Goblin Squad Member
|
So the question came up in the post concerning Solo players and the game aspects that would be open to them (as an advantage).
I thought of how a solo character would have a smaller signature radius, and thus attract less aggression from random encounters.
This would open advantages for scouting or exploration for a solo player because they could pass through an area without being noticed as easily.
This signature radius could then me modified by a variety of factors:
* Group Size
* Equipment being carried
* Combat Formation being used (ie Skirmish lines)
* Stealth Skills
* Racial skills
No matter what combination or lack of effort is being made, there should never be a 100% or 0% chance of attracting aggression - short of using cloak of invisibility and silent movement.. but then, they might still smell or sense your presence.
I'm guessing that PFO will have some kind of a scale used to adjust the range of attracting aggro. I'm just not aware of what will factor into that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there are very good reasons to make a lone character have a smaller aggro radius than when there are two or more characters in proximity.
In the real world, predators use a variety of cues to identify their prey: sight, sound, vibrations, smell, etc. Having two characters in proximity means the ground is shaking more, there's more sound, stronger smells, more motion to see.
I think that a character's aggro radius should increase relative to the number of other characters (regardless of whether they're grouped) in proximity.
* Feel free to substitute "detect radius" for "aggro radius".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A party of elven rangers should, as an example, not have a much larger aggro range than a single human ranger. As Bluddwolf mentioned, certain characteristics should determine the scale. Another point to this, just curious if there would be a mechanic to decide if whatever has detected a group will attack. A small band of goblins would very likely swarm over a single explorer, but a well armed party that is easily detected may not be the prey they are searching for. Just a thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say, leave this "aggro signature radius" stuff in WoW. This is Pathfinder. Pathfinder is all about the Perception checks.
An individual perception check would be rolled against each member of a group. So the more people in a group the higher chance of detection and the more likely they'll be detected from further away.
Your detectability will be determined by your abilities, load carried, skills, and actions. As well as whether you are being stealthy.
This will also let more stealthy characters like rogues remain concealed and maneuver while the less stealthy characters distract the enemy and meet them head-on. Stealthy characters will generally want to scout ahead though so that they can take advantage of the "surprise round" (how those will be implemented, I have no idea).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A party of elven rangers should, as an example, not have a much larger aggro range than a single human ranger. As Bluddwolf mentioned, certain characteristics should determine the scale. Another point to this, just curious if there would be a mechanic to decide if whatever has detected a group will attack. A small band of goblins would very likely swarm over a single explorer, but a well armed party that is easily detected may not be the prey they are searching for. Just a thought.
What you are talking about there is "what aura does the party or individual give off?"
Pathfinder has an "Intimidation Skill", this may also be used to modify aggro, not detection. The mob would still see you, but based on your aura, decide not to attack.
A tiger is discouraged from attacking when a man wears a set of false eyes on the back of his head. Even though the tiger could easily kill the man if it knew better.
Perhaps players could have two signatures: One to prevent detection and one to prevent aggression.
I might be the loudest buffoon in plate male armor, but I'm 6'10 310 lbs of steel corded muscle, with an ax that could cleave an elephant in two and I look pissed off to boot. Maybe half a dozen orcs would think twice?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say, leave this "aggro signature radius" stuff in WoW. This is Pathfinder. Pathfinder is all about the Perception checks.
An individual perception check would be rolled against each member of a group. So the more people in a group the higher chance of detection and the more likely they'll be detected from further away.
Your detectability will be determined by your abilities, load carried, skills, and actions. As well as whether you are being stealthy.This will also let more stealthy characters like rogues remain concealed and maneuver while the less stealthy characters distract the enemy and meet them head-on. Stealthy characters will generally want to scout ahead though so that they can take advantage of the "surprise round" (how those will be implemented, I have no idea).
You're right, and I need to get my head back into D20 versus MMOs as I know them.
I like the idea of contested rolls(Spot vs Stealth). @ Bluddwolf, I believe there should be two checks. Just because they know you're there doesn't necessarily mean they want to attack you. They may want to avoid detection themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An individual perception check would be rolled against each member of a group.
So read this request as "Please, make sure that having other characters nearby gives appropriate bonuses to Perception checks made against you."
"Aggro radius" is quite compatible with "Perception checks". There's no reason to assume one rules out the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An individual perception check would be rolled against each member of a group.So read this request as "Please, make sure that having other characters nearby gives appropriate bonuses to Perception checks made against you."
That's not what I meant at all, please don't try to put words in my mouth (or fingers as the case may be). The ability to see an ally has no affect on the ability to see you, except that they might start rolling active perception checks instead of passive ones.
