Is anyone else bothered by animals just attacking you?

[dmbot]

So, yeah... I don't mind the beetles, they're insects and probably work on instinct without much consideration. But the lions?  It just seem very weird to me that an animal would jump on six humans if it's not necessarily feeling threatened. In BG bears for example only became hostile if you got too close to them, and I really like that. I would much rather see just a bit more realism in how animals attack me. If I'm playing a druid or other animal lovers, I don't see a reason I'd HAVE to fight a bunch of lions if I'm smart enough to leave them be, no?

[Osvir]

I haven't got to the lions, but I think I can understand the feel, how about adding some smaller scaled lion models... lion cubs? Could add some very interesting C&C even (and maybe even a lion cub pet).

Would make more sense that they are so defensive in that case.

There might be some lore explaining animal ferocity in this world as well, I don't know if there is, but until it isn't found, it might exist.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Osvir

[BrokenMask]

Yeaaah, animals aren't really realistic in the game, then again, animals aren't really realistic in any rpg... The bear example you mentioned is only one I can think of

[Namutree]

Making animals not hostile by default would be a major improvement.

[Bazy]

In BG bears for example only became hostile if you got too close to them, and I really like that. 

I agree. Especially when I'm playing a druid

Edited August 20, 2014 by Bazy

[Osvir]

I feel it depends on the animal, and depending on their own territorial primal instincts.

@Bazy: gives me an idea for Druids, perhaps a passive or active ability that calms enemies. I think I can recall a Priest spell that removes aggro in an area for a brief time~ (lowers encounter rate or something like that), I might've just read a spell wrong too if no bells are ringing. But something like that could be interesting, a sort of "Holy Water" (Final Fantasy equivalent) that pacifies the area.

In the Druids case, specific creatures become less likely to attack.

Gives me a further idea:

Some enemies having racial lore/hunger against certain Classes? Spellcasters can manipulate souls, and thus might have something in their own souls that some creatures might feed on (Wights, spectral undead for instance, Ghouls).

Concept:
Either entering an area or casting a spell where such a creature is, could cause its AI to "hunt" down the spellcaster. If there is no spellcasters, the creature would stay/patrol its spawning area.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Osvir

[Bazy]

I feel it depends on the animal, and depending on their own territorial primal instincts.

 

@Bazy: gives me an idea for Druids, perhaps a passive or active ability that calms enemies. I think I can recall a Priest spell that removes aggro in an area for a brief time~ (lowers encounter rate or something like that), I might've just read a spell wrong too if no bells are ringing.

They have an animal charm spell. But I meant philosophically. I don't want to hurt those poor innocent beetles. 

[Dray Truoc]

This makes a lot of sense.  Creatures are one thing...they might be hostile to intruders, but typically a wild animal will leave you be unless, as someone said, you get too close or threaten it.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Dray Truoc

[Gonshu]

I would even extend that not only to animals but to other type of enemies aswell. I think aggresivity should be adequate to situation.

 

For instance, I don't think a Lion or a Beetle would attack an human unless they feel treated, in the same way, I don't think a spirit would attack an human until it traspass/profane something. A bandit will probably not attack unless you refuse to give them what they want. etc. etc.

 

Then ok, there are some that will attack you at first sight. It might an Orc or some auto agressive creature. But aswell some others depending on your character. For instance, imagine there is some kind of priest order who think Godlike are wicked, then if you have a Godlike in your party, maybe they should attack at sight. The same for nations at war, etc.

 

I would also like some to be friendly (it suffices with geeting you or licking your face, imagine a Lion your druid's face, would be funny or helping you in a fight)

 

I know it is complex, but I would like to have aggro defined for a bunch of parameters, depending on creature and situation and learning who are your friends and your enemies will be an exploration out of itself, and you might use it in your advantadge/disadvantadge.

[Bryy]

Lions don't attack me.

I attack Lions.

 

Making animals not hostile by default would be a major improvement.

This would make me feel a lot better about non-essential combat.

[Silent Winter]

 

In BG bears for example only became hostile if you got too close to them, and I really like that. 

I agree. Especially when I'm playing a druid

 

I recall playing with Faldorn in the party in BG1 - with the BG NPC mod she gets really annoyed with you if you kill those bears

[Starwars]

I also agree with this. Maybe give some of the animals just a smaller aggro range.

 

Another thing I really don't like is when you enter the map with the beetles is that the beetles are *right there* as you enter. It just makes it feel like the world is smaller than it is when you can't walk two steps without running into something hostile. Give us *some* space when we enter a new area.

[sparklecat]

Lions don't attack me.

I attack Lions.

 

Making animals not hostile by default would be a major improvement.

This would make me feel a lot better about non-essential combat.

Aye, I could see this doing a fair bit to ease the concerns of people who are worried about combat being pointless if they're not getting XP for it.  And I'd rather like to have it be less... I'm walking vaguely near these things on the map, therefore I am forced to fight them, and more I want to go where/past those critters are, guess I'd better either prepare for a fight or start sneaking.

