Complete lack of any AI for the monsters

[Jarulf]

Having just read the thread with rants about "pick up groups" and then writing LONG reply, only to not posting it due to being an ever larger rant I thought I should pick up one of the things I was complaining and see what people think so here it is on its own instead. The thread mentioned above is found at:

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index...topic=6546


OK, so I have been playing the WoW for a while now, both in beta and now in retail. I play a lot solo but also group with random people and a few times with people from LL. I have so far not done that many instances and my highest character ever is at around level 37 or so. So, if things change at high levels, so be it and this might be partly invalid.

After playing a long time, always hearing about this "aggro" thing and hearing people talk about ones "roles" in the game and so on, I got to start thinking about the monster AI, or rather, the complete lack of it. Sure, games have always been criticised for bad enemy AI, but to tell the truth, MMORPG seems to have the worst of them all, a complete lack of it! So far, my experience can sum it up as:

"convert damage and healing to aggro and have the monster attack whoever has done the most"

Nothing more, nothing less. No monster that goes more for the melee opponents, none that tries top take out the healers. None that realise that since it tosses fireballs, it can damage plate users well but for melee, perhaps it should go for the cloth characters. None that makes even the slightest deviation from the "attack the one with most aggro".

Since monsters play such narrow minded tactics, of course players will too. There will be a development of a tank, healers and support around that (sure, simplifications) but really, that is how it goes. When the game gets more "difficulty", the only increased difficulty is in that you have to follow your roles better, typically by having more monsters at once so they can't be picked up one by one. Why can't 40 warriors go and kill Onyxes? Why can a character stand and dish out enormous amount of damage or healing and not be noticed by the monster, just because someone did 1 point more of "aggro" or used some "high agro skill" doing something that might be completely harmless to the monster? Simply put, why are there no monsters with even the slightest intelligence? If for no other reason than to provide a variety and a challenge?

Sometimes I feel even pacman had smarter enemies, at least they could behave random at times....

[Occhidiangela]

Having just read the thread with rants about "pick up groups" and then writing LONG reply, only to not posting it due to being an ever larger rant I thought I should pick up one of the things I was complaining and see what people think so here it is on its own instead. The thread mentioned above is found at:

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index...topic=6546
OK, so I have been playing the WoW for a while now, both in beta and now in retail. I play a lot solo but also group with random people and a few times with people from LL. I have so far not done that many instances and my highest character ever is at arround level 37 or so. So, if things change at high levels, so be it and this might be partly invalid.

After playing a long time, always hearing about this "aggro" thing and hearing people talk about ones "roles" in the game and so on, I got to start thinking about the monster AI, or rather, the complete lack of it. Sure, games have always been critizised for bad enemy AI, but to tell the truth, MMORPG seems to have the worst of them all, a complete lack of it! So far, my experience can sum it up as:

"convert damage and healing to aggro and have the monster attack whoever has done the most"

Nothing more, nothing less. No monster that goes more for the melee opponents, none that tries top take out the healers. None that realise that since it tosses fireballs, it can damage plate users well but for melee, perhaps it should go for the cloth characters. None that makes even the slightest deviation from the "attack the one with most aggro".

Since monsters play such narrow minded tacticts, of course players will too. There will be a development of a tank, healers and support arround that (sure, simplifications) but really, that is how it goes. When the game gets more "difficulty", the only increased difficulty is in that you have to follow your roles better, typically by having more monsters at once so they can't be picked up one by one. Why can't 40 warriors go and kill Onyxia? Why can a character stand and dish out enormous ammount of damage or healing and not be noticed by the monster, just because someone did 1 point more of "aggro" or used some "high agro skill" doing something that might be completly harmless to the monster? Simply put, why are there no monsters with even the slightest intelligence? If for no other reason than to provide a veriety and a challenge?

