Should encounters have aggro mechanics?

[ledroc]

Just wondering what people thought about having some type of aggro (aggression) table in the game.

 

For those that might not be familiar this is where your party generates "threat" by their actions. Most of the time this is damage to a specific character or monster. The more damage you do the more threat you generate and more likely that monster is to attack that character.

 

This is also where the term "tanking" comes from. This allows your character to artificially generate threat in order to keep the monster's attention and to soak up damage. Most likely to protect your more fragile rogues and mages.

[metiman]

World of EternityCraft?

[ledroc]

and if you are wondering what the advantage to this system is, just play BG1 and take out the ogre with a level 1 party. All you need to do is hide behind a tree and shoot arrows at him and he never leaves the first character that attacked him.

 

 

Essentially called "kiting" and usually an easy exploit to encounters where ranged characters aren't targeted

 

Makes for a fairly boring game if your #1 damage comes from arrows and those characters are never in danger of dying. Not very realistic if a monster is getting shot at 100 times and just keeps ignoring it because the thief tastes good

[Valorian]

Yes, smarter enemies should prioritize certain targets. It makes combat encounters much more challenging.

[Ashram]

I vote yes, if you are referring to a method to give the AI enemies logical and tactical responses to player actions. Pure aggro mechanics...not so much.

[Tale]

Not really. I would like to see attitudes and behaviors. Something with more variety. Maybe Barbarians hate mages and all beeline for mages. Maybe another type of enemy likes to prioritize party members in heavy armor. And maybe some base it off how much damage is being done to them. This kind of information could be revealed in a beastiary.

[evdk]

I haven't read the thread, just stopping by to say

NO

I would add something more but I don't feel like getting banned before seeing the backer forum badge at least once.

[Bill Gates' Son]

There shouldn't be a tank threat mechanic. Enemies should go after the most dangerous party member (this could vary depending on the circumstances), unless that party member is unreachable due to terrain or other party members blocking the enemy's path.

 

I wouldn't mind having a minor taunt similar to D&D3.5, but it should only succeed at rare times (perhaps at the beginning of the fight? It kind of works that way in RL).

Edited October 4, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Jaesun]

I haven't read the thread, just stopping by to say

NO

I would add something more but I don't feel like getting banned before seeing the backer forum badge at least once.

 

This. KILL IT WITH FIRE.

[Crusty]

This thread makes me aggro.

[ledroc]

yeah, I guess my intent was more to say "should enemies be more realistic and not ignore constant ranged or spell damage while blindly following around the first dude that smacked him with a staff"

 

So more like what a previous poster stated

 

"if you are referring to a method to give the AI enemies logical and tactical responses to player actions."

[ogrezilla]

No. this is probably the most adamantly I've felt about any of these poll topics so far.

 

Enemies shouldn't be stupid, but there should not be arbitrary threat levels added to my fighters to keep enemies from attacking anyone else.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ledroc]

I guess for most of you that say "no" you prefer exploiting ranged mechanics and having endless kiting encounters?

[ogrezilla]

I guess for most of you that say "no" you prefer exploiting ranged mechanics and having endless kiting encounters?

I think we are picturing MMO style aggro mechanics. I want smart AI who can figure out who to attack. I don't want my fighter to keep enemies off my mage because of some threat level. He should have to get in the way or otherwise prevent the enemy from getting to the mage.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ledroc]

ahh maybe the poll should be changed to "should monsters react to damage done to them and should there be a way to escape or dump that threat other than simply doing more damage again"

[ogrezilla]

ahh maybe the poll should be changed to "should monsters react to damage done to them and should there be a way to escape or dump that threat other than simply doing more damage again"

ya I think this needs to be more specific. I deleted my vote because I guess it depends. I want enemy AI to not suck.

[ledroc]

I think maybe an example would help

 

you have the following party members

1. thief

2. mage

3. fighter

4. cleric

 

Your thief hides and backstabs an enemy, the enemy turns and attacks the thief

the mage and fighter join in and land some big attacks

the enemy continues to attack the thief

thief runs away, enemy follows

party switched to ranged weapons and spells and continue to attack the enemy

thief continues running around a table playing a game of tag with the enemy

enemy dies while completely ignoring the mage and the fighter

 

Edit: if you are wondering this is exactly how the BG games work

Edited October 4, 2012 by ledroc

[Amentep]

My hope is that the AI is more robust than that and that if characters can pull the attention of an opponent, its not a simple "I've been lured now I must attack without regard to anything else ever again".

 

Also the word "aggro" is annoying, and I don't know why.

[metiman]

That's just bad AI. It has nothing to do with aggro. Play BG2 with the SCS mod and you'll find that every enemy makes an instant beeline for your spellcasters just like you would. Let's see...devestating incapacitating spells that can completely turn the tide of combat and very few hit points and no armor? What's not to like about such a target? Maybe dumb foes can do nearest first, but everyone else should be smart.

[ledroc]

ya the poll could really be "do you want the AI to be smart"

but that was really a no brainer

 

Do you want monsters to ignore damage done to them is more appropriate

[andreisiadi]

Smart AI = good

 

Fighter with taunt/aggro abilities = full retard

[ledroc]

That's just bad AI. It has nothing to do with aggro. Play BG2 with the SCS mod and you'll find that every enemy makes an instant beeline for your spellcasters just like you would.

 

Yes, that is partly my point, you needed a mod to make those games better when that intelligence should have been built in

 

Its also not just heading for the casters its being able to pull that attention away from the casters. Otherwise there is really no point to beefing up armor on a melee character

You bring them along to soak up damage

[andreisiadi]

That's just bad AI. It has nothing to do with aggro. Play BG2 with the SCS mod and you'll find that every enemy makes an instant beeline for your spellcasters just like you would.

You bring them along to soak up damage

 

Is that what they teach you in WOW school ? Fascinating.

Edited October 4, 2012 by andreisiadi

[Lady Evenstar]

I like the idea of enemies that vary in perception and intelligence and choose targets based on a variety of factors, including both proximity and who is hurting them most.

[norolim]

I think someone on the Internet is spreading lies tha PE is going to be an MMO?