So the Nerfing Begins


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think a leash-like effect would be an improvement: Gain a little hate per round toward each PC within a configurable distance of the mob's home location.


Andius the Afflicted wrote:


Then get off you high horse and realize it's in appropriate to dismiss people's feedback just because they haven't heard how the aggro-leash works and choose to describe it with an industry standard term.

An industry standard term that is not correct in the slightest since it is always based on "distance", while this mechanic is based off of "threat" and behaves in conjunction with said threat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

There's a meaningful conversation to be had about the mechanics.

If one side of that conversation is talking about mechanics that don't exist and a way of working that isn't what is happening then the conversation can't be very useful.

We need to try to be precise with our language and our definitions so that everyone who is taking part can stay in synch.

There is no leashing in the game. So discussions about leash distance or whatever are useless. A bunch of comments about leashing based on how that mechanic works in other games isn't helpful. And people who read those comments, and don't know that the underlying premise is simply wrong, can be deadended before they have a chance to be constructively critical.

If people want to talk about the aggro mechanic, let's talk about the aggro mechanic. But let's not call it leashing when it's not a leash.

It's actually a very sophisticated system that was built to have a lot of interesting variables and potential extensions that could be implemented over time if that is what the community decides is a good priority. As with all things, it is right now in a "first iteration state". It doesn't exhibit complex behaviors or variables or react to what players are doing because that was not the objective the designers gave the programmers. The objective was "get the basic functionality working", and they have.

Look lets not be stupid here and start being verbal police I explained what I meant when I used the word "leash", now whether it is actually a leash like how it works in other games or works via threat, the coding of it is not important, the end result is the same damn thing which is what the important thing is, and you all know it.

Attack a camp kill one or two critter run sprint away long enough for them to decide to turn around and run back home and you can then sprint after them while attacking and they are too stupid to turn around and come back for you.

Plain fact is this isn't "kiting" a whole camp. Kiting consist of killing things while on the move.

People kite one or two critter then run away from the rest till they decide to bugger off.

When someone uses a word like leash the coding of it doesn't matter it.

Take EQ for example if you attacked a mob you had better well been able to kill it or those sucker would follow to the next zone as such they had no "leash".

The mobs in this game will not, if you stop attacking and run away they seem to suffer from Alzheimer and forget about you.

Pretty silly to ignore a point because you do not like the terminology that has been used.

When I first came to this community I felt is was a rather nice one and I have met some people in game that I recognize from these forums and have found them to be quite nice.

The general reaction to me having an opinion of the rooting thing and my use of the word "leash" has me feeling as someone new here I should just shut up and not have an opinion and can't help but feel your comments support this. Pretty disappointing that someone that has CEO next to his name takes this stance.

You could have simply stated it's not a leash per say and works via aggro or provided the terminology you feel was appropriate and we could have had a civil discussion.

Anyhoot I will do like I do in most forums and just shut up and not have an opinion and just pop in now and then to see what is up or going on.


yea, I mean, I'm not mad...

I just hope something is done. There does seem to be a kind of 'nu uh' thing going on though.

haha @ Cald, tho, I don't think any creature, while you are killing it, is going to just give up and say well might as well just walk home. And yeah I know that's what is happening, too.

We know. The community is not so dumb. But opposed to getting pissed @ my waiter, I am more likely to just not eat the fries for fear he may spit in them or because more time would be wasted.

I think we all want a good game. If this stuff is gonna happen eventually, then by all means let us know. No reason to act like it's not broken.

The Exchange

I think there is some merit to the idea behind the test however, it seem a bit extreme first step. That being said it is probably the easiest they could put in quickly. What I see happening is everyone running around in heavy armor no matter the class. Because wizard and rouges w/bows are just too easy hit hard when using range weapons and class traditional armor. All this does is shift the focus of the imbalance to Fighters with bow and melee weapon and cleric build for standing and fighting.

To T7V Jazzlvraz's point I'm sure he can stand and fight. I going to guess though that he wearing something heavier than cloth armor. The post addressed the original post about casting while standing still, but, it was from an armored point of view being told to a wizard who will die in a fraction of the time due to armor differences.

Fighters already have a training advantage as there is 1 arcane weapon skill, 1 divine weapon skill, 3 for subterfuge weapon skill(rouge), and 6 for martial weapon skill(Fighter)

Also I see a decrease in AOE use. If I stand at my max range and use an AOE it will only hit the target and not AOE. Once the group is aggro-ed the whole group is subject to being hit but is not automatic for being in the affected area. in fact Mobs at the same distance seem to have a better chance of all being hit than mobs in a line. AOE have a bad chance to hurt your team in groups so most seem to be used solo which with this root thing is pretty close to a death sentence for a camp you couldn't take with single shot spells any way.

