I think I said it a while back, but my preference is based on a faction/level formula. Depending on your faction with a certain mob, it will increase is "attack radius" and its "assist radius". So if you are hated by them they are more likely to agro and mobs of a similar faction that are nearby are more likely to assist him if they are within its assist radius. Now we can also factor in levels to the radius as well. The lower your level to the mob the bigger they are as well. It fits right in with role play and immersion. If a KoS mob sees you as easy pickings they are more likely to attack, if you look stronger they may not attack unless you walk right up to them, and their "friends" may or may not decide to help if they think they may be killed.
Seems like it should be an easy enough thing to code in and it adds a whole dynamic to factions, pulling and everything in between. Could also make for some fun for the programmers on how they space mobs in certain encounters. So many different combinations in mob camps and a realistic immersion feel at the same time. :p
Jokkel said:
I think I said it a while back, but my preference is based on a faction/level formula. Depending on your faction with a certain mob, it will increase is "attack radius" and its "assist radius". So if you are hated by them they are more likely to agro and mobs of a similar faction that are nearby are more likely to assist him if they are within its assist radius. Now we can also factor in levels to the radius as well. The lower your level to the mob the bigger they are as well. It fits right in with role play and immersion. If a KoS mob sees you as easy pickings they are more likely to attack, if you look stronger they may not attack unless you walk right up to them, and their "friends" may or may not decide to help if they think they may be killed.
Seems like it should be an easy enough thing to code in and it adds a whole dynamic to factions, pulling and everything in between. Could also make for some fun for the programmers on how they space mobs in certain encounters. So many different combinations in mob camps and a realistic immersion feel at the same time. :p
So basically exactly like Everquest, only with a faction modifier as well, I love it. Sign me on.
Jokkel said:
I think I said it a while back, but my preference is based on a faction/level formula. Depending on your faction with a certain mob, it will increase is "attack radius" and its "assist radius". So if you are hated by them they are more likely to agro and mobs of a similar faction that are nearby are more likely to assist him if they are within its assist radius. Now we can also factor in levels to the radius as well. The lower your level to the mob the bigger they are as well. It fits right in with role play and immersion. If a KoS mob sees you as easy pickings they are more likely to attack, if you look stronger they may not attack unless you walk right up to them, and their "friends" may or may not decide to help if they think they may be killed.
Seems like it should be an easy enough thing to code in and it adds a whole dynamic to factions, pulling and everything in between. Could also make for some fun for the programmers on how they space mobs in certain encounters. So many different combinations in mob camps and a realistic immersion feel at the same time. :p
Still think if i was in a room with a bunch of people that liked me and I shot one of them in the face with an arrow and ran away they are not really going to take my past deeds into much account if they are going to go after me.
In that scenario they would all agro since the the assist radius would over lap in a small room. But if you wanted to RP it, maybe he killed a friend of yours and you are just getting pay back, literally 100's of ways around it.
All I am saying is faction and level would change their Agro and assist Radius. So every mob has them say the base is 2m and your faction can make it larger if they hate you. Like say you are max KoS to a mob, now his assist radius is 10m. So any people in the radius that share the faction would assist. Same could be done for the levels. Its a way of linking mobs without actually linking them. And gives the players avenues to get creative. I would actually like to see a similar mechanic on leashes, have level and faction play on how far they chase.
i dont mind linked mobs, where it makes sense. if the mobs are supposed to be intellegent, or social mobs like ants. it makes no sense to me that 5 humanoids are standing around chatting, then 5 min later they still dont notice that bob has gone missing.
another mechanic that i think would be cool instead of linked mobs, how about when a mob disappears from a camp of intellegent creatures they start executing search patterns, different from their normal pathing routines?
Say you had a basic open area camp like this. As someone who likes to play puller at times, this is an example where I would not want a linked mob scenario. I would want it to be aggro radius + faction, so that I could pull the area and get it into a rotation.
Gadgets said:
Say you had a basic open area camp like this. As someone who likes to play puller at times, this is an example where I would not want a linked mob scenario. I would want it to be aggro radius + faction, so that I could pull the area and get it into a rotation.
I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive.
Imagine that that camp has one linked pair of mobs (and that this is not something that occurs everywhere - rather, that it is a mechanic used in the same way some goblin camps in EQ had "A goblin runner" and some didn't)
In EQ, how you would treat this scenario would be the same as how you treated a camp that had a named spawn up. You would recognize it - clear everything around it, then clear it. If you screwed up and got the named - you probably got everything... I would imagine that could happen too if you pulled a linked pair of mobs early if they were at separate ends of a camp.
