If you have 30 mobs stood in your fiery aura, they should definitely all be able to attack you.
They should all also have the ability to realise they are on fire and move back a bit.
And really, what modern underground secret cave/lair nowadays doesn't come with a sprinkler system? It's like nobody ever thought "hey, what if a fiery superbeing broke in and set fire to all my melee based minions?"

"some sort of attack boost" - let them eat random insps with team benefits.

I really like Deathsheep's idea of implementing "caps" via the actual mechanics of how the powers work, rather than imposing some artificial limit that says "This much and no more.". Regardless of whether those limits have a "hard" or "soft" slope (I.E. You can aggro 16 foes, period. Or, you can aggro 10 or 5 LTs or 3 bosses or..."), implementing a "cap" seems like it should be a last-ditch failsafe rather than the primary mechanic of the power.

If the powers are crafted correctly, you would still have the same effect of a "cap", without arbitrary limits. An Aggro mechanic could have a variety of factors involved. For example: decay over time. Distance pulled from origin Diminishing Returns. Taunter's visibility. Taunter's range. Taunter's Rep/Faction status/"social" standing. Damage received from taunter/target. Level difference factors. Incorporating some combination of a few or all of these could effectively mitigate the chief concerns that the "aggro cap" limit is designed to address.

Have a problem with a tank herding the entire zone to a single location? The Distance Pulled, Decay Rate, and Range to Taunter (even Taunter Visibility) could effectively eliminate that. Pull a target far enough from their origin, and the want to 'snap back' more and more, like a rubber band. To counter, you need to taunt them again and again, but at some point, the "rubber band effect" is too much and you can't stay ahead of the decay rate, and they go back to their beer.

Got a mobs of 50 or 60 close enough to offset the "pull distance" factor? Then the Range to Taunter, diminishing returns, and perhaps "visibility" start playing. The foes at the perimeter who aren't able to get into play, get "bored" and wander off, or find other targets they can close with.

I particularly like the idea of incorporating hero/villain "Social Status" factors into the "Aggro Equations" (If such faction or other status's are available in game) Have you made it your personal hobby to be a PITA to a specific group? Perhaps they'll be more interested in returning the favor when you encounter them, than ganging up on a complete unknown - all other factors being equal! Have you done them a few favors? Maybe they'll throw that brick at your buddy who just took down their warehouse, instead of you. Of course, if you start setting their shorts on fire, calling their mom names, and insulting their pet lizard, you'll pull their attention off your friend no matter what you might have done earlier. And if you did it to the LT, he'll probably tell the minions around him to "Get that schmuck!" and they'll all pile on.

But the point is, you can make the Aggro work (or appear to work) those ways without dropping in a simplistic "cap" factor. Perhaps one might still be needed as the "fail safe" if the players find ways to subvert the other functional factors. But I'd think using those alternatives would result in more realistic, consistent responses that the players could not only learn and plan tactics around, but which looked like "intelligence" on the part of the NPC actions. Rather than "10 hoods beating on him is enough, let's stand around and watch" level-cap reactions.

I've not read every post, sorry.. but.. it DOES make sense that an AoE might not hit every single mob in a group...

Some mobs might actually shield their mates from the brunt of the blast.. Two or three get hit, but the two behind them were shielded by their.. meatshields ~.^

GH wrote:

If you have 30 mobs stood in your fiery aura, they should definitely all be able to attack you.
They should all also have the ability to realise they are on fire and move back a bit.
And really, what modern underground secret cave/lair nowadays doesn't come with a sprinkler system? It's like nobody ever thought "hey, what if a fiery superbeing broke in and set fire to all my melee based minions?"

