There are different approaches of how aggro mobs behave towards players who are much higher in level than them.
In EQ2 mobs just turn non aggro. They won't attack till the player decides to attack first. Convenient when you want to farm crafting stuff, but not very immersive. Why should the bear which tore you apart and stomped on your bloody remains at level 6 become oblivious to your existence at level 26?
Then in Rift (if memory serves right, I played only some months to release) even very low level critters were aggro. All the time. I remember me (level 26 something) watching the lvl 8 squirrels over there. I wasn't even close when they came over and killed me. This was in fact VERY immersive, but I have to admit that this mob behaviour annoyed me quite a bit. When in a zone 20+ below my level I don't want to zigzag through it to avoid aggro and never feel safe. I always felt like I am on the run. Scenery was lost to me.
Something inbetween would be sweet: aggro mobs will stay aggro regardless of your level, but their aggro range will get reduced to a point where a much higher level player needs to basically run over a mob to aggro it. At least for me it' would be the perfect mix of convenience and immersion.
I am wondering what Pantheons approach to this is. I somehow fear it will be the level 8 squirrel will kill you, mightly lvl 26 warrior. I am frightened :D
I think EQ did this right. Lower level mobs aggro range decreases as you level until they only attack when you stand on top of them or sit by them. In addition to those scenarios, I think it would be good for lower con mobs to assist, attack players under half health, and perhaps even attack arch enemies like evil attacking a paladin or cleric or rival factions.
Mob alignment / type should play a huge role in this
Undead and such are evil by nature and would be naturally assumed to attack with little regard to their lives or level. I can see this type of low level mob attaching a high level toon. Small animals would never attack a human in nature unless provoked and it would not make sence in the game. Larger animals such as bears or wolves attacking a mortaly wounded player, I can understand that.
There should be low level mobs attacking high level players if the mob has evil faction, but a Squirrel will always be on the flight side of the "fight or flight" instinct.
I was a fan of EQ's way of handling it. A bear that attacks you at level 6 is aware that he can possibly bring you down, but when you come by that way again at 26 more heavily armored and carrying a greatsword his instincts should kick in that you might not be an easy meal.
That being said, I do like the idea of adding a little immersiveness into it by giving certain types of mobs different reactionary conditions. Maybe a lone wolf behaves as in EQ and attacks only when a player is within a certain level range, a rabid wolf would always attack reagardless of player level, and a starving wolf might attack a player of higher level but only if the player's health is less than 25%. By linking aggro condition to a keyword the devs can create some interesting and immersive environments. For example, a farmer may say that wolves roam the eastern woods, but they generally leave the farmers alone. However, the woods to the north have become infested with packs of rabid wolves that attack anything or anyone that enters their territory. If I need wolf pelts as a low level player I may want to head into the eastern woods where I am not going to get ganked by every wolf I run across, but at higher levels it might be more efficient to go to the northen woods where the rabid wolves will run right at me regardless of the epic sword I carry. To me having the variation would add an extra dimension to the overall impression of an area.
Dullahan said:I think EQ did this right. Lower level mobs aggro range decreases as you level until they only attack when you stand on top of them or sit by them. In addition to those scenarios, I think it would be good for lower con mobs to assist, attack players under half health, and perhaps even attack arch enemies like evil attacking a paladin or cleric or rival factions.
I have to agree with Dullahan on this. EQ1 mob aggro range scaling was awesome. It also went the other direction too... if a mob was much higher than a player, the aggro radius was increased up to a certain range. This made traveling through high level areas even more dangerous, which was great for immersion. You got a feeling of "man... i really shouldnt be here..." as you tried to sneak through.
I also like having different aggro ranges for different types of enemies. Thinking back to the Dragoons in Overthere in EQ1... huge aggro radius for those who are not aligned with evil.
I have played games with both ways of aggro, I am indifferent to how it is handled because I can mentally imagine either scenario (not attacking because they fear me versus attacking because they do not know any better). It was cool however, when ocrs and other sentient mobs who were grey in EQ2 (way lower level) would cower when you walked by them because you were that more powerful than them. I do agree with Bayer that reputation/aligment should play a role. And, Like Dullahan I do like Eq's way of handling level inequalities.
In addition to the previous posters mentioned about EQ's agro system, another aspect I always liked was how "sitting" drew more agro as well. It just made sense that if you were sitting or /medding that a mob would instinctively want to attack that player as their guard would be down - unless the mob was properly taunted, and it definitely made me think before sitting, especially if I was at low health (it was another way to determine a good tank in a group also). +1 for me on EQ's agro system and the mob type/alignment point as well.