Somtimes I feel even pacman had smarter enemies, at least they could behave random at times....
[right][snapback]87482[/snapback][/right]

Jarulf, I think that rather than spend a lot of time and effort on improving the AI, Blizzard chose to develop the game so that the sort of challenge you are discussion comes from a human player via PvP. Battlegrounds are the payoff.

Given Blizzard's success with Warcraft and Starcraft as good PvP (RTS< of course) frameworks, I think they figured out that with the brain power of the good to excellent PC gamer, they'd be searching for the holy grail in any attempt to make a really sweet AI that is both practical and worth implementing. And not full of bugs. :unsure:

My two cents.

Occhi

[vor_lord]

Given Blizzard's success with Warcraft and Starcraft as good PvP (RTS< of course) frameworks, I think they figured out that with the brain power of the good to excellent PC gamer, they'd be searching for the holy grail in any attempt to make a really sweet AI that is both practical and worth implementing.&nbsp; And not full of bugs.&nbsp; :unsure:
[right][snapback]87485[/snapback][/right]

And much more difficult to balance. Blizzard has done a pretty good job of letting "non-standard" collections of classes succeed in the game, at least until the most diffcult of encounters. If too much attention must be given to the encounter based on class choice, grouping would be much more difficult.

For example, if a particular area had a group of mobs that always preferred to attack cloth wearers, said cloth wearers would have a rough time getting a group for it.

What they have done instead is to try and have the AI (such as it is) respond to just the skills that are actually used. It's a very simple, stable, and predictable system. The instance encounters are generally well enough designed that there is still plenty of danger, and a single mistake can wipe an entire group.

[kandrathe]

"convert damage and healing to aggro and have the monster attack whoever has done the most"

That is true for most of the PVE "getting to 60" game. I think it was crucial for people to learn to play their class and develop dependable solo-able strategies within casual play, with occasional pick-ups to tackle elites, instances, and outdoor bosses. I think there are some other things that are interesting, like when Raptors scream for help causing adds.

In the high level instances you see new AI phenomena, for example, a boss will knock back your tank out of the bosses aggro radius efffectively zeroing it, and the boss heads for the healers (uh, oh!). Or, some mobs in Molten Core, have a hate list but randomly choose a secondary target and charge it (with a bowling pin effect for anyone around you), then rubber band back to whomever they were attacking before. This new AI means that the players must create new tactics and strategies for dealing with them. I've heard that BWL is yet another set of tactical challenges.

So I look at PVE WOW as two games, the "getting to 60" game, and the "what do I do now that I'm 60" game.

[acidjax]

If the goal is randomness to cause dynamic gameplay then monster AI is not the only factor.

Higher level monsters have different consequences for killing them, damaging them, or even not killing them fast enough. One monster releases a point blank AoE poison cloud upon death that deals 350dps and persists for around 30 seconds. Another monster reflects magic spells and effects. Killing certain monsters will cause them to split into more monsters upon death and others will deal heavy explosion damage when killed. Monster effects like these require players to handle different encounters differently and yet are independent of AI depth.

As far as AI goes, as was mentioned earlier, monsters do become more complex (especially raid encounters). The (random) secondary target system and other variables can make different fights unpredictable. A couple monsters have abilities that either reduce or clear hate levels from players. Although the monsters may still attack whoever has the most hate on its list, staying at the top without casualties may be extremely difficult.

If anything, perhaps Blizzard should have made the lower/mid-level range monsters do more things.

[Zarathustra]

As you progress, you'll also find that more monsters have some sort of trick they use to get past the whole "attack most aggro!" rule.

Some will net their target and move on to take out the healer. Others will do a knockback on their current target and proceed to beat up on the less-armored buddies standing next to him. Then there are some that has an area of effect confusion that will send everyone scattering except those outside the area of effect... which means the enemy usually zeroes in on the cloth standing at a range.

One of the most annoying things as a spellcaster is when the warrior is holding a melee opponent quite well, and in mid-cast you're interrupted because the mob saw your casting and decided to shield bash you before going back to their prior target.

