Zone line heal
Lance Berg
bonus, not only would you stop whatever that mob was from beating on
you, but you'd get a free heal of sorts in the bargain (you'd have all
your gear based HP restored) but you took a substantial penalty for it,
all buffs were stripped. A possible exploit of sorts since it also
stripped off DOTs for you, and I've seen it used for that purpose, near
death with a DOT on you could always survive by losing all buffs.
But then they changed the system so it no longer strips DOTs... -or-
buffs. I hadn't really thought about this much, only zoning out in real
emergencies and at that point not really caring about buffs or not, nor
getting a partial heal... just living was good enough either way. If
anything it did make zoning out a bit more likely since I wouldn't lose
those precious buffs.
Just yesterday, though, I saw an iksar warrior fighting several orcs at
the Kith zone line in HHP. No way he could expect to handle them all.
But he chewed one up, then zoned out (at 5% hp) then zoned back in
almost immediately with 71% hp to kill the next. It occurs to me that
without a pet, there's no real penalty to zoning out, and with a fast
system, thats a faster heal rate even than having a cleric PL you; just
zone out and back in and keep on fighting. My warrior had to make do
with binding his wounds up to 50%, a tedious process; with HP gear (and
he had lots) and a Temperance on, zone line heal would be a vast
improvement in lowereing down time.
Of course I suppose you'd be constantly on the lookout for someone
reporting you for exploiting the zone line... but didn't they open
themselves up for this sort of thing by removing the "strips your buffs"
side effect?
Matte, 20 iksar chanter, Morel Thule
David Navarro
> Of course I suppose you'd be constantly on the lookout for someone
> reporting you for exploiting the zone line... but didn't they open
> themselves up for this sort of thing by removing the "strips your
> buffs" side effect?
Well, that's what the "ban your ass for exploiting" manoeuvre is for...
--
Baron Hanrahan, Human Druid, 63, Fennin Ro
"Man, we're talking *weird* here."
Faned
> Strangely enough, Lance Berg wrote:
>
> > Of course I suppose you'd be constantly on the lookout for someone
> > reporting you for exploiting the zone line... but didn't they open
> > themselves up for this sort of thing by removing the "strips your
> > buffs" side effect?
>
> Well, that's what the "ban your ass for exploiting" manoeuvre is for...
So, which exploit would he get banned for?
The "zone to escape a mob" exploit?
The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were gone"
exploit?
Maybe I missed one. Perhaps some exploit involved in using a keyboard while
playing... Fill me in, I'm curious.
Graeme Faelban
news:slrnbgj2qh...@wyld.qx.net:
If there is some means of regaining hp quickly by zoning, and you use
that to kill mobs, and a GM notices you doing that, particularly doing
that repeatedly, you will get dinged for exploiting. This has nothing to
do with my feelings or anyone elses' on using such a method, just the way
SOE handles things like this.
Yesterday I watched a cleric pull a mob to the CT zoneline, root the one
he wanted, zone out, zone back in, kill the mob. I suspect that SOE
would consider that an exploit, don't honestly know.
Using the zone to escape a mob without dying is not an exploit in and as
of itself. Zoning in, and finding a mob near the zoneline alone, and
killing it is also not an exploit. Using that combination, particularly,
if you are taking adavantage of some type of bug regarding hp
regenerating would be considered an exploit by SOE.
--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Oracle of 63 seasons
Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons
On Test
Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons
David Navarro
> So, which exploit would he get banned for?
>
> The "zone to escape a mob" exploit?
>
> The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were
> gone" exploit?
>
> Maybe I missed one. Perhaps some exploit involved in using a keyboard
> while playing... Fill me in, I'm curious.
The "use zone line bug as a free heal" exploit. Read the post I replied
to for details.
--
Baron Hanrahan, Human Druid, 63, Fennin Ro
The post above may contain nuts.
James Grahame
"Graeme Faelban" <Richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93B15F9FA3F61ri...@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > The "zone to escape a mob" exploit?
