U33.2 aggro mechanic

[2pc2]

No. They took a broken system and attempted to fix it. The fix, however, created other problems. The issue is not that they broke a working system. The issue is that the fix they attempted was not properly vetted. There needed to be more testing, maybe even on Lama, so that the issues we are dealing with now could be identified and addressed.

Given that we have the changes now in production, the best course would be for the correct AI/aggro mechanics to be identified, the non-WAI ones to be identified, and a fix to be implemented. Preferably, with testing to ensure that things are working properly.

Asking for a roll back is pointless. It moves us no closer to a solution. We went from broken A to broken B. going back to broken A is a waste of time. Let's get to correct C.

Broken according to who? I don't remember having seen a single thread dedicated to the old agro system and how suposedly broken it was in the last months or year...

In one week of the new system we have had several threads, all very active, of people complaining about how broken it is. Maybe the old one was not flawless but it did not create any kind of controversy and most people seemed to just be fine with it, mainly because it was only used in solo runs or by not so experienced players who had to pull mobs 1 by 1 or invis run past them not for fun or for efficiency but because they had to in order to success. You could choose to use it or not. Most peple decided it was not worth using in groups when you can just kill everything as fast as if you invised and much faster than pulling 1 by 1. Now it affects everyone playing experience solo and in group regardless if you want to take advantage of it or not. As some other posters suggested I suspect it is to adapt the game to reaper mode and this is a huge mistake IMO. Not all the playerbase wants to run reaper and they said it's not meant for everyone, and the player base is already short... Reducing playing options and styles won't help mantaining the ones still playing.

To sum up changing a not flawless but certainly not borken system when you have no one asking and everyone seems fine with it to a completly broken one that causes the forums to rage against it for a week doesn't look like a smart or productive move. Doesn't look like a fix either, more like the other way around

[Qhualor]

Broken according to who? I don't remember having seen a single thread dedicated to the old agro system and how suposedly broken it was in the last months or year...

In one week of the new system we have had several threads, all very active, of people complaining about how broken it is. Maybe the old one was not flawless but it did not create any kind of controversy and most people seemed to just be fine with it, mainly because it was only used in solo runs or by not so exeperinced players who had to pull mobs 1 by 1 or invis run past them not for fun or for efficiency but because they had to in order to success. You could choose to use it or not. Most peple decided it was not worth using in groups when you can just kill everything as fast as if you invised and much faster than pulling 1 by 1. Now it affects everyone exeperience solo and in group regardless if you want to take advantage of it or not. As some other posters suggested I suspect it is to adapt the game to reaper mode and this is a huge mistake IMO. Not all the playerbase wants to run reaper and they said it's not meant for everyone, and the player base is already short... Reducing playing options and styles won't help mantaining the ones still playing.

To sum up changing a not flawless but certainly not borken system when you have no one asking and everyone seems fine with it to a completly broken one that causes the forums to rage against it for a week doesn't look like a smart or productive move. Doesn't look like a fix either, more like the other way around

if you regularly read the forums than you would have seen complaints from players asking to fix the old cheesy AI mechanics. threads, AFAIK, were not started over this particular issue, but they were talked about many times in various threads.

anyone objectively can see the attempt in fixing what was broken is not WAI now. in an attempt to fix something it borked other things. the current AI mechanics are not going to stay and we can probably expect seeing comments from devs and fixes in the coming weeks after the holiday season. historically, devs are pretty much silent this time of year.

[Cleanincubus]

Until yesterday I've only been favor farming with way over leveled characters, since the patch came out. I now see what so many people have been talking about. Monster aggro was not like this before the bug. It's suddenly gone from one extreme to another, when it needs to be somewhere in the middle.

Being able to pull 1 enemy at a time was lame, but so is getting aggro from enemies through walls and an entirely different room away. This should be toned down to be more realistic, because it's not realistic.

[Chai]

The aggro system was absolutely, definitively not working as intended for a looonnnnggg time. DDO was not supposed to have less complexity than playing Whack-a-Mole via archery or assassination.

This is a FIX. One that was implemented with poor scaling/balancing. But it was a FIX.

AND, they didn't completely break it. They restored it back to working order as intended, but with unbalanced scaling. The hyperbole doesn't 'persuade' them more 'persuasively'. Accurate descriptions of what's happening help them target their fixes and waste less of their time.

Oh it is quite broken. We submitted multiple videos over the past few days to those who will objectively listen and have the power to do something about it, with entire zones full of mobs coming down on party members. I have also personally seen tons of mobs rush out to kill one party member, and ignore the others.

