Ranarius said:Now, if we really get down to it, you can also split camps and "cheese" in other games. What did we do in EQ when we pulled too many mobs? Simply...zone out. Cheese? Yeah. What did I do when I wanted to split a camp in EQ? Root one mob, run to the zone line, wait till the other mob was near me at the zone line, then I'd zone out, zone back real quick and re-tag the close mob. Cheese? Totally.
Sure but that isn't as readily available as leashing when basically every mob except undead leash. Also, 2 wrongs dont make a right...just because players are going to take the path of least resistance doesn't mean you say F it, let them. Not in a game like Pantheon at least that has pillars and tenets and a design direction that is generally against being easy and hand holdy.
(i could talk about other scenarios where developers don't try to stop players cheesing things and let it go and its simply poor game design/management imho)
The point of my example was that people keep saying games like EQ didn't have leashing or ways to cheese, when they certainly did, and people used them. I think VR has the potential to do BETTER than EQ and other games that had "no leashing." I think what they are able to come up with (potentially) will give way more options than simple leashing or simple zoning out to erase agro.
IMO:
What do you mean when you say better, Ranarius?
Better as in, more risk, or less? Better as in more challenge, or less? Better as in easier for travel, or more difficult? Overland, or in dungeons?
To me, having two sets of rules for hate lists is going to be less clear than one set of rules. Having mobs act one way in overland zones, and potentially a completely different way inside dungeons has the potential to be confusing to players. Will mobs chase you across dungeon zone lines? Why not? They do outside..
In your opinion, Renarius, what would make any other solution better than the EQ1 implementation of no leashes?
Of all the implementations you've seen since, what aspects of them all made them better than EQ1's implementation?
Ranarius said:The point of my example was that people keep saying games like EQ didn't have leashing or ways to cheese, when they certainly did, and people used them. I think VR has the potential to do BETTER than EQ and other games that had "no leashing." I think what they are able to come up with (potentially) will give way more options than simple leashing or simple zoning out to erase agro.
Having a seamless world and leashing don't have to go hand in hand.
vjek said:IMO:
What do you mean when you say better, Ranarius?
Better as in, more risk, or less? Better as in more challenge, or less? Better as in easier for travel, or more difficult? Overland, or in dungeons?
To me, having two sets of rules for hate lists is going to be less clear than one set of rules. Having mobs act one way in overland zones, and potentially a completely different way inside dungeons has the potential to be confusing to players. Will mobs chase you across dungeon zone lines? Why not? They do outside..
In your opinion, Renarius, what would make any other solution better than the EQ1 implementation of no leashes?
Of all the implementations you've seen since, what aspects of them all made them better than EQ1's implementation?
Good questions...I only reall want to address one of them though. I am not an expert on this, just using my imagination. In EQ, a mob would chase you until you zoned. I'm not sure why that isn't considered a leashing mechanism by most people, it seems like a leash to me. In Pantheon a mob can chase you BEYOND the zone lines if that's how the dev's choose to set it up. If a mob chases you beyond the zone is that more like a "no leash" system or less?
If we simply remove the ideas of how games have worked in the past, what would we want to see in a game? Without even comparing to other games. What makes sense for how long a mob should chase you? What makes it more/less dangerous, more/less challenging, more/less engaging? Those are the questions that I think VR has the opportunity to tackle.
IMO:
Given one of the few details they've chosen to share of the new leashing system is that it will be different in dungeons vs. the overland zones, I'll remain skeptical until there are more details.
If they had said, right off the mark, that mobs would chase players out of dungeons, and cross dungeon zone lnes? Ok, at least the behavior is consistent.
That there is an intentional disparity is not ideal, from my perspective. Why didn't they make it consistent?
Likely if they do make it consistent, having no leashes, that is, permitting dungeon mobs to cross dungeon zone lines? That has a very likely negative potential: griefing.
There is very little good that I can see from changing this from consistent to inconsistent, and I don't see a positive outcome even if they did. Just like LAS and their decision to make half the classes generate combat resources in combat and half generate combat resources out of combat. And as philo said, most of the general public are likely to see this change as further wow-ificiation. :|
And now with potentially 'soft' dungeon zone lines, they'll likely be even MORE chaotic and socially-toxic-train-ridden.
