Game Mechanics: Undead do not train

[Nirgon]

Skeletons, mummies and zombies do not transfer on to attack a player if trained. Same with specters. This is a classic game mechanic.

[nilbog]

I completely agree with this. The mechanics of it need to be worded very specifically though, to ensure it's developed correctly.

This is an excerpt from a developer thread where I tried to explain this.

Undead (bodytype 3) npcs should aggro at any level. They should recheck their proximity aggro and give priority to those closest.

If a player has proximity aggro from an undead and has made no aggressive action, the npc should recheck its aggro to the closest PC if they are in range and initiator is not.

i.e. I'm running through oasis, and I aggro a spectre. I don't attack the spectre, but run away from it. If I bring the spectre past someone else, and it is chasing me only from memory, it should get priority aggro on the other player if it is within its aggro radius and I am not.. because they are closer.

horrible pic.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Someone that knows wtf they are doing can explain and/or make a better pic.

[SirAlvarex]

Wasn't this true for all aggro mobs?

IE, the mob is gaining aggro, no matter what, as it is trained. Therefore if a Sand Giant runs past a group of players, it will gain proximity aggro on *each* of those players. If they run away, they still have the same level of proximity aggro once all of the other SGs victims die.

It also means that whoever has the most aggro at the time gets whacked...which you guys already know more about the numbers for proximity/sitting aggro. So a SG wouldn't immediately peel off the trainer if the trainer did more damage than proximity aggro can generate...

Until the trainer zones/dies...

This only comes from memory, mostly in Blackburrow. When a gnoll would be trained by a group you'd have to log out because once the trainer dies, those gnolls were coming from you. Maybe this is a mis-remember, as I do not even know how you would find proof of a basic game mechanic...

But if it really is as simple as proximity aggro always accumulates, it should be relatively easy to code since proximity aggro is already a thing.

[SirAlvarex]

I don't know if you already have enough information, but the following breakdown seems appropriate:

(random numbers assigned for purposes of demonstration)
Proximity Aggro = 5 points

Three players present along path.
1. Player 1 aggroes Mob. Player 1 now has 5 aggro.

2. Player 1 is out of "frenzy/proximity" aggro range. Player 1 now has 1 aggro.

3. Player 1 runs for his/her life. Along the way, player 2 gets within melee/frenzy range of mob (the range that is currently used for a PC to gain aggro from a pet). Player 1 still has 1 aggro, player two now has 5 aggro.

4. Player 2 runs for his/her life, getting out of aggro range. Player 2 now has 1 aggro, and Player 1 now has 1 aggro. This is where i think the mechanic gets fuzzy. Should Player 2 still be "above" Player 1 on the aggro list? I believe so...which leads to Player 3.

5. Player 3 is along the retreat of Player 2. Player 3 is within Frenzy range of the mob and gains 5 aggro, and is now getting whacked. Player 3 dies from this.

6. Player 2 is still at the top of the hate list, so goes after Player 2.

7. Player 2 zones. Player 1 is only player with aggro, and Mob now chases after Player 1.

8. Mob gets within frenzy/aggro range of Player 1. Player 1 now has 5 aggro.

9. Player 1 zones. Mob now has a clear hate list.

=====

If my assumption about Player 2 staying at the top of the hate list if both Player 1 and Player 2 are out of Melee/Frenzy range is incorrect, then just switch "Player 2" and "Player 1" from step 5 on.

I don't know if this seems clear enough, but this is how I remember it going down, and seems to be what you guys are describing. If I'm wrong/unclear on some point, feel free to correct. This is a mechanic that would change pretty much half the game, and if done incorrectly could cause a lot of grief.

[Seaweedpimp]

Good posts. I remember undeads doing this on live aswell. ( it was awesome ^-^ )

[Nizzarr]

Originally Posted by Reikerz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^ You're not understanding it correctly.

Undead and non-undead mobs in EQ have slightly different aggro mechanics. If you proximity aggro a sand giant and run past some players, the sand giant isn't going to leave you alone until you zone (you have first aggro and therefore substantially higher aggro than anyone else given that no one attacks it). Once you zone, if other players got on its aggro list at all it'll then run to attack them because normal mobs follow a very simple routine: only attack whoever is #1 on the hate list. However if you proximity aggro a spectre and run through some players, that spectre is going to immediately aggro and attack them, even before you zone (the spectre will proximity aggro others even though you have more aggro with initial aggro). In other words, undead mobs care more about just being able to hit something instead of who initially aggroed it. However once you increase your aggro by doing some damage (or debuff etc) to an undead mob, it'll still favor attacking you over anyone else and will no longer stop to attack innocent bystanders (but definitely will return to kill them once the initial aggro zones, it's much easier to get on an undead mob's hate list just from being near it). I'm not sure exactly how much additional aggro/damage is required. It's very low, possibly even just 1 damage before the undead mob will become "stuck" on you.

I'm kind of stumped on how the last part of that works because I have memories of people kiting spectres over me and having them stop to attack me, and also of them running over me without stopping to attack me. It's possible that the developers tweaked undead aggro at some point (especially considering how exploitable it was in certain zones like Oasis) or it has something to do with a golden number of aggro someone needs on the mob before it'll only try to attack him/her.

But at the very least, undead mobs temporarily ignoring initial proximity aggro for other targets in melee range is something the server's been noticeably missing since day one. I just figured it wasn't a very big priority considering its only advantage is as a griefing tactic.

Thats not true, I believe any mobs would transfer aggro if you didnt do anything to them.

Case in point: Fancy the bard.

You think he really zoned those giants to cause grief on sullon zek? no he just proxy aggro'ed them and ran over people to get them killed.

I'm also a firm believer that if you ran stuff over a group, even if they didnt engage anything, mob would add them to their proximity aggro list and come back for them if the guy with more than 1 hate would zone.

[heartbrand]

Glad someone pointed this out, I remember the skeleton trains @ newbie log in nektulos, some good times.

[Fazlazen]

Originally Posted by Nizzarr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm also a firm believer that if you ran stuff over a group, even if they didnt engage anything, mob would add them to their proximity aggro list and come back for them if the guy with more than 1 hate would zone.

This.. 1000 % this. When I started playing on this server, I would never walk by mobs that were KoS to me even when engaged because I remembered this as a classic mechanic. I learned shortly after that if a mob is engaged, it's not registering me on his aggro list.

This would make things interesting and I believe is the correct classic mechanic.

[SirAlvarex]

This seems to be working now! Atleast to the point that it allows Bards to charm kite.

The last adjustments would be that Charmed mobs aren't being automatically added to proximity aggro, and currently aggro only registers every 3-6 seconds (or so it seems). The latter probably can't be fixed. But the former, even though I don't have proof other than "that's how charm kiting for bards worked on live according to these message boards," feels correct anyway.

[Furniture]

whats the deal on this? nizzarr is 100% correct here