[Osvir]

But if  the lions attack you, and after the fight you find some cubs nearby, then it would make some sense if that particular group auto-attacked you? Another group might chill out and walk around a bit, but being too near it could cause a hostile (or shy/curious) response (running away but staying near).

Interesting would be if some predators (such as lions) would see you, and they back of as you approach, but they still stay close. Later in the same area, you might become attacked by the lion in the area, it would simulate these animals hunting you.

Night-time+Wolves = Could make wolf packs circle around the Player, in fog of war, and slowly move closer.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Osvir

[sparklecat]

If I slaughtered a bunch of lions and then found cubs nearby, I would feel like a monster.

[Sensuki]

I posted this in the game difficulty thread:

 

The IE games also had Bears that did not attack the party unless you "pissed it off", PE doesn't have this AI implemented. It would be nice if various animals had the same behaviour, so that those that wanted to kill the Lions / Bears / Wolves etc could do so - like in the IE games and others who don't want to kill the Lions could simply just move on.

 

They should attack where it makes sense, but I think some neutral element to some of the creatures would be a good thing, rather than just have everything hostile.

 

Older games like Dark Sun Shattered Lands handled this pretty well through dialogue with intelligent creatures as well.

[Osvir]

If I slaughtered a bunch of lions and then found cubs nearby, I would feel like a monster.

Yes. But it would explain why the lions were hostile towards you.

 

It is not unusual for game developers to insert "moral" design decisions, or effects, like this. In Spooney Experiments interview with Richard Garriot, he mentioned that the last area of some Ultima game (I think 2nd?) there are a bunch of kid models (that are actually monsters transformed into kids) and it gives the Player some interesting moral choice.

 

If the Lore is recieved well and presented well, the Player would understand that "Oh! These lions are hostile, I must either pacify them or escape (good path) because they have something important they want to protect nearby". It can even help the Player realize (if evil path) "Lions, hah! Crush em all!! Extinction! I will find your offspring and drink their blood!!!!".

Edited August 20, 2014 by Osvir

[Osvir]

I just came to this area with the Lions now. I find it reasonable that they attack (they even stalk you if you try to walk past them). It is a territorial area, and there's even an Elder Lion in there.

[archangel979]

I just came to this area with the Lions now. I find it reasonable that they attack (they even stalk you if you try to walk past them). It is a territorial area, and there's even an Elder Lion in there.

So you are saying they are attacking you to protect their old Lion member?

[Bester]

If we're talking realism, most lions would indeed attack a group of humans out of hunting instincts, but would back off and flee after sustaining serious wounds. They'd never fight till their last hit point, their only incentive to do so would be the cubs, and all lions in the game can't have cubs, come on. Plus I really don't want to kill a lioness with cubs, I'd be damning those cute little kitties to die in their infancy, and I'm not looking to do that in an RPG game.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Bester

[ashtonw]

 

 

Older games like Dark Sun Shattered Lands handled this pretty well through dialogue with intelligent creatures as well.

 

Oh man I've never seen anyone cite Shattered Lands as a good example of anything (it's one of my favorite games).

[ctn2003]

Skyrim Bear's

[BrokenMask]

If we're talking realism, most lions would indeed attack a group of humans out of hunting instincts, but would back off and flee after sustaining serious wounds.

What about three wolfs on the other wilderness map?

[Amentep]

If we're talking realism, most lions would indeed attack a group of humans out of hunting instincts, but would back off and flee after sustaining serious wounds. They'd never fight till their last hit point, their only incentive to do so would be the cubs, and all lions in the game can't have cubs, come on. Plus I really don't want to kill a lioness with cubs, I'd be damning those cute little kitties to die in their infancy, and I'm not looking to do that in an RPG game.

Lions are generally going to attack when they have an advantage; they're not stupid. Most predatory animals are going to attack because something triggers its kill instinct (running, obvious signs of injury that make it look like weak prey) and it'd be more likely to tackle a straggler or a scout than it would 6 people, particularly if the 6 people didn't run as it initially attacked.

 

Obviously a sick or desperate animal is more likely to attack against high odds. A lioness with cubs is more likely to try and draw the attention away from the cubs and escape than it is to just attack - but it would attack if it couldn't draw the threat away but its also unlikely to pursue if it runs the threat off.

 

At least that's what years of PBS nature documentaries have told me.

[GrinningReaper659]

I'm definitely in support of having some animal types not be automatically hostile (as in BG), such as the more intelligent creatures that may see the risk posed by attacking your party, but I would certainly have neutral groups of animals be the exception and not the rule. Also, druids (and potentially rangers as well) having some sort of passive effect on some animals that keeps them from being aggressive toward the party would be a cool mechanic, though there probably isn't time to incorporate something like that.