It's like all the design since June 2018 has being done in isolation from the entirety of the history or prior context of the project, and all the money that's been donated so far. To me, it's like they're just going down the list and checking off all the ways they can slap their long term pledgers/donators in the face, ensuring they get every. single. one. I mean, SOTA and PFO? They've got nothing on these guys, and that's saying something. :D
So far, all I see is a poor design followed by poor implementation, yet again. It's just.. so instensely frustrating to me that they can't make the choices that are logical, fun and challenging. They just keep adding to scope creep and delaying their milestones.
These fundamental questions and answers should be in the FAQ and on the Wiki, decided in 2014. Not shifting, vague and nebulous in 2021. Not, yet again, abandonding the previous target demographic that supported them for seven and a half years.
2014, Customers: No Leashes? Sure, sounds good, VR, here's money for sticking with that mechanic.
2021, VR: Oops, we changed our mind: Surprise! Leashes! Thanks for the 7+ years of money, though!
What is the issue we're trying to solve? That mobs leash at predictible times? That they leash at all?
If the concern is mobs can be exploit leashed to split pulls or kite, etc. you can just have them turn invul/passive once leashed until they return to a specific point. I'll be honest I don't really have a problem with players surviving if a mob leashes and they cross that thresh hold.
I would like to see a bit more thought put into leash lengths and area of "protection" to which a mob will chase you because I think it will help add to the environment of dungeons and zones. Palace guards staying and leashing within a set distance of the palace makes sense. A polar bear stopping chase once you leave a snowy region makes sense. Some magical ghost or something chasing you until the ends of the earth could make sense.
EppE said:What is the issue we're trying to solve? That mobs leash at predictible times? That they leash at all?
It's that the NPC chasing you only has 1 decision to make: How far do I chase you.
NPCs should be thinking about, and employing, everything in their toolbox to stop you from fleeing. We don't hear anything that which is, in my opinion, far more important. VR has gone on and on about how NPCs are going to be so much better, with Dispositions, Traits and the Combat Tactics but when it comes down to this point here, an NPC chasing a player, the NPC devolves to being an imbecile. I will chase you this far but no further.
Players don't let NPCs run away do we? Heck no we don't. We root, snare, stun, etc to keep that mob from running. NPCs just let us run. Stupid. At least with a zoned world, knowing that NPCs would chase you to that zoneline, the further into that zone you went the further away from safety you got. Now? Any point in a zone can be safety because you only need to run some distances that is definitely shorter than many runs to a zoneline.
What makes a zone dangerous is being unable to get to safety quickly. Camping the Ghoul Lord in LowerGuk was far more dangerous than camping Bedroom because without an evac, your chances of successfully running all the way to the zoneline were zero. Not so with leashing. Get X far away and safety, from that mob is 100%.
LoL, that got me imagining a scenario where I'm trying to run away from a mob so I root him and start running. He roots me. We stop in our tracks about 10 steps away from each other, stare at each other, and both continue to cast root on each other until one of us runs out of mana.
Something we should not lose while designing games is that in the end, they still need to be fun to play. Everquest gave some mobs powerful tools preventing players form running. Many higher end mobs could teleport you directly too them when ever you ran. While this for sure made that mob very dangerous and just about impossible to run from in my opinion it was not all that fun. Player should have some tricks to liven it up. We should always have something worth trying.
What ever is done should be a balance taking all variables into account. But it should still be fun in the end or what is the point.
Susurrus said:Everquest gave some mobs powerful tools preventing players form running. Many higher end mobs could teleport you directly too them when ever you ran.
To be clear, they only summoned if you damaged them. Running past a mob that summoned would not cause them to summon you.
This seems like such a frankly easy solution.
Base the mobs willingness to leash based on dispostions or other traits. An undead skeleton is mindless and will probably chase you forever. An animal or humanoid may only chase you while you are in it's territory.
And it's not like the game won't have 'zones', there will just not be loading screens. You can still have mobs leash back after hitting the 'zone line'.
We already know how long a Cougar will chase you if she has the "protecting my young" disposition ;)
I would just add that EQ1 did not have unlimited leash distances. It in fact did use an algorithym to predict leash, and pullers were the ones that were familiar with this, but it was never really figured out (while I played). As a BRD, you could EASILY outrun threat without zoning... and then there was the FD leash that was different depending on the NPC, and then there was the "summoning" mechanic that required a certain amount of damage to be done. With that said, I don't think it would be that difficult to have various/random metrics that measure leash distance.