If you're going to have the bosses in charge of various facilities read the Evil Overlord List, it's going to bump up the difficulty for [i]everyone[/i]... ;9

It kinda depends on how Threat gets "communicated" among NPCs. What I mean by that is that a lot of games are guilty of the "instant and perfect" intelligence sharing among Foe NPCs such that they are all telepathically linked together as a giant hive mind (behaviorally speaking). Tag one member of a group, and suddenly they ALL know not only WHO shot at them but where the shot CAME FROM and the precise "Bum Rush" path they have to take to go from where they are to where you are ... even if you break Line of Sight and try to go hide somewhere. That's because the game allows the Foe NPCs to know [b]exactly where you are[/b] at all times, and doesn't bother with any kind of modelling for what individual NPCs "ought to know" ... meaning that there's never any kind of Fog Of War going on for the NPCs. In short, the NPCs basically "cheat" as a way to avoid needing to model all of that coordination and complexity.

The situation changes if NPCs *do not* have instant and perfect telepathic communication between themselves, such that the Threat table of one is communicated to all as a "free" action that happens in zero time. Far more interesting, from my point of view, if the NPCs [b]have to[/b] communicate among themselves so as to share information like Threat tables, and to have such information sharing [b]take time[/b] and be animated(!) so that you can actually SEE the communication happening. It's fine for something that fills the functional role of "share your Threat table" to be defined as a PBAoE "shout" kind of thing because it turns that kind of activity into a behavior that can be SEEN (and appreciated) by the Players.

If you set up NPCs to be able to "shout" their Threat table to other NPCs like that, aggro caps start becoming increasingly iffy of a proposition, and you also make Runners something of a concern, since individuals from Spawn Group A would be able to "communicate" their Threat to Spawn Group B, thereby bringing reinforcements into the fray! Combine with "Murlock" level cowardice (ie. RUN AWAY! when reduced to 40% HP) and you can start getting into some pretty hairy situations where being unable to control the Runners leads to chain pulling and extended combat!

/em [url=http://107ist.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Daniel__s_Facepalm_by_xAikaNoKurayami.jpg]facepalm[/url]

GH wrote:

Could those runners then go on and say set up trip mines, shield the next group, throw buffs around?

Depends on how the AI is programmed to behave/respond to situations and circumstances.

If yes, then yes.
If no, then no.

GH wrote:

Could the warning encourage the next mob to change stance, threat level?

A NPC Power that is designed to communicate Threat tables implicitly has the purpose and functionality of modifying the Threat tables of other NPCs kinda sorta built into it. In other breaking news, water has been found to be wet ... in games that support wetness FX.

GH wrote:

Could the next mob as a result of the warning maybe pop some team insps randomly to prepare themselves for the next encounter?

That would require giving NPCs an Inventory and allowing it to be filled with Inspirations, some of which would be PBAoE Team Buffing Inspirations. City of Heroes [b]did not do this[/b] so I'm a bit at a loss as to why you'd [i]expect, let alone demand[/i] that Foe NPCs in City of Titans be given such a functionality. My first thought is that this would be an entirely unnecessary (and unhelpful/unwelcome) layer of additional complexity that the game simply doesn't need in order to be either FUN or FUNCTIONAL.

Redlynne wrote:

That would require giving NPCs an Inventory and allowing it to be filled with Inspirations, some of which would be PBAoE Team Buffing Inspirations. City of Heroes did not do this

I'm well aware of this. Spiritual successor.. suggestions for changes - not necessarily what [I]you[/I] would consider improvements but then isn't that what this is all about? And actually I really like this idea. It forces random encounters to be just that in a way nothing else does. Got a mob? Sure you know what it's going to do? Nope you don't. Look at Nemesis. Now just change that from >always does the same thing< to >does something different<. Dynamic mobs. A challenge.

Redlynne wrote:

so I'm a bit at a loss as to why you'd expect, let alone demand that Foe NPCs in City of Titans be given such a functionality.

Well there's a first time for everything. If only it was at a loss for words.. /snerk
I don't recall demanding anything in the suggestions forum.. maybe I posted in the wrong place.

Redlynne wrote:

My first thought is that this would be an entirely unnecessary (and unhelpful/unwelcome) layer of additional complexity that the game simply doesn't need in order to be either FUN or FUNCTIONAL.