They mix things up by making later enemies a two- or three-trick pony rather than just a run-of-the-mill "beat on high aggro" AI. Further, the scripted boss fights and challenging pulls help to vary the fights.

[oldmandennis]

/agree

It's a good idea, but you'd be talking about a very different game. If the mobs really had a harder scripted AI, they'd need to be nerfed to keep the game balanced for average players. Then the game would be really easy for people who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the stratagy for defeating a Plagued Monstrosity vs a Plagued Surger. And to animate several hundred thousand mobs with some sort of adaptave AI would really tax the CPU of the server.

And if you really nerfed the whole aggro system, you would need to implement clipping and probably more a sophisticated facing system, to keep warriors relevent.

[Descended]

It will be interesting to see if D&D Online manages a significant advancement in MMORPG style AI. I'm not sure if DDO is going to implement Attacks of Opportunity, but if they do, this should prove the missing ingredient for much more interesting tactical combat. Low hitpoint/armor class characters in D&D generally depend on having a tank that can control the easiest path vulnerable characters via threatening free attacks on anything that charges past the tank. With this factor in place, you suddenly don't have to have dumb AI for the characters to survive. The AI can be smart enough to try to take down casters via missile attacks, or sending skirmishers around the flanks, and the players can be rewarded by having their party members survive if they play the positioning game better than the AI.

Without positioning control, agro lists are the only effective tool I can think of for the developers to use; otherwise, all mobs would immediately swarm mages, then clerics, then warlocks, then rogues, then hunters, etc, if they knew what was good for them.

WoW's combat is far too abstracted to ever give players a sense they are fighting intelligent opponents.

[lemekim]

I too wish there was more advanced AI. Implementing some sort of more realistic AI, perhaps one that would be closer to the mindset of a player - where squishies and people with low health would be higher priority - and creating a fighting system where the class roles account for it through various skills and abilities to counter such AI, it would essentially address the roles of all classes in PvP as well, something that WoW is still trying to figure out.

And just like in our old Diablo, I think WoW could borrow another thing from it - randomized dungeons. This was one of the key Diablo features, a game made by the same company, and this feature did not make it into WoW. I understand the fact that outside world must remain constant, but why wouldn't they implement it inside instances?

[oldmandennis]

Yeah, I didn't play D&D, but something like that is what I meant by more sophisticated clipping and facing rules.

But mobs that do something like: There are 5 of us against 1 warrior and 4 mages, we should just rush around him and get to the squishys vs There are 5 of us against 3 warriors and 2 mages so two of us should take 2 of the warriors and the rest focus on the last, then push to the mages..... making mobs that do all this vs any concievable party combonation, for all the possible pulls in the game means the mobs have to be relativly smart, which means they need a non trivial number of CPU cycles each.

[fractaled]

And just like in our old Diablo, I think WoW could borrow another thing from it - randomized dungeons. This was one of the key Diablo features, a game made by the same company, and this feature did not make it into WoW. I understand the fact that outside world must remain constant, but why wouldn't they implement it inside instances?
[right][snapback]87550[/snapback][/right]

random dungeons probably would have kept me around for more of the loot grind... i just couldn't stand it with the EXACT same dungeons over and over... random spawn locations, or different sets of enemies would also have helped a lot...

i'd guess that random 3d dungeons are harder to layout than random 2d dungeons... also the dungeons that are in the game do show a good deal of planning went into them, and maybe they weren't willing to water that down...

[Occhidiangela]

And just like in our old Diablo, I think WoW could borrow another thing from it - randomized dungeons. This was one of the key Diablo features, a game made by the same company, and this feature did not make it into WoW. I understand the fact that outside world must remain constant, but why wouldn't they implement it inside instances?
[right][snapback]87550[/snapback][/right]

Diablo was a Blizzard North creation, Condor . . . but I tend to agree with you, if it is a practical option.