Darch said:I would just add that EQ1 did not have unlimited leash distances. It in fact did use an algorithym to predict leash, and pullers were the ones that were familiar with this, but it was never really figured out (while I played). As a BRD, you could EASILY outrun threat without zoning... and then there was the FD leash that was different depending on the NPC, and then there was the "summoning" mechanic that required a certain amount of damage to be done. With that said, I don't think it would be that difficult to have various/random metrics that measure leash distance.
It was unlimited insofar as if you stayed in that zone the mob would just stay on your permanently. Without FD or other spell/ability to drop aggro, it was essentially unlimited chase.
I personally imagine that mobs choice on when to stop chasing you will be based on an actual AI logic and not based on a distance.
As others have stated, a Palace or City Guard may not chase you once you have left the Palace/City grounds, or perhaps their logic will allow them to keep chasing you until the mob itself loses sight of the Palace or City walls at which point it will head back home.
We also know that mobs will follow the same Faction rules in regards to other mobs. So mobs in a certain group will avoid chasing you into known enemy territories. So a group of Orc's chasing you out of Hangore might give up if you get close to Thronefast where their known enemies are, but if you head deeper into Avendyr's Pass avoiding Thronefast area they are willing to chase you much farther.
Undead may be dogged in their chase, but lose your scent if you cross Sacred/Holy ground.
More timid creatures may give up chasing you very quickly if they decide you are no longer threating them. While more predatory beasts with a chase instinct may not give up as long as they can still see you running and will only stop if they lose sight of you for a length of time. This could mean it's more about finding a place to get out of their line of sight rather than how far you go.
One other thing to keep in mind when using the term 'Leashing' is that this referred more to the fact that the mob would speedily return to it's spawn and be immune and un-aggro'able until it returned. This is how it worked in WoW. If a mob entered a 'leashed' state it would now be immune to attacks and would ignore everyone and everything while it ran at very high speed back to it's spawn.
In Pantheon if I understand their vision correctly, mobs may give up a chase but will not enter a 'leashed' state where they zoom home and ignore everyone. Instead they would be free to engage and fight anything they encounter on their way back home.
This is another place where AI could play a role. Mobs may avoid routes home that would take them into enemy territories. Perhaps mobs who chased a long way from home may act lost and need to stop every now and then to re-orient themselves as they find their way back. Perhaps npc's who have been lost for long enough without finding their way home could suddenly inherit a 'lost' disposition which may cause them to become fearful and run from all attackers until they get closer to home. Or perhaps the opposite, it instead makes them more prone to attack and increase their aggro radius as they look for someone to lash out at, making it harder to avoid them.
Or perhaps some creatures wouldn't bother to roam back home at all. It's been said that they want to go beyond static roaming paths. A guard may walk a set path on a castle wall, but a roaming Wolf or Bear may have AI that randomly lets them choose their path as they wander through the forest, perhaps influenced by other animals in the area (head towards prey, avoid other predetors). So if you get chased by a Wolf for half the zone, once he gives up he doesn't bother to head back to the spot where you first engaged him, but instead just stops where he is and falls back into his random AI pathing in the new location he is in. Or only heads back to the closest forest biome and then roams around there.
There are so many different ways they could handle things, and it would be different for each type of enemy and even their goals. Orc's in a camp might just chase you only enough to keep you away from their camp, but Orc's out on a hunt may chase you anywhere in the forest.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:This is another place where AI could play a role. Mobs may avoid routes home that would take them into enemy territories. Perhaps mobs who chased a long way from home may act lost and need to stop every now and then to re-orient themselves as they find their way back. Perhaps npc's who have been lost for long enough without finding their way home could suddenly inherit a 'lost' disposition which may cause them to become fearful and run from all attackers until they get closer to home. Or perhaps the opposite, it instead makes them more prone to attack and increase their aggro radius as they look for someone to lash out at, making it harder to avoid them.
That's a fun idea!
I would like to add two points to this conversation…
First is that people are getting attached to the idea that leash distances are a static value. Like all bears will leash at 30m distance or all gnolls will leash at 100m distances. It does not take much imagination to image these values would be more of an algebra equation. Something like (mob_INT)+(mob_WISE) *(current_AGRO)+((mob_CHASE_value) +/- (RNG)) / (PC/MOB_level_difference). Obviously this is just a quick equation I through together to show that it would not be hard to make a mobs leash less predictable but still adding some consistency based on a mobs lore.
