Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

agro management question

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:57:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I'm trying to get my wife into EQ, so I got a second account and we've
started up a pair of Dark Elves: she's a cleric, I'm a shadowknight.
This is my first time playing an actual tank -- though my monk has done
a fair amount of tanking at lower levels -- and I'm trying to understand
how agro works. I know there are a lot of factors that work into who's
at the top of the hate list, and they include damage done, offensive
spells (besides DD, i.e. dots, debuffs, etc.), beneficial spells cast on
people already on the hate list, distance, sitting down, and probably
more that I'm not remembering offhand. But the battles we've been
fighting aren't all that complex, and I just don't understand some of
the mob reactions we've been seeing.

In a typical fight, I'll use my level 1 "spike of disease" ability to
tag the mob. It charges over. Sometimes it passes too close to my
wife and veers off to attack her. Okay, so proximity matters, and we
need to learn not to path the mob near her. (She's mostly not sitting
down much yet; still below the level where she learns Meditation.)
But even if the mob does run up to me, and I beat on it a while, when
she moves up to begin contributing some modest melee damage, it almost
always turns and beats on her before she even takes a swing!

Here's a typical excerpt:

You begin casting Spike of Disease.
a lesser shade says 'Ura anir teka xeturi sivuela!'
Your target resisted the Spike of Disease spell.
A lesser shade tries to hit YOU, but misses!
Auto attack is on.
You slash a lesser shade for 10 points of damage.
You try to bash a lesser shade, but miss!
A lesser shade hits YOU for 1 point of damage.
You slash a lesser shade for 10 points of damage.
A lesser shade hits YOU for 1 point of damage.
You slash a lesser shade for 4 points of damage.
You try to slash a lesser shade, but miss!
A lesser shade hits Cleric01 for 1 point of damage.
You taunt a lesser shade to ignore others and attack you!
You have failed to taunt your target.
Cleric01 crushes a lesser shade for 1 point of damage.
You slash a lesser shade for 2 points of damage.
A lesser shade hits Cleric01 for 1 point of damage.
You bash a lesser shade for 6 points of damage.
You slash a lesser shade for 10 points of damage.
A lesser shade hits Cleric01 for 1 point of damage.
You slash a lesser shade for 8 points of damage.
A lesser shade hits Cleric01 for 1 point of damage.

About this time I got the mob to start facing me again. But why did
it change to the Cleric in the first place? Maybe she's moved closer
to it than I am, but does that really overcome the relative amounts
of damage we're dishing out?

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:47:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:

>About this time I got the mob to start facing me again. But why did
>it change to the Cleric in the first place? Maybe she's moved closer
>to it than I am, but does that really overcome the relative amounts
>of damage we're dishing out?

Undead - proxmity aggro > all

Some mobs give proximity more associated hate than others.

Hate is made of two components,

1. Hate from actions which builds up
2. Hate from bonuses which come and go

Proximity is a hate bonus (i.e. when you step close it adds +whatever and
when you step away it stops adding that value to your hate amount).

At low levels, if the hate bonus is big enough, it'll overcome any hate
you've generated from damage, spells, etc.

I can recommend the Steel Warrior website
(http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/index.php?s=) for everything you ever
wanted to know about aggro and hate.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.stannicholls.com]
Be creative, invent a perversion.
Gemmell Mania : http://www.gemmellmania.co.uk
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in news:7wwts1l3sd.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

> I'm trying to get my wife into EQ, so I got a second account and we've
> started up a pair of Dark Elves: she's a cleric, I'm a shadowknight.
> This is my first time playing an actual tank -- though my monk has done
> a fair amount of tanking at lower levels -- and I'm trying to
understand
> how agro works. I know there are a lot of factors that work into who's
> at the top of the hate list, and they include damage done, offensive
> spells (besides DD, i.e. dots, debuffs, etc.), beneficial spells cast
on
> people already on the hate list, distance, sitting down, and probably
> more that I'm not remembering offhand. But the battles we've been
> fighting aren't all that complex, and I just don't understand some of
> the mob reactions we've been seeing.
>
> In a typical fight, I'll use my level 1 "spike of disease" ability to
> tag the mob. It charges over. Sometimes it passes too close to my
> wife and veers off to attack her. Okay, so proximity matters, and we
> need to learn not to path the mob near her. (She's mostly not sitting
> down much yet; still below the level where she learns Meditation.)
> But even if the mob does run up to me, and I beat on it a while, when
> she moves up to begin contributing some modest melee damage, it almost
> always turns and beats on her before she even takes a swing!
<snip>