"Aggro radius" is quite compatible with "Perception checks". There's no reason to assume one rules out the other.
It's possible they're compatible, but it seems at least like two different mindsets to me. Furthermore, limiting detection to a fixed radius is just unrealistic. If they can see you then they can see you. Period. After that the AI should determine whether to attack at range, pursue you, lie in wait, run away, call allies, set traps, prepare an ambush, or just plain ignore you.
Just switching on an attack mode whenever an invisible circle passes over you is boring and predictable. If you want a WoW clone then go play one of the other MMOs from the past decade. I want something new. I want Pathfinder.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... please don't try to put words in my mouth...Sorry if it sounded that way, but I didn't try to put words in your mouth. I was simply trying to rephrase what I was requesting.
Okay, you meant you were requesting that thing you said. I misunderstood and thought you meant you were "translating" the quote you put from me right above that.
If you want a WoW clone then go play one of the other MMOs from the past decade.*sigh*
I understand your reaction but *sigh* is also how I feel when I see terms like "aggro radius". I'm not hating on WoW here, I've played it plenty in my time. Enough that terms like that literally cause flashbacks. However, I'm just plain tired of WoW, and I'm especially tired of all the disappointing WoW clones that keep coming out year after year...I just want something good and new...
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Please, don't turn this into just another discussion of terms.
The name in an MMO for the distance you have to be from an aggressive creature before it attacks you is 'aggro radius'. That doesn't mean it's the same distance in all cases, and things which modify that distance remain possible, including things which modify it by a random variable amount.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it was just a misunderstanding in trying to tie-in the mechanics of D20 to the known mechanics of current MMOs. We need not get bogged down in semantics when we are discussing things, but sometimes you fall back on familiar vocabulary when looking for the term you want to use versus what you are actually trying to say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus, If you don't want to discuss terms then why did you spend a paragraph defining a term? :P
To me it's not just a matter of mechanics, it's a matter of mind set. Instead of thinking "What MMO mechanics can we bring to Pathfinder Online?" I think we should be thinking "What Pathfinder mechanics can we bring to this new MMO, Pathfinder Online?"
In table top RPGs like Pathfinder, typically, when you're out in the wilderness, encounters come to you, you don't go to them. That's one of the common differences between a dungeon crawl and being out wandering the great outdoors.
Creatures can track you with Survival and Scent and follow you for miles. They can hang back and wait for the right moment to strike. They can use spells to send messages to allies ahead. They can use detection magic to even see you through walls.
What I'm saying is that detection should be handled individual to individual, on a case by case basis. Reaction to detection should also be handled by individual AI on a case by case basis. I want AI and encounters to be so intricate and advanced that terms like aggro signature radius can simply no longer apply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also think it depends on AI, I'd like to see a larger aggro range for forward facing, and a much smaller one for sides and back, someone might hear you coming up behind them, but they're much less likely to be ready for you than if they actually see you coming.
Ambient noise/environment might be useful too if it could be factored in too: darkness, a noisy waterfall, an echoey cave increasing alertness but not giving you an accurate indication of where they are, different alertness trigger AI for different creatures, blind cave creatures relying on sound and vibration more than sight for example.
I know none of that is directly related to solo aggro, but it could work in with the "more people are noisier, smellier and more disturbing"
Could even have ones attracted to magic etc.
One thing I loved about Darkfall was that heavy armor was noisier, shinier and those things mattered, it would reflect light and make you more noticeable. Mining made noise and could draw the attention of monsters, taking cover meant things would not notice you, so as a solo player, relying on these things for stealth and surprise were exciting and useful.
I hate watching monsters just stand their whole you pull the guy he's talking to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I want to acknowledge that "aggro range" is really only relevant for PvE content, so it may not be a very high priority.
That said, I would like to see scout-y types have a variety of skills that add up to reduce their aggro range, rather than having a single binary "stealth" skill. It seems to me that a Ranger - even when he's not trying to be particularly stealthy - will cause much less of a disturbance in a forest than would a Paladin in full plate mail clanging into the odd branch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow, I rather like that part about armor's shininess. It'd be neat if they could incorporate it.
I also hate where monsters not only fail to notice your actions in plain site, but they also fail to notice their friend's actions as well. Detection should extend beyond your mere relative position in world space.
@Nihimon, Terminology aside, I definitely agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I've seen posters reminded not to past threads, yet also reprimanded for starting new threads when a past thread covered the same ground...so I hope this thread came close enough to the mark for what I wanted to post.
