Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Aggro in regard to player level

    • 724 posts
    April 13, 2016 4:39 AM PDT

    disposalist said:

    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.

    Yes, this worked quite well. I can imagine that playing a progeny character might feel like going back to an old zone in GW2...you are more powerful than a "regular" low level, yet still have to respect your surroundings.

    But from all I know, Pantheon won't use a scaling down system. And then I'd rather see a system similar to EQ where grey con mobs don't aggro you (except some like undead), over a system where you get attacked by grey con mobs all the time!

    • 30 posts
    April 13, 2016 6:12 AM PDT

    Steelear said:

    YELLOW  = 1-3 levels higher than you (Very very tough, might die).

    WHITE = Same level as you (Challenging)

    I think this is a little bit harsh. Same level mobs a challenge? Consider what this means for a player experiencing their first 5 minutes in the world, they're level 1 so no mob can be lower level than them - ergo every mob is challenging at best, or tough if they pick the wrong fight. The first few encounters in any game should be pretty easy, I want to run up to mobs and learn how my first skills work, not have to be expected to know advanced strategies for a challenging mob right off the bat :)

     

    • 2756 posts
    April 13, 2016 7:41 AM PDT

    Sarim said:

    disposalist said:

    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.

    Yes, this worked quite well. I can imagine that playing a progeny character might feel like going back to an old zone in GW2...you are more powerful than a "regular" low level, yet still have to respect your surroundings.

    But from all I know, Pantheon won't use a scaling down system. And then I'd rather see a system similar to EQ where grey con mobs don't aggro you (except some like undead), over a system where you get attacked by grey con mobs all the time!

    Yeah, if you get nothing out of the content then it would be tedious to have to encounter it.

    I think they'd be missing a major trick to not do the scaling thing though.  In a modern, coop, social game you're going to want to mentor or sidekick or whatever they call it and the scaling feature would address that and a lot of other issues beside.

    • 45 posts
    April 13, 2016 8:28 AM PDT

    There are some ideas where reality doesn't need to be introduced into my fantasy world in order for me to feel immersed.  This is one of them.

    I love agro, dont get me wrong; however, if I have out leveled mobs and wont get any benefits from the encounter (XP primarily) than I dont want to be forced to engage with the content.  To me, that is more a hassel.

    I very much like how EQ did it.  If I outleveled the mob, they don't bother me unless I bother them.  Simple as that.


    This post was edited by starchildren3317 at April 13, 2016 8:28 AM PDT
    • 30 posts
    May 9, 2016 4:26 PM PDT

    Arksien said:

    Also I'd love if enemies could call for help and increase the aggro range of nearby members of its faction. 



    That is basically how it worked in EQ1 and I really liked that system.

    Direct Aggro was caused by attacking a mob or getting within the direct aggro range, and then that mob would cause social aggro to mobs around it (or that it got near while chasing).  But mobs with social aggro would not call for help themselves (and thus not spread aggro).

    That fairly simple mechanic allowed for a lot of flexibility with pulling.  There were rooms/areas that were almost like a puzzle.  For example, by rooting a mob in the back (or a roamer at the right spot), a good puller could get singles from a crowded room.  

    Most MMOs since then have implemented mob "linking" so that groups of mobs will always attack as one.  It makes every pull pre-defined and very boring.  (Kill "skull", offtank "X", CC the "moon" and "triangle"....rince/repeat....yawn.)

    Personally, I really hope Pantheon leans more towards the EQ style aggro mechanics and avoids "mob linking" in most areas.


    • 2419 posts
    May 9, 2016 5:26 PM PDT

    Steelear said:

    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!

    When you say "..than you" are you making a carte blanche statement for every class or is that message taking into account not only level but a comparison between the class of the NPC and player?  A Rogue looking at an NPC has more more to be concerned about than, perhaps, a Druid or a Dire Lord or even a Shaman.  The Rogue will probably be a class depending upon proper position to reach its full potential and will not be a class than can tank much damage.  It must stand toe-to-toe with the NPC.  The Druid by contrast could just as well have roots, snares, DoTs and DDs which would allow it to kill while remaining outside of melee range.  The Druid, then, should see the con differently than the Rogue.

    • 264 posts
    May 9, 2016 5:32 PM PDT

    -5 or less of your level:  Greyed out - This poses little threat, but pay attention

    -3 to -4 of your level: Green - looks like a reasonably safe opponent 

    -1 to -2 of your level: Blue - looks risky, but you might win 

    Same as your level: , Black - looks quite risky...you might win 

    +1 to +2 of your level: Yellow - looks like quite a gamble 

    +3 and up of your level:  Red - what would you like your tombstone to say?

