Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

POLL: Do you want an aggro managment in EQN?

GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member

I think that have an aggro managment in EQN is a very important thing cause without it i dont think that the game can have a challenging PvE. The only MMORPG  i have played without this system is GW2, and i really dont like how PvE works there, pratically all the istances are the same, the only thing you have to do is heal yourself, dodge roll, and do dps (all classes) and there is no coordination and strategy between party members, you have only to think to yourself to avoid being killed and do dps; so pratically you cant play a specific role:

1) you cant play a pure tank: cause without aggro managment and a taunt skill you cant take mobs and bosses on you

2) you cant play a pure dps: cause without a tank, you can take aggro and if you re a glass cannon you will go downed continously and without a pure healer you cant be healed efficently.

3) you cant play a pure healer: cause you re supposed to resist and do dps, and cause there is no tank that can help you taking mobs from you.

The GW2 system, that should give to players freedom to play what they want, give you the possibility to play many spec but 90% of these are totaly useless in PvE, so pratically all classes do the same things in PvE and there isnt a precise distiction between melee and ranged classes too, very often you have to stay ranged even with the stronger warrior or guardian cause if you go melee with certain boss you risk to being ista killed (cause you cant play a pure tank and be healed by pure healer).

For these reasons i would see in EQN a classic system for the classes, so an aggro managment with a trinity, howether i dont think that have to be a strict system, classes should have more spec possible (so for example you could play a warrior dps) but is fondamental that if you want to play a pure tank or a pure healer this can be possible and usefull for your party.

I vote: YES

 

image


"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

«134567

Comments

  • MasterfuzzfuzzMasterfuzzfuzz United States, NCPosts: 169Member
    Gholos i've seen a lot of your posts and I think we are on the same page man. I hated GW2 group combat.
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon

    This is a difficult one for me to answer.

    I loved the aggro management in EQ2 however as I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat I cannot vote in this poll. 

    I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    Offcourse, the advanced trinity including agro adds a lot to MMOs, it promtes grouping making a group stronger then just the sum of the individuals.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • MasterfuzzfuzzMasterfuzzfuzz United States, NCPosts: 169Member
    I've laways like the mobs to be single pulls. I hate groups AoEing everytihng down. I also like the mobs to be difficult. I like them to riposte attacks if you hit them in the front, i like them to have front cone attacks, cast spells that affect the top players o ntheir hate list, not just the main tank. I like an aggro system but I think the mobs could be worked to better utilize threat lists and present more of a challenge. I liked how mobs in EQ1 would go instantly for someone who was below 40% health and just wail on them. If that was your healer, you were in a world of hurt lol
  • Riposte.ThisRiposte.This Toronto, ONPosts: 192Member

    They need to have aggro management, they also need to have proper body pulling and the ability to round up mobs.

    I hated the combat in SWTOR for the lack of good body pulling

    I hated GW2 for the lack of aggro management.

    And a few other things in those games, but those stuck out really well.

    I also really hope they keep the holy quadrilogy.

    Killing dragons is my shit

  • DatawarlockDatawarlock Eden Prairie, MNPosts: 338Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    This is a difficult one for me to answer.

    I loved the aggro management in EQ2 however as I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat I cannot vote in this poll. 

    I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.

     

    This sounds suspiciously like you think the mob you're fighting in MELEE range should, on a whim, decide to run all the way across a field, ignoring you chasing it while stabbing it in it's back, just so it can slap the archer before it dies from it's own stupidity.

     

    Target switching is one thing, making obvious and poor tactical decisions are something else entirely. If the person you've designated as the tank (or whatever you'd want to call it) is the closest thing to the mob, then that person should be the focus of the attack. Seriously, try pulling a bow out, aiming, and hitting a target while in the middle of a fencing match. PvE battles are dumbed down with pathetic AI already, please don't wish it to be gimped further =/

  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member

    I voted yes.

     

    I know some people think GW2 combat mechanics are the future, and they hate the holy trinity, but in EQ, if you were a caster in a dungeon and you pulled agro, you could die in 2-3 seconds sometimes if it was something nasty.  I liked that, I know GW2 has its own mechanisims, but I prefer the holy trinity mechanisims.

     

    Holy trinity has drawbacks, but so do the everyone can be everything systems, people still do not want to take on certain roles from my experiences, like in Rift. 

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,982Member Uncommon

    Taunting does not make a game more challenging, it just makes the mobs dumber and easier to break.

    Guildwars 2 is not a good example of a trinity game without tanking, the first GW was like that and it was rather challenging (before they eventually dumbed it down making it too easy).

    Trinity combat do have it's advantages but I think MMOs have taken it as far as they can now. We frankly need some new and fun group dynamics, so we wont hear any more "this feels just like *insert popular game*".