Occhi

[TheLuminaire]

random dungeons probably would have kept me around for more of the loot grind... i just couldn't stand it with the EXACT same dungeons over and over... random spawn locations, or different sets of enemies would also have helped a lot...

i'd guess that random 3d dungeons are harder to layout than random 2d dungeons... also the dungeons that are in the game do show a good deal of planning went into them, and maybe they weren't willing to water that down...
[right][snapback]87566[/snapback][/right]

You've hit on the major reasons why there isn't more randomness to the encounters. Random spawns would be the easiest of them to implement, but you run into problems. What happens if groups spawn too close together? If you get a "bad roll" on a random dugueon, it's not as simple to reset, or move past it as it is in Diablo. Take a look at problems they had in past with Blackwing Lair. It used to be that the dragonkin spawns in the Razorgore fight were somewhat random. If your guild got a "bad roll" on the amount, it could be seriously disasterous. As a result of player outcry, this was changed.

Creating random terrain and pathways, with the level of polish that we're used to from this game would be near impossible. In Diablo, the sprite-based tile system made it very simple to create random encounters. But creating full on, 3D, multi leveled, dynamicly lit dungeons is not likely to ever happen. Or if it did, we'd only all complain that it looked horrible.

[Skandranon]

Sometimes I feel even pacman had smarter enemies, at least they could behave random at times....
[right][snapback]87482[/snapback][/right]

Well, in that sense, monsters do get "harder" in endgame, where most things have a secondary attack that is randomly targeted, regardless of aggro levels. However, aside from that and aggro-wipe moves (which are really just developments of the simply aggro list system), monster AI doesn't significantly improve in endgame.

The exception appears to be Zul'Gurub. So far as I can tell, the things there are more "intelligent"; not in the sense that they'll target priests first (since any monster who did that would always win against a PC group) but in that they'll use their abilities more intelligently. Hakkari Priests have a variety of abilities that they'll employ effectively: for example, if they get polymorphed, they'll anti-magic shell themselves once they get out of it in order to avoid being repolymorphed, then dive for the largest concentration of players and hit Psychic Scream, their AoE fear. If they aren't being actively attacked they'll usually toss a heal on their most injured ally. It's elaborate scripting rather than "AI", but definitely more than simple aggro-list attacks.

[Rinnhart]

Better AI is the real Next Generation MMO.

This is just another, although at times more interesting, and certainly faster paced (outside the goddamn raiding), EverQuest.

[Jarulf]

Some comments...

What they have done instead is to try and have the AI (such as it is) respond to just the skills that are actually used.&nbsp; It's a very simple, stable, and predictable system.&nbsp; The instance encounters are generally well enough designed that there is still plenty of danger, and a single mistake can wipe an entire group.
[right][snapback]87493[/snapback][/right]

Sure, one can create danger and have a single mistake cause death, you don't even need a monster for that. Old platform games had that too. I would still, however, liked better monster AI and more variety in how monster behaves. Sure, I am not level 60 yet, however, I really can't say that monsters behave to different skills used in anything even remotely attributable to some intelligence.

Perhaps the game suddenly changes at 60, perhaps you only get smart monsters in instances, but then the question is, why? Why only in those places?

&nbsp; I think there are some other things that are interesting, like when Raptors scream for help causing adds.

Sure, there are plenty of those things. They have nothing to do with any AI for the monsters though. It is a scripted things that is a result of the HP falling low.

In the high level instances you see new AI phenomena, for example, a boss will knock back your tank out of the bosses aggro radius effectively zeroing it, and the boss heads for the healers (uh, oh!).

That is not AI any more than giving a monster dieing an explosion. Sure, it makes it needed for a different tactics, but it doesn't make the monsters either more smart in the way they act or behaving any different based on who they fight versus. Do they do the same if there is ONLY a tank there? Basically knocking him out of battle so that suddenly there is no one for the boss to fight? If not, there is no AI., it is just an effect set into one of its attacks.

Still not knowing all the things about aggro, radius and such (and thus I might actually be wrong in some of my comments), from experience so far, doesn't that require you to be knocked VERY far away?

