Talk:Foe behavior

Passive monsters

There are level 0..2 hostile monsters, and level >2 passive monsters. That only leaves that being passive is set manually, not automatically with their level, so you can't say: "Level X will be passive", because not all of them are.
For example, most NPCs in the mission Chahbek Village are level 0...2, yet all of them are hostile and will attack as soon as they see players, and the Wailing Lord in Fissure of Woe is passive, yet it's level 28(30).
Therefore, being level 0...2 is not directly linked to passiveness, they just often come together. And the article can't say "Level 0...2 are passive" as if they always were. MithTalk 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I stated "Level 0-2 monsters in explorable areas are passive", Chahbek Village isn't an explorable area. --Silver Edge 21:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The mantids that spawn in Zhengjo Temple are also hostile. And in the first explorable area before Chahbek village some corsair are passive, but some are hostile, and the first quest in Monastey Overlook, there's hostile level 0 mantids. It may be visited just once, but it's not a mission, it's an explorable. There's also the hostile iboga roots in Churrhir fields, the level 2 skales and giant needle spiders in pre-Searing, the level 0..2 devourers in the Devourer Cave and the catacombs in pre-Searing, and the hostile level 1 Restless Corpses in the Catacombs, that will attack even a level 20 character even if there's no level 3 Restless corpses nearby. Oh, and the level 2 Cave spiders also in the Catacombs. Ah! And the wolves! Level 2 wolves in pre-Searing as set to be aggressive. All of those are just examples of level 0...2 creatures set to be aggressive and attack on sight.

There are hostile NPCs with level higher than 2 set to be passive, and there are level 0...2 hostile NPCs set to be aggresive, that's all that matters. Not where they are, nor their species or army or anything like that. We know as a fact that being passive it's not set automatically with the level or the type of area the creature is, instead, as devs have often mentioned, like many other of their properties, it's set for the creature spawns in each area, like when they are set to attack each other in one area, but to ignore each other in other.

So saying "Level 0...2 monstres are passive" is just wrong. You can say things like "level 0...2 hostile NPCs are usually passive", "most level 0...2 hostile NPCs are passive", "passive hostile NPCs are usually level 0...2", but not just "level 0...2 hostile NPCs are passive" because that is not currently true. I'm hope you understand I'm not making up stuff here. MithTalk 04:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

cool new update

healers (maybe all casters) now like to kite melee players (maybe heroes). anybody found anything else? 98.196.150.57 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I find this article to be redundant with Hero Behavior, we might as well need to rename to AI behavior to cover them all in one place. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree: anything that is about the use of specific skills ought to be moved/merged to hero behavior. Two exceptions:

• Foes use a different aggro mechanism from heroes; that should be covered here (how far they chase also depends on map- or quest/mission-dependent considerations).
• Foe-AI also includes a couple of things that heroes don't care about: patrol paths, guardian a location, etc. That should remain on this article.

I also recommend that we rename the article to "Foe Behavior" — it's more consistent with Hero behavior, some foes are not monsters (just misguided). And finally, should we keep the article, we should include {{otherusers}} on both: this one is about behavior specific to foes, the other is about general AI behavior that applies to NPCs, foes, and heroes. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we still merging this? --Falconeye (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My personal preference would be no. From a reader's perspective, I see the AI for foes to be a different concept from the AI for allies, even if much of the underlying code is the same (which I don't think we'll get confirmed). The player interacts and cares about different sides of how the code is working (e.g. enemies falling for tanks/kites; allies responding to calls). A "See also" section would work just fine. G R E E N E R 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)