For the sake of clarity here - I'm in no way arguing for linked mobs to be in Pantheon... I just think that the mechanic got a bad reputation because of how it has been used - or - has been stated earlier on - how it has been used in combination with other game mechanics (run and gun killing everything because you can)
Wandidar said:
Gadgets said:
Say you had a basic open area camp like this. As someone who likes to play puller at times, this is an example where I would not want a linked mob scenario. I would want it to be aggro radius + faction, so that I could pull the area and get it into a rotation.
I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive.
Imagine that that camp has one linked pair of mobs (and that this is not something that occurs everywhere - rather, that it is a mechanic used in the same way some goblin camps in EQ had "A goblin runner" and some didn't)
In EQ, how you would treat this scenario would be the same as how you treated a camp that had a named spawn up. You would recognize it - clear everything around it, then clear it. If you screwed up and got the named - you probably got everything... I would imagine that could happen too if you pulled a linked pair of mobs early if they were at separate ends of a camp.
For the sake of clarity here - I'm in no way arguing for linked mobs to be in Pantheon... I just think that the mechanic got a bad reputation because of how it has been used - or - has been stated earlier on - how it has been used in combination with other game mechanics (run and gun killing everything because you can)
I agree with what you are saying, but I still don't think a hardcoded "link" is necessary to achieve this sort of mechanic. When I think of linked mobs, I think of a few mobs walking about in a hallway. Two happen to path further down the hallway, while the other comes towards you. Now theres a sizable distance between the mobs, yet upon pulling the mob closest, the other come from way down the hallway because they were linked. Thats a poor implementation.
If you talk about the kind of scenario where the guards within a throne room attack you because you attacked their king, even though none of them happened to be within a normal aggro range, that is still a believable scenario. Every guard within a palace is supposed to be paying attention to the kings safety, so we would sort of expect the guards to have an increased assist aggro range when the king specifically is attacked.
Thats the difference though. Its still not a hard coded link, its a greater assist radius for particular mobs in certain scenarios. Maybe if you found a place where you could put enough distance between the king and the guards, they wouldn't come. Maybe it requires something like a certain distance + breaking line of sight. Those are the kinds of things I like to see, because they are believable. Hard coded links are not.
Linked mobs was a terrible system put in to stop players from sniping groups and reinforce eq2's horrible aoe linked mob spell line. I throw a huge comet at the ground, but it only hits the mobs linked because the ui says so.... this is an example of a gimmick and doesn't come close to being realistic . There is no reason why a game should have linked mobs under any circumstance and I would be dumbfounded if I see it in Pantheon.
If we start going too far down the realism rathole though, by all accounts if you start in a dungeon that is a castle with bosses in the back being protected, what would prevent logic from the entire castle aggroing at once, because they sounded the alarm that someone was trying to get in, we want to avoid situations like that, so we can't just base everything off realism. Realism can get games into a lot of trouble.
There is a difference between "Linked Mobs" and "Social Aggro" that a few people have touched on and I think it's important to have social aggro mobs in many situations. If you cast a spell or hack and slash a mob that is standing right next to another mob (or one that is within short hearing/seeing distance) then is it completely reasonable to think that he will hear it and see it and try to help his friend out, in some cases they would shout/yell for help while charging at you!
I think linked mobs is a poor/lazy mechanic but the social aggro serves a reasonable purpose for immersion, challenge and strategy and this mechanic promotes player interaction, sometimes you will need help, this game isn't being developed for solo players, so if you charge into a group of goblins, they should hear you, see you and react in a hostile manner while calling for help or even have some fleeing (due to seeing your shiny armour and large weapon hacking their friends up) while others try to defend against your attacks.
I preferred EQ's way of handling it. For the most part, outside of some raid situations, mobs had aggro ranges and you could either reduce how far one could trigger anothers aggro range, or reduce the surrounding npc's aggro range to get a single pull.
What I am also remembering is that level played a factor in that aggro range, but I am wondering if EQ had it backwards. In EQ the higher above the mobs level that you were, the smaller the aggro radius was. Does it really make sense? If level is to play a factor I think it should be reversed, the higher level player should get a "You want me to follow you? Not without my friends" from an npc (possibly make it humanoid only? intelligent mobs bring help, unintelligent or primal mobs attack first and think later).
I also liked how HP level played a factor in EQ as well iirc, get a person low enough in life and npc's went for the kill. They recognized vulnerable players as well, sit down and you'd receive aggro from whoevers hatelist you were on - and receive full damage from their hit for being an easy target. It made it a gamble if the person wanted to try and camp out in the middle of a wipe, you watched those seconds-to-camp with your breath held.