&nbsp; Or, some mobs in Molten Core, have a hate list but randomly choose a secondary target and charge it (with a bowling pin effect for anyone around you), then rubber band back to whomever they were attacking before.&nbsp; This new AI means that the players must create new tactics and strategies for dealing with them.&nbsp; I've heard that BWL is yet another set of tactical challenges.

Ahh, yes, that is interesting since it breaks the "go with the highest aggro enemy", to bad you have to wait all the way until Molten Core to experience such a "rule breaker" :) It would be even more interesting if it did this charge based on some sort of intelligent decision, like a weak armour character getting to close, into charge range, or if it is done versus someone that is due to some criteria decided to be "dangerous" for the fight, perhaps versus a healer. Just some ideas.

After all, a concept of "occasionally random attack someone else" is hardly rocket science AI :)

So I look at PVE WOW as two games, the "getting to 60" game, and the "what do I do now that I'm 60" game.
[right][snapback]87495[/snapback][/right]

Which is a pretty stupid concept (not you, the game design by Blizzard). Why should there exist a simple game to reach 60, and only then do you start to experience the thrilling smart monsters and varying combat? It sure leads to the thing that people want to rush through the game which is sad in my opinion. In addition, you probably is less inclined to start a new char since you must "rush" him to 60 before the fun starts again and so on. Those that never reaches 60 or do high level raids will of course never see those smart monsters either I presume.

If the goal is randomness to cause dynamic game play then monster AI is not the only factor.

No, randomness is not what I really want, although there should be some randomness to things or it gets to predictable. A monster can have several smart ways to fight for example, pick among targets in a somewhat smart way, not strictly by "most aggro" or "closest".

Higher level monsters have different consequences for killing them, damaging them, or even not killing them fast enough.&nbsp; One monster releases a point blank AoE poison cloud upon death that deals 350dps and persists for around 30 seconds.&nbsp; Another monster reflects magic spells and effects.&nbsp; Killing certain monsters will cause them to split into more monsters upon death and others will deal heavy explosion damage when killed.&nbsp; Monster effects like these require players to handle different encounters differently and yet are independent of AI depth.

None of this is attributed to AI though. Sure, causes you to develop different strategies and such and is all fine. But my gripe was with completely stupid and predictable monsters.

If anything, perhaps Blizzard should have made the lower/mid-level range monsters do more things.
[right][snapback]87501[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. And I think even for high level stuff, there really isn't THAT much as far as AI goes. Sure, it is not an easy subject but one can do quite a bit more even with limited skills in AI. I am not looking for tactical thinking of groups of monsters and such, just a little bit more smart behaviour or at least a few different scripted behaviour, since now, it is basically the same script to everyone (what I call the "go for the one with most aggro") with apparently some exception to high level raids or so.

I feel Blizzard should have hired some with good skill in AI for their game.

[Jarulf]

... split in two since the forum can't handle too many quotes in one post!

One of the most annoying things as a spellcaster is when the warrior is holding a melee opponent quite well, and in mid-cast you're interrupted because the mob saw your casting and decided to shield bash you before going back to their prior target.
[right][snapback]87505[/snapback][/right]

That is cool, although I have never so far seen anything close to it.

/agree

It's a good idea, but you'd be talking about a very different game.&nbsp;

Of course. That is what I am looking for. I agree with most other things you wrote (that I did not quote) as well. But so what? Why implement the same system everyone else is using? Why not do something interesting and much more fun? Perhaps it is just me it would be much more fun and interesting to. Of course people would learn to counter different tactics from monsters, but that is when it turns more into a game of skill, than one of level and equipment. Now, you learn a primary overall strategy and stick to it with variations because you know before how most monsters behave.

Without positioning control, agro lists are the only effective tool I can think of for the developers to use; otherwise, all mobs would immediately swarm mages, then clerics, then warlocks, then rogues, then hunters, etc, if they knew what was good for them.

