Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
AGGRESSION, OR A.K.A 'AGGRO'.
Posts
thehonorableryu
View playlists
CloseI'm on board with Feldschlacht. I think turn & menu based RPGs have a lot of potential for effective use of aggro, and I'm surprised that more people who are making menu-based RPGs aren't availing themselves of it. Here's how I'm handling it in my project.
Every unit is placed on one of five rows that affects their aggro/target rate:
+2 : 200% aggro
+1 : 150% aggro
0 : 100% aggro
-1 : 50% aggro
-2 : 25% aggro
The unit's current row plus any aggro-affecting states (such as Taunt/Provoke, enemy-inflicted Lock-On, or using certain powerful attacks that generate enemy attention/hatred) multiply to make up that unit's total aggro, which is visible to the player as a color-coded bar.
Aggro is designed to be dynamic and responsive rather than static for each unit.
First, every action has a rule that sets the units row upon use on that turn. For example, a unit equipped with a standard Sword may perform a standard slash that sets its row to +1 (150% Aggro), or a long-range Sword Beam that sets its row to -1 (50% Aggro), or a Parry guard stance (reduces weapon-based but not magic based damage) that sets the unit to the current row (whatever it happens to be at the time). So each unit's Aggro can change quite a bit from turn to turn as their current row changes (even before states like Taunt or Lock-On are added into the mix).
Second, many of the more potent player and enemy skills require some sort of set up before they can be used (MP works less like a tank that starts at max and gradually depletes and more like a fighting game super-meter that units have to use turns to charge up in battle; many moves require the unit to use a turn to enter into a stance or state before they can be used; some skills don't deal damage until a turn or two after they're used, etc).
Together these two mechanics allow the player to anticipate what's coming and to make smart decisions.
To use a basic example for simplicity's sake, the player may be fighting an enemy troop composed of three physical fighters that use basic attacks every turn and a higher-leveled elemental mage that uses several turns to charge its MP until it can unleash a devastating magic spell. It such a scenario, it may be best for the player to start with physical tanks in front rows unless/until the elemental mage is able to charge up enough MP for its spell. At this point, the player could shift some of the physical tanks to attack from the back rows and shift units that can tank magic attacks to the front rows to brace for the attack. Or any physical tanks that have guard stances that reduce magic damage (depends upon the equipped weapon or shield) could use those while staying in their current row. Or if the player has unit(s) with a skill that reduces magic damage on one ally unit for one turn, the skill could be applied to the physical tank(s) that are most susceptible to the oncoming magic spell. Or, if possible, the player might spend whatever extra needed resources are required to wipe out the high-level mage before it can use its spell. Etc. Etc.
For an aggro system to be interesting and worthwhile I think it's best if the player making smart choices actually matters, i.e., makes some difference between winning and losing.
In order to do this I've all but abolished healing. Rather, the player's party recovers a certain amount of HP (and MP) only after winning the battle (which after-battle rewards are indicated to the player before the battle, along with the enemy troop leader's name and level, by a hover message over the enemy visible on screen). And in dungeons the party's HP is fully recovered at each one-use save point. Hence, gameplay is less like being nigh-invincible as long as you stocked up on healing items (ala many JRPGs), or winning one battle at a time (ala Final Fantasy XIII), and more about successfully making it to from one checkpoint to the next (almost like Mega Man) until the dungeon is completed. Players can't simply erase poor choices on-command with a superabundance of low-cost healing. Strategically redirecting enemy attacks through the Aggro mechanic goes a long way in keeping up your limited reserves of HP until making it to the next save point.
Every unit is placed on one of five rows that affects their aggro/target rate:
+2 : 200% aggro
+1 : 150% aggro
0 : 100% aggro
-1 : 50% aggro
-2 : 25% aggro
The unit's current row plus any aggro-affecting states (such as Taunt/Provoke, enemy-inflicted Lock-On, or using certain powerful attacks that generate enemy attention/hatred) multiply to make up that unit's total aggro, which is visible to the player as a color-coded bar.
Aggro is designed to be dynamic and responsive rather than static for each unit.
First, every action has a rule that sets the units row upon use on that turn. For example, a unit equipped with a standard Sword may perform a standard slash that sets its row to +1 (150% Aggro), or a long-range Sword Beam that sets its row to -1 (50% Aggro), or a Parry guard stance (reduces weapon-based but not magic based damage) that sets the unit to the current row (whatever it happens to be at the time). So each unit's Aggro can change quite a bit from turn to turn as their current row changes (even before states like Taunt or Lock-On are added into the mix).
Second, many of the more potent player and enemy skills require some sort of set up before they can be used (MP works less like a tank that starts at max and gradually depletes and more like a fighting game super-meter that units have to use turns to charge up in battle; many moves require the unit to use a turn to enter into a stance or state before they can be used; some skills don't deal damage until a turn or two after they're used, etc).
Together these two mechanics allow the player to anticipate what's coming and to make smart decisions.
To use a basic example for simplicity's sake, the player may be fighting an enemy troop composed of three physical fighters that use basic attacks every turn and a higher-leveled elemental mage that uses several turns to charge its MP until it can unleash a devastating magic spell. It such a scenario, it may be best for the player to start with physical tanks in front rows unless/until the elemental mage is able to charge up enough MP for its spell. At this point, the player could shift some of the physical tanks to attack from the back rows and shift units that can tank magic attacks to the front rows to brace for the attack. Or any physical tanks that have guard stances that reduce magic damage (depends upon the equipped weapon or shield) could use those while staying in their current row. Or if the player has unit(s) with a skill that reduces magic damage on one ally unit for one turn, the skill could be applied to the physical tank(s) that are most susceptible to the oncoming magic spell. Or, if possible, the player might spend whatever extra needed resources are required to wipe out the high-level mage before it can use its spell. Etc. Etc.