In the discussion of aggro radius or aggro triggering, the thing that nags me in other MMOs is how a PC's level affects the mob's degree of reaction, especially when the mobs are not intelligent. My character does not have a level number floating over his head to warn angry mobs that I'll beat them into a pulp if they start a fight. True, intelligent mobs might "notice" my fancier armor, my nastier seeming weapons, etc., and choose not to pile on like they might if I were a poorly equipped level 1 toon, but how should any of this affect animals and other low intelligence or mindless creatures? The ticked off grisly bear is angry with you, regardless of your trappings. But in most MMOs, if you're significantly higher level than Mr. Bear, you can waltz on by with no reaction from him at all. This seems even sillier when something like undead, which should likely attack anything with a pulse, likewise ignore your higher leveled presence.
Unless you're holding something rather unsettling to the mob (e.g a flaming sword, a potent holy symbol as you walk by those weak undead, etc.), easily angered, territorial, or just plain hungry creatures should see the same sized, two-legged meal, regardless of your level.
Now, what I think would be nifty to see implemented is a reaction from the attacking mobs based on how quickly/easily you injure/kill members of their pack/group/horde/etc. For example, if that pack of six wolves attacks you, then three of them are killed in a matter of seconds, there should be a higher chance for the remaining wolves to flee. With something like a single creature, such as Mr. Bear, if your first hit knocks off 3/4 of his hit points, he might have a higher chance of turning and running. So rather than invisible numbers (skill levels or traditional levels) somehow controlling a mob's reaction, the evidence of how tough you are would elicit a more realistic reaction from the attacking mobs.
For instance...a dozen goblins attack a beginning wizard, he fires off one magic missile, kills one goblin...the remaining eleven eat him for breakfast. Another dozen, being equally unpleasant and hungry, charge another wizard, get hit by a whopping fireball, half the group dies...the remaining smoking goblins run shrieking back into the woods. In both cases, they still were aggroed, because it's their nature and neither target seemed any more difficult than the other at first glance, but the reaction of the target made all the difference.
I guess tossed into my comment is the dislike that mobs always fight to the death, when most creatures, especially when sufficiently injured, would break off their attack and surrender (more sentient beings) or flee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Definitely, NPCs and mobs will behave differently from player characters (people have different motives versus the programmed NPCs and mobs). But, I think it would be an interesting decision to apply the same skill sets to the NPCs and mobs that players will have to attempt to simulate how both would react in similar situations.
Intelligent beings (humanoids, sentients) will make an intelligent evaluation of the risk/reward system and make a decision. Non-intelligent creatures (insects, golems, most undead, etc) will react either instinctively or by whatever instructions were provided to them upon creation or summoning. In both cases there should be some skills in the PFO skills system that could be applied to them so their actions/reactions make sense when comparing their skills to the skills of the "target".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not knowing the PF tabletop rules well, how does "intimadate" work? Does it affect only intelligent mobs or anything?
You have to communicate with the NPC for Intimidate to work - so yes, has to be intelligent. It can force the NPC to become friendly for a period of time or force then to become demoralised. In our campaign, we've allowed PCs to use the demoralise part of the skill against NPCs that cannot understand you (a language barrier for example) at -4.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I've seen posters reminded not to past threads, yet also reprimanded for starting new threads when a past thread covered the same ground...
For the record, I don't have any objection to posters starting new threads for things that have already been discussed, or for necroing old threads - although in the latter case, I think it would be helpful to point it out to help other posters realize some of the comments may be quite old.
Reading through the rest of your post now, I see Kakafika made this point, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just spent the weekend watching dogs and cats interact with each other and this topic strikes a chord with what I observed. Creatures, including people, have different reaction radii:
Perception (I see you)
- Perception options
- Line of Sight/Sound
- Highly aggressive creatures might attack anything that moves
Reception (Oh, hai there)
- Fight or Flight for Hostile creatures
Interaction (That's close enough)
- Intimidation / Diplomacy options
- Fight or Flight for Unfriendly creatures
Aggression (Back off before I bite your ankles)
- Fight or Flight for Friendly creatures
Think of these a concentric rings around a creature or group of creatures.
Creatures also have a presence radius, or aura, that can be modified by various skills, equipment, or effects (racial bonus, stealth, gear, formations, spells). If the presence of two creatures intersect their individual radius increases by a specific amount (by 25% for example).
Interaction happens when a creature's presence intersects another creature's reaction, the appropriate events and options can be triggered. That most games consider the 'aggro radius' is the reception range. Up until then they may see you, but they just don't care enough to act on your presence. In the case of stealthy creatures, they may pass through the rings without triggering an event until they are detected, so a skilled ranger could get much closer to to mobs than a plate-wearing dwarven steamroller, as long as the ranger stays far enough ahead of the dwarf to keep the dwarf from drawing attention to him.