PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Easton on September 30, 2006, 07:29:47 pm
-
Hello all.
I was recently speaking with a guildmate of mine. He was frustrated because when he would go to talk to people in the sewers, he would realize that a large amount of people were afk, but sitting there and gaining PP. They would place themselves in a spot so the creature would constantly return to them and then when they were attacked, the auto-attack feature would kick in and they would kill the creature. All they while they could be completely away from the computer.
To me, this is extremely OOC. I doubt many will disagree with me. But the real issue that pops into my mind is: Why is there the auto-attack feature? I personally wouldn't mind the feature being removed. To me, it seems to serve to real purpose.
Let me know what you think..
Easton
-
Yes, this is a problem, and i've seen it happen myself.
Its a bad feature in my opinion, but you know, how much pp are they really going to get, not to mention they are killing their graphics card while leaving it up that amount of time.
-
The feature is there for client disconnects.
Truthfully, I sympathize with some of the players that do this. The entire training process may be ooc for them, but required to achieve the character they wish to play.
On the other hand, I do not like the ones that are doing it with no cause other than getting leet new skilz, which is 90% of the cases, I would guess.
The solution would be to limit auto attack to perhaps five times at the most with no input. Will this be botted? Likely, but in the end, does it matter to you? These types of players often level to the max, get bored, then leave. Let them have their fun.
*edit* the graphics card is not affected with the client minimized. If I wished, I could gain PP on several clients at once, while using minimal resources. That would be if I ever leveled any of my characters. The combat/training system is detestable to me.
-
Agreed, UtM. The combat is designed to continue after a client disconnect and a result of aggressive MOBs. It is a very, very boring thing to do but technically the character is doing what the character should be doing when someone does this. (we really need someone to prove "bots" before making allegations about them or scripting against players, it seems to come up as a knee-jerk response a lot lately). Leveling is the system and the devs have asked that the system be tested, so there you go. Maybe this could be limited to the MOBs in the arena, but MOBs that do not attack are boring boring. And, as UtM said, the players who are doing this to go uber leet get bored and leave... leave them alone, say I.
-
Sounds like cheating to me, and therefore intolerable.
As I understand it, auto-attack does serve a realistic purpose. If you are wa lking down a street and a giant rat suddenly starts gnawing at your foot, chances are you will instictively start kicking at it. IMO, auto-attack is equivalent to this instinctive kicking. Mabe the solution is to have it go into full defensive rather than normal mode?
-
Correct me if I am wrong someone, but they are not actually exploiting any bugs and it is being done with game mechanics as they are ... so calling this cheating is a bit incendary at this point. What we have here is the endless Role Play vs. Game Mechanics argument. Attempting to correct this means you penalize players for actually playing the game, since that is what they are doing. Things will be different after the wipe I think, but if the game is not being tested at higher skill levels, then the game is not being tested.
Interesting point with the auto full defensive idea... but it would probably involve a counting system of some kind for each different player and MOB?
-
The game once was set up to use "full defensive" stance as auto-defense.
It had to be changed for a good reason.
And there are ways to report auto-defensive players as it is meant - in game: GMs have the right to ban players who don't respond for a longer time as "suspected bots"...
And then enter the IRC channel #planeshift-gmtalk and get a GM in game... ::)
-
Well, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter. If they want to do this let them. Its not cheating, and its not bug exploitation as its not a bug. Basically the lazy man's training.
As the others have said, leave them be. They will soon be gone after they have leveled a bit.
-
The game once was set up to use "full defensive" stance as auto-defense.
It had to be changed for a good reason.
What is the mysterious good reason? ;P
I'm not sure why autodefence was so flawed.
The reporting part is interesting :)
As i understand, the auto attack is for players who crashed, but their chars are still in game for a longer while. Long enough that auto defence wont do the job, as even in full defence the HP will drop too fast and it is better to kill attacked before it kill the character of crashed player. Althhough i think the server should realize fast enough so that auto defence would be just fine. More, the auto defence should be only for max 30sec, to avoid cheating in training LA for example.