If these are the cases why make cloth or leather armor?

Only thoughts and observations

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In order to discuss how to correct a problem, we need to share an accurate understanding of the nature of the current problem.

Using a term that is descriptively used to mean something different from what is actually happening is ineffective at communicating.

Goblin Squad Member

NytCrawlr wrote:
Andius the Afflicted wrote:


Then get off you high horse and realize it's in appropriate to dismiss people's feedback just because they haven't heard how the aggro-leash works and choose to describe it with an industry standard term.
An industry standard term that is not correct in the slightest since it is always based on "distance", while this mechanic is based off of "threat" and behaves in conjunction with said threat.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who hears someone use "ain't" in an argument and chooses to address their points and concerns as best I can rather than just shutting the argument down with "ain't isn't a word"!

I think there is a lot more to be gained by recogizing their legitmate concerns, explaining the system doesn't work quite how they think, then openly encouraging them to propose solutions that will work for the system used.

I'm seeing a lot of the 2nd and not much of the first or third.

Goblin Squad Member

The current agro mechanics are functioning in a manner that results in them being a leash. It might be a different sort of a leash. It might be a cool new high tech leash, or a simple one made of rope. But in the end, its a leash. If I can still be attacking enemies, and watch them turn around and walk away as I continue to hit them, all the way back to their camp, its a leash.

You may not have intended it that way. It might be coded that way. But that *is* what it is doing. You wanted crowdforged results and answers. The crowd is saying "That's a leash. It needs improvement." We can call a dog a cat, and a cat a dog, but it doesn't change that in the end, a dog is a dog.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Using a term that is descriptively used to mean something different from what is actually happening is ineffective at communicating.

I'm sorry, but "leash" is a perfectly descriptive term for the observed behavior of the mobs. It doesn't matter if it's based on distance or time or threat or a random number generator; the mob is turning around and running back to its spawn point.

Maybe we can quit focusing so much on the terminology, and - as Ryan suggested - have a conversation about the mechanics.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Keep in mind this is Alpha software, so at this point we are not really "players", but rather "play-testers". The game has not reached a state yet where it is there primarily for our enjoyment.

So it should come as no surprise that the developers tweak here and fiddle there with systems already in place while continuing development on major systems that have not yet been introduced.

Ultimately, I get the sense the developers are working towards a well-balanced combat system that makes gameplay enjoyable for all styles. How can anyone be surprised that there are and will continue to be adjustments as we move towards that goal?

And if one doesn't like a tweak, its fine to be vocal about it. But let's keep it objective and constructive. Seems there's a lot of emotional editorializing lately, getting in the way of the constructive community voice.


Nihimon wrote:

I'm sorry, but "leash" is a perfectly descriptive term for the observed behavior of the mobs. It doesn't matter if it's based on distance or time or threat or a random number generator; the mob is turning around and running back to its spawn point.

Maybe we can quit focusing so much on the terminology, and - as Ryan suggested - have a conversation about the mechanics.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

There's a meaningful conversation to be had about the mechanics.

If one side of that conversation is talking about mechanics that don't exist and a way of working that isn't what is happening then the conversation can't be very useful.

We need to try to be precise with our language and our definitions so that everyone who is taking part can stay in synch.

There is no leashing in the game. So discussions about leash distance or whatever are useless. A bunch of comments about leashing based on how that mechanic works in other games isn't helpful. And people who read those comments, and don't know that the underlying premise is simply wrong, can be deadended before they have a chance to be constructively critical.

If people want to talk about the aggro mechanic, let's talk about the aggro mechanic. But let's not call it leashing when it's not a leash.

Goblin Squad Member

Samuel Locks wrote:
I think there is some merit to the idea behind the test however, it seem a bit extreme first step. That being said it is probably the easiest they could put in quickly.

I actually feel like the best / easiest short term fix would be removing the ability to make ranged attacks while sprinting.

It doesn't go far enough, but it also doesn't go too far. It's a good first step other solutions can build onto rather than something that will have to be removed to properly test any further tweaks.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It may seem that we're getting a bit too fussy about nomenclature and semantics, but I can understand where Ryan is coming from.

I work on a day to day basis with a user community far smaller than PFO. We lose a tremendous amount of time because of confusing communication. One person refers to a dog, the next refers to a cat...do they both mean pets in general, or are they really talking about two slightly different things???

If we all insist on referring to the same thing in different ways, we force the developers to spend precious cycles just trying to interpret what the point of a concern really is.


I didn't bother reading everything, but I did notice one thing overall. This thread (similar to a certain other thread) feels slightly more toxic than average, and like that certain other thread, I feel at least partly to blame for that.