Don't fight undead mobs, or, make sure she stays further away than you.
Many undead mobs have a very high proximity agro bonus.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Related resources
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:56:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:57:40 GMT, Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to get my wife into EQ, so I got a second account and we've
>started up a pair of Dark Elves: she's a cleric, I'm a shadowknight.
>This is my first time playing an actual tank -- though my monk has done
>a fair amount of tanking at lower levels -- and I'm trying to understand
>how agro works. I know there are a lot of factors that work into who's
>at the top of the hate list, and they include damage done, offensive
>spells (besides DD, i.e. dots, debuffs, etc.), beneficial spells cast on
>people already on the hate list, distance, sitting down, and probably
>more that I'm not remembering offhand. But the battles we've been
>fighting aren't all that complex, and I just don't understand some of
>the mob reactions we've been seeing.

"Damage done" is NOT part of aggro. How much damage a melee attack
(or DD spell) actually does has nothing to do with +hate. The aggro
per swing (or per cast) is the same regardless of actual damage done,
even on a miss (or full resist) or a critical hit. It does vary in
some way based on the potential damage, a level 60 gets more +hate
per swing than a level 6, even with identical weapons. (This is not
true of heal aggro, which is affected by the amount healed.)


kaev
March 22, 2005 8:52:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

kaev scribbled:

> "Damage done" is NOT part of aggro.

> It does vary in some way based on the potential damage

I'm not sure I'd agree with that from what I've seen,
at least as a practical matter. Why would a miss
be counted as much as a hit? But, yes, a resisted
nuke might get aggro even though it doesn't do any
aggro. But for melees wouldn't it practially equate
to the same thing?

In my experience it mattered how much damage I was
doing, not how much I could potentially do. (Speaking
only as a monk trying to increase neglected two-handed
weapon skills vs a monk with dual weapons with less
damage rating but maxxed skill.) It didn't matter how
much damage I *could* do -- since I wasn't doing much
the druid in our duo would get aggro extremely quickly
vs the same mobs where I'd never lose aggro using dual
weapons.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 3:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Don Woods wrote:
> I know there are a lot of factors that work into who's
> at the top of the hate list, and they include damage done, offensive
> spells (besides DD, i.e. dots, debuffs, etc.), beneficial spells cast
on
> people already on the hate list, distance, sitting down, and probably
> more that I'm not remembering offhand.

Relative level? Is she lower level than you?

> But the battles we've been
> fighting aren't all that complex, and I just don't understand some of
> the mob reactions we've been seeing.
>
> In a typical fight, I'll use my level 1 "spike of disease" ability to
> tag the mob. It charges over. Sometimes it passes too close to my
> wife and veers off to attack her.

Proximity and sitting take a much more important roll at low levels, in
my experience. Also, the reletive effectiveness of certain spells and
actions in causing hate will change over time. For example, at low
levels a ranger/druid snare will often earn him near-permanent agro
unless he waits until the mob is nearly dead. At higher levels, one
combat round by the tank will produce more hate than that same snare
spell, and snaring early is a good idea.

> Okay, so proximity matters, and we
> need to learn not to path the mob near her.

The best thing to do is just pull the mob toward her but not past her
and have her stand on incoming. Later on you will get spells that will
produce enough hate that on your pull, she can remain sitting.

> (She's mostly not sitting
> down much yet; still below the level where she learns Meditation.)
> But even if the mob does run up to me, and I beat on it a while, when
> she moves up to begin contributing some modest melee damage, it
almost
> always turns and beats on her before she even takes a swing!

Is she casting anything on it? Did she heal you on incoming? Judging
by your log, it doesn't appear so, so I can only guess that it is
proximity, that she is lower level, or that she is outdamaging you.

Remember the reletive differences in your DPS will be very small at low
levels, and if she has a superior weapon, or just gets "lucky", she
might just be out-agroing you with melee. If she is just doing more
damage than you, consider that at that level, she may almost tank as
well as you too. And it doesn't hurt to keep her defense skill up...
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:04:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> writes:
> kaev scribbled:
>
> > "Damage done" is NOT part of aggro.
>
> > It does vary in some way based on the potential damage
>
> In my experience it mattered how much damage I was
> doing, not how much I could potentially do. (Speaking
> only as a monk trying to increase neglected two-handed
> weapon skills vs a monk with dual weapons with less
> damage rating but maxxed skill.) It didn't matter how
> much damage I *could* do -- since I wasn't doing much
> the druid in our duo would get aggro extremely quickly
> vs the same mobs where I'd never lose aggro using dual
> weapons.