To the point. If you are seeing someone who is fighting, but not responding to your calls, there are 3 options:
1) he is in guild tab and is annoyed by the damn flashing tabs, in bad mood and even if he would care, he is temporary sick of people opening their mouth in his vicinity :)
2) he crashed! yay! Good that even if this feature is helpfull in the 1%~9% of meant way, we are thankful the we aren't doomed for DR.
3) he is cheating! Oh no! how can we know that? what if he is 1) or 2) and we are wrong? We are gonna report him and GM start with ban warnings (which appear in the center of the screen and cant be missed) just when the guy will be afk for 2min doing a tea? The rats will be coming from all directions and the character will kill them all automaticaly for the cursed 2 minutes when he didn't even want to kill a thing, but make a tea! Additionally, when he came back with tea, he got even more annoyed seing that PS crashed again! "Enough, maybe i play tommorow" But tommorow he can't join, coz he is banned.
Who knows, maybe this quest for ban cure :) will be actually more interesting than rat killing, but i'm not sure if I would enjoy it.
And remember, always look on the bright side of death.... erm, i meant life, which means to not get unnecessary irritated after reading this post ;P
EDIT Craconil, when you are cheating laying poker, are you cheating, or are you not? You are allowed by the physics mehanics and everything what this world allow you to do, so is it a proof that it is not cheating? Like you didn't gave any proof or "why" in your post.
-
I was only expressing my opinion, Hence the...
Well, in my opinion,
part :)
-
I was only expressing my opinion, Hence the...
Well, in my opinion,
part :)
And so i proven you wrong while not in the mood to put in soft words ;P did it that way probably also because of someone else in this thread and some common thought of people who often want to cheat without being cheaters, heh.
-
Definition of cheats.
Special codes that allow you bypass the normal limitations of a game. Typical cheats allow you to gain extra lives, become invincible, access different stages, give players big heads, etc. Some cheats are built into games, while others can only be accessed using devices like the Game Shark. Cheats can also be used for testing purposes
so yeah, its not really a cheat, more of a smart way of training.
But yeah. Too tired to argue :P
-
I do this from time to time, not leaving the computer but /telling people. One place I like to do it is on the bluffs overlooking Oja. Of course I like to loot whatever I kill if they are lootable. It saves me trouble when my brain is shutting down because I should have gone to bed hours ago. Also with the moving attack bug it is safer to stand in one place. Has that been fixed yet? I guess not. No matter.
-
What is the mysterious good reason? ;P
I'm not sure why autodefence was so flawed.
If I remember right, it happened during another mis-tweak, which made the auto-defense constantly kick in when attacking a monster, making you always switch to full defense when being hurt first, e.g. after launching a distant attack, and the monster moving to you to attack back. And because the stance changing didn't work, you had to stop your attack and start another, to be able to hit.
-
And because the stance changing didn't work, you had to stop your attack and start another, to be able to hit.
It is still happening, I have never noticed any improvement.
-
/me listens to all arguments
@a few people: Anyone who said "It's not cheating, they're using game mechanics. let them be."-- i disagree. I think if a certain game mechanic can be improved, then we should discuss it, and make our suggestions. Whether the devs listen or not is another issue. It would be completely up to them. But i feel that this mechanic is quite useless, unless you want to level up real fast by not really participating in the game. for me, it lowers the quality of the game by disallowing me to hold a normal conversation with someone because they "should have gone to bed hours ago" and have decided to use a, in my eyes, faulty, game mechanic to gain some PP.
I do agree that these people are not cheating, don't get me wrong. They are taking advantage of a game mechanic which isn't cheating technically, because they aren't taking advantage of a bug.. However, this doesn't mean the game mechanic has been perfected. Nor does it mean that these people are high quality players. Since i am a tester, as are we all, (i hope) i find it as my duty to report something that i find needs to be improved.
