Tank Aggro Cap

[Solarverse]

10 minutes ago, tidge said:

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.

Well, I gave my reasons for why I felt things would be better over all for everyone and encouragements to top it off. I think I'll leave it at that and let everyone make up their own minds.  🙂

[BlackSpectre]

So... what would be necessary to keep the ability to HOLD aggro at 17 max (or even less) but allow more mobs to notice and attack that player anyway? Holding aggro is control. Aggro is just.. well... aggression.  Aggression is when a mob notices, and then attempts to attack a player's character.

 

If you think about the combat situation in real life, it would be insane to provoke more enemies to attack you at the same time. Doing so reduces your ability to survive. The exception being a trap you could spring on the mob and nuke them all at once, but even then it's riskier to bring so much attention onto yourself. They could have traps or other tactics too that might get in the way of your plan. 

 

So it seems, the fundamental problem the game has been facing is not aggro, but the situation where added aggro presents no additional risk. What can be done about that?

 

The aggro cap is silly. It makes gameplay stilted, gimps a tank's ability to taunt and keep his team safe, limits the amount of risk a player can have, and makes the game less like how the real world works. From what I've read, no one is in disagreement with this. The aggro cap was a compromise implemented in order to address several issues... instead of dealing with the main issue... lack of risk. Alternately, the devs could have taken the nerf bat out and went to town on various powers and power combinations... or buff the heck out of all the mobs in the game. But instead, they elected to put unnatural limits on just how many mobs a character can attack at any given time. Was this an admission of failure on the dev's part? A resignation to the idea that the game can never be balanced sufficiently? An acquiescence that the game is fundamentally broken and unfixable? Or was it merely an expedient and quick attempt to quell some of the issues and be done with it?   

 

So let me be clear... I am asking that for every additional mob aggroed, that it present additional risk. The most obvious way of doing that is by removing the aggro cap... or is it? Will that fix really bring more risk? The answer is yes, but maybe not as much as is needed. If the aggro cap is removed, and I really hope it will be, other changes need to be implemented in order to make sure that additional mobs means additional risk. If this can be done, it will automatically and naturally put limits on how many mobs a character can safely aggro.

 

There are many approaches to address risk in the game. One approach might be to give mobs significant boosts with every additional mob. The idea being, there is strength in numbers. The more mobs there are, the stronger they are.

 

Let me address gameplay or team play for a moment. Many dislike the idea of going back to the herding strategy. They feel it's boring. Yet the way the game is now, I feel is boring. There is no strategy anymore. No aforethought to battle. No sense of teamwork. If you've ever been on a PUG, you know what I mean. Strategy in the game has gone out the window in favor of the Leroy Jenkins strategy for success. Just rush in and do what you do. In fact, the game is so unbalanced right now that many low level characters can just rush into a group and combat them all by themselves. They think they're badasses, and want to show that they are. Ok. Fair enough. But why does it consistently work so well? 

 

Boring. Ok. Time for the team to rush into the room again and defeat everyone in a single group. Now time to do the same thing again for the next group and the next and the next and the next. One boring group at a time. There's no risk. No danger. And no way to mix things up because of the aggro cap. Other than the difficulty settings, there's no other way for players to give themselves more of a challenge than aggroing more mobs... but the aggro cap limits that.

 

So if we do remove the aggro cap, and I think we should, we also will need to rebalance the game so the old problems don't re-emerge.

 

 

 

 

[MTeague]

I can't take seriously any argument about "makes it less like real life" in a game where you have people who are immune to bullets, take battle-axes to the FACE and don't care, summon actual demons to fight for them, heal grievous injuries with a wave of their hand, etc.

 

I look at the aggro cap of 17 as reasonable because really beyond that, the person you're trying to fight is already completely surrounded. You can't get into melee range from eveyrone else who's already stacked around him, you can't get in a clear shot anymore, etc.  There's so many dogpiling on the tank already that I think it's entirely reasonable and proper for extra mobs to start going after squishies.

