Tank Aggro Cap

[tidge]

On 6/8/2020 at 10:11 AM, golstat2003 said:

I prefer the aggro cap as is.

[drbuzzard]

On 3/14/2020 at 2:33 AM, BlackSpectre said:

if we can’t increase the aggro cap because of coding complexities, and we can’t eliminate the aggro cap because of game balance, theN how about giving the players who don’t want an aggro cap a way to play without one? How about giving players in AE the ability to customize their play experience by giving them an option to remove the aggro cap from AE missions? 

Not going to get into the debate about increasing the cap, but the number is a general one which can be changed. Over on WeHaveCake they set the aggro and AOE caps to 200 (which is the actual limit due to code). 

[Infinitum]

[Solarverse]

7 hours ago, Infinitum said:

I would rather see a necroed thread than a new thread every other week. Keep the conversation consolidated. Besides, when somebody makes a new post, the first thing that is screamed at them is, "Google is your friend, there are other threads just like this one, there was no need to make a new thread."

So pretty much, they did right by posting this thread rather than start a new one as far as I am concerned.

 

P.S. I do like the meme though!  😄

Edited June 10, 2020 by Solarverse

[Doc_Scorpion]

On 6/8/2020 at 1:44 AM, RocketJefferson said:

My primary issue with aggro cap these days is it was brought in back round The great nerfs of i5/6, when they also limited powers to 16 targets max. So the tanks aggro cap was one more than a blaster could nova for instance. Which kinda makes sense.

 

However now there’s judgement powers that can hit 40 targets, yet a tank can’t even aggro half of that. Which just seems daft to me. 

What's daft is folks that don't realize that you play 50 levels without Incarnate powers - and that Incarnate powers are supposed to be stupidly overpowered.

[RocketJefferson]

4 hours ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

What's daft is folks that don't realize that you play 50 levels without Incarnate powers - and that Incarnate powers are supposed to be stupidly overpowered.

Tanks can play the end game content as well as lvl 1-50 though... And though they can then fire judgement off on 40 targets they can still only aggro 17. Which is precisely what I’m saying doesn’t make sense.

I mean if you want to look at lvls 1-50 A lvl 1 tank doesn’t even want to aggro 5 enemies, let alone 17. A lvl 32 might be happy with the 17. But at 50 there’s no need for such a low cap. 

So If you’re bringing 1-50 in to it then a better solution imo would be a scaling aggro cap as you lvl. Start with a base value of say 5, then get an extra +1 every other level.

lv 1 = 5

lv10 = 10

lv 20 = 15

lv 30 = 20

lv 40 = 25

lv 50 = 30

 

Stops lowbies of all ATs drawing too much heat, but lets 50s hold aggro of a full +4/8 mob spawn without ending up with stragglers running off or attacking teammates/lore pets etc..

if you really wanted to do it properly and specialise the ATs a bit more then Brutes could get +1 every 3rd level(roughly), and everyone else every fourth. Leaving final caps at:

Tank - 30

Brute - 22

Others - 17

 

Again as I said, I know it’s not going to happen. But the aggro cap is still living in i5, and the rest of the game is on i25.

Edited June 10, 2020 by RocketJefferson

[Doc_Scorpion]

5 hours ago, RocketJefferson said:

And though they can then fire judgement off on 40 targets they can still only aggro 17. Which is precisely what I’m saying doesn’t make sense.

Even more daft is doubling down on the daftness by simply repeating what was said previously under the mistaken impression that will makes things look less daft.
 

5 hours ago, RocketJefferson said:

but lets 50s hold aggro of a full +4/8 mob spawn without ending up with stragglers running off or attacking teammates/lore pets etc..

+4/8 is meant to be a significant challenge - if you can't handle that level, then don't play that level.  That is, you're in the same boat as the OP of this thread - you're blaming the game for a circumstance you've brought upon yourself.

[drbuzzard]

Given that aggro is a function of enemy AI, I really don't get why people keep suggesting things which simply are not compatible with that. Sure ask for a higher aggro cap if you like, but asking for level or AT dependent AT is never going to fly.

[SwitchFade]

On 3/16/2020 at 7:52 AM, siolfir said:

I think it's in use.

Poor Mr. Ed 

[Solarverse]

1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:

Poor Mr. Ed 

It works though. Remember when thread after thread was made to nerf stalkers even after the Devs said no, that Stalker's were working as intended? Finally, after about the 30th dead horse being beaten, they finally nerfed the crap out of stalkers. Remember when Jack Emmert said that PvP would not be introduced in to this game? After about the 30th beaten dead horse, they implemented PvP. Remember when the Devs said that it was near impossible to have power color customization and that it would not be happening because the coloring of the powers were hard coded in to the game? 