I know that just abuot every aspect of this game needs improvement, believe me, i'm the first to tell a person who complains that the game is in its alpha stages and there's tons of time before we get anything near the "finished" product. The combat system is one that needs improvement as well. This simply an issue that has greater importance because of its OOC characteristics.
I don't know.. this issue just came up yesterday, and i found it kind of surprising. and i find it more surprising that people knew about/participated in this kind of thing.. C'mon people! Testers first, players later.. right? ???
Easton
-
/me listens to all arguments
@a few people: Anyone who said "It's not cheating, they're using game mechanics. let them be."-- i disagree. I think if a certain game mechanic can be improved, then we should discuss it, and make our suggestions. Whether the devs listen or not is another issue. It would be completely up to them. But i feel that this mechanic is quite useless, unless you want to level up real fast by not really participating in the game. for me, it lowers the quality of the game by disallowing me to hold a normal conversation with someone because they "should have gone to bed hours ago" and have decided to use a, in my eyes, faulty, game mechanic to gain some PP.
I do agree that these people are not cheating, don't get me wrong. They are taking advantage of a game mechanic which isn't cheating technically, because they aren't taking advantage of a bug.. However, this doesn't mean the game mechanic has been perfected. Nor does it mean that these people are high quality players. Since i am a tester, as are we all, (i hope) i find it as my duty to report something that i find needs to be improved.
I know that just abuot every aspect of this game needs improvement, believe me, i'm the first to tell a person who complains that the game is in its alpha stages and there's tons of time before we get anything near the "finished" product. The combat system is one that needs improvement as well. This simply an issue that has greater importance because of its OOC characteristics.
I don't know.. this issue just came up yesterday, and i found it kind of surprising. and i find it more surprising that people knew about/participated in this kind of thing.. C'mon people! Testers first, players later.. right? ???
Easton
I see what your point is and i also see why you call it cheating, you go afk while you level up without doing anything for it as the older players have done with standing at a rogue saving up pp arguing about ks'ing etc. etc. etc. But from your point of view where you see it's cheating, you are wrong, it's not a bug and i find it a quite realistic game mechanic that the character hits back if someone hits them, unless you are a ghandi type ;) what would be nice though is when magic get's stronger, it would be nice to have it adjustable turnoffable and such to determine what kind of attack and turn if off depending on your character's personality.
however your last two paragraphs i agree with :)
-Peacer
-
@ Wired_Crawler:
I just checked with a rather weak character on the weak dwarf Mercenary. Trained in Light armor, and fought him in full defensive stance (what people would do to quickly level armor). I stayed in full defensive stance all the time until I got too bored to attack.
Then I got hit, and changed to normal stance right after.
And I can again switch between bloody, aggressive, normal, and defensive - without problems, during a fight. This was not possible during that time when we had so many problems with auto-defense.
-
Monster attacks character. Character hits back. Monster dies. Monster respawns. Monster attacks character. This is not a game mechanics problem.
-
I re-checked the rules, and I was mistaken. The rule I was thinking of is this: "You may not create "bots" or automation programs with the purpose of profiteering or advancing unattended," which unfortunately deals specifically with bots rather than flaws in game mechanics. This is a technicality: IMO, the rule is desgined to prevent any unattended advancement. This looks to me to be an oversight.
It's explotation of a bug, but of a flaw. So it's not cheating like going crazy when the NPCs are down and can't fight back isn't cheating. Neither is a bug per se, and neither is speficically against the rules (yet), but both take advantage of the unforseen effcts, hence flaws, of certain game mechanics. Neither should be done.
-
Monster attacks character. Character hits back. Monster dies. Monster respawns. Monster attacks character. This is not a flaw.
-
Which doesn't mean that it's a perfect situation either ;)
Dynamic spawns would fix so very much.