This thing you call a "fix" is more exploit-able than the previous iteration of the agro mechanic, which was in place before the most recent update. This is shown in the videos, where applicable.

Why people are still complaining about an agro mechanic which favors single target builds, in a game which entirely favors AOE builds, is the real elephant in the room. Which part of this was "ruining your fun"? Yeah, lets dial back single target builds from taking 3x as long per quest to taking 5x as long per quest compared to AOE builds. The fact that it only takes them 3x as long per quest ruins my immersion. Yeap, they sure "fixed" that one.

[Forzah]

Oh it is quite broken. We submitted multiple videos over the past few days to those who will objectively listen and have the power to do something about it, with entire zones full of mobs coming down on party members. I have also personally seen tons of mobs rush out to kill one party member, and ignore the others.

This thing you call a "fix" is more exploit-able than the previous iteration of the agro mechanic, which was in place before the most recent update. This is shown in the videos, where applicable.

Why people are still complaining about an agro mechanic which favors single target builds, in a game which entirely favors AOE builds, is the real elephant in the room. Which part of this was "ruining your fun"? Yeah, lets dial back single target builds from taking 3x as long per quest to taking 5x as long per quest compared to AOE builds. The fact that it only takes them 3x as long per quest ruins my immersion. Yeap, they sure "fixed" that one.

You have to agree it was a stupid mechanic. The current mechanic is stupid too, but when the early implementation problems are fixed it will make much more sense.

What types of build it favors is beyond the point really. If you want those other types of build to do well, you design the content in a way that is suitable for them. You don't facilitate that through a buggy mechanic.

[SiliconScout]

Ran some three barrel cove and I think I finally saw this in the slayers area where more mobs than usually got pulled on the way to the fire caves. it wasn't a "whole dungeon" sort of thing nor did it result in instant red alert but I could see this happening in some quests with high mob density.

My guess is that the mobs are now "alerting" any mob in it's detection radius (which makes sense, I see an attacker I let the guys in my area know) what I believe is happening that breaks this is that each of those "Alerted" mobs is alerting those in it's radius and so on and so on.

This could be fixed or at least made better by having "alert levels" for lack of a better word. Sort of like a data packets TTL. I have no idea how the current code would/could support this but it's worth looking at.

Alert level 4 -- charge attacker .. send alert 3
Alert level 3 -- Move towards attacker .. send alert 2
Alert level 2 -- Search for attacker, but stays in it's own area .. send alert 1
Alert level 1 -- Activate AI .. do nothing else

This way the mob that detects you comes in, those in its immediate vicinity move closer and then fire off their attack AI (most likely). Those farther out are "searching" for someone and those even farther out just have their AI activated.

Keep in mind that this is a bare bones system. You would need to develop some logic around how long that alert level sticks before being reset as well as what happens say if an alert level 2 mob subsequently detects you. My gut says it then moves to alert 4 and broadcasts a 3. There would also be line of sight and distance from the detected player to deal with but these problems should be solvable. So this type of system certainly could have some issues but it should be possible to tweak this and should be easier. For all we know it's already built this way and just misbehaving.. but I suspect that's not the case.

What I think is happening currently is that when the mob finds you it does an equivalent of Alert 4 and then sets all mobs in it's range ALSO at an alert 4 equivalent. They in turn to do the same to those they can see and so on and so on. This results in potentially large numbers of mobs aggroing in a second or two all knowing exactly where you are and moving in to attack.

[nokowi]

Right now a rollback would potentially lose the good things that occurred like GS Handwraps. If you think dealing with the agro issue on the forums is vocal, imagine dealing with the issue of taking away items.

You don't know that they can't do one without the other.

Players are asking for a rollback of the just the agro system, until it is fixed (without assuming anything).

Players should state their play preferences, and devs should determine which of those are viable.


To form your entire position on something you don't really know is a disservice to those affected by U34.2 issues.

If devs actually communicated (something you cheer-leaded about 5 days ago --> notice we have no new comments?), the "best" action would be much more obvious to players.

[Chai]

You have to agree it was a stupid mechanic. The current mechanic is stupid too, but when the early implementation problems are fixed it will make much more sense.

What types of build it favors is beyond the point really. If you want those other types of build to do well, you design the content in a way that is suitable for them. You don't facilitate that through a buggy mechanic.

The types of builds it favors is the actual point. A game that already heavily favors AOE builds doesn't need to take the toys away from single target builds and those who still enjoy playing them. Turbine (yeah its SS now, but same people) had 4+ years now to facilitate that through content, and I'm still waiting. I will accept that solution when that solution arrives. Until then, if it s a choice between the lesser of two evils, then that is the previous agro mechanic which threw a bone to the single target builds in the game. Even adding marginal incentive for diversity is still a baby step in the right direction, and far better than favoring AOE builds even more than they were favored already.