Coming from a database/design perspective, I like the idea of having NPC's with personality traits. When you are building out your NPC's you have a drop down that you select the NPC's "personality AI" or whatever you want to call it. You could have several personalities to choose from and perception radius to set.
Undead: Undead have zero intelligence and will attack everything within a certain perception radius and continue to attack you until it dies (will not flee). Perception: 10 Meters
Animal, aggressive: Animals will attack if provoked (entering its small perception radius) and will flee when low on health. Perception: 1 meter
Animal, non-aggressive: Animal will not attack unless attacked first and will flee when low on health. Perception: 1 meter
Intelligent, aggressive: Intelligent animals, humans, or undead will attack if they think they can win (/con) but will not attack if they cannot win. They will flee when low on health. Perception: 10 meters
Intelligent, non-aggressive: Will not attack unless attacked first and will flee when low on health. Perception: 10 meters.
This is just couple examples. You could then throw faction modifiers in there that may adjust how a mob reacts to you. Say if you meet a certain faction threshold an intelligent mob will switch from aggressive to non-aggressive or vice-versa.
Amsai said: I think the best thing is to have an array of different aggro behavior. Looks like the devs might have this in mind reading stuff from the sight about mob behaviors. I liked in XI how there were many diferent aggro types even in the same area. Could be tricky but fun.
I like that you have the perspective of coming from FFXI Amsai. That does sound nice to have many different aggro types; it makes gameplay interesting and you are rewarded for playing smart.
I guess a more appropriate question would be are you still going to get XP from this low level mob, because knowing how players are, their just going to run it off if there's no XP and there's no risk of dieing. The immersion needs to be from risk of dieing and therefore having to avoid low level mob agro range which could scale level difference, but in general would likely just be more of an annoyance if there's no XP to be gained. Rememebering in all this that XP from kills is likely to be the key source of leveling, so it could be a tricky balance.
bigdogchris said:Intelligent, aggressive: Intelligent animals, humans, or undead will attack if they think they can win (/con) but will not attack if they cannot win. They will flee when low on health. Perception: 10 meters
I pulled out this one becuase deciding if something should attack you or not needs to have many factors which influence that decision. What you have done is added a modifier (/con) that can vary the response based upon your level compared to theirs. Toss in their intelligence modifier and you easily get a broader spectrum of responses (including the rare outlier responses) from similar creatures in the same area. Further more, faction standings should enter the equation. Is there a baseline hatred between the two? Have previous actions lowered standings or raised them from the baseline?
Basically, the level gap comparison, intelligence and standings should all have different weights on the decision to attack. It would allow for that grey area where you aren't wholly sure you can walk through this large encampment of pirates unscathed but you are fairly sure that if one or two were to attack you could win the fight.
Amsai said: Thanks so much. ^^ Happy to bring it. And I do appologize if I do mention it a lot but that and AC are my Oldschool references.No need to appologize, you don't only have to be an everquest vet to be here. Anyway, yeah I like the many aggro types in XI as well. Lets see there was sight, sound, smell, blood, and magic. They really made for some interesting incounters in dungeons. If you new about certain enemies aggro types in these places you could say deoderize your self for mobs that aggro with smell for instance.
Dekaden said:Dullahan said:I think EQ did this right. Lower level mobs aggro range decreases as you level until they only attack when you stand on top of them or sit by them. In addition to those scenarios, I think it would be good for lower con mobs to assist, attack players under half health, and perhaps even attack arch enemies like evil attacking a paladin or cleric or rival factions.
I have to agree with Dullahan on this. EQ1 mob aggro range scaling was awesome. It also went the other direction too... if a mob was much higher than a player, the aggro radius was increased up to a certain range. This made traveling through high level areas even more dangerous, which was great for immersion. You got a feeling of "man... i really shouldnt be here..." as you tried to sneak through.
I also like having different aggro ranges for different types of enemies. Thinking back to the Dragoons in Overthere in EQ1... huge aggro radius for those who are not aligned with evil.
I agree with both of these posters. This type of aggro is perfect for immersion.
I think that there should not really be any feeling of safety when traveling. Terminus is not going to be a tamed world, although there will be areas of safety, in homes or some cities, one should never feel 'safe'.