Exactly!!! After all, isn't that what players often do? Of course one need to adjust the whole game, characters and so on. But, so what? Then you might not have to give a monster tons of HP and super damage just to make it challenging. Then players are not as tied into "healer", "damager", "tank" and so on either. The role might vary with encounter much more and so on.

random dungeons probably would have kept me around for more of the loot grind... I just couldn't stand it with the EXACT same dungeons over and over... random spawn locations, or different sets of enemies would also have helped a lot...

Yes, that is one of my other major "problem" with this type of game. Why do monsters have to have exact spawn points? Why not randomize it? If for no other reason to get around camping (which I understand is a bigger problem in other games than WoW though, right?). Why not randomize herbs and such more too. One can still have it as "randomize adjacent to a tree trunk" for one type and so on. No, instead they make it more "random" by having 3 or 4 (or perhaps a few more) possible places to pick from. It is still not random though.

You've hit on the major reasons why there isn't more randomness to the encounters.&nbsp; Random spawns would be the easiest of them to implement, but you run into problems.&nbsp; What happens if groups spawn too close together?

Then you have a harder situation, so what?

&nbsp; If you get a "bad roll" on a random dugueon, it's not as simple to reset, or move past it as it is in Diablo.&nbsp; Take a look at problems they had in past with Blackwing Lair.&nbsp; It used to be that the dragonkin spawns in the Razorgore fight were somewhat random.&nbsp; If your guild got a "bad roll" on the amount, it could be seriously disasterous.&nbsp; As a result of player outcry, this was changed.

So? The game is not completely predictable and is sometimes harder, sometimes easier. What is the problem? Still, it doesn't necessarily have to apply to special instances and such as the one you mention. But the VERY same default spawn places exists out in the open in random areas were there is just monsters wandering around, were it doesn't matter if you get two of them too close. Even in smaller caves and such, were you typically should slay some boss in there (there are many of those right from the newbie area), they still have the boss at exactly the same place (with the occasional cave were he can spawn in 2 or 3 different places) and monsters along the road in exactly the same places. Why????

So we can agree that it might not work on the final super boss, but why have everything else that way for that reason? Even D1 had some of the bosses in preset and pre created area. They figured that one out too :)

So far as I can tell, the things there are more "intelligent"; not in the sense that they'll target priests first (since any monster who did that would always win against a PC group)

Why? Apparently players sometimes use that tactics (I do for cases in STV were I typically pulled a shaman together with a melee monster and I am sure others did too), yet I died at least once and saw others too. So why would monsters do that too? Adjust the monster so that it doesn't do a million HP which is only needed since it is supposed to fight plate warriors (who just are there to absorb the damage). It might require priests to perhaps think about protection they wear and use. The priest might need attention for healing by, for example the Paladin and so on. Adapt, change tactics, do something else. When you play solo as a priest, monsters in fact goes for you "first", yet you survive.

Hakkari Priests have a variety of abilities that they'll employ effectively: for example, if they get polymorphed, they'll anti-magic shell themselves once they get out of it in order to avoid being repolymorphed, then dive for the largest concentration of players and hit Psychic Scream, their AoE fear.&nbsp; If they aren't being actively attacked they'll usually toss a heal on their most injured ally.&nbsp; It's elaborate scripting rather than "AI", but definitely more than simple aggro-list attacks.
[right][snapback]87584[/snapback][/right]

Ahh, this is the sort of thing I am looking for. True, I am not looking for true AI, a bit more advance scripts that actually try to at least make some analyze of the situation and adapt is more than enough. They should have had it right from the start of the game and introduced it to players at lower levels, slowly. It would be much more interesting than now, were the improvements is generally in higher damage, more HP and some new skill you need to counter.

[Walkiry]

So? The game is not completely predictable and is sometimes harder, sometimes easier. What is the problem? Still, it doesn't necessarily have to apply to special instances and such as the one you mention. But the VERY same default spawn places exists out in the open in random areas were there is just monsters wandering around, were it doesn't matter if you get two of them too close. Even in smaller caves and such, were you typically should slay some boss in there (there are many of those right from the newbie area), they still have the boss at exactly the same place (with the occasional cave were he can spawn in 2 or 3 different places) and monsters along the road in exactly the same places. Why????