The "repeatedly zone just to get a free heal" exploit.
> > The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were
> > gone" exploit?
No, splitting by zoning is legitimate. It's actually a very common
tactic using snares.
> Yesterday I watched a cleric pull a mob to the CT zoneline, root the one
> he wanted, zone out, zone back in, kill the mob. I suspect that SOE
> would consider that an exploit, don't honestly know.
You'd have to get a really cranky or stupid GM to get dinged for that.
It's a common procedure to split a single mob you want out of a crowd, and
is mentioned in several guides to killing different quest mobs.
James
Dan Harmon
"James Grahame" <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%YjOa.53471$T85.6...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > > The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were
> > > gone" exploit?
>
> No, splitting by zoning is legitimate. It's actually a very common
> tactic using snares.
I disagree that it's legit. I do agree that it's very common. I admit to
using this exploit as well.
Faned
>
> "Graeme Faelban" <Richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B15F9FA3F61ri...@130.133.1.4...
> > Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
> > news:slrnbgj2qh...@wyld.qx.net:
> >
> > > So, which exploit would he get banned for?
> > >
> > > The "zone to escape a mob" exploit?
>
> The "repeatedly zone just to get a free heal" exploit.
>
> > > The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were
> > > gone" exploit?
>
> No, splitting by zoning is legitimate. It's actually a very common
> tactic using snares.
Good god, you'll cry "exploit" cause someone imitates a cleric, but call it
a legitimate tactic when someone imitates a monk.
Ya know, I need some money today. Think you could bend those ethics of
yours enough to allow bank robbery?
> > Yesterday I watched a cleric pull a mob to the CT zoneline, root the one
> > he wanted, zone out, zone back in, kill the mob. I suspect that SOE
> > would consider that an exploit, don't honestly know.
>
> You'd have to get a really cranky or stupid GM to get dinged for that.
> It's a common procedure to split a single mob you want out of a crowd, and
> is mentioned in several guides to killing different quest mobs.
And what's the difference exactly? Hell, just at first glance the zoneline
split looks a helluva lot more "exploity".
Faned
> Strangely enough, Faned wrote:
>
> > So, which exploit would he get banned for?
> >
> > The "zone to escape a mob" exploit?
> >
> > The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you were
> > gone" exploit?
> >
> > Maybe I missed one. Perhaps some exploit involved in using a keyboard
> > while playing... Fill me in, I'm curious.
>
> The "use zone line bug as a free heal" exploit. Read the post I replied
> to for details.
Anyone that got banned for that would have to be an idiot. I mean,
seriously, "/tell GM I was about to die, is it a crime to zone out? Are you
telling me I have to remain in the zone and die, that I don't have the
option to zone out?"
followed by "/tell GM And I still wanted to be in that zone, is it a crime
to zone in? Are you telling me that if I run from a mob I am in essence
banned from that zone?"
and if you're feeling ballsy "/tell GM Could you please go find someone
doing something a touch worse than *ZONING* to bother?"
Graeme Faelban
news:slrnbglmsp...@wyld.qx.net:
Doing it once to escape from a mob would be highly unlikely to be an
issue. Using it as a strategy to defeat mobs would be far more likely to
be an issue. If someone petitioned, and a GM felt like coming on over,
he'd come over invis, and watch what happens, if he sees you repeatedly
using this as a strategy to defeat mobs, then, quite likely you'd get
dinged for it.
Archerbear
Generally, if it gives you an ability your character doesn't otherwise have,
it's an exploit. If you find a place to stand where you can hit mobs
without being hit back - you're exploiting. Doesn't matter if it's caused
by a geometry bug or not. In this case, if his zoning is allowing him to
heal himself from 5% to 70% without using any mana, it's an exploit.
David Navarro
> Anyone that got banned for that would have to be an idiot. I mean,
> seriously, "/tell GM I was about to die, is it a crime to zone out?