 

And at that point, people should have to use their own powers to help themselves and the rest of the team out.  Maybe a Kinfender activates Repel and plays goalie, bouncies mobs back to the tank. Or a FF Defender does the same with Force Bolt, etc.  Maybe a Blaster briefly toggles Whirlwind for the same effect.  Maybe a controller throws Hold's and Immob's.  Maybe your scrappers offtank. 

 

I do think things die WAY TOO FAST, but that's a separate criticism from whether or not there should be an aggro cap. 

[SwitchFade]

Removing the aggro cap would not solve any of the issues being discussed. A tank that can afk 17, can afk 200. This was proven on live. The only result of removing the aggro limit would be the return to a tank now being able to control the aggro of everything, thereby eliminating any potential threat to anyone.

 

On live, before the aggro changes, I was able to hold aggro of limitless foes and never be harmed. This made game play for all other players single faceted. My tanks are now actually tougher than live and if they can stand on GM island with 10 GMs pounding away and afk, then there's no number of minions and LTs that could be a threat that the game engine could get within perceptual range.

 

The aggro cap doesn't remove risk, it ADDS risk to all other toons. Anything above 17 will aggro someone ELSE, so every other non-tank type is going to feel the pain. This introduces tactical gameplay. The argument that "we run in, kill one group and move on," is not an issue of aggro, but of spawn design.

 

Let me be clear, spawn size, spawn spacing and spawn density are the issue many mistake for "omg 17 aggro makes game nofunz." Next time you think this is not true, run a map that puts 30 MOBs in close proximity and watch how the tank cannot protect the team. Remove the cap? I can now trivialize all other players.

 

Tanks were the INDIRECT target of an aggro limit. Tanks should NEVER be able to control all the aggro. The target was to balance risk, reward and dynamic gameplay and it did just that. Now, before rushing in everyone needs to be aware of just how many MOBs there are and the very real possibility that a tank can't just be an I win button.

 

This is the same reason controllers had their AoE hold adjusted, a single power or AT could effectively neuter all MOBs.

 

Make no mistake, if you raise or remove the aggro cap all that would result is less risk to everyone, less dynamic gameplay and less for everyone to do. Further, mob spacing, mob size, mob density and more would all have to be adjusted. Even more to the point, any team that didn't have a tank would have a really bad day, as the increased threat that no other AT can handle would instantly dirt nap them.

 

Let's take the "realism" argument and put it in a nice glass case called reality of gameplay: in the real world, that stupid, lumbering unthreatening tank would be ignored as I rapidly Gank support toons. Really, in the real world, defenders and controllers go down first, always.

 

None of this debate should even consider lvl 50 "zerging" gameplay with twinked sets. Load up a lvl 25 team on SOs and it will become very clear that a limit of 17 is very well designed aspect of gameplay, because virtually no AT can even handle 17, let alone 30, 50 or no limit.

 

I'm sorry, but fighting groups of MOBs from factions like council, freaks or even carnies on maps that isolate groups from each other in different rooms and break line of sight is not "solvable" by increasing aggro cap; even if aggro cap were raised, the additional MOBs can't see you.

 

Want proof the aggro cap makes things more dynamic? Go fight banished pantheon at level 50+ where groups of MOBs spawn close to each other and watch how the cap makes everyone a target. Remove that cap? Now, no threat to anyone but the tank. One dimensional gameplay again.

 

No thanks on an aggro cap increase.

[Doomguide2005]

I've never gotten a tank past 30.

 

I see absolutely no convincing reason to increase the aggro cap.  It would not make things more challenging, but likely make them less so.

 

An 8-man team ... 8 × 17 is what?  

 

I'm going out on a limb but guessing 8-man teams commonly aggro more than 17.  Those 'extra' are merely spread out among the non-Tankers and generally everything is dying rapidly

 

If I pull it or aggro stuff I don't expect to be saved though I will appreciate the effort.  That includes my lower level not so incarnated (at all) squishies.  Sort of like knockback, if I do it's mine ... my 'inner scrapper self' squishy has claimed it even if I didn't mean to.  I'm more hoping my oops doesn't get anyone else smacked.

