I'm waiting to see the cowardly* disposition in effect. I think this might show what you are talking about when you mention NPCs not pursuing you, but I would imagine there will be other consequences :)
*Should've been alarmist.
I think its negated if you have a bard singing appropriate songs, Monty python comes to mind: "Brave sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes Brave sir Robin turned about, and gallantly he chickened out..." XD
I think for the most part mob aggro range is being handled like it is in EQ. There may be certain mobs that will reset after you run away a certain distance, but for the most part, it's going to be: kill, be killed, zone, or use a class ability like FD which allows aggro drop.
A related question may be whether mobs will follow you into places like cities, forts, towns and the like. Something only a mindless enemy would be likely to do under any realistic circumstances. Certainly not most animals or any sentient unless coerced to do so.
Unless town guards and soldiers are programmed to let any enemies in without resistance which is also imperfectly logical.
dorotea said:A related question may be whether mobs will follow you into places like cities, forts, towns and the like. Something only a mindless enemy would be likely to do under any realistic circumstances. Certainly not most animals or any sentient unless coerced to do so.
Unless town guards and soldiers are programmed to let any enemies in without resistance which is also imperfectly logical.
We all want an incredible amount of things in this game that are unrealistic/illogical.
However, Sometimes people use guards to get rid of things like placeholders for rare spawns, and it's a simple enough change to make, so I don't see why not.
I would vote that enemies do still follow you into wandering guards, and, like you mentioned, mindless/enraged mobs still follow you into cities just fine.
Counterfleche said: I hope for realistic-feeling aggro logic. Some creatures chasing us to zone and some being territorial. • Some mobs should base their willingness to chase you based on how injured they are (something almost dead itself being far less likely to persue). • Who started the combat? They should be more angry with you if you attacked them first. • Did you kill any of their allies? And how close were they to that ally? A brigand is going to care far less about getting revenge than a mother bear whose cubs you just murdered.
I find it funny that your 'realistic feeling aggro logic' only applies to NPCs running away. And not, say, a single solitary NPC just immediately running when facing 6 players; or a NPC who is just a few meters away completely ignoring one of their own getting murdered because their aggro radius dictates they cannot do anything; or NPCs all not just going for the healer. I could go on...
If you want to talk realistic aggro, where mobs decide to stop chasing or not is the least consequential out of the entire set of combat mechanics.
But, personally, I want all mobs to chase us to the zonelines. Why? Because players need to commit to the fight. Defeat it or die. The ability to run away by having NPCs leash is such an easily exploitable mechanic. Look at any game that has leashed mobs and you'll see just how trivial it is to traverse the game world. You want to cheese your way past trash mobs to the boss? Get a game with leashed NPCs. No thanks.
@Vandraad: Of course one could make the counter-argument that being able to zone to drop aggro is just as much as exploitable and meta-gamey.
I would prefer mobs with different leash-logics as suggested above. Animals could leash early. Undead mobs? Leash never! Probably the same for dungeon mobs.
And why not have different rules for leashing for intelligent NPCs? I don't imagine it being too difficult to implement several "leash-modes". With the amount of conditions NPCs can check during fights, it should be doable.