> Are you telling me I have to remain in the zone and die, that I don't
> have the option to zone out?" followed by "/tell GM And I still wanted
> to be in that zone, is it a crime to zone in? Are you telling me that
> if I run from a mob I am in essence banned from that zone?" and if
> you're feeling ballsy "/tell GM Could you please go find someone doing
> something a touch worse than *ZONING* to bother?"
Actually, any GM who fell for that argument would have to be an idiot.
--
Baron Hanrahan, Human Druid, 63, Fennin Ro
The post above may contain deliberate errors.
James Grahame
"Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbglmmj...@wyld.qx.net...
> <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "Graeme Faelban" <Richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93B15F9FA3F61ri...@130.133.1.4...
> > > Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
> > > news:slrnbgj2qh...@wyld.qx.net:
>
were
> > > > gone" exploit?
> >
> > No, splitting by zoning is legitimate. It's actually a very common
> > tactic using snares.
>
> Good god, you'll cry "exploit" cause someone imitates a cleric, but call
it
> a legitimate tactic when someone imitates a monk.
The zone line isn't supposed to act as a cleric. It only does so as a
bandage measure to stop a bug that would otherwise kill the player when they
zone. The zone line is supposed to clear aggro. See the difference?
> > > Yesterday I watched a cleric pull a mob to the CT zoneline, root the
one
> > > he wanted, zone out, zone back in, kill the mob. I suspect that SOE
> > > would consider that an exploit, don't honestly know.
> >
> > You'd have to get a really cranky or stupid GM to get dinged for
that.
> > It's a common procedure to split a single mob you want out of a crowd,
and
> > is mentioned in several guides to killing different quest mobs.
>
> And what's the difference exactly? Hell, just at first glance the
zoneline
> split looks a helluva lot more "exploity".
It all goes to designer intent. It was intended that zoning clear aggro.
That's why people that fight right beside a zone line, and run out it if
things go south, aren't exploiting. The designers did not intend zoning to
heal the character and reduce downtime, however. It does only as a stopgap
measure for another problem, players dying at the other end because item HPs
may not be applied to HP total before death conditions are checked. So using
that "feature" is an exploit.
Shadow Knights actually use this method to pull, by the way, although
without the zone line. Pull a bunch of mobs, Darkness on the one you want,
Feign. The rest path home, the snared one stands there. I think it's because
the reduction of speed on a snared mob is applied to the run speed, as an
aside. So if mob X walks at 5 feet/second, and runs at 10 feet/second, and
you apply a 60% snare, his movement rate will always be slowed by 6
feet/second and he's incapable of moving when he's in "walk mode". Anyways,
after the rest path home either the SK stands up and tags his own pull if
aggro is clear off the other mobs, or a tagger will bring the snared mob
into camp while the SK tries to clear his aggro.
James
Faned
>
> "Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbglmmj...@wyld.qx.net...
> > <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > "Graeme Faelban" <Richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns93B15F9FA3F61ri...@130.133.1.4...
> > > > Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
> > > > news:slrnbgj2qh...@wyld.qx.net:
> >
> > > > > The "zone back and the mob was too stupid to walk away while you
> were
> > > > > gone" exploit?
> > >
> > > No, splitting by zoning is legitimate. It's actually a very common
> > > tactic using snares.
> >
> > Good god, you'll cry "exploit" cause someone imitates a cleric, but call
> it
> > a legitimate tactic when someone imitates a monk.
>
> The zone line isn't supposed to act as a cleric. It only does so as a
> bandage measure to stop a bug that would otherwise kill the player when they
> zone. The zone line is supposed to clear aggro. See the difference?
The zone line isn't supposed to clear aggro, it's supposed to allow you to
experience wildly different environments without putting too heavy of a load
on your computer, the servers, or the networks they operate on.
See the difference? :P
> > > > Yesterday I watched a cleric pull a mob to the CT zoneline, root the
> one
> > > > he wanted, zone out, zone back in, kill the mob. I suspect that SOE
> > > > would consider that an exploit, don't honestly know.
> > >
> > > You'd have to get a really cranky or stupid GM to get dinged for
> that.