 

If those mobs milling about waiting their turn to get decimated bug you see solution above ... pop purple, orange and red and get busy.

[BlackSpectre]

On 7/13/2020 at 10:29 PM, SwitchFade said:

Removing the aggro cap would not solve any of the issues being discussed. A tank that can afk 17, can afk 200. This was proven on live. The only result of removing the aggro limit would be the return to a tank now being able to control the aggro of everything, thereby eliminating any potential threat to anyone.

 

On live, before the aggro changes, I was able to hold aggro of limitless foes and never be harmed. This made game play for all other players single faceted. My tanks are now actually tougher than live and if they can stand on GM island with 10 GMs pounding away and afk, then there's no number of minions and LTs that could be a threat that the game engine could get within perceptual range.

 

The aggro cap doesn't remove risk, it ADDS risk to all other toons. Anything above 17 will aggro someone ELSE, so every other non-tank type is going to feel the pain. This introduces tactical gameplay. The argument that "we run in, kill one group and move on," is not an issue of aggro, but of spawn design.

 

Let me be clear, spawn size, spawn spacing and spawn density are the issue many mistake for "omg 17 aggro makes game nofunz." Next time you think this is not true, run a map that puts 30 MOBs in close proximity and watch how the tank cannot protect the team. Remove the cap? I can now trivialize all other players.

 

Tanks were the INDIRECT target of an aggro limit. Tanks should NEVER be able to control all the aggro. The target was to balance risk, reward and dynamic gameplay and it did just that. Now, before rushing in everyone needs to be aware of just how many MOBs there are and the very real possibility that a tank can't just be an I win button.

 

This is the same reason controllers had their AoE hold adjusted, a single power or AT could effectively neuter all MOBs.

 

Make no mistake, if you raise or remove the aggro cap all that would result is less risk to everyone, less dynamic gameplay and less for everyone to do. Further, mob spacing, mob size, mob density and more would all have to be adjusted. Even more to the point, any team that didn't have a tank would have a really bad day, as the increased threat that no other AT can handle would instantly dirt nap them.

 

Let's take the "realism" argument and put it in a nice glass case called reality of gameplay: in the real world, that stupid, lumbering unthreatening tank would be ignored as I rapidly Gank support toons. Really, in the real world, defenders and controllers go down first, always.

 

None of this debate should even consider lvl 50 "zerging" gameplay with twinked sets. Load up a lvl 25 team on SOs and it will become very clear that a limit of 17 is very well designed aspect of gameplay, because virtually no AT can even handle 17, let alone 30, 50 or no limit.

 

I'm sorry, but fighting groups of MOBs from factions like council, freaks or even carnies on maps that isolate groups from each other in different rooms and break line of sight is not "solvable" by increasing aggro cap; even if aggro cap were raised, the additional MOBs can't see you.

 

Want proof the aggro cap makes things more dynamic? Go fight banished pantheon at level 50+ where groups of MOBs spawn close to each other and watch how the cap makes everyone a target. Remove that cap? Now, no threat to anyone but the tank. One dimensional gameplay again.

 

No thanks on an aggro cap increase.

You make some really good points about mob placement and density. One of the things my friends and I have always loved are those few missions where unexpected mobs occur. Ambushes, sure, but surprising players with a whole bunch of mobs just when they thought the mission had ended or even in the middle... something to go contrary to expectations. Wandering mobs also helps this a little.

 

I don't know if you've read all my comments in this thread, but part of me thinks maybe you didn't. Which is ok, I guess. I'm not asking for more control. Remove the aggro cap and nerf taunt and taunt auras! Or remove those powers entirely. The game would be in a better situation. What I suggested, however, was to keep the limits on how many mobs a tank can HOLD aggro on, but allow the AI to decide whether or not a mob attacks a player rather than some awkward, counterintuitive, ridiculous limit. 