[Enoach]

You don't know that they can't do one without the other.

Players are asking for a rollback of the just the agro system, until it is fixed (without assuming anything).

Players should state their play preferences, and devs should determine which of those are viable.


To form your entire position on something you don't really know is a disservice to those affected by U34.2 issues.

If devs actually communicated (something you cheer-leaded about 5 days ago --> notice we have no new comments?), the "best" action would be much more obvious to players.

It appears you read my post in a different tone then I intended.

First the key word glossed over is Potentially. I never said I knew or even hazard a guess at how they do things. I only know best and worst case scenarios. Which is why I said it is not a waste to ask for a rollback.

Logical Clues:

• Change to how bluff works - Effects Agro system
• Change to how range single target hit being used to pull works - Effects the Agro system

Next, as a software developer that has spent a lot of time consulting at companies because of how companies do things in development, there is a possibility that these changes are not necessarily easy to roll back because of how it ties into other changes. This create a lot of dependency (not the best way to develop software but it is prevalent).

---------
I applaud your attempt at tongue-in-check humor.

The issue that was resolved on the 23rd was missing information we the players needed to understand how bluff was changed. I believe I received a response from the developer because I outlined what I attempted to do and how it worked. I did it without resorting to emotional language or crying the world has come to an end. The community benefited as Torc clarified the position.

Now as for not getting a developer response since this time as it concerns the agro system. The most likely reason is they didn't work Saturday/Sunday (24th/25th). Most of the staff is off between Christmas and New Years meaning the people that can look into this issue aren't available to do so. Right now we simply need to be patient on the response. The game is not so broken you cannot play it and have fun doing so. But it is broken enough that we should expect a response.

Keep in mind also that rollbacks do require staff on hand to accomplish - it is seldom as simple as flicking a switch. We have had the change coming on a week, we can give them a little more time to respond with a more informative response then a defensive one. I know I can be patient for the response.

[nokowi]

It appears you read my post in a different tone then I intended.

First the key word glossed over is Potentially. I never said I knew or even hazard a guess at how they do things. I only know best and worst case scenarios. Which is why I said it is not a waste to ask for a rollback.

Logical Clues:

• Change to how bluff works - Effects Agro system
• Change to how range single target hit being used to pull works - Effects the Agro system

Thanks for clarifying your position. Keep in mind you could have equally stated that a change could potentially be really easy, as that it could be potentially difficult. There seems to be some miscommunication on your end when the word potential is thrown into a sentence that would be arguing something very specific without the word potential.

Next, as a software developer that has spent a lot of time consulting at companies because of how companies do things in development, there is a possibility that these changes are not necessarily easy to roll back because of how it ties into other changes. This create a lot of dependency (not the best way to develop software but it is prevalent).

None of us can judge the extent of work needed to make changes without having worked with this group. We can look at past history, however, to form rational conclusions.

---------
I applaud your attempt at tongue-in-check humor.

The issue that was resolved on the 23rd was missing information we the players needed to understand how bluff was changed. I believe I received a response from the developer because I outlined what I attempted to do and how it worked. I did it without resorting to emotional language or crying the world has come to an end. The community benefited as Torc clarified the position.

Now as for not getting a developer response since this time as it concerns the agro system. The most likely reason is they didn't work Saturday/Sunday (24th/25th). Most of the staff is off between Christmas and New Years meaning the people that can look into this issue aren't available to do so. Right now we simply need to be patient on the response. The game is not so broken you cannot play it and have fun doing so. But it is broken enough that we should expect a response.

Keep in mind also that rollbacks do require staff on hand to accomplish - it is seldom as simple as flicking a switch. We have had the change coming on a week, we can give them a little more time to respond with a more informative response then a defensive one. I know I can be patient for the response.

I can simply refer back to U22, when there were no responses for what I remember to be 3 months (could have been 2 months, memory is fickle), and judge that your perceptions of what we will get from devs is different that what experience shows, and that there was no response on the 23rd when Cordovan was posting all day. I can look at your earlier rationale (in defense mode) and your current argument (on holiday) and see that your logic is not capable of explaining prior DDO history (2-3 months with no response, no admission of any bugs, no updates, etc). Note that Cordovan posted all day on the 23rd, did post on the 25th, and that Cocomajobo has posted on the 28th.

It is nice that you are on record - and we will be able to see how good your insight is. It is certainly possible there has been a major change from the past, but considering 30 seconds of Cordovan's time could have fixed this on the 23rd, it doesn't seem extremely likely to me. I do applaud your confidence in them.