In particular, I was quite thoroughly an ass to Calistin last night, and undeservedly so. I apologize for that. The next time I am feeling pissed off and self-righteous at 230 in the morning (or 230 in the afternoon), I will reach for the "close window" button instead of the "submit" button. It doesn't help anybody when I am so very clearly calling someone "stupid" without actually using the word.

As Monday approaches, please keep in mind that a lot of new people way be coming to the forums, and consider whether this thread is one yall would like to be there to greet people when they arrive.

I wish you all the best! Even though I may not always act like it...


Here's further explanation on why not calling it "Leashing" is important. (Since the Devs apparently keep correcting us but also want to talk about the issue)

Stephen Cheney - There is No Leashing, Etc.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:

I didn't bother reading everything, but I did notice one thing overall. This thread (similar to a certain other thread) feels slightly more toxic than average, and like that certain other thread, I feel at least partly to blame for that.

In particular, I was quite thoroughly an ass to Calistin last night, and undeservedly so. I apologize for that. The next time I am feeling pissed off and self-righteous at 230 in the morning (or 230 in the afternoon), I will reach for the "close window" button instead of the "submit" button. It doesn't help anybody when I am so very clearly calling someone "stupid" without actually using the word.

As Monday approaches, please keep in mind that a lot of new people way be coming to the forums, and consider whether this thread is one yall would like to be there to greet people when they arrive.

I wish you all the best! Even though I may not always act like it...

It is important people are civilised and polite.

But it is also important that prospective new playera re aware of the direction the game is taking.

This new change shows a definite bias in PvE towards making solo play inPvE unviable. It also biased against any character other than a tanked heavy armor melee character solo.

people need to realise this is where the game is heading. The large group thing is being enforced in PvE now not just PvP and wizards and aechers and to some extent clerics are now secondary support for fighters.

Of course what this change REALLY shows is Crowd Forging can never work well becasue, as always, the disgruntled people will be loud and vocal and demanding before a change and the masses who are happy with the current situation will not speak up till after the change.


TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

The current agro mechanics are functioning in a manner that results in them being a leash. It might be a different sort of a leash. It might be a cool new high tech leash, or a simple one made of rope. But in the end, its a leash. If I can still be attacking enemies, and watch them turn around and walk away as I continue to hit them, all the way back to their camp, its a leash.

You may not have intended it that way. It might be coded that way. But that *is* what it is doing. You wanted crowdforged results and answers. The crowd is saying "That's a leash. It needs improvement." We can call a dog a cat, and a cat a dog, but it doesn't change that in the end, a dog is a dog.

haha. This is about what I am thinking. Thanks for posting it in terms that may appeal to them more than mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What drew me to the thread was the title, lol. Really someone complaining about that in Alpha? or even Beta's for that matter. With a title like that I expected it to be toxic.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I have an example of an interesting situation I was just using to my advantage.

There is a hex which is very high with an undead escalation, and within that hex there are tons of red colored skeletons - Risen Fighter Adventurers are what I am speaking of, in particular.

In my group of four, I had a shortbow, with minimal training (a ranged attack bonus of 9) and another player had the same weapon and attacks, but with a ranged attack bonus of 20. This meant she did significantly more damage than I did using Distant Shot.

I could freely shoot at these skeletons from max range, doing small amounts of damage, and after 3-4 hits, they would begin to consider me a threat (I suppose) and come after me. After about 10 meters, they would head back to their post, because I wasn't enough of a threat. The enemies near them did not respond at all, which was fine with me.

My party member, on the other hand, could shoot one of these skeletons and pull it all the way to our group - along with his half-dozen friends.

So, what we could do - and did many times - was have me engage a single enemy, have him (and him alone) come at me a bit, and then she would only have to shoot him after he got a little bit away from his buddies, drawing his attention seemingly permanently, so that our group could whack him down. These are pretty tough skeletons, for the record.

I consider this result mostly cleverness on the part of our group, and I think that doing things like this is acceptable - in the sense that it seems likely things like this always will be possible, to some extent.

But if those skeletons had been easier to damage, they would have registered the threat sooner and perhaps even realized they need to come all at once or not at all. That is my impression of the system, at least.

So I agree, there are no leashes - only manipulation of the aggro system. Does it need tweaks in the future? Sure. But the fact that it clearly functions as is serves plenty well for me.

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal>Keign wrote:
But if those skeletons had been easier to damage, they would have registered the threat sooner and perhaps even realized they need to come all at once or not at all. That is my impression of the system, at least.