     

    I think the aggro Range compared to level should be Exactly as it was in EQ, it was perfection in my opinion.

    • 668 posts
    May 9, 2016 6:05 PM PDT

    I think it would be super challenging to have varied aggro behaviors programmed into the mobs.  This can be in line with Lore or how beasts would be expected to behave.

    So a skeleton attacks anything and everything due to its super aggressive nature and its lack of brains.  A bear might attack further out if it is hungry, normal range if not, and if you stumble into a Mama bear with Cubs, it gets super protective and has special aggressive attacks.  There may be a group of bandits that don't mess with you until you get too close to their treasure.  Some mobs that are kill on sight will have different aggro ranges depending on their different eye sights or senses.

    I just think a varied "AI" will really create a nice challenge and keep the world seeming as real as possible.

    Another thing not mentioned is how mobs "social" aggro behavior will be in this game.  I am fairly confident that we will not see any tethering system in Pantheon, which automatically brings a group of mobs if one is aggroed (Except for Boss fights or preprogrammed events that call for it).  Individual aggro is perfect and allows for pulling classes to find their niche.  However, even with individual behaviors, you can still have varied social aggro that can make the game even more scary and fun.  We all saw that the orcs in the pre pre Alpha preview had an enormous social aggro range.  Of course, this will take some serious tweaking as the game develops but I am REALLY looking forward to the AI in Pantheon.  Let's bring these mobs to life!!

    Edit: I also really like the colored "con" system in EQ but am also open to better ways that make use of mob threat or con levels.


    This post was edited by Pyye at May 9, 2016 6:10 PM PDT
    • 801 posts
    May 14, 2016 2:05 PM PDT

    aggro range matters if you wish to use the Aggro reduction lineup of spells, or songs. Becides the level caps you all suggested.

    The same would apply to faction, and aggro. Each lineup of spells, and songs would fix those problems or fail. You also could change it by changing race.

     

    So you essentially would have an issue with a huge lineup of spells and songs, not to count on levels being attacked.

    • 172 posts
    March 23, 2017 2:17 PM PDT

    I think that one of the more challenging things I have seen in an MMO is when mobs will enter into a fight that has already begun.  "An Add"  I would like to see mobs that will enter an ongoing fray more easily than attacking a non-engaged target.  I for one was always very careful about my engagements, as adds were by far the most dangerous things in the more challenging games, IMO. 

    As a level 20 I might run through an area feeling safe, knowing that the level 10s there would not engage.  But if I accidently picked up a level 15, then suddenly I could be fighting the level 15 as well as five of the level 10s.  This happened a lot if you were just cruising through a zone with SoW on.  At level 20, a level 15 was easy.  But a level 15 and five level 10s could result in a death.

    This makes things very challenging and adds to the suspense, IMO.

    • 86 posts
    March 26, 2017 7:13 AM PDT

    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.

     

    This is pretty much how every MMO has done it, and it seems OK to me.

    • 80 posts
    March 26, 2017 7:29 AM PDT

    Caesium said:

    Steelear said:

    YELLOW  = 1-3 levels higher than you (Very very tough, might die).

    WHITE = Same level as you (Challenging)

    I think this is a little bit harsh. Same level mobs a challenge? Consider what this means for a player experiencing their first 5 minutes in the world, they're level 1 so no mob can be lower level than them - ergo every mob is challenging at best, or tough if they pick the wrong fight. The first few encounters in any game should be pretty easy, I want to run up to mobs and learn how my first skills work, not have to be expected to know advanced strategies for a challenging mob right off the bat :)

     

     

    Well by technical default they will be white, but they won't be tough to beat in the beginning stages. The colors will be more important when you get to higher levels.

    • 319 posts
    March 26, 2017 7:49 AM PDT

    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 also agree with this. Nothing is more aggravating than trying to nine resources and dodge a critter less than half your level. If the mob is naturally evil like skellies and zombies than it is acceptable if you are in close procsimitry to it. If that mob is close then kill it first, but to be 3/4 way thru mineing etc only to have one run over from 50 feet away to disrupt you is annoying as hell.

    • 3852 posts
    March 26, 2017 8:15 AM PDT

    I prefer the system where gray mobs simply leave you alone unless they are linked to another mob that has attacked you or that you have attacked..

    • 80 posts
    March 26, 2017 8:47 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    I prefer the system where gray mobs simply leave you alone unless they are linked to another mob that has attacked you or that you have attacked..

     

    I think it's safe to assume it'll be like that. It's way too inconvenient otherwise. You want to promote adventuring, I'm not going to want to go to old zones if squishy mobs are going to keep bombarding me and wasting my time.


