Verdict on Guild Wars 2's innovations

[Kelimbror]

I don't know what you do wrong.

Please tell me what magical abilities forces the mobs to attack you and no one else...ie taunting. Or are you just running and hitting fresh mobs when the first appear to get 'initial aggro' while someone behind you hides? Not really the same situation is it?

[Maarius]

Please tell me what magical abilities forces the mobs to attack you and no one else...ie taunting. Or are you just running and hitting fresh mobs when the first appear to get 'initial aggro' while someone behind you hides? Not really the same situation is it?

Proximity is one of the most important aspects in GW2s aggro-system. When I'm in front of my downed ally, they won't attack him but me instead. Of course I can't take all the hits like a classic tank, but some CC-abilities definitely help (Temporal curtain cripples everyone who's running through it and the second activation pulls enemies back again; Feedback keeps us safe from enemy projectiles; ...) Long enough to revive the downed player. And I don't think that you can get aggro by hitting mobs in GW2. You shouldn't think in terms of WoW aggro here.

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 05:29 PM ----------

think of a meatshield/bait- instead of a classic sponge-tank. You have to position yourself manually between the weak allies and the enemy.

[Meledelion]

aggro does also work off dps mate.

[Maarius]

aggro does also work off dps mate.

At least it's not high on priority, since I find myself in a position where I dps an enemy who keeps charging an allie close to him, even though the allie does no damage at all, quite often.

[Valeron]

seems to be different for different mobs

the champion abomination in the cursed shore will chase my elementalist all over, no matter what.

[rhandric]

Some mobs will focus on the highest threat (ie, highest damage), others on the weakest (which could be either lowest max health or lowest armor/toughness), others on closest...probably more variations too, those are just the most common, in my experience

[Kelimbror]

At least it's not high on priority, since I find myself in a position where I dps an enemy who keeps charging an allie close to him, even though the allie does no damage at all, quite often.

But here you have it, one response later and someone already is showing that aggro works differently for them. Hence it is unreliable and can't be factored into an equation. This isn't TERA, standing in front of an enemy isn't going to guarantee that you will be the only one taking damage. All attacks can go through you and into your team, unless like I said, they are all cowering far away from enemies you just engaged.

I wouldn't be going so hard on this point if you hadn't insinuated I was doing something wrong in a game where there are no designed mechanics for doing anything specifically regarding threat/tanking. It's fine if it works for you, but the fact remains that aggro is more or less unpredictable (by design) and it leads to a very odd chaos that a lot of people don't enjoy.

A perfect non dungeon example for a Ranger is trying to figure out why certain mobs won't get off your face, even when you sent your pet in first. Especially using a shortbow, there's nothing more annoying than having to constantly run in circles wasting your time. It's not anymore challenging than standing there, it just artificially slows you down. Meanwhile some areas/mobs will stick to my pet like glue, no matter how many of them there are.

In group play, it's fine that they don't want there to be roles because that is a design choice. What would be more preferential to the current standard is if player's had an explanation of how to accomplish exactly what you claim is possible. Sure you can 'guess' your way to success, but that's not very rewarding. Much better to know, well this much damage + this much distance equals aggro for at least x number of seconds would let people communicate and switch more effectively, without removing the difficulty level in that chaotic environment.

Having some control via knowledge of the system is more rewarding than just randomly having things happen that we think is attributed to certain actions. The logic we have now is something I would equate to people claiming that Raid ID's and loot generation were tied to specific players, whether you walked into the instance backwards, if you had your eyes closed while singing an Icelandic Hymn, etc.

[Meledelion]

I didn't say differently, I said "ALSO". Meaning that if you put all people on eachother in the exact same outfit while one guy is attacking 100% of the time and the rest only 80% that 1guy will have agro...