Rallyd said:
If we start going too far down the realism rathole though, by all accounts if you start in a dungeon that is a castle with bosses in the back being protected, what would prevent logic from the entire castle aggroing at once, because they sounded the alarm that someone was trying to get in, we want to avoid situations like that, so we can't just base everything off realism. Realism can get games into a lot of trouble.
I find it utterly ludicrous that someone can back up a system that was designed to socially handcuff players. I wasn't advocating that in a game in which we wield magic we uphold a code of true realism, but on the other hand I see no validity that fire would choose its targets based off a ui linked encounter. You're example is so far off the mark from the one I made that it makes your post almost entirely irrelevant.
I would be happy to debate the the positives a linked system could bring, but in every instance it's been in a game it was a total disaster . So what do you believe are the positive's of a linked engagement?
On the subject of mobs i think its a good idea to have very hard encounters or mobs in an area meant for a lower level than the difficulty of them. Gives a sense of adventure and realism and progression. Something like that infamous monster guarding a cave that destroyed all newbies you can come back later and finally kill.
Lokkan said:
I preferred EQ's way of handling it. For the most part, outside of some raid situations, mobs had aggro ranges and you could either reduce how far one could trigger anothers aggro range, or reduce the surrounding npc's aggro range to get a single pull.
What I am also remembering is that level played a factor in that aggro range, but I am wondering if EQ had it backwards. In EQ the higher above the mobs level that you were, the smaller the aggro radius was. Does it really make sense? If level is to play a factor I think it should be reversed, the higher level player should get a "You want me to follow you? Not without my friends" from an npc (possibly make it humanoid only? intelligent mobs bring help, unintelligent or primal mobs attack first and think later).
I also liked how HP level played a factor in EQ as well iirc, get a person low enough in life and npc's went for the kill. They recognized vulnerable players as well, sit down and you'd receive aggro from whoevers hatelist you were on - and receive full damage from their hit for being an easy target. It made it a gamble if the person wanted to try and camp out in the middle of a wipe, you watched those seconds-to-camp with your breath held.
I'm all for the ranged idea. I was also a fan of the EQ way of handling the mobs. It didn't completely hinder your gameplay if you did pull(ie, the whole zone didn't run to you).
IMHO linked mobs are a critical tool in designing encounters, especially in group oriented content. They make it easier for designers to set up specific challenges for a group to handle, and can help block content from solo players thus encouraging grouping to get at the desired content.
In general I don't like the idea of taking tools away from the developers that they can use to craft interesting encounters. For example, my first reaction to BAF was that I wasn't fond of the idea of scaling content to group size, because higher rewards should go to those who group more. Then I realized: why say not to BAF, it is just another tool and like any tool it isn't whether it exists that matters but how it is used.
Some of the examples here are not so much examples of why various features are bad, but of how the feature can be used in a bad way. For example, if you've ever been caught in ACs Black Spawn Den (BSD) when everything spawns at once you'd realize aggroing a whole zone can be awsome provided the group or individual in that situation has the tools to handle being swarmed by mobs. Handling a swarm of mobs is a rush. I wouldn't say all encounters should be like that but the BSD was a special zone made specifically for rapid spawn. I'm not saying it should be done in Pantheon, just suggesting that it isn't always the feature that is bad, but how it is used and the reason behind it that can be bad.
I enjoy linked mobs where it makes sense. I do get tired of games that make every encounter a messy affair. I don't want every fight to be linked, nor do I want every mob to call for help or every mob to run when things get bad for them. Change it up so that the mechanic doesn't become a liability to the game play.
I rather prefer not to have linked mobs at all. Maybe only exception should be when you deal with raid bosses. I didn't like at all how it worked in EQ2.
When you don't have linked mobs, it will create even more excitement when you and your group will probably try to take out slightly harder mobs by pulling one at a time and of course from time to time you will fail. That will create lots of excitement. It creates also more content for everyone, as you can go full berserk by rushing into a camp and deal with all mobs there. That or take harder mobs one at a time.
So I hope we can pull one mob at a time with our skill and timing, as it's such a fun game mechanism, which creates so much excitement.
Wandidar said:
Over in the leashed mob conversation, Xonth brought up a related (and just as important) topic. Linked mobs. I'm sure we all know what linked mobs are - but just in case, linked mobs are mobs that cannot be split when you pull them. They share an agro table. You pull one of them, you get all the mobs that are part of the link - period.