-
Which doesn't mean that it's a perfect situation either ;)
Dynamic spawns would fix so very much.
indeed, but would require me to do something too <.< *cough secret*
-
...i find it a quite realistic game mechanic that the character hits back if someone hits them, unless you are a ghandi type ;)
Haha. That is a quote :P
Which doesn't mean that it's a perfect situation either ;)
Dynamic spawns would fix so very much.
indeed, but would require me to do something too <.< *cough secret*
oooo. Tell us Peacer :P
-
...i find it a quite realistic game mechanic that the character hits back if someone hits them, unless you are a ghandi type ;)
Haha. That is a quote :P
Which doesn't mean that it's a perfect situation either ;)
Dynamic spawns would fix so very much.
indeed, but would require me to do something too <.< *cough secret*
oooo. Tell us Peacer :P
feel free to put it in your sig(c)
nevaah >:| guild secret
-
And so we have again the same problem. They refuse to call it cheating because comp games approach just made them blind on everything else. I gave an examle of cheating when playing a card game. People just don't understand that because all you do in PS is roleplaying, thus playing a role in real for your character world, when you are taking advantage on someone else, you are cheating. Not your character, because it can't as you are going ooc doing somethink what you arent supposed to do.
People just don't understamd the concept of RP. It is so unusual that you get used to all what is connected with it, sometimes for years. Most of the human population don't even know whats RPing, some of them are unable to undestand, because of various reasons.
We need to use our brain rather than rely on rules, because these, are only for people who refuse to think logicaly, to have fun with cost of others. The rules were made by people smarter than those who was breaking them.
Also, many poeple thinking they are not cheating, think that what they do is completly right. No cheating, so no problem at all.
-
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.html
this seems relevent ;) at least untill the comic is updated
-
feel free to put it in your sig(c)
nevaah >:| guild secret
Ohhhh. :(
-
feel free to put it in your sig(c)
nevaah >:| guild secret
Ohhhh. :(
only people joining us will know <.<
-
No it does not mean that this is perfect, Karyuu, I agree with you on that. As I agree with Ralas' feeling on this. But these discussions tend to go all over the place the place in here. So this is the situation then:
1) There is not a problem with game mechanics here, it is not a flaw in the game, it is not cheating per se.
2) The problem is one of players being selfish and camping spawn for hours and not giving other players a chance.
Right now you can have either a non-aggressive MOB, or an agressive MOB. There are no other options that I can see. Dynamic spawns will fix the problem ... great so there is no reason for me to go about insulting other players or flaming them in game or on the board for this. I am not overly concerned about the conduct of other players unless it is totally OOC rude.
If I think someone is doing this, I will (and have) speak politely to the player in game. If they say nothing I will speak with them again in a little while. If they say nothing at that time, and they have been there for a long time, then I might file a petition about this in game. But they are doing something that has not been specifically disallowed by game mechanics, and should be addressed by a GM in game. And it should be addressed by a GM in a reasonable and mature manner...
I have given up spawns innumerable times in game. I roleplay giving up the spawn as well. Standing around at a spawn is really boring and there is always something else to do in game. So perhaps the standing guideline should be that more powerful players are recommended to give up spawn points when asked, and to be aware and have regard for other players in game.
I am just not into complaining about these sorts of things, I have faith that problems like this will be addressed by game mechanics in the future when the foundation of the game has been completed.
Peacer and Ralas' and others brought up some good suggestions in this thread that should be discussed, but those would be more appropriate in the wish list forum I think...
-
Before I get a little off topic I'd like to respond to something posted while i crafted this post:
The problem we are actually running into is one of players being selfish and camping spawn for hours and hours and not giving other players a chance.
Right now you can have either a non-aggressive MOB, or an agressive MOB. There are no other options that I can see. Dynamic spawns will fix the problem, great so there is no reason for me to go about insulting other players or flaming them in game or on the board for this.
If someone is stand there waiting for auto-attack to kick in not watching what is happening you always have the opportunity to manually attack the monster before it engages its target. I for one have no qualms about killing something that someone is just standing and waiting for. If they complain I may stop for a bit but if they go back to zombie mode that is their problem
Well I do have one more thing to say about this. I was doing this one time on the bluffs I mentioned while mining with a character on another account in a different window, switching back and forth to loot the bandit or move if I got some iron. Then I got paged by a GM who was trying to find out if I was actually monitoring my fighting character because he saw, somehow, from out of visual range that my attacks were pretty regularly timed. I informed him that yes I was indeed there and that I was mining with another character. He informed me that it is against the rules to control 2 or more characters at the same time and as well that he would have kicked me from the server if I had not responded to his tell. So this post is in the way of saying that the GM's are aware of this and will take action when they see it.