I saw similar behaviour on ogres. Our main puller in a group was a fighter/bowman and pulled the entire group. I went out later by myself and plinked at ogres and they would barely move after I hit them. Their hp would regenerate faster than my stamina. Big tough monthers seem to need more damage on them to get them moving.

As far as your technique - that sounds good to me. Fight smarter, not harder.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Using a term that is descriptively used to mean something different from what is actually happening is ineffective at communicating.

I'm sorry, but "leash" is a perfectly descriptive term for the observed behavior of the mobs. It doesn't matter if it's based on distance or time or threat or a random number generator; the mob is turning around and running back to its spawn point.

Maybe we can quit focusing so much on the terminology, and - as Ryan suggested - have a conversation about the mechanics.

What would the result be if the aggro radius was unchanged, but mobs did not return to spawn point on running out of threat?


sspitfire1 wrote:

I didn't bother reading everything, but I did notice one thing overall. This thread (similar to a certain other thread) feels slightly more toxic than average, and like that certain other thread, I feel at least partly to blame for that.

In particular, I was quite thoroughly an ass to Calistin last night, and undeservedly so. I apologize for that. The next time I am feeling pissed off and self-righteous at 230 in the morning (or 230 in the afternoon), I will reach for the "close window" button instead of the "submit" button. It doesn't help anybody when I am so very clearly calling someone "stupid" without actually using the word.

As Monday approaches, please keep in mind that a lot of new people way be coming to the forums, and consider whether this thread is one yall would like to be there to greet people when they arrive.

I wish you all the best! Even though I may not always act like it...

I appreciate this post sspitfire and I am not one to hold a grudge! That said I want to offer my apology if I used terms that offended you, or anyone else, and caused you to react this way. I know I am no saint with a halo!

That said I will be moving on, I am in another alpha for another sandbox type game which focuses more on pve, as I do not like the direction that I see this game going in. I will most likely check back in 6 months or so to see what is new etc

So have fun yall and Happy Hunting!

Until next time.


Calistin wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:

I didn't bother reading everything, but I did notice one thing overall. This thread (similar to a certain other thread) feels slightly more toxic than average, and like that certain other thread, I feel at least partly to blame for that.

In particular, I was quite thoroughly an ass to Calistin last night, and undeservedly so. I apologize for that. The next time I am feeling pissed off and self-righteous at 230 in the morning (or 230 in the afternoon), I will reach for the "close window" button instead of the "submit" button. It doesn't help anybody when I am so very clearly calling someone "stupid" without actually using the word.

As Monday approaches, please keep in mind that a lot of new people way be coming to the forums, and consider whether this thread is one yall would like to be there to greet people when they arrive.

I wish you all the best! Even though I may not always act like it...

I appreciate this post sspitfire and I am not one to hold a grudge! That said I want to offer my apology if I used terms that offended you, or anyone else, and caused you to react this way. I know I am no saint with a halo!

That said I will be moving on, I am in another alpha for another sandbox type game which focuses more on pve, as I do not like the direction that I see this game going in. I will most likely check back in 6 months or so to see what is new etc

So have fun yall and Happy Hunting!

Until next time.

keke. I got Life is Feudal. Having fun with it. Still prolly gonna play this, tho.

Goblin Squad Member

Calistin wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:

I didn't bother reading everything, but I did notice one thing overall. This thread (similar to a certain other thread) feels slightly more toxic than average, and like that certain other thread, I feel at least partly to blame for that.

In particular, I was quite thoroughly an ass to Calistin last night, and undeservedly so. I apologize for that. The next time I am feeling pissed off and self-righteous at 230 in the morning (or 230 in the afternoon), I will reach for the "close window" button instead of the "submit" button. It doesn't help anybody when I am so very clearly calling someone "stupid" without actually using the word.

As Monday approaches, please keep in mind that a lot of new people way be coming to the forums, and consider whether this thread is one yall would like to be there to greet people when they arrive.

I wish you all the best! Even though I may not always act like it...

I appreciate this post sspitfire and I am not one to hold a grudge! That said I want to offer my apology if I used terms that offended you, or anyone else, and caused you to react this way. I know I am no saint with a halo!

That said I will be moving on, I am in another alpha for another sandbox type game which focuses more on pve, as I do not like the direction that I see this game going in. I will most likely check back in 6 months or so to see what is new etc

So have fun yall and Happy Hunting!

Until next time.

To be honest quitting before the changes are even implemented is a slight over-reaction.

Personally I see this change having a massive effect on my playstyle as I am Australian and play when hardly anyone else is on. ( A wizard player I know has continually tried unsuccessfullyto get people to party up in chat. The people into group play already have groups, the solo players are solo for good reason).