Vandraad said:bigdogchris said:Intelligent, aggressive: Intelligent animals, humans, or undead will attack if they think they can win (/con) but will not attack if they cannot win. They will flee when low on health. Perception: 10 meters
I pulled out this one becuase deciding if something should attack you or not needs to have many factors which influence that decision. What you have done is added a modifier (/con) that can vary the response based upon your level compared to theirs. Toss in their intelligence modifier and you easily get a broader spectrum of responses (including the rare outlier responses) from similar creatures in the same area. Further more, faction standings should enter the equation. Is there a baseline hatred between the two? Have previous actions lowered standings or raised them from the baseline?
Basically, the level gap comparison, intelligence and standings should all have different weights on the decision to attack. It would allow for that grey area where you aren't wholly sure you can walk through this large encampment of pirates unscathed but you are fairly sure that if one or two were to attack you could win the fight.
As a former EQ player I agree on the faction part, that's why I included that as a paragraph at the end. Obviously a lot more will go into it than what I said. The suggestion is just an rough idea of having personalities built up, through AI scripting with multiple factors included, that allow developers to easily choose a personality for NPC's.
There are some cases in EQ where NPC's of the same kind behaved a certain way in one zones but differently in another. I just want to see consistancy across the game world.
Graysilk said:I agree with both of these posters. This type of aggro is perfect for immersion.
I think that there should not really be any feeling of safety when traveling. Terminus is not going to be a tamed world, although there will be areas of safety, in homes or some cities, one should never feel 'safe'.
That would actually be a pity for me. I somehow like to have some areas from time to time, not only in cities, but also overlands, where you can rest your wand/sword/whatever against a wall, sit down by a fire and meditate over a stunning sunset. Some breathtaking beautiful landscape, or just watch a raging storm, feeling snug and safe in your shelter.
It's probably just me, but when I am in an overland zones regardless of my level and all I feel is the stress to evade mobs - constant and neverending stress to the point of never feeling safe, it wears me out.
I don't talk about feeling safe in high risk areas (for example when in zones my or superior to my level). It's important to have them. But at least when I come back to zones I felt the exhilarating threat 20 levels earlier, I want to be able to go to some squirrel and roar: hey *****, of ********, not feeling so mighty today now, eh?! See my sword? What if I stick it in yo **** now eh?
Without being carried away in a bucket shortly after.
t would actually be a pity for me. I somehow like to have some areas from time to time, not only in cities, but also overlands, where you can rest your wand/sword/whatever against a wall, sit down by a fire and meditate over a stunning sunset. Some breathtaking beautiful landscape, or just watch a raging storm, feeling snug and safe in your shelter.
It's probably just me, but when I am in an overland zones regardless of my level and all I feel is the stress to evade mobs - constant and neverending stress to the point of never feeling safe, it wears me out.
Yes I know what you mean. In certain MMO's I had to find them in the overland zones, but I also hope that there are places that are completely non-aggro and offer nice views- that also make lousy camp sites because they are too far away from anything. What comes to mind from Old EQ is areas in kunark. The place where droga was located- on top of some mountains there were decrepid statues of the once proud iksar race, breathtaking. That wierd giant hand in the swamp where Guk was with that strange frog. And oddly, the West Karana Bridge. Once I got there and the theme music started, I felt right at ease, I could med there and no trains or aggro, could even camp out there.
Duffy said:Graysilk said:I agree with both of these posters. This type of aggro is perfect for immersion.
I think that there should not really be any feeling of safety when traveling. Terminus is not going to be a tamed world, although there will be areas of safety, in homes or some cities, one should never feel 'safe'.
That would actually be a pity for me. I somehow like to have some areas from time to time, not only in cities, but also overlands, where you can rest your wand/sword/whatever against a wall, sit down by a fire and meditate over a stunning sunset. Some breathtaking beautiful landscape, or just watch a raging storm, feeling snug and safe in your shelter.
It's probably just me, but when I am in an overland zones regardless of my level and all I feel is the stress to evade mobs - constant and neverending stress to the point of never feeling safe, it wears me out.
I don't talk about feeling safe in high risk areas (for example when in zones my or superior to my level). It's important to have them. But at least when I come back to zones I felt the exhilarating threat 20 levels earlier, I want to be able to go to some squirrel and roar: hey *****, of ********, not feeling so mighty today now, eh?! See my sword? What if I stick it in yo **** now eh?
Without being carried away in a bucket shortly after.
I have to rofl at your last statement.