A corrollory to this post is that from what I can tell there are a large number long time experienced players who continuously cheat by running multiple characters simultaneously. Some do it by having a mining character that go out and comes back to supply their crafting character, some do it by camping one or more monster spawns and it wouldn't suprise me to discover that some do it to fill out their Role Play because they can't find enough real people interested in their stories.
I do try to abide by the rules and haven't been playing much lately ... although last night when I was trying to stack with another kran, I had a second character to look to see that they lined up. It is pretty hard to stack characters as the Kran I was trying to stack with was a half step out of sync with me. I got left-right ok but could not get forward-back to line up. Perhaps this could be a challenge to people: How many characters can you stack in such a way as they look like one character, aside from the name banner of course. I suppose that would be too OOC to be an officially acceptable passtime.
-
Thanks, Bilbous for bringing up those points about attack. The MOBs are for all all nobody owns them. If you see another player hogging a MOB and they are away: Take it and keep taking it. Ah, but now another can of worms has been opened. *smile* And before everyone starts going off about multiple clients, I just want to put my two cents in and say that disallowing multiple instances of a client from the same IP should be easy to do by tweaking the server, and is another thing that does not require hours of lengthy posting. But the really important thing here is... what does the 'encrusted Ulbernaut' bit on your description (just PM me) mean?
-
Preventing one account per log in to one IP address doesn't work though. I can say first hand that I know quite a few people that they and say thier duaghter or hubby, or brother, etc, also play PS. It wouldn't be right to only allow one person to use an IP adress at a time. Then the brother/sister that wants to play together never would be able to, unless one moved out, or at least went to a differnet area.
-
Exactly, Neko. How about disallowing it based on MAC hardware number on the NIC, then? Is that detectable from the server side? Anyone? (getting a bit OT here, sorry Karyuu)
-
But the really important thing here is... what does the 'encrusted Ulbernaut' bit on your description (just PM me) mean?
You will have to ask me next time you see me in game. It has to do with an alternate (read unofficial) theory of the origins of kran that I have developed over the course of my time in PS. Why I was expounding upon it just last night. It is a tall tale that keeps getting taller everytime it is retold. I believe you might even find a short version in the kran origin thread on these forums.
On topic ... regarding the MAC address it doesn't help if there is a hardware firewall with multiple computers behind it. About the only thing you can do is lock some required file so that multiple instances will not run on the same machine. It may not work with all OS though and does nothing about people with morre than one computer
.
-
You both are absolutely correct about the IP and hardware addresses and multiple computers! So: How do we define this situation as 'cheating' then? And what behavior by the player defines the situation as cheating? (this is really directed at the moderators, thank you if anyone has a moment to post about this)
-
Sheesh...
@Peacer: i specifically said i do NOT consider it cheating. just a clarification.
I do, however, think it is a flaw in the game mechanic. I agree that dynamic spawns would solve this problem. Are there plans for this in PS's future?
Another point: If people have the definite abiliity to do something that just might be considered cheating by using a game mechanic, then we might as well search for ideas to tweak the game mechanic to prevent cheating, or misuse, or whatever you'd like to call it. Either way its the same thing to me, and i think it has no place in PS.
Easton
-
Hold up, folks. Sorry to go off topic, but where does it say that you can not go online with more than one character at once?
-
it's not a bug and i find it a quite realistic game mechanic that the character hits back if someone hits them, unless you are a ghandi type
That's gold. I don't see how clicking like a bot is any better than just lettin the creature do it for you. But I guess it is an exploit...
