Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silent Cartographer" data-source="post: 3882436" data-attributes="member: 57089">It's all about making a framework for interesting choices.Contemporary MMOG aggro management schemes may be clunky, and they're certainly a poor simulation. As a simulation, they are admittedly pretty absurd; but that was never the intent of aggro schemes anyway. GSHamster nailed it; aggro is a kind of mini-game designed to give the player interesting choices. Should I feign now, how many nukes can I chain on this boss, is this the moment I should use my one-shot uber taunt? Whatever.A lot of people find this experience unsatisfying for any number of perfectly good reasons. It works well enough, however, to keep a few million people entertained every day.Now, I might feel like it's 'obvious' or somehow instinctive to think that this kind of push-style, phony aggro scheme is totally unsuited for a table top game. I may even think I know why. Does that mean that I cannot learn something from the testing that theory, even if the results turn out exactly as expected?Is it impossible to learn anything at all from such a test?If the failure of push-aggro in R&amp;D's playtest lead them to some insight on creating a useful, pull-aggro mechanism, well then, bravo!The &quot;ignore me at your own opportunity cost&quot;-style of aggro clearly adds interesting choices; if that in turn adds a new layer of class features and differentiation, then /w00t!&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silent Cartographer, post: 3882436, member: 57089"] It's all about making a framework for interesting choices. Contemporary MMOG aggro management schemes may be clunky, and they're certainly a poor simulation. As a simulation, they are admittedly pretty absurd; but that was never the intent of aggro schemes anyway. GSHamster nailed it; aggro is a kind of mini-game designed to give the player interesting choices. Should I feign now, how many nukes can I chain on this boss, is this the moment I should use my one-shot uber taunt? Whatever. A lot of people find this experience unsatisfying for any number of perfectly good reasons. It works well enough, however, to keep a few million people entertained every day. Now, I might feel like it's 'obvious' or somehow instinctive to think that this kind of push-style, phony aggro scheme is totally unsuited for a table top game. I may even think I know why. Does that mean that I cannot learn something from the testing that theory, even if the results turn out exactly as expected? Is it impossible to learn anything at all from such a test? If the failure of push-aggro in R&D's playtest lead them to some insight on creating a useful, pull-aggro mechanism, well then, [i]bravo![/i] The "ignore me at your own opportunity cost"-style of aggro clearly adds interesting choices; if that in turn adds a new layer of class features and differentiation, then [COLOR=Green][FONT=Courier New][b]/w00t![/b][/FONT] [/COLOR] :p [/QUOTE]

Verification