[Maarius]

I'd like something to add to the aggro-thingy: I found this thread just now, no idea if it works like he describes, but he seems reliable to me:

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/...-to-be-a-tank/

^ This is written by "ParadiseLight", better known for creating the PvE/WvW build editor. But he's written a couple of other very solid theorycrafting guides/articles

[rhandric]

Except, Kitty, that can be learned. In GW1, aggro worked similarly (if not identically) to GW2 (or, perhaps the more correct way of saying that is that aggro in GW2 works similarly to aggro in GW1); different mobs, usually based on race, had different methods of aggro, and through experimentation the different mechanics for aggro for each mob was determined. Whether or not that has been done, or is being done, for GW2, well, I don't know, but I know it could be done if people wanted to do so.

[Kelimbror]

I'd like something to add to the aggro-thingy: I found this thread just now, no idea if it works like he describes, but he seems reliable to me:

But there's no math to back that up, no proof. Just one person's well typed anecdote. I've heard this toughness myth before, especially regarding rangers and their pet, and it just doesn't pan out in real situations. Even with all his well reasoned explanations he still admits that sometimes it's completely random. I'm not a statistics whiz, but I would think that probability of something being RNG means it could always be RNG. IE...you can't really rely on anything all the time.

Though I guess his point and maybe yours is that you can use these strategies to often successfully accomplish what you are after, but to me it still feels like a weak point in the implementation that would have been solved with defined roles or better encounter design. In the open world, this doesn't really even factor very much to be honest, other than preventing people from fully donning those roles at events.

I guess the more dungeony the game gets, the worse the lack of defined roles will be.

it could be done if people wanted to do so.

I'm sure someone could crack the equations, since it is programming which would boil down to math in the end, but we don't have access to the AI code to see the line that says: ((Toughness + DPS)/Range) x Armor/Weapon Stance [1,2,3,4]^3 = Aggro.

And ultimately that doesn't change the fact that I personally don't like the way it feels, regardless of what math gets us there...but that's not what I'm arguing at the moment.

[Maarius]

*sigh* believe what you want to believe. The random occasions can be found on certain mobs, e.g. bosses like Lupicus, rhandric is right: you can learn the behaviour of the mobs.

[Fencers]

There are more variables in GW2 for determining aggro it seems. Only certain mobs in PVE were smart enough to go after healers first [Dredge in Urgoz] and that pattern could be gamed. It was actually, you just hid the weapon on the healer. Just as example.

GW2 combat is a bit more dynamic and harder to cheese ball [for lack of a better term].

Edit: Also I am sure Anet had a blog article on exactly how aggro works. They broke it down with analogue terms to classical role trinity group dynamics. The process of aggro in the game is not totally "unknown". It more like no one has organized a list of what mob behavior is for every exact occasion.

Likely because there are too many variants in the process. But the game doesn't enforce the HARD necessity of knowing them exactly either. In classic, true MMORPGs it was an absolute must to understand the method in which threat worked as classes in a strict role system depend on these mechanics to even exist. There would be no Monks, Enchanters or Shadow Knights otherwise, ex.

[Kelimbror]

*sigh* believe what you want to believe. The random occasions can be found on certain mobs, e.g. bosses like Lupicus, rhandric is right: you can learn the behaviour of the mobs.

I'm sorry, but after insulting me that I'm doing something wrong, now you're exasperated that I have an opinion and don't like the same thing you do? There's a shocker.

Edit: Also I am sure Anet had a blog article on exactly how aggro work

Yeah Im reading the aggro wiki...it's vaguely how we've discussed it, but I've also seen many different things happen in the game. So IDK. Also, after saying 'these are what is important' it then says..well...some things that happen make monsters very angry. Like, reviving characters. Often they will ignore every other threat mechanic and just go after rezzers.

Not only is this confusing, b/c it's like rules for English grammar (always do this, except for this, this, and this situation...but totally always do this), but I feel like that is where the design is implemented awkwardly. While they clearly didn't do anything 'wrong' by their design, it doesn't feel well for me personally and I don't prefer that particular aspect.

[Meledelion]

I'm sorry, but after insulting me that I'm doing something wrong, now you're exasperated that I have an opinion and don't like the same thing you do? There's a shocker.