Well I'd welcome your second, third and of course there are bound to be other thoughts that I will have to read so..
THIS is additional complexity after some of the stuff you have suggested? Team buffs, something we already had .. is too complex? Wow.. go me.

I dunno.. I reckon it could add a layer of fun, at the very least remove a layer of >omg why is it always the same< from encounters. The sameness of encounters is definitely something the game doesn't need.

And you know what I've just thought.. mobs with inventory. Wow that [I]is[/I] a stupid idea. I mean clearly when they die and leave something behind.. that wasn't from their inventory right? Man drops are so stupid.

Nemesis runner : buff up guys, the enemy is coming
Nemesis group leader : what?
Nemesis runner : you know, buff up
Nemesis group leader : you take a bong hit, boy, before you came running up here, we don't got no buffs we can apply to ourselves
Nemesis runner : nooooooooooooooo

You noticed it A LOT if you stood with fire aura on, in an AE farm. The mobs would mostly stand in your fiery aura of doom and die. Others would mill around on the outskirts, as soon as a mob died, another would move in. Those milling around would not attack you until they changed state.

If you've ever watched a documentary on Penguins, they form this series of rings and then shuffle in and out for warmth. It always reminded me of that except that the center of the circle was fiery death rather than life saving warmth.

http://cityofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Fiery_Aura

Be interesting to see how any changes affect powers designed around large mob sizes like RttC.

I think you should go develop your own game. I think that is the only way you will ever be truly happy. Do me a favor and NEVER team with me EVER when this game gets developed. Seriously.

"You haven't slotted Nova yet, so stand on this rock while I do the mission" isn't fun. "I'm herding Perez Park, so go play in Atlas" isn't fun. "I have the whole mission map's spawns around me, and am holding aggro on exactly none of them" is not fun. "LOL some noob had the Defeat 10 Skulls mission so I trained the entire street onto him and he died" isn't fun. Seriously, CoH stunk before there were aggro caps, and not just on teams.

If the Enemy AI is mobile and moves during combat I'm all for removing AoE caps.

If the Enemy AI sits still waiting to be killed like dumb cows then there should be AoE caps.

The factor here isn't how many enemies i can hit but how it affects those enemies. I don't think any mob should exceed 5 enemies per player in normal circumstances. Any more and the screen becomes filled with chaff and the bad guys just feel like docile cows like most games. If i'm running with a knife versus a guy with a gun, I expect the gunner to try to stay away from my blade.. at LEAST after he gets stabbed.. well at least TRY to. Or maybe have more than DPS dealing enemies.. let the enemy use crowd control to stop me in my tracks and heal their allies or force me to target them instead of my intended target. PvE doesn't HAVE to be dumb

I still prefer ZM's suggestion up thread (post #92)

If you want to herd and burn solo you still could, sort of. Duoing, or trioing becomes risky but perhaps an interesting mini game in its own way.
Any larger of a team and it requires finesse to "tank" and the team needs to pay attention as well.
Aggro then becomes a fluid thing we can toy with and no single tactic becomes an "I Win" button.

-joe

You don't know me. You have never played with me, and hopefully never will. I was the last person to ever quit on a TF or a team. I did plenty of Red's Fire Farm cave maps in AE. So get off of your high horse.

This fight is lame without memes..

Jusssayin

Brand X wrote:

the herd and burn mentality was never fun for me. But many thought it was. They stated as much. They loved how they would get hundreds into a dumpster, have many following them around Perez.

Fun? Magic 8 Ball says ... "Dubious" ...

Efficient? Magic 8 Ball says ... "[b]DUH![/b]"

[b]Idea 1: Scaling based on number of targets hit.[/b]

Make the damage scale down based on the number of targets and give a few powers that have more focused AOE's but higher damage. That way your massive AOE hitting the entire group might end up doing 33% damage, but your super focused car sized AOE might still do it's full damage and melt select targets.

[b]Pro:[/b] Larger power diversity. You now have focused AOE to take out key targets quickly and you also have larger AOE's that scale down with too many targets.