Point being, people beat dead horses because:

A: They aren't satisfied with the current state of the game and they feel the game has potential to be so much better/funner.

B: It has been proven in the past to work.

Also, leave Mr. Ed out of this!  😄

[RocketJefferson]

3 hours ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Even more daft is doubling down on the daftness by simply repeating what was said previously under the mistaken impression that will makes things look less daft.
 

+4/8 is meant to be a significant challenge - if you can't handle that level, then don't play that level.  That is, you're in the same boat as the OP of this thread - you're blaming the game for a circumstance you've brought upon yourself.

Thank you yet again for the pointless insults. I doubled down on it because you clearly were not, and still are not, getting the point of my previous post. Something which apparently you are incapable of comprehending, so I won’t be bothering again.

 

Secondly, I’ve said at no point that I can’t handle +4/8. Most of my l50 tankers have been  able to quite happily solo the majority of that content bar some of the AVs on their own, and I’ve teamed my way through the majority of the content in the game quite happily and safely, thanks for your concern though.
 

Look. if you are dead set against any changes to aggro cap, then that’s fine by me. I have no issue with that. But please leave the poor attempts at insults at home and only come back to me if you actually want to have a genuine discussion.

[Doc_Scorpion]

5 hours ago, RocketJefferson said:

I doubled down on it because you clearly were not, and still are not, getting the point of my previous post.

So, you're not actually interested in discussion then?  Because discussion is building a case that clarifies and supports your point.  Doubling down is not discussion.

 

If I'm not getting it (something entirely possible!), the responsibility for clarity is yours.

[golstat2003]

5 hours ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

So, you're not actually interested in discussion then?  Because discussion is building a case that clarifies and supports your point.  Doubling down is not discussion.

 

If I'm not getting it (something entirely possible!), the responsibility for clarity is yours.

Quoted for the people in the back. And again I prefer the aggro cap as is.

[Outrider_01]

It doesn't make sense.   

 

If Bob, Burt, Rob, Tom, Dick, Harry, Larry, Jack, Zack, Rick, Chuck, Jerry, George, John, Paul, Mike, and Greg can't take that unstoppable behemoth down, why would the 83 other henchmen want to get their ass kicked?  Of course they are gonna go after the other heroes. 

 

Safety is not always in numbers and quantity, sometimes you got to sacrifice a buddy to fake a fight.  Tanks will just break the spines of villians, they like to walk instead of confinement to a wheel chair.

[Greycat]

On 6/8/2020 at 3:44 AM, RocketJefferson said:

My primary issue with aggro cap these days is it was brought in back round The great nerfs of i5/6, when they also limited powers to 16 targets max. So the tanks aggro cap was one more than a blaster could nova for instance. Which kinda makes sense.

 

However now there’s judgement powers that can hit 40 targets, yet a tank can’t even aggro half of that. Which just seems daft to me.

See, here's the thing.

 

That change was made so, basically, *the rest of the team had something to do.* I remember the whole "sit around, wait for the tank to herd the map back, figure out whose turn it is to nuke, go to the next map." It was *boring.* It was not good for the health of the game, frankly. If that hadn't changed, I don't think I'd have had any reason to stick around for all this time. There'd be no reason for it to be a MMO - your choice would be solo, or sit and be bored if a tank's around.

 

And, honestly, the argument that the tank can't *control* the aggro past 17 is... false. Look, if you're playing +4x8, you're not playing "the normal game." Yes, the setting's in the game, yes, IOs and incarnates can make it trivial to survive that. But as a baseline, if you're dealing with x8, the game's assumption is that... you have 7 people with you. Even if we're not looking at multiple tanks, the rest of the team - unless they're doorsitting in AE - *can* take care of themselves. The stuff you're not controlling? is *being* controlled by the controller - maybe they're confused, maybe they're held, maybe they're flopping around on the ground from an ice slick or earthquake. Or they're getting killed by the blaster, most of whom have multiple AOEs to use. Or they're dealing with MM pets, or fighting the other melee ATs (who also have taunts and gather aggro via their own powersets.) And since you bring up judgement? You aggro a  x8 group. You hit judgement. How many are left? A few LTs and bosses that are well within your aggro cap. Another group goes by? Attack. Taunt. As the group you're fighting dies, other enemies come in.