 

There are 2 issues when talking about the aggro cap... or 2 parts to the aggro cap, however you want to look at it...

 

1) mobs turning their aggression toward players, and

2) players being able to HOLD a mob's aggression on them.

 

What I've been saying is don't put any limits on how many mobs can notice and attack a player, but definitely put limits on how many mobs a player can control or hold.    

 

If a huge amount of mobs aggro on a player, and then the player accidentally or intentionally brings those mobs to the rest of the team, and then the mobs fan out and attack everyone... that's a GOOD thing! That's what I want, and that's what I think could really improve the game... along with some other changes.

 

The fundamental problem I'm addressing is lack of risk. I want more risk, not less. The aggro cap reduces risk, among other things.   

 

But it's not all the aggro cap's fault, as you mention. Mob placement and density is a definite way to add more risk to the game. But in talking about this issue, we've also realized there's a general problem with players being able to build toons who can fight and withstand 100 mobs just as easily as 1. So even if the limits on how many mobs can attack a player were removed, there would be many situations where more mobs doesn't mean more risk or challenge. That's a problem.

 

In the past, devs took out the nerf bat and tried to balance the game. I actually think, overall, they did a darn good job... with a few mistakes here and there. But not even the nerf bat will help this issue. In my opinion, the game needs a new mechanic... one that ensures more mobs means more risk. What I suggested was to implement a design that would boost a mob's offensive and defensive abilities when brought together in close proximity with many other mobs. It can be designed so that when a group of mobs reaches a certain number, their power goes up in steps or a sliding scale. In line with other things in the game... money is really "influence", money for building bases is "prestige," etc.  we could justify this mechanic as "there is strength in numbers."            

 

I am open to alternatives, though. This is only the best suggestion I've seen to address this problem... so far.  

 

I do think taunt auras need to be adjusted if the aggro cap is removed. It's too easy to jump around a huge group of mobs and hit almost all of them with a tick from the aura. Add a huge amount of taunt duration enhancements and other boosts, and we're back to the way things were with a single tank controlling hundreds of mobs. I would suggest either removing the ability to increase the taunt duration in auras, or putting a limit on the taunt duration that would be no longer than the time of each tick of the aura. It's also very possible that removing taunt from auras altogether would be a good way to go. The damage ticks from the aura would definitely turn the mobs' aggression on the player, so that part would still work. One of the main problems today is that tanks still have the ability to control too many mobs. If taunt auras were limited or removed, it might also be necessary to adjust how the power Taunt works, buff it up a bit, in order to balance things out a little. It's hard to say without testing, though. 

 

I do understand that adding a new "there is strength in numbers" mechanic might take more resources and manpower than the Homecoming devs currently have. However, even if all that was done was to remove the limit on how many mobs can turn their aggression toward a player AND remove the ability for players to control too many mobs by adjusting taunt auras... it would still be an improvement and bring more risk to the game. Maybe not enough to solve all of the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction...  

   

 

 

 

[Doomguide2005]

Rereading all the tattoos on poor Mr Ed ... and had a chuckle as a ight bulb clicked on.  Incarnate nuke 40 tgt, aggro cap 17 ... 23 foes nuked for free, sort of (the other 23 are merely waiting for the list to shrink)

[HelenCarnate]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:36 AM, drbuzzard said:

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). 

And all sorts of other game breaking stuff is available as well.  

[Burnt Toast]

56 minutes ago, HelenCarnate said:

And all sorts of other game breaking stuff is available as well.  