So we can agree that it might not work on the final super boss, but why have everything else that way for that reason? Even D1 had some of the bosses in preset and pre created area. They figured that one out too :)
[right][snapback]87593[/snapback][/right]

From the point of view of the guy who left in mid-20s and had a chance to play a few days with a 40+...

I think a good chunk of the blame for that should be placed on the "balance". As I see it, WoW has been iron-tight triple plus balanced to make damn sure you fight one enemy and only ONE enemy at a time, and every time you get "adds" you are pretty much screwed. Maybe not every time (classes with pets come to mind), maybe not after you start getting your ultimate loot of uberness, but everywhere else it's there. Then you look at the instances; the "hard fights" that have been balanced towards the healer/range/tank "do your job" groups are done so by having a boss, and to make a challenge adding a series of enemies hard-linked to them so that you get to fight the amount of enemies the devs Approved™ for you to fight with your "do your job" group.

If you add randomness on top of that you can easily end up with spawns close together, and due to how the game is balanced get yourself an encounter that you have purposedly made to be almost unwinnable for your average player. You either fix this the hard way (with good code to make sure no spawn points are so close together when running through your random generator), or the lazy way and make everything spawn on the same point, putting "linked enemies" in places you want the players to go only as a team.

Hardly surprising what Blizzard chose.

[Skandranon]

Adjust the monster so that it doesn't do a million HP which is only needed since it is supposed to fight plate warriors (who just are there to absorb the damage). It might require priests to perhaps think about protection they wear and use. The priest might need attention for healing by, for example the Paladin and so on. Adapt, change tactics, do something else. When you play solo as a priest, monsters in fact goes for you "first", yet you survive.
[right][snapback]87593[/snapback][/right]

The problem, as you've seen, is that elite creatures (the only things that need groups and therefore the only mobs that I'm really talking about) hit for thousands of points of damage per hit. With a cloth-wearer's low damage reduction, mobs in MC will generally two-hit a priest.

The solution you propose is to reduce their damage so that they don't kill priests as quickly. Then why bother bringing priests? If their damage is that low, then warriors won't need healing to kill them (and what healing they might need will be done by paladins). Why bother bringing any cloth-wearer if there's no way any other class can keep mobs off them? And if you shift the system so that casters can wear heavy armour, why bother bringing warriors or paladins?

The changes you propose wouldn't require adaptation of tactics. Certain classes would simply become completely useless.

[Walkiry]

The changes you propose wouldn't require adaptation of tactics.&nbsp; Certain classes would simply become completely useless.
[right][snapback]87642[/snapback][/right]

This argument has never settled well with me, and I'll tell you why:

Then why bother bringing priests?

Why not? In your example you had a warrior, and a paladin that was enough to heal him.What happens if you have a mail wearer instead? Well, maybe with enemies doing less damage you could make with that instead of having to get a warrior! Or maybe a druid can spec into something that isn't so strongly heal-oriented! Wouldn't that be nice? Heck, maybe you could even let paladins play the "holy warrior" they were told they would be instead of the bad heal-bot many complain they become. Or warriors that try to go offensive wouldn't get looked at over the shoulder so much.

Any complaint about classes being "useless" when a change takes enemy difficulty down a notch is usually from people who can't, or don't want to, see how that could open new possibilities for different tactics. If only we could get players to see past the range/heal/tank Everquest wanabee and realize it may not be the only way to do things...

City of Heroes used to be like that, it took months to get people to change their mentality and realize you can do with a team of almost any X foo/bar/baz/quux and still win. That was its greatest strength, and it's a shame the devs butchered it for the upcoming PvP and City of Villains. And the somewhat holy crusade Statesman has against "herding". But that's a different rant.