 

Besides, it sounds like the definition of "control" of aggro here is ... limited. Most tanks have taunt, an aura that taunts, and some other form of AOE, at least. Ice? Icicles grabs their attention, the... cold aura I'm forgetting the name of keeps them from doing much even if you *don't* have their attention, and then you have whatever's in your secondary. And while you're doing that - unless you're PLing some doorsitters - your team's killing things off. Yes, you suggest a gradual increase in the cap as you level - but, to be honest, you're effectively *already* doing that as a tank (or brute) as you get more of your primary and secondary abilities. They let you juggle and control aggro without you having to do much. And yes, shortly after 50, again, you're judgementing and reducing the size of the crowds you're aggroing pretty quickly and effectively even *ignoring* your teammates' contributions anyay.

 

So, in short, even as someone who plays tanks, has played tanks, and will play tanks... I'm just not sold on the need for an increase in the aggro cap, and my experience with it pre-reduction doesn't really incline me favorably towards it either.

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

So, in short, even as someone who plays tanks, has played tanks, and will play tanks... I'm just not sold on the need for an increase in the aggro cap, and my experience with it pre-reduction doesn't really incline me favorably towards it either.

I played a beloved tanker from Day 1 of Live, and I also agree that the aggro cap does not need to be increased. There are only two things I 'miss' about the ability of Tanks to 'aggro everything':

1. On maps with teams who are overwhelmed (or careless) with huge numbers of enemy mobs
2. Peregrine Island antics (bringing many dozens of Rikti Monkeys to the main island)

(1) This rarely happens any more due to ease of superior builds... and just about any well-built AT can hold off a room allowing a team to recover.

 

(2) That day has passed. This was as close as a regular player could get to 'spawning a zone event', and I do miss it. This (player) behavior was not appreciated by the devs of the era, and more than one lvl 41 player was non-plussed to come across lvl 50 mobs were they were unexpected.

 

My opinion is that worrying about going back to days where teams would be 'asked' to wait for a Tank to gather up a map (for AoE spams or multiple Judgements) is not something anyone should worry about no matter the aggro cap. Recharge times are fast enough and base Defenses are high enough that few players would tolerate 'waiting' for such thing to happen.

[SwitchFade]

Aggro cap change: hard no vote.

 

No need to regurgitate the reasons why, for the eleventy-fourth time, as the sound logic has been posted on this thread by myself and others, as well as in other threads.

[Solarverse]

Here is the problem with the *No* vote arguments that I am seeing. The standard arguments are;

 

1.  Tanks aggroed entire maps and killed everything in seconds.
2.  People don't want to go back to "wait here" times.

 

First, to cover argument number one; Nobody has asked for the old school 200 NPC limitation to be re-implemented. People have however asked for the limit to be increased to 30 NPCs.

 

Second, to cover argument number two; increasing the aggro cap will not bring back the "wait here" days. Increasing the aggro cap to 30 is not enough to warrant this type of game play.

 

To further cover a few points, 30 NPC aggro limitations should be implemented. As it stands now, the game plays like some very cheap B-Rate movie, where NPCs take turns to get their butts kicked, rather than working together to bring down their foes. You get 17 max fighting their hearts out, while the others just stand around with their fingers up their noses, waiting their turn. It's extremely strange and extremely unrealistic, even for a video game based on unrealistic worlds. It's like watching an old Karate movie from the 70's.

People were told to "wait here" by a very minority of Tank players. The only Tanks that would say "wait here" were herding Tanks who were designed to do one thing...withstand Smashing/Lethal damage. They were herding Tanks and outside of power leveling through herding Smashing/Lethal damage type NPC's, they were utterly useless. Fire Tanks (who were the primary instigators of this) were extremely squishy outside of Smashing/Lethal damage. I remember people not really wanting Fire Tanks for a Synapse run, because they had zero Psi resist and went down like a sack of potatoes. There were many Tanks in those days, only one of them were really built for herding. I was on many teams in those days that did not herd maps. That was far and few in between. Teams that I was on had no issues kicking Tanks that wanted to herd maps.

 

That being said, 30 NPCs is not worth herding. It would be a waste of time just as it is a waste of time now. It will however make things feel a bit more realistic.