Making it compulsory to party up for PvE WoW style is going to kill the game for anyone outside the US.

Yes the whole thing is the result of a coup by a small group of players who made a huge fuss and refused to listen to reason and forced through untested game changes to the detriment of everyone else but that is no reason to quit before we even see if the changes are as horrific as most of us believe.

I will be dropping back to logging in rarely to check craft queues after this change until the end result become clear.

Goblin Squad Member

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
...untested game changes...

I'm not understanding your meaning. *We* are the testers; how else can any change get tested?

Goblinworks has a Quality Assurance group--thank you as always, Robert and friends--but their job is to make sure things work mechanically as designed; ours is to see how they fit into the overall game, and to give our feedback, both positive and negative.

It's been repeatedly said this is a temporary change, both in its nature as something being tested--which can thus be adjusted, expanded, or abandoned once tried--and as something that's already been designed to be removed once more technology's available to the devs.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that another mechanic that could be tried after "stand still to shoot" would be to reduce the chance to hit while in motion. This would mean that a player would have to make meaningful choices between the lower risk of being hit while shooting on the move versus an improved change to hit by standing still.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Using a term that is descriptively used to mean something different from what is actually happening is ineffective at communicating.

I'm sorry, but "leash" is a perfectly descriptive term for the observed behavior of the mobs. It doesn't matter if it's based on distance or time or threat or a random number generator; the mob is turning around and running back to its spawn point.

Maybe we can quit focusing so much on the terminology, and - as Ryan suggested - have a conversation about the mechanics.

What would the result be if the aggro radius was unchanged, but mobs did not return to spawn point on running out of threat?

If they never returned to their camp, the mechanic could be used to create a "monster minefield", dragging one group after another into a general area. It might work, though, if the monsters stopped for a minute or two, then moved back to their camp.

Eventually, I'd like to see some creatures walking a path through their hex, rather than standing still and waiting for players to come to them. That could actually change PvE quite a bit, reducing the predictability of static camps.

Regarding wizards in heavy armor: With the ease of multi-role training built into PFO, Goblinworks might need to introduce a mechanic like an arcane spell failure chance to prevent all PvE characters from wearing heavy armor all the time. Or introduce more spell casting enemies. In PvP, heavy armor will not be an "I win" button at all, with wizards and clerics on both sides of most conflicts.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
What would the result be if the aggro radius was unchanged, but mobs did not return to spawn point on running out of threat?

As I've said a number of times, I support Goblinworks' decision to test out this approach, and will almost certainly not complain if it goes live in Early Enrollment until more systems can be implemented.

I don't know what the "right" or "best" solution is, and I doubt I have enough knowledge or experience to make an informed guess as to the results of any particular changes.

I do try to listen to what people are saying. I understand what Ryan and Stephen mean when they say "there's no leashing". But I also very clearly understand what players are describing when they talk about the mobs leashing; it's the simple observation that the mobs turn around and go back to their spawn point.


KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:


This new change shows a definite bias in PvE towards making solo play inPvE unviable. It also biased against any character other than a tanked heavy armor melee character solo.

It will still be possible to solo lvl 1 mobs in PvE. It will also still be possible to solo small higher level mobs. However, what both of these will require is a better understanding of the game systems (like how to exploit opportunity). I'd call that a win, personally. There will be a learning curve for the newbs, and there will be a community there to help them on their way.

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
people need to realise this is where the game is heading. The large group thing is being enforced in PvE now not just PvP and wizards and aechers and to some extent clerics are now secondary support for fighters.

I think that is where the game was always meant to head (Ryan could correct me on this). He wants us to play together, cooperate (parties, trade, companies, settlements), as much as he wants us to be at each others throats (pvp). Tonight I had a way better time running around killing mobs with a fellow Blackfeather citizen than I had had before- with the exception of the first time I killed a goblin in alpha 7 (thanks Nihimon!). Again, I call this a win, personally.

Also, I would like to point out that when I can drop any white creature and all but kill a yellow creature with one hit from my longbow exploit, that does not make me a supporting role. That makes me a badass. Just sayin'.

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
Of course what this change REALLY shows is Crowd Forging can never work well becasue, as always, the disgruntled people will be loud and vocal and demanding before a change and the masses who are happy with the current situation will not speak up till after the change.

Crowdforging works. I made a big stink about this issue; but it was pretty clear from the devs reaction that they were already thinking about it. But if we go with your argument, then all that means is that it would be good for GW to find an alternative tool that takes the singular vocal voice out of the equation (hint hint).

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:


Regarding wizards in heavy armor:
<Kabal>Keign wrote:

So, I have an example of an interesting situation I was just using to my advantage.