The same people that released bugged content repeatedly are following the same pattern as an independent company.
The same people that talk about good communications are doing the opposite, the same pattern we are used to.

What exactly do you believe to be different this time?


I can forgive the first from a small company, but not the second. Players should demand a better product instead of coaching patience. A better product will make DDO more successful in the long run.

[nokowi]

we can give them a little more time to respond with a more informative response then a defensive one. .

Some players want to know their builds will not permanently in the current state of the game - which they have expressed as broken.

When you see the word broken, it means unusable.

Players don't need a particularly informative response in the short term - they just need to know that some of these issues are being addressed.

That is called customer relations - when you quickly respond to a problem.

Coaching the opposite shows a major lack of understanding.

[Enoach]

I was never in defense mode. I stated only the facts that I knew. I've actually had good customer relationships with DDO staff since '06. I've had issues in game both resolved and not resolved by GM's. Disappointed by a resolution and even had them go above and beyond. The difference for me is I don't see them not giving me what I want every time as a bad response.

The issue with communication was apparent to me the moment you proceeded to attack posts that agreed with you. Maybe not completely but were in the same vein.

People take vacations especially this time of year, again I only pointed out that it is more likely the best person to make a call just isn't available.

There have been other issues that have plagued the game in the past that simply needed the "Ah ha" moment with the development staff. Because of this I believe if we actually spend time to give them good examples and lose the drama like "The whole dungeon agros on me" we can help them get to the "Ah Ha" moment without putting them in defense mode.

So to be clear my stance:

Something is broken in the agro system - I'm not sure what caused the issue, but I can see its effects.
This issue appears to effect higher density mob areas more then low density mobs
This issue appears to not effect quests where mobs spawn on a trigger
This issue appears to have a rippling effect and is not effected by lack of Line-of-sight
This issue makes assassination difficult to survive.
This issue gives mobs the ability to find someone out of the blue long after agro should have been shed.

As players who want this game to be the best it can be we need to vocalize what we are seeing and be patient for a response. I personally want a well thought out one. For me I see responses of "We are looking into it" as placating but that might simply be because of my experiences, so for you it seems it would help you.

[Aelonwy]

Ran most of the harbor and some marketplace quests with my son this morning (myself on a ranged build, but not sneaking) and I rarely saw any difference in the aggro (maybe a little in Waterworks). Later this afternoon/early evening ran Menechtarun non-flagging quests with hubby on my 2arty/10mech and the only one that had aggro issues so far was Raid the Vulkorim. In the scorrow side-quest a bolt down the hallway wasn't a big deal but a single enemy fired upon in either of the end rooms with scorpions was causing instant red alert. We do kill everything as we go so there were no spawns left behind us already creating aggro.

[PermaBanned]

Players should state their play preferences, and devs should determine which of those are viable.

I'm not so sure that's actually a good idea as - at least, from my observations - it really hasn't done the game much good thus far. Devs listening & designing according to player preferences has brought us:

• Increased soloability at the expense of group play.
• Evaporated levels of challenge.
• Class balance passes that are taking years to "complete."
• Post pass reactionary buff & nerf cycles.
• Passes reduced to batches of tweaks.

And that's just to name a few examples. Perhaps it's high past time (especially with the new ownership) the game designers come up with a design goal and stick to it, leaving the players to adapt to the game (as we always have anyway) rather than the game adapting to its ever changing and rarely agreeing player base.

[nokowi]

I was never in defense mode.

You said devs were in defense mode, and used that as an excuse for no communication prior to your current (some people take vacations) line of reasoning.

So to be clear my stance:

Something is broken in the agro system - I'm not sure what caused the issue, but I can see its effects.
This issue appears to effect higher density mob areas more then low density mobs
This issue appears to not effect quests where mobs spawn on a trigger
This issue appears to have a rippling effect and is not effected by lack of Line-of-sight
This issue makes assassination difficult to survive.
This issue gives mobs the ability to find someone out of the blue long after agro should have been shed.

These were all true in U22. I posted a video on the 22nd showing these things.

While you were lecturing me on saying the agro system was broken, I already recognized the above things, provided video feedback of the issues, and formed a conclusion that nearly everyone that plays assassin insta kill now seems to agree with.

I was 5 days ahead of you, and put up with your lecturing about my summative conclusion (agro is broken - as in it does not work for some players), fully knowing all these things.

As players who want this game to be the best it can be we need to vocalize what we are seeing and be patient for a response. I personally want a well thought out one. For me I see responses of "We are looking into it" as placating but that might simply be because of my experiences, so for you it seems it would help you.