> > > It's a common procedure to split a single mob you want out of a crowd,
> and
> > > is mentioned in several guides to killing different quest mobs.
> >
> > And what's the difference exactly? Hell, just at first glance the
> zoneline
> > split looks a helluva lot more "exploity".
>
> It all goes to designer intent. It was intended that zoning clear aggro.
No. Zoning clearing aggro is entirely a byproduct of the nature of the
design decisions made when the game was created to have discreet zones so as
to allow greater freedom of environment, models, etc., without putting undue
strain on the servers, client computers or network of the time. Other games
have taken different approaches, for instance Asheron's Call's "pop in"
effect. Until you get the fallacy out of your head that zones are there
with the specific intent to clear aggro... well, we're not even having the
same discussion. :)
> The designers did not intend zoning to
> heal the character and reduce downtime, however. It does only as a stopgap
> measure for another problem, players dying at the other end because item HPs
> may not be applied to HP total before death conditions are checked. So using
> that "feature" is an exploit.
That's not what happened at the other end. Previously, it was damn near
impossible to die while zoning at low health because your buffs were
stripped, along with any DoTs and you were set to your base hitpoint value
of your equipment +1. I used to use this to save myself from dying when I
was soloing the LDCs in Sol B (nasty dot for a solo monk). Even I
considered it somewhat of an exploit to do so, but I was fully prepared to
spend an afternoon arguing with a GM over whether I'm allowed to zone
whenever I want or must I always petition and get GM approval first.
I'm honestly not exactly sure how it works right now. I know for a fact
I've zoned at very low health and came out on the other side still at very
low health, and my hitpoints more than doubles when I go from naked to
dressed.
> Shadow Knights actually use this method to pull, by the way, although
> without the zone line. Pull a bunch of mobs, Darkness on the one you want,
> Feign. The rest path home, the snared one stands there. I think it's because
> the reduction of speed on a snared mob is applied to the run speed, as an
> aside. So if mob X walks at 5 feet/second, and runs at 10 feet/second, and
> you apply a 60% snare, his movement rate will always be slowed by 6
> feet/second and he's incapable of moving when he's in "walk mode". Anyways,
> after the rest path home either the SK stands up and tags his own pull if
> aggro is clear off the other mobs, or a tagger will bring the snared mob
> into camp while the SK tries to clear his aggro.
Thanks for explaining feign pulling to a monk. :P Unless you are saying
the zoneline snares one mob out of a bunch, your example is a rather odd
choice.
Faned
If you stand around a corner from an AE-casting mob, it's an exploit...
obviously a geometry bug.
If you put a charisma buff up before KEI before fighting a mob with an AE
that will take *either* a charisma buff or KEI, whichever it finds first,
it's an exploit... obviously a spell stacking bug.
Wait... those are strategies. Nevermind, seems that some things in this
game that seem very "exploity" are in fact well used strategies.
Archerbear
> >
<Snip>
>
> If you stand around a corner from an AE-casting mob, it's an exploit...
> obviously a geometry bug.
>
> If you put a charisma buff up before KEI before fighting a mob with an AE
> that will take *either* a charisma buff or KEI, whichever it finds first,
> it's an exploit... obviously a spell stacking bug.
>
> Wait... those are strategies. Nevermind, seems that some things in this
> game that seem very "exploity" are in fact well used strategies.
I said the rule of thumb was if it gave you an ability you didn't have
before, it's probably an exploit. You could make a case for the
around-the-corner thing possibly being an exploit, but I'd like to hear your
argument. I definitely want to hear your argument for crap buff stacking
being an exploit.
Faned
Well, my argument is I watched a GM warn a pickup raid on Naggy for having
the healers stay back in the safe room. Granted, I think the GM was an
idiot and everybody ignored his warning anyway, but at least one GM at some
point in EQ history has indeed proclaimed standing around the corner from AE
an exploit.