I see your point. I liked to set on ledges along the wall of the mountain in the CL.s. There was a particular ledge that overlooked the valley: it was about half way between the entrance to Kithkor Forset and the Forest of the Teir'dal. There was another spot along the ice bridge with with a stunning view. Sitting along the walls and trails of any of the EQ zones (or VG) could give me the same feeling you discribe. A frightening but great view from a particular spot in Lavastorm.
But, in none of those did I feel safe, ever. The first year of EQ was very unforgiving.
Not all animals are the same, even within the species. It would be nice if they added a random fight or flight algorithm for animals, which could also take into acount things like class. Animals for the most part should respect if not love druids and rangers for the services they provide in the name of nature. Animals that are normally passive become aggressive in the presence of evil, like that which eminates from a Dire Lord. Undead would always be aggressive to the living unless you were, say, a Dire Lord. A lich on the other hand is intelligent and has his own agenda and wouldn't necessarily care to have a Dire Lord around to mess things up. Humanoids should react based on their own personal first and racial second agendas. Dark Myr for the most part despise Elves, but a Dark Myr merchant is willing to do business with anyone in order to make money and elven customers with gold are just as good as any other. Factions in the past have always been too one sided and simplistic, the more nuanced they can make it, the better and more immersive it would be.
I agree with many that it was cool in EQ that mobs hated youore if you appeared less a threat, like sitting down. I agree with the posters who want to see AI come in, and would be interested to hear more about the FFXI aggro variations.
Like, it'd be cool if AI felt safer in numbers. Maybe they would have a small aggro range alone but with a pack, they attack more due to confidence. Or maybe if you kill the area named, they become afraid of you and are no longer hostile. Or maybe killing the named enraged them and you aggro the whole zone sorta like old school CT in PoF. Or maybe it could be either, and you never know which it will be until you kill said named.
Also it'd be neat to see disguises work in this game. This is more a faction thing, but I thought Fallout New Vegas did some cool stuff with faction. Instead of being just a sliding scale like old eq, if you did a good/bad thing in conflict with your current reputation, you'd get a custom modifier outside of just "losing points." Also costumes would work as a disguise for lower tier mobs, but maybe dogs of the enemy could sniff you out as being in disguise and blow your cover.
Also I'd love if enemies could call for help and increase the aggro range of nearby members of its faction. I didn't much care for wow, but the alarm mobs were a cool concept. Maybe not something that cartoony, but I like the basic idea.
I liked that in Guild Wars 2 wherever you went your effective level scaled to match the area so everything always aggros. It never seemed very immersive to me that you could wander through somewhere full of monsters and have them ignore you.
You would still have the advantage of all your lovely higher level skills, so you probably are through extra utility and choice doing better than your scaled down level, but that way zones are never 'greyed out' and trivialised. You have to still respect every monster (though they will be somewhat easier) and you can go help someone lower level without too much boredom.
Dekaden said:Dullahan said:I think EQ did this right. Lower level mobs aggro range decreases as you level until they only attack when you stand on top of them or sit by them. In addition to those scenarios, I think it would be good for lower con mobs to assist, attack players under half health, and perhaps even attack arch enemies like evil attacking a paladin or cleric or rival factions.
I have to agree with Dullahan on this. EQ1 mob aggro range scaling was awesome. It also went the other direction too... if a mob was much higher than a player, the aggro radius was increased up to a certain range. This made traveling through high level areas even more dangerous, which was great for immersion. You got a feeling of "man... i really shouldnt be here..." as you tried to sneak through.
I also like having different aggro ranges for different types of enemies. Thinking back to the Dragoons in Overthere in EQ1... huge aggro radius for those who are not aligned with evil.
I was a master at anticipating aggro range when running through zones. I loved that.
When it comes to aggro radius I think they should keep it very similar to the EQ design
Mobs consider triggers are designated by a few things, including level.
I also think it should follow the color coded system, that was really nice.
RED = 4+ levels higher than you (Probably will die).
YELLOW = 1-3 levels higher than you (Very very tough, might die).
WHITE = Same level as you (Challenging)
DARK BLUE = 1-5 levels lower than you (Light Challenge)
LIGHT BLUE = 6-10 levels lower than you (Easy)
GREEN = 11-15 levels lower than you (Cakewalk)
GRAY they are 16 or lower than you (wont gain XP from their death, not worth).
I'd prefer if mobs would chase you for a good while. Teach them new generations not to be ridiculously careless!