[b]Con:[/b] Indiscriminate in doing less damage to targets and balancing it so that AOE blasters were not just wiping the floor with EVERYTHING and yet still useful would be difficult.

This could provide some variance between power sets, but it would either be minor or massive in general.

[b]Idea 2: Each AOE has multiple ranges, like concentric circles or different sized cones which help determine AOE damage based on distance from the impact source (AOE) or caster (PBAOE/Cone [/b]

Alternatively you could make the damage locational based. IE the closer you were to the center of the AOE the more damage it did. There could also be other powers like old school rain of fire that did not respect these laws because of the already low damage.

[b]Pro:[/b] Opens up even more power diversity than idea 1, for instance 2 AOE powers could perform radically differently just by how much they diminished from full damage at the edges and how big the center of max damage was. One spell might have 3 damage ranges and drop of steadily, another might have 2 damage ranges and drop off sharply, another might have no damage ranges at all and do full damage if things are in the AOE.

When it comes to cones or line damage you could apply the same logic. It could either have multiple damage ranged based on distance or full damage in the entire cone based on the skill.

This approach allows for much more variability between individual powers and provided that mobs could not be stacked in a super concentrated bunch should easily be able to maintain balance provided the AOE sizes, cone arcs, and line widths are appropriately balanced.

[b]Con:[/b] Even assuming a simplistic 2-5 circle/cone/line size approach (imagine multiple circles of different sizes around the same point) instead of direct distance the amount of network and processing overhead goes up dramatically for this.

[b]Peronsal Opinion: Go for Idea 2 if possible[/b]

If idea 2 could be pulled off this would be optimal imo. You could even make the AOE versions of each set differentiate with this. IE ice powers might have heavier damage in their AOE's but the damage falls off alot quicker (and chills), fire powers might have more damage in a larger area (and burning!!) but not deal as heavy of damage at the impact site, lightning could deal the heaviest of damage at the impact site but then radiate out in little arc lightnings that are unpredictable and could either be better or worse (and have a chance to paralyze).

In this way fire would be best for large crowd destruction, ice would be best for killing bosses while hurting the crowd and reducing incoming damage via chill, and lightning might provide inconsistent control and wildly spiking effectiveness but was reliable at the impact sight on both damage/minor control and could potentially be more devastating than even fire if you got real lucky.

[b]Tanking Aggro[/b]
Tanking aggro definitely needs to peter out past a certain number. In general tougher enemies should have priority on being aggrod, but much as some people might remember it fondly we do not need to go back to the days of 1 tank herding an entire mission, even if it's just kiting them around desperately trying to stay alive long enough for his team to kill them.

You know why? Other tanks want to play too. One of the strengths of COX was party diversity. If I have 1 tank and have no place in team for another one then you are building a vastly differently spirited game. If you want to pull whole levels it should require like 3 tanks :D. This is just part of the wise decisions that made sure every archetype was valuable on the team. That was part of the goal of ED. I know alot of people hated it, but before ED and aggro caps you needed 1 tank and 1 controller. Everything else was DPS and defenders. There was no flexibility on more of either of those without them just being redundant.

Post-ED another tank or controller was always welcomed as another effective addition to the team. Especially with double damage against controlled enemies helping ensure that, much like tanks, controllers always had a purpose on team.

Ultimately aggro isn't as easy as damage as it's pretty binary. Either you have aggro or you don't. So hard limits make more sense on tanks. Balancing that limit exactly is the tough part.

Edit: 1/25/2014 Organization changes.

[b]Suggestion: Go check out a few MOBA's like League of Legends, DOTA 2, and Smite. See how they balance their AOE's, Cone Damage, and Line Nukes[/b]

In addition to what I've said here MOBA's give you a nice real approximate representation of how alot of different design for area damage, line nukes, cone nukes, etc can be done. The amount of variety and mechanics differences in the various abilties is a very nice thing to study if you want to create new abilities for an MMORPG ironically.

By no means is it the gospel, but they have nifty ideas, mechanics, and solutions that could open up so doors, answer some questions, or make you tuck away some ideas. I think it would be very applicable.