If you're waiting for me to actually argue that anything is an exploit, you
haven't been party to my other posts on this subject. There are *no*
exploits. Sony has the code and programmers, they have the ability to
change the way anything acts and interacts, therefore if something "is" then
it "is" because it is supposed to "be".
But for argument's sake, check some past discussions and a patch message
archive for a trail of how DS stacking used to work and how it was changed.
James Grahame
> <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > The zone line isn't supposed to act as a cleric. It only does so as
a
> > bandage measure to stop a bug that would otherwise kill the player when
they
> > zone. The zone line is supposed to clear aggro. See the difference?
>
> The zone line isn't supposed to clear aggro, it's supposed to allow you to
> experience wildly different environments without putting too heavy of a
load
> on your computer, the servers, or the networks they operate on.
Zoning is designed to clear regular aggro (the normal hate list) off a
mob. This is why in-zone evacs clear aggro. It isn't difficult to code
things such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning. As an example, think of the
Rampage list of a mob. Even if someone on Rampage dies, when they come back
to the fight they'll be on the exact same position on the Rampage list as
before.
> > It all goes to designer intent. It was intended that zoning clear
aggro.
>
> No. Zoning clearing aggro is entirely a byproduct of the nature of the
> design decisions made when the game was created to have discreet zones so
as
> to allow greater freedom of environment, models, etc., without putting
undue
> strain on the servers, client computers or network of the time.
Incorrect. As shown above, there exist hate lists (the Rampage list)
that are not cleared by zoning. This was intentional. Don't you remember the
issues from a while back when in-zone evacs weren't forcing a zone load and
thus weren't clearing aggro?
> > The designers did not intend zoning to
> > heal the character and reduce downtime, however. It does only as a
stopgap
> > measure for another problem, players dying at the other end because item
HPs
> > may not be applied to HP total before death conditions are checked. So
using
> > that "feature" is an exploit.
>
> That's not what happened at the other end.
It was before they fixed it. ;-) Ask a few of the older Beta players,
they can fill you in.
> Previously, it was damn near
> impossible to die while zoning at low health because your buffs were
> stripped
That was implemented at the same time, for the same reason: player death
conditions could be checked before HPs from worn items and buffs were
applied.
> I'm honestly not exactly sure how it works right now. I know for a fact
> I've zoned at very low health and came out on the other side still at very
> low health, and my hitpoints more than doubles when I go from naked to
> dressed.
They've apparently fixed the "buffs being stripped" part - it was in a
patch message. I imagine it was fixed because players were using zone lines
to clear detrimental effects which should have killed them. I have not heard
of the "low health heal" part being changed, though, and the original
poster's story leads me to believe it's still in place.
> > Shadow Knights actually use this method to pull, by the way,
although
> > without the zone line. Pull a bunch of mobs, Darkness on the one you
want,
> > Feign. The rest path home, the snared one stands there. I think it's
because
> > the reduction of speed on a snared mob is applied to the run speed, as
an
> > aside. So if mob X walks at 5 feet/second, and runs at 10 feet/second,
and
> > you apply a 60% snare, his movement rate will always be slowed by 6
> > feet/second and he's incapable of moving when he's in "walk mode".
Anyways,
> > after the rest path home either the SK stands up and tags his own pull
if
> > aggro is clear off the other mobs, or a tagger will bring the snared mob
> > into camp while the SK tries to clear his aggro.
>
> Thanks for explaining feign pulling to a monk. :P Unless you are saying
> the zoneline snares one mob out of a bunch, your example is a rather odd
> choice.
In the original examples, players were snaring one mob out of the bunch
that came, then zoning. The other mobs all walk back home, but the snared
one stays at the zone line. So when the player zones back in, he has a
single mob to kill of his choice. I was pointing out that this is used as a
pull tactic without the zoneline as well, by a class that can do all the
required parts (snare and clear aggro via Feign).
James
Faned
>
> "Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbgmain...@wyld.qx.net...
> > <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > The zone line isn't supposed to act as a cleric. It only does so as
> a
> > > bandage measure to stop a bug that would otherwise kill the player when
> they
> > > zone. The zone line is supposed to clear aggro. See the difference?
