer focusing on the things we all  have in common despite our disagreements on details. You view some of the disagreements as core philosophical points going far beyond mere "details".

     

     

     

    • 1322 posts
    March 16, 2019 9:35 AM PDT

    I've never stated I prefered Entertainment over gameplay, or antyhing that would put gameplay as an opposite behaviour as entertainement, etc.

     

    The point is : I do love gameplay and game mechanics, and mobs following you blindly to the zoneline only to reset because you zoned and getting tagged on their walk back for single pulls ils not gameplay. It's a technical limitation, it's dumb and only punitive for low levels that can't outrun mobs, while at max level it only forces you to zone, etc.

    If it's in ? I'm fine.

    If there is leashing, I'll do with it, even if I would think the game is not punitive enough then.

    If there is something ELSE that is neither leashing because the mob has to stay parked in an area, neither following you to it's doom from the far corner of the zone to a full party prepared to slaughter him, then I'll be even more fine.

    • 590 posts
    March 16, 2019 9:59 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    I've never stated I prefered Entertainment over gameplay, or antyhing that would put gameplay as an opposite behaviour as entertainement, etc.

     

    The point is : I do love gameplay and game mechanics, and mobs following you blindly to the zoneline only to reset because you zoned and getting tagged on their walk back for single pulls ils not gameplay. It's a technical limitation, it's dumb and only punitive for low levels that can't outrun mobs, while at max level it only forces you to zone, etc.

    If it's in ? I'm fine.

    If there is leashing, I'll do with it, even if I would think the game is not punitive enough then.

    If there is something ELSE that is neither leashing because the mob has to stay parked in an area, neither following you to it's doom from the far corner of the zone to a full party prepared to slaughter him, then I'll be even more fine.

     

    Not entertainment, but your position of realism. That is, you wanted realism and I was pointing out that if it contridicted game play, that is a problem. 

    So maybe I misunderstood you, is realism more important than game play or is game play more imporant. Certainly you can say both are important, but the fact is, one will suffer in some situations, and that was my point. 

     

    I think it would be better to look at what not having a leash provides. Look at what it provides in terms of risk, responsibility, consequence as it concerns combat, travel, etc... 

    Then, when thinking of an alternative system, does it encompass all of those elements as well? 

    See, the leashing mob issue presents problems as I explained. I am all for what people were suggesting in terms of mobs being more proactive to stop players in running (using spells, abilities, etc...), but that alone won't solve the benefit of a mob being able to chase the length of zone lines. 

    Again, I have no problems with new systems, providing they achieve the same basic result of not having leashes in EQ. 

    Now you may not have argued for such, but some here did argue that they thought not having a leash was "tedious". "too harsh", etc.. and that is not a good reason for taking it away as it then directly conflicts with the entire point of the Tenants. 

    That is my issue, not creating a clone of EQ, but achieving the same result in play, regardless of the system. The game needs to achieve the same level of risk vs reward and consequence in play or it is yet another watered down modern MMO. 

    • 590 posts
    March 16, 2019 10:05 AM PDT

    Trasak said:

    I believe that using symantics and arguing about the value of realism is a sign of a weak position and relentless quoting everyone section by section with the intent of refuting their opinions as not valid is a very anti social board posting behavior and if I could I would use the auto hide, auto block feature that unfortunately does not exist on this board.  All we can do is choose not to quote or respond to people who post with said behavior.

     

     

    Opinions are sound, or unsound, objective or subjective. Even philosophical evaluations are subject to these logical evaluations. Quoting people to the specifics of their supporting premises to acertain the validity of a premise made is the basis of logical discussion and evaluation. 

     

    I can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese, and what you are saying is to question such and evaluate my reasoning is not valid and anti-social. I would say that such a claim is illogical and emotionally derived.