Want to know what is the big problem now that has happened instead? Instead of Tanks herding maps, now we have players skipping everything and running straight to the end. This did not happen in the old days because the XP was actually worth it before the aggro cap was decrease. So now, since you can only aggro 17 max, players are just skipping all the mobs and making a straight B-Line to the end of the map to kill the boss and move on. So lowering the aggro cap fixed nothing, it simply gave way to new problems.

Also, now Tanks and Brutes have AE to herd all they want to, so there is no need to do this on a team anymore, AE did not exist before. Times have changed, play styles have changed, and the reasons and fears people are expressing for their reasons not to raise the aggro cap to 30 are completely unfounded and simply would not happen in today's mechanics and settings. Raising the aggro cap to 30 simply will not result in the fears that are expressed.

The aggro cap IMVSO does indeed need to be raised. Going from 200 to 17 was extreme as hell. It was more of a punishment than it was a justified action. 30 is a perfect number to prevent mobs from just standing around doing nothing while you are whooping up on their buddies. Game play will not change, especially if you as a player do not permit it. I for one, if a Tank started herding on my team, I would remove said Tank from the team. No big deal. This game has every reason to raise the aggro cap IMO.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Solarverse
Corrected spelling error

[marcussmythe]

It is amusing in retrospect.

 

Devs:  "Aggro caps are needed, people are doing things too quickly!"

 

Devs:  "Put timers on missions, people are farming that specific bad guy too quickly!"

 

Devs:  "Remove XPs from portaled mobs, people are farming those, too!"

 

Devs:  "OMG some baddies are less tough than other baddies, nerf their XP handout!"

 

~Some time later~

Devs:  "Let there be AE"

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Solarverse said:

Here is the problem with the *No* vote arguments that I am seeing. The standard arguments are;

 

I'll point out that in my case, that was a response to "why it was changed" in the first place, for the most part. With current teams, even at lower level, the cap tends to be... continually refilled with new mobs, given how quickly stuff is killed. Most noted at upper levels. (Which, in the "ramp up with level range" argument, is where the 30 would be hit.)

 

1 hour ago, Solarverse said:

Want to know what is the big problem now that has happened instead? Instead of Tanks herding maps, now we have players skipping everything and running straight to the end. This did not happen in the old days because the XP was actually worth it before the aggro cap was decrease. So now, since you can only aggro 17 max, players are just skipping all the mobs and making a straight B-Line to the end of the map to kill the boss and move on. So lowering the aggro cap fixed nothing, it simply gave way to new problems.

Also, now Tanks and Brutes have AE to herd all they want to, so there is no need to do this on a team anymore, AE did not exist before. Times have changed, play styles have changed, and the reasons and fears people are expressing for their reasons not to raise the aggro cap to 30 are completely unfounded and simply would not happen in today's mechanics and settings. Raising the aggro cap to 30 simply will not result in the fears that are expressed.

I'd say the first paragraph here is an overly simplified view of things. It's not that the XP "isn't worth it," it's that we have merit rewards (and WSTs that double them) that are worth it even more, on top of people having the same content for years now. Heck, even I'm guilty of this - why do I run the first SSA solo once a week instead of getting a team together? Because I can knock it out for 20 merits in 10 minutes or less, even on a just-at-level, lower damage character. Merits-for-time (or shards/threads) are *more* valuable. Especially at 50. Yes, people want to "feel super." Very few are up to a multi-hour TF if they can shorten it by stealthing and the like. This can be "fixed" by spreading objective NPCs through the map - but do you *really* like "rescue the hostage" and "find the bosses" missions? (How often do you hear "ok, find the chiefs/guards/whatever" versus "we'll fight our way through and find them on the way?)

 

The second paragraph is... eh. I'm not going to call it a strawman. It's partially true - but at the same time, as much proof against the need as for. No, I don't mean "we don't need to make farming easier," I don't mind farming (even if I find it boring. I saw and ran the "low cost fire farmer" build and... yep, still not my thing.) I mean it already shows tanks controlling (and defeating, meaning that "cap" is continually getting refilled) mob sizes over 17 NPCs. Couple that with current player survivability and damage and... well, there's not really a reason to do it. Yes, I know the argument is "But my team, I need to do this to keep aggro on me and protect them," but ... the team isn't made of cardboard and is perfectly capable of protecting themselves - or they're in a situation (say, an ambush coming from behind) where the tank's aggro cap is simply irrelevant because they'll hit the team before they even see the tank. The *rest* of the team's survivability has gone up as well, after all.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Greycat

[Solarverse]

32 minutes ago, Greycat said:

 

 Yes, I know the argument is "But my team, I need to do this to keep aggro on me and protect them," but ... the team isn't made of cardboard and is perfectly capable of protecting themselves - or they're in a situation (say, an ambush coming from behind) where the tank's aggro cap is simply irrelevant because they'll hit the team before they even see the tank. The *rest* of the team's survivability has gone up as well, after all.