There is a hex which is very high with an undead escalation, and within that hex there are tons of red colored skeletons - Risen Fighter Adventurers are what I am speaking of, in particular.

Was there as well on a solo heavy armored wizard.

Small pockets of Risen Fighters and minions i could take out one by one.
Risen Rangers, Clerics or Wizards in the pack and i died.
These hit really hard, maybe i should try wizards or clerics in robes to see if that makes a difference.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Maybe the idea of a leash means something else.
This is clearly the issue. Ryan feels that a leash is like a standard pet leash. They can get this far from the tie point(which might be flexible, but remains a tie point) and no farther, no matter what's happening. In PFO, if you maintain sufficient threat and/or take sufficient damage to let the wildlife feel like it isn't wasting its time, it will follow you literally forever because the threat assessment will remain sufficiently high. Distance has no part of their math. It is purely how mistreated the wildlife feels, and how successful it is being at doing something about it.

Let's see if I am interpreting this correctly, because their behavior appears to be a leash, anchored in the middle of the campsite:

If I get close enough, they attack (I generated threat due to my proximity).

I run away. If I run away while not attacking they eventually get tired of chasing the non-attacker and return to their camp, since I am generating less threat over time. (Pretty common when I am running between groups, and agro mobs, often both camps instead of just one.)

If I am backpedaling and attacking while "running away backwards" they will maintain agro over a greater distance? (This is a question. I am soloing, but only attacking singles, and an occasional double. Can't do much with a focus and sweat suit.)


Hardin Steele wrote:


If I am backpedaling and attacking while "running away backwards" they will maintain agro over a greater distance? (This is a question. I am soloing, but only attacking singles, and an occasional double. Can't do much with a focus and sweat suit.)

Yes, as long as you remain a threat to them. But, if you are not doing sufficient damage to them to keep them interested (i.e out damaging the aggro decay), then they will just return to their spawn point.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ryan's focus on the language we are using is appropriate and not quibbling. For example it is a different thing to say "Bravo is a mechanic that doesn't work" than "Bravo is a stupid mechanic that doesn't work."

The former is about the game. The second is the castigation of the designer. The former is appropriate except where 'the mechanic' doesn't even exist. If the mechanic doesn't even exist then it is a proper response to point out that what was called one label is not as it subjectively appears. If we then continue to use the label for an appearance then in terms of the game we are talking about an illusion and not a thing at all. We should accept the usage of those who actually know and abandon the label we chose when we were still ignorant.

But castigating a person for their knowledgeable design while we are still ignorant of the actual case is personally offensive as well as ignorant. We should attempt to be informed by a knowledgeable answer because otherwise it is accurate to say we are worse than ignorant, we are intentionally unwilling to learn: in other words STUPID.

Wisdom is more desirable than foolishness.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't mind the self-root on ranged mechanic because I don't particularly believe either circle strafing or kiting will be practical in friendly fire circumstances. I pick my target, hold my ground, and if they make it to melee range I switch to melee. Spears and Greatswords do marvelous damage. Heck, even a softwood club isn't anything to sneeze at.

That said, if the current PvE combat experience is supposed to train us for PvP, then it cannot currently be rightly said to be emulating anything like a PvP model.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand what Ryan is trying to do. He is trying to change the language we use so that the game appears to outsiders as different.

I cannot say I disagree with that. The game appearing as something new and different may help recruit more players.

Leashing is what mobs appear to be doing. No matter the actual mechanic. They will absolutely get to a point, and turn around to run back to home. Even if you are absolutely murdering them.

Classes is what we appear to have. They may be called roles because they are different then standard classes in other games. The roles absolutely limit you on skills you can increase just as a class would though.

We have different things, kinda. Gamers will still call them the standard terms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NytCrawlr wrote:
Hardin Steele wrote:


If I am backpedaling and attacking while "running away backwards" they will maintain agro over a greater distance? (This is a question. I am soloing, but only attacking singles, and an occasional double. Can't do much with a focus and sweat suit.)
Yes, as long as you remain a threat to them. But, if you are not doing sufficient damage to them to keep them interested (i.e out damaging the aggro decay), then they will just return to their spawn point.

Often times what happens is the one you have been damaging stays on you while the rest of the mob goes home. Ranged attackers are the exception. They can hit you from afar and will continue doing so unless you *sprint* away. The Agro meter depends on both their ability to damage you and what you are doing to them.

Long story short, look out for ranged members in mobs. If your health is dropping in large chunks (10% or more) and no one is around, that is a good sign you need to get out fast and assess the situation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Xeen I'm less certain that you do understand what Ryan is trying to do.