> >
> > The zone line isn't supposed to clear aggro, it's supposed to allow you to
> > experience wildly different environments without putting too heavy of a
> load
> > on your computer, the servers, or the networks they operate on.
>
> Zoning is designed to clear regular aggro (the normal hate list) off a
> mob. This is why in-zone evacs clear aggro. It isn't difficult to code
> things such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning. As an example, think of the
> Rampage list of a mob. Even if someone on Rampage dies, when they come back
> to the fight they'll be on the exact same position on the Rampage list as
> before.
"Zoning is designed to clear... aggro". "It isn't difficult to code things
such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning... think of the Rampage list".
As it turns out, zoning is designed *merely* to move between zones. Your
own argument bolsters that nearly as much as you were trying to negate it.
> > > It all goes to designer intent. It was intended that zoning clear
> aggro.
> >
> > No. Zoning clearing aggro is entirely a byproduct of the nature of the
> > design decisions made when the game was created to have discreet zones so
> as
> > to allow greater freedom of environment, models, etc., without putting
> undue
> > strain on the servers, client computers or network of the time.
>
> Incorrect. As shown above, there exist hate lists (the Rampage list)
> that are not cleared by zoning. This was intentional. Don't you remember the
> issues from a while back when in-zone evacs weren't forcing a zone load and
> thus weren't clearing aggro?
"Incorrect" "there exist hate lists that are not cleared by zoning"
"[therefore zoning must exist solely to clear hate lists]".
Your entire logic behind your argument is faulty. It would have been better
had you never mentioned rampage at all, because I would never have brought
up a situation where you can zone without clearing a mob's aggro. :P
> > > The designers did not intend zoning to
> > > heal the character and reduce downtime, however. It does only as a
> stopgap
> > > measure for another problem, players dying at the other end because item
> HPs
> > > may not be applied to HP total before death conditions are checked. So
> using
> > > that "feature" is an exploit.
> >
> > That's not what happened at the other end.
>
> It was before they fixed it. ;-) Ask a few of the older Beta players,
> they can fill you in.
Sorry dude, we're talking about a recent patch. Go back to your time
machine and punch in 1/1/1999 please.
<snip a conversation that was relevant in early-1999>
And it can be done by anyone with root, snare, mez or simply a fast enough
computer. Way more trouble than it's worth, and at least as bad as zoning
for a heal for any sort of "exploit" determination.
James Grahame
> <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Zoning is designed to clear regular aggro (the normal hate list) off
a
> > mob. This is why in-zone evacs clear aggro. It isn't difficult to code
> > things such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning. As an example, think of
the
> > Rampage list of a mob. Even if someone on Rampage dies, when they come
back
> > to the fight they'll be on the exact same position on the Rampage list
as
> > before.
>
> "Zoning is designed to clear... aggro". "It isn't difficult to code
things
> such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning... think of the Rampage list".
>
> As it turns out, zoning is designed *merely* to move between zones. Your
> own argument bolsters that nearly as much as you were trying to negate it.
Rampage was created after the original game was created. And when it was
made, a design decision was made to have it not be cleared by zoning. Had
Rampage been in the original game I might accept what you've written.
> > Incorrect. As shown above, there exist hate lists (the Rampage list)
> > that are not cleared by zoning. This was intentional. Don't you remember
the
> > issues from a while back when in-zone evacs weren't forcing a zone load
and
> > thus weren't clearing aggro?
>
> "Incorrect" "there exist hate lists that are not cleared by zoning"
> "[therefore zoning must exist solely to clear hate lists]".
The third part is not mine, and it is incorrect. Zoning does not exist
solely to clear a hate list. But that is one of the intended uses of zoning.
This was further bolstered when GMs across the game ruled that players
camping near a zone line, then zoning if things went badly, were not
exploiting.
James
Faned
>
> "Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbgouc2...@wyld.qx.net...