Instead of taking it as an insult ponder the situation and ask yourself "Am I (doing it) wrong(ly)?".
You seem to get your panties in a twist rather fast instead of trying to adapt yourself or experiment with the suggestions given.

I'm gonna guess you don't do dungeons with a dedicated group, that'll be the main reason why you are failing aggro management and thus find it so chaotic...

[Maarius]

it was never meant as an insult

[Kelimbror]

it was never meant as an insult

Then my apologies. I misread the initial tone, then let the melodramatics influence my opinion of the initial post too much. Really I'm just discussing it, as we tend to do on the forums and we all have our opinions which can't be 'wrong' much like design can't be either.

It was interesting to read the post you linked and the wiki, though as a Ranger I guess my personal experience has been biased. Maybe I would like the system better if I was playing a guardian and taking the approach that poster wrote about. I just know that going into the game I had no opinion on whether no trinity would be good or bad and I can 100% say I don't like it now. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy this game, but it would have been more enjoyable as a typical class system.

So the overall effect was to comment that I don't like that particular innovation as it stands now. That opinion obviously could change if differently designed encounters are added to the game. I simply think the way we have it now highlights all of the negatives of the system without offering enough positives for me, personally, in my opinion, etc.

[Maarius]

I would probably welcome a mechanic to learn about aggro ingame, like finding different pieces of dredge-stuff in the world (e.g. 5 pieces, rare spawns all over dredge territory in the game) which unlocks an entry in some kind of bestiary:

dredge are very simpleminded creatures who tend to attack weak targets first. It would be wise to tell your cloth-wearing friends.

Fire Legion Charr (Sorrows Furnace) show a hatred against armor-wearing foes, they attack those with high priority and burn them until only iron is left.

this would help building strategies before you enter a dungeon / a very hard fractal instead of having the players to find out about each creatures specific aggro-mechanics.

[Fencers]

Yeah Im reading the aggro wiki...it's vaguely how we've discussed it, but I've also seen many different things happen in the game. So IDK. Also, after saying 'these are what is important' it then says..well...some things that happen make monsters very angry. Like, reviving characters. Often they will ignore every other threat mechanic and just go after rezzers.

Not only is this confusing, b/c it's like rules for English grammar (always do this, except for this, this, and this situation...but totally always do this), but I feel like that is where the design is implemented awkwardly. While they clearly didn't do anything 'wrong' by their design, it doesn't feel well for me personally and I don't prefer that particular aspect.

This is only because the aggro mechanics per mob haven't been cataloged.

It might be [if someone puts effort toward science] that Risen Chickens have the mechanic in that they prefer targets that meet the following rules: if nearest-> low hp->near another player->explode

While a Risen Abomination might prefer: if most dps->lowest vitality->ranged->highest toughness

The aggro system does have rules. They sit on the mobs individually rather than an overarching concept like; 1 damage = 6.3 threat, attack highest threat until table is reset. As in classical games.

Which again, that sort of formula only exists because it enforces a specific role to the exclusion of another. Also very common and inappropriate for game players to term a unit or character able to absorb damage as a "Tank". The term refers to in design to a specific role that is expressly designed to be in concert with other roles. "I took damage! I'm a tank!" is a misunderstanding of the genre and concept fundamentally.

Guild Wars 2 is in many ways, fundamentally designed closer to an ARPG than an MMORPG. The first game(s) were same way too.

[Kelimbror]

I would probably welcome a mechanic to learn about aggro ingame

Actually that's a pretty neat idea....considering the way that the PvP area works and other various places in cities, they could easily put a training room area where you could learn about different mobs that way. Possibly a Brawler's Guild type feature, except using it as an instructional tool and potential challenges.

Slap some rewards and achieves in there and everyone would do it.

Guild Wars 2 is in many ways, fundamentally designed closer to an ARPG than an MMORPG. The first game(s) were same way too.

That description actually resonates with how the game feels...maybe I need to change my perspective a little to that approach.