In practice, this has sometimes manifested itself in silly ways. For example: I've seen two mobs linked that are in completely different areas of a camp. You pull one, and a linked mob that is on the back side of 10 other mobs comes with it... but the 10 mobs it runs past - don't.
On the other hand, it could be a dynamic used to create some interesting game play - add emotional "oh crap" responses from players, etc...
SO - similar to the leashed mob conversation - the question here is simple... how do you feel about linked mobs?
I think I would like to see linking in the game but have it tied into a more advanced aggro system. I don't know exactly how aggro worked in everquest or vangaurd, but in Final Fantasy XI monsters would have two steps to the aggro process (tracking and then actual aggro). What that means is that monsters would actually hunt you down even before aggro, and they would do it by means of senses ( sight, smell, hearing, magic, blood). So for example, a goblin being a sight aggro/tracking monster might see you from a distance (tracking distance was wider than aggro by a fair margin though not infinite or anything like that) and then when it roams it may roam in your general direction until it reached the edge of its random roaming area or it aggroed you.
I would like this sense based aggro system to apply to links as well. That is, that if you aggro a monster with something that will link to it near-by the link will only link if its sense detects its friendly target has aggroed something/been attacked. Using the same sight based goblin as an example, if you aggro one but its friend has its back turned it will not link.
This approach creates a new dynamic in the system. It allows for extra danger to be present but also allows for skillfull and careful handling of a situation to result in a desired outcome depending on how the devs want to set enemies up.
Angrykiz said:
I don't like linked mobs except when they are for attaching adds to a raid mob.
I don't want to have encounter size dictated by artificial links.
It leads to some mobs being underpowered because they are linked in larger packs like in EQ2.
Too many packs of easy mobs just leads to watering down the content as they are easily AE'd down.
Kiz~
I agree with this....the linked mobs in EQ2 were a joke, they were so watered down that they didnt even equal the power of a lone mob. I really dislike the linked system, have mobs be social, have them shout for help or what ever else you can just dont make the linked where there is no way to seperate them, and if you do go that route do not water down the mobs, keep them full strength
If mobs are linked by an agro/assist radius around them then I'm fine with that. Developers can choose which mobs can be single pulled or which will assist based on placement. Certain types of lull abilities can be used to reduce the agro radius.
If we're talking about linked by scripts, I would hope that is left for special encounters or raids where the developers need to deliver certain content at certain times.
Someone actually brought up Pantheon's intended aggro system on mmorpg.com. They suggested that things like visual range and sound play a part. I think it would be great for a mob's social range to be increased for mobs pulled directly in front of it. I also think it would be good for a npc/mob to social even outside of line of sight, if you fight it too close to that mob. Basically I think there should be
With those basic additions to the aggro system, there could also be spells and abilities that are more stealthy to use in certain situations. For instances (using what we know about spells), perhaps a gestured spell would be more subtle choice when pulling than a spoken. Or maybe a ranged attack rather than a louder more aggressive attack. These are the kinds of things that can help take combat and mob AI to the next level and raise the level of immersion at the same time.
First and foremost I hope most encounters aren't where mobs are just standing around a camp, looking directly at you and do nothing to discourage your approach.
I want to see mobs that not only appear to be doing something in their camp, be it stoking the campfire, tanning hides, enjoying some rest seated against a dead log, etc. And mobs that may move about the camp performing their duties. And if a you enter a mobs Field of Vision, they may stop what they are doing and watch you, if you continue to approach they become alarmed. At some point possibly consider youa threat and alert the others in the camp, and they all stand at the ready, and possibly initiate aggression based on their "Con" on you, much like we "Con" them. or even a random chance the alerted mob leaves camp to "check out" whats going on, with the other NPC hardly aware of his leaving.
Maybe if an attack begins, one of the NPCs runs off to get help while the others defend the camp. Now you not only have to fight the camp, someone has to stop the runner, or your group needs to be prepared for a few adds in a bit. Which you could be done and gone by the time they return, and then they go about their business.
If you were to back up out of their FoV, they would return to their duties.
Never cared for the sitting 50 feet away from Orc1 camp with a party and pulling Orcs, well within site of the other 3 or 4 orcs watching their buddy getting beaten.
I would like the some mobs to have some companionship tendancies, and others not.
But most of all, I just don't want mob_a ALWAYS standing statically at one spot. Also never big on the mobs appearing out of thin air. Would prefer they spawn inside a random tent/cave/bush or zone border and walk out or to the camp. Give more life to the world we adventure in.