> > <jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Zoning is designed to clear regular aggro (the normal hate list) off
> a
> > > mob. This is why in-zone evacs clear aggro. It isn't difficult to code
> > > things such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning. As an example, think of
> the
> > > Rampage list of a mob. Even if someone on Rampage dies, when they come
> back
> > > to the fight they'll be on the exact same position on the Rampage list
> as
> > > before.
> >
> > "Zoning is designed to clear... aggro". "It isn't difficult to code
> things
> > such that aggro is NOT cleared by zoning... think of the Rampage list".
> >
> > As it turns out, zoning is designed *merely* to move between zones. Your
> > own argument bolsters that nearly as much as you were trying to negate it.
>
> Rampage was created after the original game was created. And when it was
> made, a design decision was made to have it not be cleared by zoning. Had
> Rampage been in the original game I might accept what you've written.
Had there not been zone lines in the original game, and they were added
because of issues with aggro never being removed...
It's called circular logic, and works equally well from either "end" of the
circle. :)
> > > Incorrect. As shown above, there exist hate lists (the Rampage list)
> > > that are not cleared by zoning. This was intentional. Don't you remember
> the
> > > issues from a while back when in-zone evacs weren't forcing a zone load
> and
> > > thus weren't clearing aggro?
> >
> > "Incorrect" "there exist hate lists that are not cleared by zoning"
> > "[therefore zoning must exist solely to clear hate lists]".
>
> The third part is not mine, and it is incorrect. Zoning does not exist
> solely to clear a hate list. But that is one of the intended uses of zoning.
> This was further bolstered when GMs across the game ruled that players
> camping near a zone line, then zoning if things went badly, were not
> exploiting.
You think that was a bolstering, eh? It's called a business decision when
they realized the practice was *so* pervasive that trying to make it a
violation of the rules would have resulted in EQ's version of civil unrest.
I would go so far as to say that yet again you have in fact bolstered the
other side of the argument. If the "GMs across the game *ruled*..." then
obviously the "intended use of zoning" wasn't nearly so clearly intended to
players at the time, nor even the GMs. :P
Dan Day
>> Rampage was created after the original game was created. And when it was
>> made, a design decision was made to have it not be cleared by zoning. Had
>> Rampage been in the original game I might accept what you've written.
>
>Had there not been zone lines in the original game, and they were added
>because of issues with aggro never being removed...
I'm with James on this one. If zone lines hadn't been originally intended
to remove aggro (among other things -- you dishonestly tried to put
words into his mouth about that being their *only* reason for
existence), the developers would have implemented some other way
for players to lose aggro when running for their lives, instead
of forcing them to inevitably being chased down to the ends of
the Earth and killed by bad each and every bad pull (or training
others in a "help save me" attempt).
Evidence for your perusal: Kunark.
Zones pre-Kunark were relatively small, and a zone line was never
extremely far away. But with the new routinely massive zone sizes
of the Kunark release, the developers realized that being miles
from a zoneline with no way to lose aggro was going to be a
real pain in the ass for players. So what did they do? They
instituted a *new* method of losing aggro -- if you get far enough
away from a mob, it loses interest in you.
Clearly, the developers didn't just "put up with" people losing
aggro at zone lines out of programming limitations, they
understood that there *have* to be ways for players to run
screaming from trains or bad pulls and have some chance to
shake off their pursuers. The alternative would have been
"every train is almost inevitably fatal", which even the
densest developer would have to realize would *suck* as
a gaming experience.
Finally, had the developers not wanted zones to be used
as "de-aggroers", it would have been trivial for them to
have mobs retain people on their aggro list whether the
person had zoned or not, so that when the person returned
onto the monster's "turf" (i.e., zoned back in), the monster
would go screaming back after them again. Clearly, they
chose from the start not to use this method.