QFT! I'm sorry, but what any of the other servers are doing is not relevant to HC. Other servers also do not test changes nearly enough and release "new" content with known bugs/balance issues, but hey... if that is your thing - overpowered, unbalanced, and glitchy powers - knock yourself out on one of the other servers 🙂

[Solarverse]

12 hours ago, Burnt Toast said:

QFT! I'm sorry, but what any of the other servers are doing is not relevant to HC. Other servers also do not test changes nearly enough and release "new" content with known bugs/balance issues, but hey... if that is your thing - overpowered, unbalanced, and glitchy powers - knock yourself out on one of the other servers 🙂

To be fair, increasing the aggro cap to 30 from 17 is a far cry from 16 to 200. The typical aggro cap request is usually around 30 NPCs and the reasons given IMO are pretty solid. It's not asking for a game breaking number like what WeHaveCake has going on. Sadly, like most other requests nobody can ever agree on anything (which is why I seldom post on suggestions anymore) so even the small request of a near double aggro cap is probably going to be very unlikely unless the Devs decide in favor of it.

[drbuzzard]

On 8/1/2020 at 12:02 PM, HelenCarnate said:

And all sorts of other game breaking stuff is available as well.  

 

When you're on a server where AFK farming is possible, it's hard to throw stones about 'game breaking stuff'.

 

There certainly was and is broken stuff on other servers, but that's usually due to broken code and other messy stuff.

[ShardWarrior]

23 minutes ago, drbuzzard said:

When you're on a server where AFK farming is possible, it's hard to throw stones about 'game breaking stuff'.

AFK farming was around since the game launched.  There were several portal maps with Freakshow and Council that were farmed long before AE came into the picture. 

[drbuzzard]

Just now, ShardWarrior said:

AFK farming was around since the game launched.  There were several portal maps with Freakshow and Council that were farmed long before AE came into the picture. 

Umm, no. Farming certainly existed from the start, but you actually had to move around and do something. Nowadays there are AE maps where you get on the map, put burn on auto, and come back in X amount of time when the map has kindly cleared itself by wandering into you. This is basically the same as the free stuff commands on the test server but requiring a bit more setup.

[ShardWarrior]

7 minutes ago, drbuzzard said:

Umm, no. Farming certainly existed from the start, but you actually had to move around and do something. Nowadays there are AE maps where you get on the map, put burn on auto, and come back in X amount of time when the map has kindly cleared itself by wandering into you. This is basically the same as the free stuff commands on the test server but requiring a bit more setup.

I would hardly call jumping around and using taunt a lot of effort.  People would herd and dumpster dive, then go AFK. 

[drbuzzard]

Just now, ShardWarrior said:

I would hardly call jumping around and using taunt a lot of effort.  People would herd and dumpster dive, then go AFK. 

Either you didn't herd those maps, or your memory is faulty. It wasn't that simple. I did herd those maps. I did the dumpster dive. You had to aggro all the groups, keep up line of sight with the regularly to keep them aggroed, and path through all the groups. It was nothing like 'enter map, put burn on auto' and rewards are served up on a silver platter.

 

There's no question farming has always been around. We see the aftermath of it in the timed portal missions which have those timers because of efforts by the devs to kill the most popular farming maps. However, before AE, you couldn't just tune enemies to make the map come to you. It is a completely different ballgame.

 

One thing I see all the time and find to be utterly farcical is the comment 'don't criticize how other people want to play' and this is used to defense AFK farming. OK, I want to play with the auto boosting commands from the test server. Or I want the aggro cap at 200 for my play style. If you think any play style whatsoever is bad for the health of the game, then you have no leg to stand on defending AFK farming.

[ShardWarrior]

My memory is just fine, thanks.  😉

[0th Power]

There was the BP and rikti portal afk farms, but those got fixed fairly quickly 

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, 0th Power said:

There was the BP and rikti portal afk farms, but those got fixed fairly quickly 

Pretty much this. Shard's memory is spot on. AFK farming was a thing looooong before AE came into existence.

[golstat2003]

 

On 8/1/2020 at 5:14 AM, BlackSpectre said:

 

 

I do understand that adding a new "there is strength in numbers" mechanic might take more resources and manpower than the Homecoming devs currently have. However, even if all that was done was to remove the limit on how many mobs can turn their aggression toward a player AND remove the ability for players to control too many mobs by adjusting taunt auras... it would still be an improvement and bring more risk to the game. Maybe not enough to solve all of the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction...  