    Pen and paper RPGs don't really use trinity combat (c'ept D&D 4th) and they have some rather interesting other ways to handle things instead. Shadowrun uses DPS, magic (trust me, it ain't DPS there), riggers and deckers as example, you need each type to work in coordination to succeed.

    Smarter mobs actually should make a game more interesting and combat more tactical, not less. And there are actually other systems than the trinity and cooldowns which a few guys invented for Meridian 59 in 1996. If you think that is the perfect combat mechanics you have zero imagination.

    What is clear is that whatever mechanics you use it is important that teamwork, tactics and timing should win the day. But I also think that roles should have some flexibility as well so you have to think while you play.

    MMOs have evolved a lot since Meridian 59, not only graphics but gameplay wise as well. The only 2 things that are still the same is that you still kill 10 rats in the moat and that the combat is the same. And frankly do combat deserve more, it is after all the main reason most players play MMOs.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,982Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz
    Gholos i've seen a lot of your posts and I think we are on the same page man. I hated GW2 group combat.

    So you are saying that because you didn't like one none trinity based combat mechanics there can't possibly be any other fun way to handle MMO combat without the trinity?

    Think outside the box, can't you imagine other ways to handle group dynamics than GW2 and EQ/WoW?

  • MasterfuzzfuzzMasterfuzzfuzz United States, NCPosts: 169Member
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz
    Gholos i've seen a lot of your posts and I think we are on the same page man. I hated GW2 group combat.

    So you are saying that because you didn't like one none trinity based combat mechanics there can't possibly be any other fun way to handle MMO combat without the trinity?

    Think outside the box, can't you imagine other ways to handle group dynamics than GW2 and EQ/WoW?

    Nah, he and I have been commenting on a lot of the same threads lately and our opinions tend to agree. Just throwing it out there!

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz
    Gholos i've seen a lot of your posts and I think we are on the same page man. I hated GW2 group combat.

    So you are saying that because you didn't like one none trinity based combat mechanics there can't possibly be any other fun way to handle MMO combat without the trinity?

    Think outside the box, can't you imagine other ways to handle group dynamics than GW2 and EQ/WoW?

    I havent say that you cant imagine a different system than trinity in a MMORPG, i have say that is the only system that work well in my game experience.

    For this reason i dont understand why i have to change a system that works, you can innovate it, giving more possible specs to classes, but not erase it.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member

    Anyone who thinks GW2 doesn't have aggro management, doesn't know much about GW2. Aggro in GW2 is based on nearness, damage output, toughness and armor.

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    Anyone who thinks GW2 doesn't have aggro management, doesn't know much about GW2. Aggro in GW2 is based on nearness, damage output, toughness and armor.

    Yes i know, but you cant control it...that is what i call an aggro managment, not a simple aggro list.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon

    I don't enjoy the gimmicky taunt gameplay so I voted no.

    not opposed to aggro management altogether, but that "attack me" button is not fun for me.  i don't like knowing what the AI is going to do and I don't like the overly scripted fights developers end up creating to make the game challenging to compensate for it.

     

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Not only no but hell no.  I want smart AI and I hate having an artificial skill called taunt.  Its horrible design and devs can do so much better.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • MasterfuzzfuzzMasterfuzzfuzz United States, NCPosts: 169Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Not only no but hell no.  I want smart AI and I hate having an artificial skill called taunt.  Its horrible design and devs can do so much better.

    Clearly they can't considering it's been the system for almost every mmo. gw2 tried something different and it sucked. i WISH they could do even a little better

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by loopback1199
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    This is a difficult one for me to answer.

    I loved the aggro management in EQ2 however as I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat I cannot vote in this poll. 

    I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.

    This sounds suspiciously like you think the mob you're fighting in MELEE range should, on a whim, decide to run all the way across a field, ignoring you chasing it while stabbing it in it's back, just so it can slap the archer before it dies from it's own stupidity.

    Target switching is one thing, making obvious and poor tactical decisions are something else entirely. If the person you've designated as the tank (or whatever you'd want to call it) is the closest thing to the mob, then that person should be the focus of the attack. Seriously, try pulling a bow out, aiming, and hitting a target while in the middle of a fencing match. PvE battles are dumbed down with pathetic AI already, please don't wish it to be gimped further =/

    I said "no player in range" should be exempt from an attack, the deciding "to run all the way across a field" does not quite meet that criteria. But if three players are in range then it should be any one of those three and not just the one shouting insults.

    "Making obvious and poor tactical decisions",  should include always facing the taunting guy in the plate mail while two or three others keep stabbing you in the back while wearing leather.

    Oh and have you been in the middle of a fencing match? I have.

  • WolfenprideWolfenpride San''doria, WIPosts: 3,988Member

    Either bodyblocking like GW1, or yes aggro management.

    I did not enjoy Guild Wars 2's system at all.