    This post was edited by Makinelly at March 26, 2017 8:48 AM PDT
    • 542 posts
    March 26, 2017 9:25 AM PDT

    Some might want to burn me at the stake for saying this,but I think the game would be better without levels
    One of the tenets does say -an agreement that player levels should be meaningful and memorable-
    But in order to make it about the journey and spending meaningful time in each of the areas
    and not just running through as quickly as possible to get to max level and endgame,
    overall we need more player involvement. I'd be happy to see things like faction hierarchies replace levels
    Levels on its own are not meaningful nor memorable. It is how the game evolves around you based on past (inter)actions that does make it memorable
    Guildwars 1 had level 20 as max level and what was the max level in Rift again?It was higher than 20 of that I'm sure.But I have more fond memories of guildwars 1

    Now that I'm done blabbering about levels

    Pyye said:

    I think it would be super challenging to have varied aggro behaviors programmed into the mobs. This can be in line with Lore or how beasts would be expected to behave.

    So a skeleton attacks anything and everything due to its super aggressive nature and its lack of brains. A bear might attack further out if it is hungry, normal range if not, and if you stumble into a Mama bear with Cubs, it gets super protective and has special aggressive attacks. There may be a group of bandits that don't mess with you until you get too close to their treasure. Some mobs that are kill on sight will have different aggro ranges depending on their different eye sights or senses.

    I just think a varied "AI" will really create a nice challenge and keep the world seeming as real as possible.


    Just like Pyye I'm more in favor of these varied aggro behaviors too.
    As an example if these skeletons would attack the player that carries a bane item (biggest threat to skeletons) , the AI improves (acts more intelligently )by trying to eliminate that which affects them most.
    I love all Pyye's examples .A variety of mob behaviors will add to their vision about a focus on immersive and engaging group mechanics


    This post was edited by Fluffy at March 26, 2017 9:33 AM PDT
    • 1921 posts
    March 26, 2017 12:42 PM PDT

    When I started playing LOTRO (around Mines of Moria), I was told you could be a crafter without being max level.  Ok, so, I figured, time to create my level 1 crafter, and run from The Shire to Rivendell.

    Little did I know.. As soon as you crossed the zone line from the Lone-Lands to the Trollshaws, everything that could path to you, ran to you and tried to kill you.  No matter what. It didn't matter if you had attacked it or not.
    As in, if the creature was within 500m-1km of your character, it would run to you and attack, immediately.  If you tried to run along the supposedly "safe" road?  There was basically no way you could survive.  Not sure if it's still that way, it probably is.  Not a bug.  Working as intended.

    Similarly, I've seen other MMO's where low level aggro is an auto-pull mechanism, whereby if a level 1 sits, it will draw aggro from hundreds of meters away. So, that's what people did.  They would invis a level one, and instead of actually pulling or moving around to adventure, they would just tow that character along, then un-invis and sit that character quickly anytime they wanted more mobs to kill.

    So, this can be taken to extremes. :)  Personally, I found sit aggro in EQ1 to be a downright primitive mechanic.  I also saw it abused incredibly to the point where half the roamers in the plane of fear where essentially caught between two players, one rapidly sitting/standing, the other with low hit point aggro.  It was just silly, seeing 50 mobs doing this ridiculous conga line (and not fighting anything).

    • 47 posts
    March 26, 2017 1:45 PM PDT

    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 got to be VERY good at estimating aggro range when I had to run through a high level zone. It's skills like that, that give a sense of accomplishment when playing. 

    • 27 posts
    March 29, 2017 2:50 PM PDT

    EQ did this better than any game yet. Keep it that way. 

    • 483 posts
    March 29, 2017 3:20 PM PDT

    I like the EQ aggro ranges, the range at where they attack you decreases with the higher level you are, but it doens't work the other way around (i.e. level 1 aggroing an entire high level zone on entrance) and that's cool because it gives low levels a chance to travel through dangerous higher level zones.

    • 211 posts
    March 29, 2017 9:19 PM PDT

    Destron said:

    EQ did this better than any game yet. Keep it that way. 

     

    I hope it is this way as well.

     

    • 3852 posts
    March 30, 2017 8:17 AM PDT

    I did the same thing in LOTRO, Vjek, it didn't end well for that character.

    Low levels should not draw aggro at a greater distance than characters at-level for the reason jpedrote said.

    If a reason for super-aggro against low levels is to keep them from harvesting in high level zones - firstly I disagree, it is enough that mobs can one-shot them, you don't need to sic half the zone on them. Secondly, if you insist on preventing it there are other mechanics that do this, as in LOTRO making harvesting highly difficult or impossible if you were too many levels below the level of the zone.