-
Actually, UtM there is nothing posted in the Cheating section of the players guide that lists it specifically. However, other characters have told me recently that GMs have been saying this is cheating. And in some cases, just bringing this up in conversation causes everybody to start yelling about cheating. The only reason that I bring it up here is because I dislike knee-jerk responses that involve unfounded allegations, not that I have ever seen any evidence of the team being unreasonable about issues like this. So it came up here, and I wished to post something hoping that the issue would be clarified further. Under the law, silence is equal to consent.
-
"Cheating" can be too strong of a word sometimes. If you have two characters for example and are helping one "level" the other, we're going to ask you to quit doing that. If you have two of your characters standing at one spawn, with one killing and the other for storing loot, we're going to ask you to get rid of one of them, unless you're actively roleplaying with both and we see that very clearly. Your characters are characters and not tools.
-
Thank you Karyuu for a charming response. That is what I expected. And it is reasonable to ask for that. I personally have other characters who are friends in game that are dependable for holding items. I think that friends would be the best way to do this. And I shall. Ohh, but the roleplay possibilities with two clients are neat, aren't they? My computer does not handle it well anyway, and I think this is a burden on most people's machines which is why most players would call this cheating and get kinda angry.
-
It is not a burden with your settings set just right, and you know how to do it.
And I beg to differ about characters not being tools. To me, the life you create for them is the sculpture, and they are the impliments to carve it. In that way, they are tools. If you use them for anything other than that, like the helping to level example, then you are missusing your tools.
It is commonly known that I play with at least two characters at once on a regular basis. Sometimes I do it just to fill the tavern on a quiet night.
But this is getting off topic. Perhaps someone should start a thread on muti-clienting?
-
I agree with UTM. You characters in PS ARE your tools. And missusing them only gives you unsatisfactory results, ie. Being kicked from the server etc. :thumbdown:
But this is getting off topic. Perhaps someone should start a thread on muti-clienting?
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=25815.new#new
-
Not all GM's are calling it cheating when a player sits at an NPC while AFK.. sometmes for hours.
I recently asked a GM about this and was told that I can "compete" with the other player since NPC's are not owned. While I agree that NPC's are not owned, I will argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to compete with an AFK player who is camped in the NPC's "sweet spot".
eldoth_terevan, you say, "The MOBs are for all all nobody owns them. If you see another player hogging a MOB and they are away: Take it and keep taking it." It's not always that simple, though I wish it were. It's been my experience that an NPC will always go after the character in the sweet spot regardless of efforts to try to lure it away from a player camped in the sweet spot. This brings up an interesting topic related to camping by players who are sleeping, at lunch, school, etc: Why have a "sweet spot" at all?
Eliminating the "sweet spots" would elminate much of the problems associated with AFK campers.
-
Eliminating "sweet spots" (or recognition distances, because they are radial areas, not just points) would eliminate all chasing NPCs... except maybe you'd add some "motion detection".
-
The point about sweet spots is that the npc is open to anyone until the first attack is made. It seems to me that npc's are not triggered by someone standing on their spawn point. This means if you have a macro for /target_next_npc /attack you can always claim the monster when it first appears by pressing the macro key. If you don't it will take more time and you might miss the opportunity. Personally I like to have seperate macros for target and attack to account for lag. Repeatedly pressing the combo macro will get you attacking several different monsters. With seperate macros you can target once and attack as necessary.
-
Due to some lag, it will often happen before you can attack, that a monster is distracted and will attack a player who is in the recognition area, which is a "ring" between a minimal and maximal distance. The minimum was introduced to avoid players being killed while logging in after crashing in a fight. So if you are right at the spawn point, the NPC won't recognise you, but instead the one a few steps away - target him, and attack him. Before you are able to target and attack, the server already moved the NPC away, so chances are that your attack command may select the second near NPC, but not the nearest you expected.
(That way I often caught the strong rogue or the Brigand instead of the weaker one, which I wanted to attack instead of letting him disturb another player who was fighting the Brigand, when there was a bunch of 3.)
-
There is a change coming up, that will spoil the fun for auto-attack botting people.