I'm not sure I believe Kaev either, but your example doesn't
counter his claim. It might have been that you were doing
less actual damage with the 2HB (due to lower skill -- shame
on you for neglecting it :-) and hence less aggro, or it could
have been that the 2HB was slower (if nothing else, it's a
single attack vs the dual wield's two attacks, and I suspect
the 2HB has larger delay as well) and therefore you were doing
fewer attacks and getting less aggro.

Kaev didn't say that the "potential damage" was completely
counted toward aggro, just that it affects aggro "in some way".
I do admit that it's clear that a miss must generate *some*
aggro, since the initial pull can be done with a miss. (Given
the cap on monk's Throwing skill, I often missed when pulling,
until I learned about the Throw Stone disc.)

I've started reading the Steel Warriors site; thanks to the
earlier poster for the link! Interesting stuff; I liked the
thread analysing how many successful Taunts are needed to
overcome the "hate bonus" for "first aggro".

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:45:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1111525156.708646.295780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Don Woods wrote:
>> (She's mostly not sitting
>> down much yet; still below the level where she learns Meditation.)
>> But even if the mob does run up to me, and I beat on it a while, when
>> she moves up to begin contributing some modest melee damage, it almost
>> always turns and beats on her before she even takes a swing!
>
> Is she casting anything on it? Did she heal you on incoming? Judging
> by your log, it doesn't appear so, so I can only guess that it is
> proximity, that she is lower level, or that she is outdamaging you.
>
> Remember the reletive differences in your DPS will be very small at low
> levels, and if she has a superior weapon, or just gets "lucky", she
> might just be out-agroing you with melee. If she is just doing more
> damage than you, consider that at that level, she may almost tank as
> well as you too. And it doesn't hurt to keep her defense skill up...
>

As stated previously, I think the important fact here is it was an undead
mob, many of which have a huge proximity hate bonus, so if she is closer,
she will be higher on the hate list.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:07:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban wrote:
> "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1111525156.708646.295780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > Don Woods wrote:
> >> (She's mostly not sitting
> >> down much yet; still below the level where she learns Meditation.)
> >> But even if the mob does run up to me, and I beat on it a while,
when
> >> she moves up to begin contributing some modest melee damage, it
almost
> >> always turns and beats on her before she even takes a swing!
> >
> > Is she casting anything on it? Did she heal you on incoming?
Judging
> > by your log, it doesn't appear so, so I can only guess that it is
> > proximity, that she is lower level, or that she is outdamaging you.
> >
> > Remember the reletive differences in your DPS will be very small at
low
> > levels, and if she has a superior weapon, or just gets "lucky", she
> > might just be out-agroing you with melee. If she is just doing
more
> > damage than you, consider that at that level, she may almost tank
as
> > well as you too. And it doesn't hurt to keep her defense skill
up...
> >
>
> As stated previously, I think the important fact here is it was an
undead
> mob, many of which have a huge proximity hate bonus, so if she is
closer,
> she will be higher on the hate list.

1) I didn't know that you had arrived at your final conclusion, I
apologize for offering alternative suggestions.
2) I didn't say that proximity wasn't the issue, in fact I stated that
proximity is a much more important issue at low levels and that the
issue was probably *proximity*, her level, or her meleeing.
3) Why do you assume that he has only been killing undead? Undead make
up a minority of the mobs in Shadeweaver's. His log happened to
include a lesser shade.
4) I offered a number of suggestions based on the information I had and
taking in to account the information I *didn't* have. You made
assumptions.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:52:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:04:35 GMT, Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:

>> kaev scribbled:
>>
>> > "Damage done" is NOT part of aggro.
>>
<snip>
>I'm not sure I believe Kaev either, ...
<snip>
>I've started reading the Steel Warriors site; thanks to the
>earlier poster for the link! Interesting stuff; I liked the
>thread analysing how many successful Taunts are needed to
>overcome the "hate bonus" for "first aggro".