For an aggro system to be interesting and worthwhile I think it's best if the player making smart choices actually matters, i.e., makes some difference between winning and losing.
In order to do this I've all but abolished healing. Rather, the player's party recovers a certain amount of HP (and MP) only after winning the battle (which after-battle rewards are indicated to the player before the battle, along with the enemy troop leader's name and level, by a hover message over the enemy visible on screen). And in dungeons the party's HP is fully recovered at each one-use save point. Hence, gameplay is less like being nigh-invincible as long as you stocked up on healing items (ala many JRPGs), or winning one battle at a time (ala Final Fantasy XIII), and more about successfully making it to from one checkpoint to the next (almost like Mega Man) until the dungeon is completed. Players can't simply erase poor choices on-command with a superabundance of low-cost healing. Strategically redirecting enemy attacks through the Aggro mechanic goes a long way in keeping up your limited reserves of HP until making it to the next save point.
Corti
60
Right now i'm working on a threat-plugin because i think there is a lot of potential in this.
For me, threat is not only about threat, but also a possibility to make two other elements of battle more interesting, and that's healing and defense.
The defend action exists in most jrpgs, and usually its purpose is to be used after the enemy uses the charge command. Some times i get the feeling that every jrpg adds one of those fights, just because the defend-action exists in the battle-system and it would be blasphemy to remove it.
Defending against standard attacks is rarely a good choice, because it is not sure if the hero will be attack while defending, and because defening on a normal attacks is mathematically inferior to just attacking.
I combine defend with a counter mechanic ( block -> fill atb, your turn! ). It makes a successful defend mathematically superior to just attacking. It works because i do have a threat-system and because it is shown which hero monsters are going to attack next. It provides the information needed to make the tactical decisions instead of making defend a lottery. For a defensive hero, defending should be an essential part of him gameplay, all the time, not just fighting the charge-up-boss.
Defensive skills are more valuable as well when you can control, who is attacked.
A taunt and a def-doubled condition make a very good combination.
Of course having a tank taking all/most of the hits changes healing. jrpg-healing is whac-a-mole. Someone gets damage, someone needs to be healed. The healer in jrpgs is imo often cursed to be boring and passive. Having control over who gets damaged means that proactive healing like shields or healing effects on the target are more valueable. jrpg healing is a lot about saving mana, and usually there is a cheapest healing spell. When you know that the tank is going to be attacked, maybe the shieldspell will be worth it a lot more because you know its not going to be wasted.
For me, threat is not only about threat, but also a possibility to make two other elements of battle more interesting, and that's healing and defense.
The defend action exists in most jrpgs, and usually its purpose is to be used after the enemy uses the charge command. Some times i get the feeling that every jrpg adds one of those fights, just because the defend-action exists in the battle-system and it would be blasphemy to remove it.
Defending against standard attacks is rarely a good choice, because it is not sure if the hero will be attack while defending, and because defening on a normal attacks is mathematically inferior to just attacking.
I combine defend with a counter mechanic ( block -> fill atb, your turn! ). It makes a successful defend mathematically superior to just attacking. It works because i do have a threat-system and because it is shown which hero monsters are going to attack next. It provides the information needed to make the tactical decisions instead of making defend a lottery. For a defensive hero, defending should be an essential part of him gameplay, all the time, not just fighting the charge-up-boss.
Defensive skills are more valuable as well when you can control, who is attacked.
A taunt and a def-doubled condition make a very good combination.
Of course having a tank taking all/most of the hits changes healing. jrpg-healing is whac-a-mole. Someone gets damage, someone needs to be healed. The healer in jrpgs is imo often cursed to be boring and passive. Having control over who gets damaged means that proactive healing like shields or healing effects on the target are more valueable. jrpg healing is a lot about saving mana, and usually there is a cheapest healing spell. When you know that the tank is going to be attacked, maybe the shieldspell will be worth it a lot more because you know its not going to be wasted.
I think a way around the 'heal the tank over and over again' thing (but not the only solution) would be to make healing generate threat.
Corti
60
If healing is able to pull aggro that would make the monsters attack the tank and the healer and since the healer has a weaker defense, he will be required to heal more to save himself and generate more threat.
It has been like this in warcraft but they changed it. keeping aggro on the tank is easy, but lots of battles do have damage on all members of the group, thanks to aoe, cleave, multitarget and simply randomtarget attacks, which brings back the whac-a-mole healing a bit.
I would want, that the healer needs to be healed sometimes, but i also would want that all others in the group need to be healed sometimes, so just increasing the threat caused by heals won't bring it closer to the common jrpg-random distribution of attacks.
Should holding aggro be relatively safe or should it be fragile with losing aggro often? Both works and has worked in mmos.
It has been like this in warcraft but they changed it. keeping aggro on the tank is easy, but lots of battles do have damage on all members of the group, thanks to aoe, cleave, multitarget and simply randomtarget attacks, which brings back the whac-a-mole healing a bit.
I would want, that the healer needs to be healed sometimes, but i also would want that all others in the group need to be healed sometimes, so just increasing the threat caused by heals won't bring it closer to the common jrpg-random distribution of attacks.
Should holding aggro be relatively safe or should it be fragile with losing aggro often? Both works and has worked in mmos.
author=Corti
If healing is able to pull aggro that would make the monsters attack the tank and the healer and since the healer has a weaker defense, he will be required to heal more to save himself and generate more threat.
But all actions don't have to generate the same amount or rate of aggro, however.