People that try to abuse the auto-attack feature, will not get far with it.
-
Hmmm, sounds interesting :)
If you auto attack it will spawn an Ulber behind you? ;)
-
No, it's much easier.
You will not start attacking back in normal stance anymore, in the near future.
You can only defend you'reself then and not die, if you are strong enough.
-
So rather than going onto normal stance we will go onto defensive, or full defensive?
-
I only hope there won't be situations i suddently stp attacking, after it was actually me who started the combat.
I believe this is scripted well, basing on the past mistakes and experience ;)
-
So rather than going onto normal stance we will go onto defensive, or full defensive?
I'm guessing full-defensive, as you're hitting but not damaging or gaining XP, so you will just tire.
-
But when you tire dont you then change to normal stance? or do you stop attacking and then get attacked by the mob again making it look like you change to normal stance?
On another note, It may help against people getting PP by standing there, but this is perfect for those who use rats to train their armor ;)
-
But when you tire dont you then change to normal stance?
Yeah you're right Idoru you do go to normal stance and it hits then shows that you're too tired to attack then hits again and so-on until the rogue etcetera is dead, maybe they will just change the primary stance to full-defensive so no damage could be done even after tiring.
-
then there's the lag which could automatically put your little figure into auto attack stance and full defencive instead of bloody. Now you come to hate those botters who ruin this for everyone else :/. Now that gives you a reason to report them aye.
-
http://planeshift.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/planeshift/planeshift/docs/history.txt
*** 2007-01-08 by Michael Gist
- Compile fixes from Nilaya.
- If attacked, initial stance will now be full-defensive.
So, they decided to go back to that I thought it was at originally when it the auto-stance feature was first put in place...full-defense? So they fixed the bug that cuased them to change it from an auto full-defense to normal?
And speaking of the training of armor, the solution to that is a simple one, but most likely harder to code: once you get so high in armor, you don't get training from smaller, easier foe anymore. Balance it so that the player needs to be there watching their character becuase the only time he'll get training is from a mob that can hit them hard, coupled with random spawn points and stronger npc AI, this should solve most likely all problems. :)
-
Are you hearing this botters \\o//
-
As long as I am not constantly reset to full-defensive while fighting, it's okay ...
I made a special shortcut, anyway: [ /stopattack | /attack # ] - rather reliably allows to change stances.
-
Good solution!
-
The best solution would be that you don't auto-attack back if you're attacked. But people might not like that.
-
I have also noticed, and maybe this is due to lag or other NPC server strangeness going on recently, after awhile mobs just stop attacking. I have been working on my sword training recently using weak swords and a defensive stance. So each battle takes a few minutes. After awhile they just stop attacking and I have to retarget and attack. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.
Another downside to default full-defensive is if you wander in a busy NPC area like the sewers and go afk, you might find yourself being attacked by 4 or 5 NPCs for some time therefore occupying them preventing others from having access to them. If the time out I mentioned above is in place it may take care of that. But then its annoying to have to retarget every so often if you really are engaging with them.
Hmm, sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.
-
The NPC server has been odd of late, and that pause attack condition you are mentioning IMHO has been worse since this last update. I wouldn't mind no attack back if attacked, at least it would force more players to be interactive in the game.
-
Another downside to default full-defensive is if you wander in a busy NPC area like the sewers and go afk, you might find yourself being attacked by 4 or 5 NPCs for some time therefore occupying them preventing others from having access to them. ...
Not an issue. Ownership of a spawn is determined about who is doing damage to the mob. Full defense: no damage, hense you don't own it., hense it is free for anyone to attack it. You have to do damage to take "ownership" in the server's eye.
At least, that's how I think it still works. Haven't played around with the combat system in a while so it might have changed.
-
Another downside to default full-defensive is if you wander in a busy NPC area like the sewers and go afk, you might find yourself being attacked by 4 or 5 NPCs for some time therefore occupying them preventing others from having access to them. ...