The last statement by Cordovan was that U34.2 is the fix. What exactly are we being patient for if this is the fix?

I would expect an acknowledgement of each specific issue, so that players can provide better feedback. (let's say they missed something in their response). I would expect the sharing of whatever current info they have.

Its ironic that you expect players to give very specific feedback (see your Dec 22/23 posts), but that you do not expect the same from devs.

Communication is a two way street, and two way communication is very important when there are problems with a product.


If some players are upset with agro/communication, DDO revenue goes down. Instead of the Enoach vs Nokowi approach to your thoughts ("I'm OK with it but your not"), you should consider what is good for the game. Making your players upset is not a good business model. Minimizing the number of upset players through good communication is a better business model.

My recommendations for good communication make a better product, yours make a worse product.

[nokowi]

I'm not so sure that's actually a good idea as - at least, from my observations - it really hasn't done the game much good thus far. Devs listening & designing according to player preferences has brought us:

• Increased soloability at the expense of group play.
• Evaporated levels of challenge.
• Class balance passes that are taking years to "complete."
• Post pass reactionary buff & nerf cycles.
• Passes reduced to batches of tweaks.

And that's just to name a few examples. Perhaps it's high past time (especially with the new ownership) the game designers come up with a design goal and stick to it, leaving the players to adapt to the game (as we always have anyway) rather than the game adapting to its ever changing and rarely agreeing player base.

I have made 100's of posts that devs need to design based on design principles.

You are off topic. I never said to design for what players say they want.

I said the best feedback from players if for them to freely voice what they want, or to describe their specific experiences.

In my case, I just posted a video showing my U22 experiences FOLLOWED by my conclusion (broken) and preference (rollback).

I was the first one to link agro to U22 on the forums, and my conclusions were all based on the current implementation being largely the same as U22 (I stated clearly that I had not played U34.2).

I could add that the first (Lamannia) implementation of ToEE used an agro system something like what we see now (in that it had perma-agro issues through walls that caused problems with assassinate), but did not appear live.

[PermaBanned]

Some players want to know their builds will not permanently in the current state of the game - which they have expressed as broken.

When you see the word broken, it means unusable.

Players don't need a particularly informative response in the short term - they just need to know that some of these issues are being addressed.

That is called customer relations - when you quickly respond to a problem.

Coaching the opposite shows a major lack of understanding.

Now ^that's^ funny. You're complaining about the Dev staff of a video game (not exactly a "life or death" type industry) not communicating during a major holiday (Christmas!) time of year (at least it's "major" in the country where they work) and you're calling them out as showing a major lack of understanding?

[PermaBanned]

I have made 100's of posts that devs need to design based on design principles.

You are off topic. I never said to design for what players say they want.

I said the best feedback from players if for them to freely voice what they want, or to describe their specific experiences.

In my case, I just posted a video showing my experiences FOLLOWED by my conclusion (broken) and preference (rollback).

Not really off topic, though granted I didn't specifically tailor or restrict my response to the U33.2 agro issues; so heres the specifically tailored version:

I do not want the Devs giving us yet another knee-jerk reactionary fix based on some forumites personal play preferences. I do want a more permenent solution that is most appropriate to the long term design vision they hopefully have. Hopefully this "fix" they gave us was a step toward that long term goal, and I'd prefer they fix their "fix" rather than revert from the current stupid to the old silly.

[nokowi]

Not really off topic, though granted I didn't specifically tailor or restrict my response to the U33.2 agro issues; so heres the specifically tailored version:

I do not want the Devs giving us yet another knee-jerk reactionary fix based on some forumites personal play preferences. I do want a more permenent solution that is most appropriate to the long term design vision they hopefully have. Hopefully this "fix" they gave us was a step toward that long term goal, and I'd prefer they fix their "fix" rather than revert from the current stupid to the old silly.

No idea what you are talking about.

Nearly every said to fix the bugs - as in a permanent solution.

You seem to think rollback to a more playable version for assassins during bug fixes equates to a different final outcome.

I can't help you fix your logic - but it IS broken.

[nokowi]

Now ^that's^ funny. You're complaining about the Dev staff of a video game (not exactly a "life or death" type industry) not communicating during a major holiday (Christmas!) time of year (at least it's "major" in the country where they work) and you're calling them out as showing a major lack of understanding?

Yes, Holidays are when people are off work and playing video games. This is when they purchase things.

Q: Was the holiday a known event, that devs could plan around?
A: Yes

Then it is not an excuse for anything. Stop trying to use it as one.

Don't break thing around the holidays if you can't provide support at that time.