If the game has 'classes' it is only because that is how skills (feats) are categorized. They aren't classes in the way a Paladin in WoW has the strict skill tree that is completely different from the skill tree of a rogue.

I train the feats that seem useful to my character, and my character is not at all limited by which category of feats I trained first.

He knows, perhaps only at a general level, but he knows how the aggro system is working and he knows it isn't really a 'leash'. He has said the system is much more complicated than that, but because of other conditions it will look like a leash to us now in this iteration of the game. He isn't trying to change the game to make it seem different than it is, he is telling us we cannot in the current iteration see what is actually happening but whatever it looks like it isn't a leash, so talking about leashes is missing the point and a waste of time.

Gamers will still assume they know it all when in fact they have very little insight or understanding, and they will defend their utter ignorance with great pride to the bitter end. Because, after all, they know it all and have pronounced the Truth. Contradictory facts are insignificant compared to the hubris of the faithful.


Xeen wrote:
Leashing is what mobs appear to be doing. No matter the actual mechanic. They will absolutely get to a point, and turn around to run back to home. Even if you are absolutely murdering them.

Except, if you were actually murdering them, they wouldn't return home, they would either be dead or still chasing you, depending on your definition of murdering I guess.

That's the point, and the major difference of the mechanic that some are trying to point out.

I've played quite a bit of MMOs and other games, and this is the first time I have seen it done this way. A good example is DDO, in dungeons the mobs chase you down no matter what, as long as they can detect you. Outside in the wilderness they actually leash at some point, due to distance, and it doesn't matter how much damage you have been doing to them whatsoever.

That's why it is totally incorrect to continue calling it a Leash mechanic, especially when the Devs continue to correct people.

Terminology is important, I promise.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:


stuff
reply to stuff

We will just have to see how it works in game after the change.

The only other comment I would add is the bias towards gangs for PvP makes sense but in PvE it is really going to disadvantage certain time zones and people with real life commitments.

The prime aussie playtime sees the server nearly empty, half a dozen people in thornkeep and the starter towns empty. There are obviously people out gatehring and fighting somewhere but you never see them. I have been staying up till 4.00 am just to play in a busier time.

I have one online aussie friend in Keepers and Alpha (plays a wizard) and we occasionally party together and it makes everything a pushover. She has regularly tried to talk people into partying up during aussie prime hours with limited success.

Also many people with familes and children are not able to commit to group activities as they may have to leave at any time due to real life issues.

I would point you do not get this bias against solo PvE in EVE it is commonplace to solo level 4 and 5 missions in EVE (though the level 5s are all in losec and your carrier may end up ganked by a roaming PvP gang). Eve does have incursion PvE that requires a fleet but very few people run incursions for the reasons already described above. PvP in EVE is very much a blobbing event.

I suppose the other issue I have is that whilst archers and staff wizards can do OK under the new artillary regime it is not the same for clerics and rogues both of who have ranged attacks of 20m or less.

Goblin Squad Member

A desert mirage may well look like a lake, but it will not slake your thirst.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

@Xeen I'm less certain that you do understand what Ryan is trying to do.

If the game has 'classes' it is only because that is how skills (feats) are categorized. They aren't classes in the way a Paladin in WoW has the strict skill tree that is completely different from the skill tree of a rogue.

That is what I meant. They appear to be classes, but are not typical MMO classes. Although there are skills that cannot be increased without the "role" level being increased.

NytCrawlr wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Leashing is what mobs appear to be doing. No matter the actual mechanic. They will absolutely get to a point, and turn around to run back to home. Even if you are absolutely murdering them.

Except, if you were actually murdering them, they wouldn't return home, they would either be dead or still chasing you, depending on your definition of murdering I guess.

That's the point, and the major difference of the mechanic that some are trying to point out.

Murdering in as almost dead and then turn around to head home.

I am saying exactly that, They appear to be leashing when it is in fact a different mechanic.

*Appearances may be deceiving but that is what terms will be based on.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
A desert mirage may well look like a lake, but it will not slake your thirst.

lol

you need to say it like this:

Desert mirage, like a lake look it may.
Slake your thirst, not it does.

Goblin Squad Member

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
Being wrote:
A desert mirage may well look like a lake, but it will not slake your thirst.

lol

you need to say it like this:

Desert mirage, like a lake look it may.
Slake your thirst, not it does.

I do a pretty good impression of Yoda as it is...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Ryan's focus on the language we are using is appropriate and not quibbling.

See, this is interesting. First it went from pve to language then to quibbling or the absence of..

I'm not going to say people's behavior is right or wrong at this point. It's totally irrelevant.