Not an issue. Ownership of a spawn is determined about who is doing damage to the mob. Full defense: no damage, hense you don't own it., hense it is free for anyone to attack it. You have to do damage to take "ownership" in the server's eye.
At least, that's how I think it still works. Haven't played around with the combat system in a while so it might have changed.
I can confirm that it is :p
-
Does that also mean if you auto-attack in a duel it will still be full-defensive?
-
Does that also mean if you auto-attack in a duel it will still be full-defensive?
auto-attack only works against mobs afaik
-
auto-attack only works against mobs afaik
I auto-attack in duels all the time.
-
auto-attack only works against mobs afaik
I auto-attack in duels all the time.
never happened to me, then it will probably be in duels too
-
auto-attack only works against mobs afaik
I auto-attack in duels all the time.
never happened to me, then it will probably be in duels too
I think what he means is, sometimes your opponent ATTACKS you, you block the attack, and automatically slash.
That doesn't always happen, but happens sometimes when your opponent slashes too much, and stands too close.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for neko
If you are on Full defensive, with a mob, No one is allowed to take it.
The official rule, as i've read it, is not "damage" but the actually attack itself.
Once someone has actually attacked the NPC, on whatever stance, it is his.
The only problem with such rule is, being on Full defensive the whole time.
From what i know, there is no solution to this, other than to let that person finish his attack, or log off.
Basically, if i see someone, on full defensive, with a mob, i can't tell a GM to move that guy, and give the mob to me.
~~Datruth
-
I think what he means is, sometimes your opponent ATTACKS you, you block the attack, and automatically slash.
That doesn't always happen, but happens sometimes when your opponent slashes too much, and stands too close.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant and happens to me most times I block when not in a stance, must happen to dagger users more because of the speed, I'm guessing, anyway.
-
As for neko
If you are on Full defensive, with a mob, No one is allowed to take it.
The official rule, as i've read it, is not "damage" but the actually attack itself.
Once someone has actually attacked the NPC, on whatever stance, it is his.
The only problem with such rule is, being on Full defensive the whole time.
From what i know, there is no solution to this, other than to let that person finish his attack, or log off.
Basically, if i see someone, on full defensive, with a mob, i can't tell a GM to move that guy, and give the mob to me.
~~Datruth
Tested, and you are wrong. I crated a new char, went to the sewers, found a willing player to help test it. I engaged a rat in full defensive, after 10 secods he engaged it and as soon as he did damage I was kicked out of combat.
The server only acknowledges ownership of a mob, if that player has done any damage to it. You don't do any damage when in full defensive mode, hense you never own a mob to the servers "eye". So as I stated, trying to take up many spawns by using full defensive mode won't work, as the player isn't doing any damage, therefore they aren't able to lock anyone out from comming along and engaging the mobs in combat.
-
As for neko
If you are on Full defensive, with a mob, No one is allowed to take it.
The official rule, as i've read it, is not "damage" but the actually attack itself.
Once someone has actually attacked the NPC, on whatever stance, it is his.
The only problem with such rule is, being on Full defensive the whole time.
From what i know, there is no solution to this, other than to let that person finish his attack, or log off.
Basically, if i see someone, on full defensive, with a mob, i can't tell a GM to move that guy, and give the mob to me.
~~Datruth
Tested, and you are wrong. I crated a new char, went to the sewers, found a willing player to help test it. I engaged a rat in full defensive, after 10 secods he engaged it and as soon as he did damage I was kicked out of combat.
The server only acknowledges ownership of a mob, if that player has done any damage to it. You don't do any damage when in full defensive mode, hense you never own a mob to the servers "eye". So as I stated, trying to take up many spawns by using full defensive mode won't work, as the player isn't doing any damage, therefore they aren't able to lock anyone out from comming along and engaging the mobs in combat.
My info was out of date then, i'll check it myself, but i'm betting you got it right.
This will solve the full defensive stance problem, but i rarely see anyone in full defensive anyways.
If people want to take mobs, they use arrows ;)
Now that's a hard problem to solve. :)
~~Datruth