I would say that the argument "I need to protect my team and I can't do that if the team pulls more than my aggro limitations" would apply more to the leveling up experience more than it would end game. As you have pointed out, the end game isn't really players made of cardboard anymore. So in that I concede, however, I do think it would apply and make a much more riskier and funner experience while leveling up to 50. After 50, it probably wouldn't matter one way o the other anymore.

[Solarverse]

@Greycat

 

You do bring up a point that I think needs to be discussed. You said something along the lines of, "people race to the end and kill Boss X in order to hurry the process of getting the merit rewards at the end."

This brings my thoughts to the realm of, perhaps we should give mobs a percentage of a chance to drop a merit. That would then make fighting mobs on the way to bosses worth the effort rather than skipping them. Couple this with increasing the aggro limit to 30 and I think we have a win/win here.

[tidge]

18 hours ago, Solarverse said:

You do bring up a point that I think needs to be discussed. You said something along the lines of, "people race to the end and kill Boss X in order to hurry the process of getting the merit rewards at the end."

This brings my thoughts to the realm of, perhaps we should give mobs a percentage of a chance to drop a merit. That would then make fighting mobs on the way to bosses worth the effort rather than skipping them. Couple this with increasing the aggro limit to 30 and I think we have a win/win here.

The suggestion for a %chance for mobs to drop merits really has nothing to do with the aggro cap (or stealthing a mission to the end). I followed the thread to see how we got here, but aside from the free-form brainstorming there is no reason to link these thoughts.

 

Right now, mobs have a chance to drop Very Rare recipes... but (especially) for teams, the guaranteed reward of end-of-arc merits is simply a better use of time. The aggro cap is de-linked from rewards, both directly and indirectly... because just having aggro doesn't offer rewards.

[Solarverse]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

The suggestion for a %chance for mobs to drop merits really has nothing to do with the aggro cap (or stealthing a mission to the end). I followed the thread to see how we got here, but aside from the free-form brainstorming there is no reason to link these thoughts.

The idea is to link a percentage of a chance (a higher one than the chance for a very rare drop, since the chance as it currently stands isn't enough for players to justify killing mobs) with raising the aggro cap for a hopefully more productive game play. The issue is that there is no incentive for level 50 players to kill mobs. I mean there is incentive, but clearly it is not enough of an incentive. The idea is to give incentive to A: Raise aggro cap so that more players than just the players who are fine with the aggro cap as is, can once again have fun killing mobs. And B: Make killing mobs worth people's time instead of them skipping them, by both raising the aggro cap AND adding a decent percentage of a chance for a merit to drop.

So in this logic, I think it very well does have something to do with the aggro cap.

Quote

 

Right now, mobs have a chance to drop Very Rare recipes... but (especially) for teams, the guaranteed reward of end-of-arc merits is simply a better use of time. The aggro cap is de-linked from rewards, both directly and indirectly... because just having aggro doesn't offer rewards.

Which kind of was my point. The chance for very rare drops is not high enough for players to justify killing mobs. So we put a worm on the end of the hook by having a higher chance for a merit to drop...a chance high enough that players feel killing mobs is worth it. Clearly right now, players just feel it isn't worth their time. I would like to see that changed at some point in the future. Having aggro would offer rewards if there were rewards to be had.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Solarverse
spelling error

[tidge]

3 hours ago, Solarverse said:

Which kind of was my point. The chance for very rare drops is not high enough for players to justify killing mobs. So we put a worm on the end of the hook by having a higher chance for a merit to drop...a chance high enough that players feel killing mobs is worth it. Clearly right now, players just feel it isn't worth their time. I would like to see that changed at some point in the future. Having aggro would offer rewards if there were rewards to be had.

Why ask for an across-the-board increase to reward drop rates (except for being selfish, I suppose, asks the kettle) as part of an ask for a change of the aggro cap?

 

This is a completely different ask. I'm certain that most players would be perfectly happy with even easier rewards independent of any increase to the aggro cap... because improved rewards are not going to have any effect on players that don't team or don't turn up the number of mobs.

 

Players already get more experience from larger spawns (assuming they KO) , and they get an XP boost from teams. All of this is independent of the aggro cap.