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz
    Gholos i've seen a lot of your posts and I think we are on the same page man. I hated GW2 group combat.

    I not really hated it, but i missed the distinct roles of true healers and tanks.... But i just love the solo combat in that game, best ever,  personally i would love to see  a more diverse tanking system, and a fully  AoE based healing system, with no tab targetting.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member

    I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.

    In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:

    1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE  event.

    2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.

    In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly impossible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).

    So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gholos

    I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.

    In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:

    1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE  event.

    2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.

    In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly imposible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).

    So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?

     

    I am one who did not offer an alternative with notes on how to create challenging PVE.

    There are several reasons I did not and will not.  

    For one though, I do not feel the root of why PVE is not challening in most games lies in the aggro mechanic.  I found GW2's PVE extremely easy as I found it in SWTOR, Rift, and WOW.  I could argue PVE is more challenging without the aggro mechanics you enjoy but I will not make the claim as I would imagine the argument will go circular fast.  I feel the root cause of why it is often so easy is predictable, patterned, non-varianced artificial intelligence.

    To elaborate on why I cannot offer an alternative, Artificial Intelligence is a very complex topic which spans horizons far beyond my education and more importantly, the education of many game designers and developers.  The task of creating an artificially intelligent opponent that is at an appropriate challenge level across a spectrum of varied human skill levels, that can stay challenging -- is an old challenge and it is a monumental one.  It is for that reason we don't see it done often, if ever.

     

  • SethiusXSethiusX Toronto, ONPosts: 171Member

    The trinity setup of classes is a well established mmo convention at this point (not all games use it, but many do), and I think it works extremely well. A lot of people enjoy the roles or a specific role, so why remove it? The only thing that needs to be fixed is to implement some change to ensure that there are enough tanks and healers around, so that people are not waiting on them.

    Also, I think personally the trinity should be modified to add a fourth, being the Crowd Control role which has much of its original heritage founded in EQ with the Enchanter and Bard. I think that role is unique enough that it could be re-added, with care and caution, and really add to the robust nature of group combat and enable the dev's to make even more interesting mechanics.

    As others have said, GW2's role-less group play was a bit boring... you did not have to rely on your team very much, it was mostly every man for himself. It takes the strategy out of it in many ways, and I did not like that.

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,924Member Uncommon
    Most likely yes, though if they manage to find ways to impliment it well i'd not mind having a no aggro system. Its a little odd but it would be interesting if it somehow had a DnD/Pathfinder system which rather then aggro it introduces risks, kind of providing Attacks of Opportunity which are free hits on an enemy given they try to pass by a player, promoting more strategic placement of players and allowing for close range fighter, tanky or just damage dealer to kind of block away enemies from attacking due to that threat. Still, not very likely I'd say since it involves programming AI in a smart manor and it might be to difficult to really put in play due to just how things might work, needing some sort of aggro system in place to really help to ensure the back squishies aren't focused anyways despite the risk.
  • WolfenprideWolfenpride San''doria, WIPosts: 3,988Member
    Originally posted by Gholos

    I have see some people here that dont want an aggro managment, trinity or a taunt skill in EQN, but no one of them have explain how an alternative system should works and allow a challenging PvE.

    In my game expirience i have seen only 2 possible system:

    1) CLASSIC SYSTEM (trinity with aggro managment) = that allow you to build up parties with classes that have a specific role and are all important for the group due their peculiar skills. A system that promote the collaboration and the coordination between players and need tatics in order to end a PvE  event.

    2) GW2 SYSTEM = that dont need specific roles, where all the classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (healing self and do dps) and where every class can be replaced by another. You have only to think about your char. and to not being killed.

    In my opinion with the GW2 system is nearly impossible to create PvE contet for more than 5 players party because there are no classes's roles...for more than 5 people party i intend real raids not the ridicolous world events of GW2 that are so simple that you can do it semi afk and in auto attack mode (you could do afk if the game have a decent targeting system).

    So, if anyone know an alternative system for PvE, could explain how it can work?

    Wouldn't Guild wars 1 count as a possible system?

    Having a front/middle/back part setup, and having front line fighters/bunker builds phsyically block or intercept mobs from getting to their squishier team mates?

    I guess the trinity is still loosely there, but it's a slight alternative to the traditional taunting mechanics/tank n' spank.

     

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,539Member Uncommon

    I hope EQN comes up with a new system.

    The old tank keeping aggro system is old and proven, but IMO its far too familiar and just "been there done that" since 1999. I don't find anything exciting in the old trinity setup, that would be playing it safe for EQN.

    I also was not a big fan of GW2s combat which was even worse IMO (and a lot easier, my group did all the dungeon content in the first 2 weeks of launch with ease), the fact that we all hit max level that fast is another story, but I am not here to bash GW2.

    I just want to see a new revolutionary system that is better than what we have on the market today.

     

     

     

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.