It's good that you don't simply believe my assertion, far too
much misinformation about EQ has been propagated by people
who read[heard] it "somewhere". You've been reading TSW, so
search it for the melee aggro test results. Also, search
Graffes (wizard board) and, if you enjoy wading through the
on-line equivalent of raw sewage in search of the occasional
bit of "gold", look for test/parse info at shadowknight.org.

A brief summary of what I found some time back (no I didn't
save any links):

First off the mark in aggro testing were the Wizards. Using
2 equal level Wizards ping-ponging a high HP mob by taking
turns casting the same nuke, the mob always switched targets
on each cast, regardless of resist, partial resist, or
critical. There were other tests, including some that pretty
well debunked the popular myth that aggro decays, though I
don't recall the particulars.

These results intrigued a pair of melee players, a Warrior
and an SK, who devised a pretty decent test of melee aggro:
The SK would use an SK pure hate spell with a known fixed
+hate value on a mob he had proximity aggro on, keeping his
back to the mob. A relatively low level alt Warrior (more
or less level appropriate for the mob being tested) then
attacked the mob until it turned. The result was that, for
any given weapon, the number of swings required to turn the
mob was constant regardless of the number of hits or actual
damage done (and there was a great deal of variance in hits
and damage).

Testing with a variety of weapons showed +hate per swing was
proportional to the base damage + (level based) bonus damage
of the weapon, with a bonus multiplier for 2 hand weapons
and a negative "bonus" multiplier for off-hand attacks.

To my knowledge it has not been tested whether your ATK
rating affects melee aggro, tho I suspect it has at least
some impact based on what I've seen of people trying to tank
with very low weapon skills.

Note that, as the dominant factor is base dmg + bonus dmg,
with no direct multiplier for base dmg, there is not a
direct correlation between DPS and and melee aggro. This
is because average damage per hit = (base*X)+bonus, where
X is affected by your ATK rating vs. the mob's AC rating
(and also appears to be affected by your level relative to
the mob) while bonus dmg remains constant per hit. As X
is typically around 2.0 at mid-levels and can exceed 4.0
for some classes at high levels the observed +hate formula
weights bonus damage higher than observed DPS effects.


kaev
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:40:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> writes:
> 1) I didn't know that you had arrived at your final conclusion, I
> apologize for offering alternative suggestions.
> 2) I didn't say that proximity wasn't the issue, in fact I stated that
> proximity is a much more important issue at low levels and that the
> issue was probably *proximity*, her level, or her meleeing.
> 3) Why do you assume that he has only been killing undead? Undead make
> up a minority of the mobs in Shadeweaver's. His log happened to
> include a lesser shade.
> 4) I offered a number of suggestions based on the information I had and
> taking in to account the information I *didn't* have. You made
> assumptions.

Please, I don't want all you helpful people to start sniping at
each other over my question! I appreciate all of the answers and
links that have been given.

As it happens, all of the mobs where we observed the odd behavior
*were* undead (in Field of Bone and later Shadeweavers), so the
undead-take-proximity-more-seriously answer is probably the main
factor in my case, but I'm happy to hear all of the other info as
well, since this is my first real "tank" class and I'm trying to
learn all I can about aggro management.

I think my filters are set up NOT to log "other people's misses",
so I don't get to see when my wife swings unless she hits. So she
may well have had some swings as well as proximity, and Kaev's info
suggests that number of swings, weighted by some measure of potential
damage, could be relevant. I think we were both using fairly wimpy
weapons, though; I didn't want to twink us too heavily while she's
still just getting used to the game. :-)

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in news:7w1xa5n4vy.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

> "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> writes:
>> 1) I didn't know that you had arrived at your final conclusion, I
>> apologize for offering alternative suggestions.
>> 2) I didn't say that proximity wasn't the issue, in fact I stated that
>> proximity is a much more important issue at low levels and that the
>> issue was probably *proximity*, her level, or her meleeing.
>> 3) Why do you assume that he has only been killing undead? Undead
make
>> up a minority of the mobs in Shadeweaver's. His log happened to
>> include a lesser shade.
>> 4) I offered a number of suggestions based on the information I had
and
>> taking in to account the information I *didn't* have. You made
>> assumptions.
>
> Please, I don't want all you helpful people to start sniping at
> each other over my question! I appreciate all of the answers and
> links that have been given.
>
> As it happens, all of the mobs where we observed the odd behavior
> *were* undead (in Field of Bone and later Shadeweavers), so the
> undead-take-proximity-more-seriously answer is probably the main
> factor in my case, but I'm happy to hear all of the other info as
> well, since this is my first real "tank" class and I'm trying to
> learn all I can about aggro management.
>
> I think my filters are set up NOT to log "other people's misses",
> so I don't get to see when my wife swings unless she hits. So she
> may well have had some swings as well as proximity, and Kaev's info
> suggests that number of swings, weighted by some measure of potential
> damage, could be relevant. I think we were both using fairly wimpy
> weapons, though; I didn't want to twink us too heavily while she's
> still just getting used to the game. :-)
>

But sniping is so much more fun. Besides, I was right, so there. :b

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"kaev" <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote in message
news:4241cf64.22922971@news.visi.com...