   

 

 

 

I disagree.  I think the risk/gameplay is fine just the way things are.

[Omega-202]

On 8/3/2020 at 9:50 AM, drbuzzard said:

Either you didn't herd those maps, or your memory is faulty. It wasn't that simple.

I did herd those maps you're talking about, mostly WarWolves in the graveyard and it was barely more complicated than AFK farming.  Just had to hop around, Taunt each group, grab some aggro with Blazing Aura and kite as many as you could back to the entrance for the door sitters to help nuke, if they could.  Once they were herded up, it was literally AFK farming.  I used to do it while watching TV and could PL 3-4 characters (you needed bridges back then, so 7 if you count the bridge mentors) at a time with literally no effort.  

 

And that's not to mention the literal portal AFK farms that absolutely existed.  Your memory seems to be the faulty one.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Omega-202

[drbuzzard]

Somehow people have expanded the definition of 'things come to you' rather expansively.

 

The portal farms (Rikti and Behemoth) were both eliminated fairly quickly when found. Heck,  all the 'sorta, kinda, AFKish' farms people bring up were eliminated with game changes. Do you object to those changes?

 

Though nevermind, I can't even imagine why I'd bother to argue with people who defend AFK farming. Why don't you all just campaign to allow bots?

[sx978465168]

🤥

[JesterNR]

Is it feasible to implement an option for aggro limit similar to +4/x8 so that individual teams can choose, or is it limited to a serverwide setting?  All I've read so far is people saying that they'd like one or the other... while nobody seems to be asking if its possible to have both.  Seems the best option to me... if its possible.

[@Follies]

10 hours ago, JesterNR said:

Is it feasible to implement an option for aggro limit similar to +4/x8 so that individual teams can choose, or is it limited to a serverwide setting?  All I've read so far is people saying that they'd like one or the other... while nobody seems to be asking if its possible to have both.  Seems the best option to me... if its possible.

In my opinion this is a great idea! 😃

 

Just to add a little sauce to increased aggro caps for all ATs.... As it stands now, if a blaster miss fires a shot down range then 17 members of a mob fire back but if the cap was 30 then 30 would fire back, so yes I believe it does increase the danger for team play and all players on the team by increasing the aggro cap. The alpha strikes would be almost twice as strong.  I honestly think this would make the play more challenging. As for those who would say, "Well, lets see you fight Carnies and Malta and the Mobs in DA at max lvl." I say that on a well rounded team with just a couple or more fully tricked out toons, this is easy. Come play with me and my friends some time if you don't think so. I play on Excelsior @Follies =). I could always use new global friends and you would be most welcome to join us.

 

As for not wanting to go back to the days of waiting for the tanker to gather aggro, well I just wouldn't play with a tank that decided that this was the way I needed to play on his team. To this day I see tanks that do that and it makes me laugh =D.

[Doomguide2005]

No, increasing the aggro limit will in general decrease the risk to a team.  Aggro is what happens when your Threat rating vs a foe is greater than everyone else's.  Right now a Tank is designed to generate more Threat than everyone else.  Hence the Tank is most likely to get the attention and attacks of the first 17 foes to notice the team (assuming 'normal' team and tank activity).  Foes beyond those 17 check their Threat values vs the team and will Aggro on the player that tops that list and so on and so on until you get either 17 foes on each team member or no one else is generating Threat to a given foe.

 

All that leads to if the Tank's Aggro limit is increased that Tank will grab the attention/attacks of more of the foes making it increasingly safer or less likely any foes remain to Aggro on any other team member ... who are then free to door sit, use the restroom, or blow to smithereens those aggro'd on the Tank with maybe a wee little chance (i.e. risk) of moving up those foes Threat list enough to turn their attention to their new target of hatred (change who've they've Aggro'd on).

 

Edit:  The above is a fairly simplified explanation.  Threat and Aggro while more exposed now than on Live (since we now can see the code) are still relatively poorly understood when compared to something like the Attack Mechanics.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Doomguide2005