Zoning was, indeed, intended to clear aggro and give
players a "fresh start" after a train or bad pull.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Clearly, the developers didn't just "put up with" people losing
> aggro at zone lines out of programming limitations, they
> understood that there *have* to be ways for players to run
> screaming from trains or bad pulls and have some chance to
> shake off their pursuers. The alternative would have been
Sorry while I agree they decided to go this route of aggro going with
zoning I very much doubt if it was anything other than a programming
issue they felt was acceptable and stuck with, choosing not to implement
any aggro retention methods because they realised that the zones suddenly
provided them, conveniently.
Yes they chose to do it, but I think the choice was brought in by the
programming limits zones gave them. You list the Kunark ignoring moment as
prime evidence yet if we look below you say this...
> Finally, had the developers not wanted zones to be used
> as "de-aggroers", it would have been trivial for them to
> have mobs retain people on their aggro list whether the
> person had zoned or not, so that when the person returned
> onto the monster's "turf" (i.e., zoned back in), the monster
> would go screaming back after them again. Clearly, they
> chose from the start not to use this method.
And I would have to disagree because if you look at the kunark thing of
the monster losing aggro if you go back to the mob the flamin thing will
wake up and come a huntin' therefore your prime evidence for 'they
implemented the same setup with the larger Kunark zones falls over because
they havent - aggro is retained in Kunark - often its not a problem
because the big hunting grounds see the mobs killed or moveing away from
the returning players. I'd also add to this the fact they introduced
guards and so on in the Old World small zones to help alleviate aggro
issues.
> Zoning was, indeed, intended to clear aggro and give
> players a "fresh start" after a train or bad pull.
Intended in the sense of they looked at it and chose not to do anything
with it becuase it worked, fitted the game and was fortuitously there,
fine, not that they designed it explicitly that way I feel. The zone
struture and motion around that structure would have come well before an
design of PC/NPC interactions....make your world - only then do you
populate it.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Faned
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:40:57 -0000, Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
> >> Rampage was created after the original game was created. And when it was
> >> made, a design decision was made to have it not be cleared by zoning. Had
> >> Rampage been in the original game I might accept what you've written.
> >
> >Had there not been zone lines in the original game, and they were added
> >because of issues with aggro never being removed...
>
> I'm with James on this one. If zone lines hadn't been originally intended
> to remove aggro (among other things -- you dishonestly tried to put
> words into his mouth about that being their *only* reason for
> existence), the developers would have implemented some other way
> for players to lose aggro when running for their lives, instead
> of forcing them to inevitably being chased down to the ends of
> the Earth and killed by bad each and every bad pull (or training
> others in a "help save me" attempt).
>
> Evidence for your perusal: Kunark.
Evidence against your point: Kunark.
> Zones pre-Kunark were relatively small, and a zone line was never
> extremely far away. But with the new routinely massive zone sizes
> of the Kunark release, the developers realized that being miles
> from a zoneline with no way to lose aggro was going to be a
> real pain in the ass for players. So what did they do? They
> instituted a *new* method of losing aggro -- if you get far enough
> away from a mob, it loses interest in you.
>
> Clearly, the developers didn't just "put up with" people losing
> aggro at zone lines out of programming limitations, they
> understood that there *have* to be ways for players to run
> screaming from trains or bad pulls and have some chance to
> shake off their pursuers. The alternative would have been
> "every train is almost inevitably fatal", which even the
> densest developer would have to realize would *suck* as
> a gaming experience.
>
> Finally, had the developers not wanted zones to be used
> as "de-aggroers", it would have been trivial for them to
> have mobs retain people on their aggro list whether the
> person had zoned or not, so that when the person returned
> onto the monster's "turf" (i.e., zoned back in), the monster
> would go screaming back after them again. Clearly, they
> chose from the start not to use this method.
>
> Zoning was, indeed, intended to clear aggro and give
> players a "fresh start" after a train or bad pull.
I still believe it was an unintended side effect that was deemed acceptable
and even conducive to a good game. As you said, they would have had to do
special work to get mobs to retain people on aggro lists through zoning.
There is no doubt in my mind that the *sole* reason for zoning is due to the
game engine design and allowing discreet spaces. Asheron's Call, DAoC, and
even Kunark reinforce that.