The situation, as I watched it unfold, and... as I (in game) perceived it and participated in the discussion literally went the path I stated:

First, we were discussing balance. Then the first came in and mentioned, "Hey, well, it seems to me like at some point the enemies just leash back to their camp." haha. And this turned out to be the most terrible thing anyone could have said, because everything was diverted.

I tend to believe they are working on the threat system. At this point, very few people still believe (if they ever did) that this was a standard leash. I think what they were trying to say is this is the mechanic that makes pve too easy (and it's the loss of aggro and return to camp.) Also the sort of stasis they are in as they mindlessly move back.

It may be a complex system that is simple in alpha. OK. It is also very flawed at this point. To the point that a system with much less complexity would be more challenging. We have all identified this behavior. Most of us due to your active, intuitive minds, have figured out how this system works to the point where you can spot an ogre running at you and say, "I don't need to worry because I have gone far enough away and he will turn around before he gets to me."

That's all it is. The uproar at the leash (from the community), I believe is just because it's the leash-like mechanic that is the biggest issue. No matter what the cause is. To say players don't understand the game is insulting. I think we understand a lot of things we can't or don't want to type. Do we understand the programming lines? Probably not, but as the actual game... we understand in most cases. When we don't, we will make a thread or spam general chat in game I DON'T UNDERSTAND!! There is a collection of minds here, dareIsay, that is more( or just as) in tune with the game than the devs. That's why they do this testing. If everyone is starting to come to the same conclusion, to focus on language is the worst possible outcome. It becomes like "That's champagne how can you say it tastes like koolaid?!" And the appropriate fallout on both sides.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Leashing is what mobs appear to be doing. No matter the actual mechanic.

I believe Ryan's trying to avoid the scenario of people suggesting something like "increase the leash-length". It seems obvious as something to try if one thinks one's dealing with a leash, but it's an absolute non-starter if there's no leash, thus the suggestion was a waste of time.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Leashing is what mobs appear to be doing. No matter the actual mechanic.
I believe Ryan's trying to avoid the scenario of people suggesting something like "increase the leash-length". It seems obvious as something to try if one thinks one's dealing with a leash, but it's an absolute non-starter if there's no leash, thus the suggestion was a waste of time.

Actually, they can take that suggestion, "increase the leash length," and go with it. It just means decreasing the anger drop. The end result is that they chase you longer.

Goblin Squad Member

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:


Also many people with familes and children are not able to commit to group activities as they may have to leave at any time due to real life issues.

This ... I have a group of friends I game with and we all know that if we are grouped any one of us may suddenly be afk at any moment. In a theme park MMO this is not such a big deal but for PFO .. I've got no idea.

As for leash vs other mechanic .. as others have said, it "looks and behaves" like leashing. If the devs want us to use the correct terminology then I'm ok with that, just so long as we all understand what it is that we are trying to comment on and get corrected.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Using a term that is descriptively used to mean something different from what is actually happening is ineffective at communicating.

I'm sorry, but "leash" is a perfectly descriptive term for the observed behavior of the mobs. It doesn't matter if it's based on distance or time or threat or a random number generator; the mob is turning around and running back to its spawn point.

Maybe we can quit focusing so much on the terminology, and - as Ryan suggested - have a conversation about the mechanics.

I think this sums up part of the problem. Different people with different ideas of what "Leashing" is.

People in the Alpha are calling the act of returning to spawn point "Leashing" not the condition required for the mob to decide to do so.

So, why don't we move the conversation forward with the following in mind.

For PFO: Leashing (Verb): The Action of an NPC returning to it's spawn point regardless of PC actions after it has "decided" to return to it's spawn point, and regardless of the reason the NPC "decided" to return to it's spawn point.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as terminology goes, here's the problem I see. Assume a significantly large forum population N.

Player 1: We need to talk about leashing.
Dev: We don't technically use leashing. We can talk about how agro works, but to communicate we need to have a shared vocabulary.
Player 2: What's wrong with the word leash? We know it means X and Y.
Player 3: Except in some cases where it means X and Z.
Player 4: Doesn't leashing mean X and Y and W?
.
.
.
Player (N-1): Jeeze, people, it's leashing. Simply X. That's all.
Player (N): I agree with the player that said it was S and T, except on Wednesdays.
N Players to the Devs: We demand you talk about agro! You need to call it leashing and you need to make it make sense to all of our divergent opinions!

Is it any wonder that the Devs ask for a shared vocabulary first? Heck, is it any wonder that Devs in many games just avoid their forums?

I think to move the conversation forward we need to understand that a conversation is two-way communication. It involves speaking and listening. If one party (the Devs) have pretty much said they aren't using leashing, then shouldn't the second party (us players) listen, instead of talking over the top of them and shouting them down?

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / So the Nerfing Begins All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.