>
> First off the mark in aggro testing were the Wizards. Using
> 2 equal level Wizards ping-ponging a high HP mob by taking
> turns casting the same nuke, the mob always switched targets
> on each cast, regardless of resist, partial resist, or
> critical. There were other tests, including some that pretty
> well debunked the popular myth that aggro decays, though I
> don't recall the particulars.
>

Er... That "myth" was confirmed by a SOE repreesentative. Not that that
particularly makes it true, but the programmers thought it was. :p 


--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban wrote:
> Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in
news:7w1xa5n4vy.fsf@ca.icynic.com:
>
> > "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> 1) I didn't know that you had arrived at your final conclusion, I
> >> apologize for offering alternative suggestions.
> >> 2) I didn't say that proximity wasn't the issue, in fact I stated
that
> >> proximity is a much more important issue at low levels and that
the
> >> issue was probably *proximity*, her level, or her meleeing.
> >> 3) Why do you assume that he has only been killing undead? Undead

> make
> >> up a minority of the mobs in Shadeweaver's. His log happened to
> >> include a lesser shade.
> >> 4) I offered a number of suggestions based on the information I
had
> and
> >> taking in to account the information I *didn't* have. You made
> >> assumptions.
> >
> > Please, I don't want all you helpful people to start sniping at
> > each other over my question! I appreciate all of the answers and
> > links that have been given.
> >
> > As it happens, all of the mobs where we observed the odd behavior
> > *were* undead (in Field of Bone and later Shadeweavers), so the
> > undead-take-proximity-more-seriously answer is probably the main
> > factor in my case, but I'm happy to hear all of the other info as
> > well, since this is my first real "tank" class and I'm trying to
> > learn all I can about aggro management.
> >
> > I think my filters are set up NOT to log "other people's misses",
> > so I don't get to see when my wife swings unless she hits. So she
> > may well have had some swings as well as proximity, and Kaev's info
> > suggests that number of swings, weighted by some measure of
potential
> > damage, could be relevant. I think we were both using fairly wimpy
> > weapons, though; I didn't want to twink us too heavily while she's
> > still just getting used to the game. :-)
> >
>
> But sniping is so much more fun. Besides, I was right, so there. :b

So was I. =)
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:08:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:23:49 -0500, "Davian"
<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"kaev" <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote in message
>news:4241cf64.22922971@news.visi.com...
>
>>
>> First off the mark in aggro testing were the Wizards. Using
>> 2 equal level Wizards ping-ponging a high HP mob by taking
>> turns casting the same nuke, the mob always switched targets
>> on each cast, regardless of resist, partial resist, or
>> critical. There were other tests, including some that pretty
>> well debunked the popular myth that aggro decays, though I
>> don't recall the particulars.
>>
>
>Er... That "myth" was confirmed by a SOE repreesentative. Not that that
>particularly makes it true, but the programmers thought it was. :p 

I don't recall ever seeing that confirmation. The only thing
I've ever seen cited was from the correspondence posted after
the Conquest / Sleeper's Tomb mess, where the SOE reps didn't
responsd to a passing statement along the lines of "everybody
knows about aggro decay" and that silence was assumed to be a
tacit acknowledgement.

Even so, SOE reps have made plenty of incorrect statements
about game mechanics (your point, I guess).


kaev
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"kaev" <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote in message
news:42459549.12805673@news.visi.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:23:49 -0500, "Davian"
> <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>


** Note: I am reordering the paragraphs of your post, so that I may respond
to the later part first. **


> Even so, SOE reps have made plenty of incorrect statements
> about game mechanics (your point, I guess).
>

Not sure I really had a point. As this was information that I repeated often
over the years, I just object a bit to characterizing it as a myth, when there
was ample reason to believe that it was true. If I had access to a
Shadowknight and a Warrior, I could probably determine who was correct... but
having allowed my account to expire, I don't have that option, even if I did
have the desire. ;) 

Honesty does however force me to acknowledge that much in the way "Alchemy was
never broken," statements by SOE reps aren't necessarily reliable evidence of
how the game works. Especially when there is the possibility that the rep
never checked before conceding the point. (which he likely considered
irrelevant to the argument at hand).