Seconds is the fact we already know mobs will have tactics for dealing with PCs attempting to climb while mobs chase them. Beyond spells or summoning we have been told most if not all mobs will have abilities to deal with players that are aggroed that use climbing to try to escape. It is not much of a stretch to assume the same will be said for fleeing on foot. Maybe we will see more thrown attacks or possibly roars/screams that might stun or snare pullers. I could see this making it harder for pullers to pull huge distances easily.
Personally I’m not worried at all on this leashing issue. Most of the negative examples I have seen “should” be problems of the past due to old programing limitation or games simple not putting enough thought into the subject, both I know will be none issue for Pantheon.
Vandraad said:Darch said:I would just add that EQ1 did not have unlimited leash distances. It in fact did use an algorithym to predict leash, and pullers were the ones that were familiar with this, but it was never really figured out (while I played). As a BRD, you could EASILY outrun threat without zoning... and then there was the FD leash that was different depending on the NPC, and then there was the "summoning" mechanic that required a certain amount of damage to be done. With that said, I don't think it would be that difficult to have various/random metrics that measure leash distance.
It was unlimited insofar as if you stayed in that zone the mob would just stay on your permanently. Without FD or other spell/ability to drop aggro, it was essentially unlimited chase.
It is at least, no longer the case for EQ. I played a monk on Aradune TLP, and had to be carefull with proximity to not drop mobs when polling. This was at least the case in the Luclin expansion which I primarily played.
I also remember it like you describe it 20 years ago, but I think it has changed.
ok, but how to implement easily.
Vandraad makes some good points in that NPC's need to use everything at their disposal and Goofy has some good ideas on how the AI can work. But I dont think concentration should be applied to coding each AI which is why I lean to player-centric coding or variables like faction or religion or even past history. I dont have a problem with dungeons being encapsulated. If you escape the dungeon alive, good for you, if someone runs in right behind you- too bad. (If a fat ogre sits right at the exit and you cant get out! you should be able to invis and have the NPC's then get mad at the ogre and kill him)
Coincidentally, I think this also resolves and presents another problem with AI mechanics. if an NPC were to use all it has in its arsenal, once engaged its logic would have to be: the fight goes on until the PC or I die. Ramp this up to group or open world contested raid mobs and you have resolved FTE over MDD (First To Engage / Most Damage Done). If the PC(group) dies the mob is left to go back or find a new target- yes this will allow the "no country for old men" scenario like in the first scene in the movie where the hunter stumbles upon a bag full of cash and everyone dead? humble lowbies can also stumble upon a NPC WAY above their pay-grade at...1pct health? limping back through a pile of corpses and /who shows there aint nobody here but us chickens in the zone so they can attempt and Kill the NPC! (before it regens) and pilfer loots they normally would have no chance at and get out of there fast because surely they will be coming back! who? those dead guys!
The problem created I think is attrition. If so evenly matched, even 6 against 1, like the fist fight between George Kennedy and Paul Newman in "Cool Hand luke" who decides to "stay down"? both OOM (Out Of Mana) and out of endurance unless this is where disposition is the deciding factor for the NPC. The NPC is alarmist and runs and yells, or what have you. If so, then player-centric faction/religion/levels those things vandraad mentioned, can be a triggering and deciding factor for the NPC with logical boundaries and rules already in place as goofy mentioend and coded once in the NPC, with the variable being totally PC side.
All the rules would still apply but instead of leashing range maybe make it aggro range. if PC's are higher than NPC's then NPC aggro range is smaller EXCEPT to the one in the group who is of X religion/faction/etc then the NPC's will go to that ONE member. Coincidentally, as the idea was for members to share benefits in group, this will be a nice balance as now the members will be forced to increase or lower their own personal faction against said NPC that is attacking the ONE member to protect that one member in the group- interesting. Adds a new level to group dynamics and NPC selection
My take would be:
Against Mobs that are near to level it should be hard to outrun then - even with speed buffs. They shoud have abilities like stun / snare / root / sprint that mean if you pass close by them you are taking a chance. These abilities should be ranged, so the nearer you pass the greater the risk
Agro range (but not abilities) would drastically fall as you outlevel mobs -higher level players stillneed to avoid crowded mob area (hence meaning they would travel around in most cases - leaving the area to the appropriate levelled players).