>
> I don't recall ever seeing that confirmation. The only thing
> I've ever seen cited was from the correspondence posted after
> the Conquest / Sleeper's Tomb mess, where the SOE reps didn't
> responsd to a passing statement along the lines of "everybody
> knows about aggro decay" and that silence was assumed to be a
> tacit acknowledgement.
>

I remember it being stated much more strongly than that. At least in as much
as it was directly acknowledged, not ignored. It has however been several
years since I read it, so my memory may be playing tricks on me. And even if
my memory is correct, as I said, there is the good possibility that the rep
(TBH, I don't even remember if it was just a CS person or someone a bit higher
up, although I seem to remember it as higher up.) never actually checked,
since he didn't consider it relevant to the argument over whether the exploits
and other such things really were exploits.

The only place it was posted that I remember was on Lum the Mad's site, so it
was lost when he took it down after being hired by Mythic. His new site
doesn't have any records of the former site either. (Not that I really
expected it to, as it is more focused on game design than the former self
described "rant site")


I actually remember that thread somewhat well, as I found it very interesting
at the time. Perhaps because despite my extreme distaste for exploiters of
any kind, I came down on the guild's side that time. EQ Raiding has always
seemed to operate within a sort of gray area, where nothing but an invisible
line separates exploits from strategies, as the developers try to add nasty
surprises, while the players attempt to innovate ways to deal with those
surprises.

--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:02:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:17:50 -0500, "Davian"
<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"kaev" <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote in message
>news:42459549.12805673@news.visi.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:23:49 -0500, "Davian"
>> <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> I don't recall ever seeing that confirmation. The only thing
>> I've ever seen cited was from the correspondence posted after
>> the Conquest / Sleeper's Tomb mess, where the SOE reps didn't
>> responsd to a passing statement along the lines of "everybody
>> knows about aggro decay" and that silence was assumed to be a
>> tacit acknowledgement.
>>
>
>I remember it being stated much more strongly than that. At least in as much
>as it was directly acknowledged, not ignored. It has however been several
>years since I read it, so my memory may be playing tricks on me. And even if
>my memory is correct, as I said, there is the good possibility that the rep
>(TBH, I don't even remember if it was just a CS person or someone a bit higher
>up, although I seem to remember it as higher up.) never actually checked,
>since he didn't consider it relevant to the argument over whether the exploits
>and other such things really were exploits.

IIRC there were two SOE reps involved, Brad and somebody at/near
the top of the GM heirarchy, so, yeah, a bit higher up than your
garden variety CSR. I sure don't recall any clear acknowledgement,
and I read the stuff a couple times, but you could be right (it has
been a while), or maybe there was something weasel-worded that gave
the appearance of agreeing without actually doing so. Likely as
not neither of them actually knew, given that it was very apparent
from the correspondence that SOE didn't understand just how or what
the Conquest people were doing.

>The only place it was posted that I remember was on Lum the Mad's site, so it
>was lost when he took it down after being hired by Mythic. His new site
>doesn't have any records of the former site either. (Not that I really
>expected it to, as it is more focused on game design than the former self
>described "rant site")
>
>
>I actually remember that thread somewhat well, as I found it very interesting
>at the time. Perhaps because despite my extreme distaste for exploiters of
>any kind, I came down on the guild's side that time. EQ Raiding has always
>seemed to operate within a sort of gray area, where nothing but an invisible
>line separates exploits from strategies, as the developers try to add nasty
>surprises, while the players attempt to innovate ways to deal with those
>surprises.

*shrug* Pathing exploits aren't innovative. Whatever they were doing
beyond the pathing exploit was (apparently) not at all understood by
SOE and (to my knowledge) never revealed by the people in the know.
I think you're pretty well right about highend raiding though, guilds
like Conquest aren't playing EQ, or WoW, or whatever. They play a
much different game, a game without a name (afaik), a game that pits
their team against the developer team for "teh win", with all the
thousands of other players viewed as nothing more than unimportant
bits of scenery.


kaev
!