AliamRationem.5172 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. Supporting your position with facts does not alter the fact that your position is, in fact, an opinion. It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? So, you see, your opinion is no more fact-based than anyone else's. I can support my argument with facts as well (and I have multiple times in this thread). It doesn't make my opinion "better" than yours, although logically supporting it the way I do probably makes it more persuasive than your preferred style of using weak logical fallacy to proclaim yourself the victor of any argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Haishao.6851" said: > > @"Eramonster.2718" said: > > Could this be the reason why there aren't any players afk/parking their characters in expansion maps to "farm"(?). > > People afk farm in LS3 and 4 maps with same aggro range as PoF. I think PoF just really has nothing worth farming that can't be found elsewhere. Small correction: Season 3 maps do not have higher aggro range. It's PoF maps and onwards that have larger ranges. Which Season 4 map is afk-farmed btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battledrone.8315 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting thread ... I like the part where many people think the game caters specifically to them. PoF map mobs and their distribution are hard/annoying/frustrating or not? Not really relevant. The game isn't designed to be everything to everyone. If we are going to argue PoF is different than HoT or core, there is no debate there ... YES ... and it's intended for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is if Anet should change it (otherwise, what's the point of the thread?) Based on the age of the content and the 'challenge' it presents most players ... I would say no. If you don't like it ... well, that's not a problem ... name me a single MMO where you love everything in it ... then tell me why you aren't playing it right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the strongest points here is aggro range. I really don't get why that's a problem OTHER than the fact that we are accustomed to the relatively low ranges from other maps. Can someone actually describe why bigger aggro ranges are a problem? Of course, absurdly large ones where _unseen_ mobs aggro you ... YES, that's an issue but we aren't talking about THAT far away in PoF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here in the thread there are some reasons why this is a problem. Do we need to break it all down again for 'your specifically needs'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Large aggro range has NEVER prevented people from completing content in this game ... so it's not really the problem people want to say it is. Again, what you find annoying/frustrating is simply a matter of personal preference and since the game doesn't cater to individuals, it's irrelevant. If large aggro ranges prevented people from playing the game ... that WOULD be a problem worth discussing ... but they don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's pretty funny that people don't see the increased aggro range as _intentionally_ preventing people from avoiding trash mobs in OW ... yet somehow those people argue it's a problem that needs to be fixed ... I think Anet already give you the answer to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And how do you know it doesn't stop people from playing POF maps? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because there is no mechanic that prevents people from playing PoF maps due to aggro range. Just like there is no mechanic ANYWHERE in the game that prevents people from playing ANY map due to aggro range. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, however, for my valuable play-time, I almost never go into PoF maps because of this annoyance. It's not "preventing" me, but it isn't encouraging me either. > > > > > > > > > > That's fair ... and there are lots of other maps where people don't go into for various other reasons as well. I mean, sure we want Anet to encourage players to go to all the maps ... but they can't possibly do that by catering to subpopulations desires for specific game parameters, especially if there are other options other subpopulations want as well. The game can't be everything to everyone ... that's why we have variety, even in maps. > > > > > > > > And how do you know that only one subgroup has this problem? > > > > > > Actually, to be honest ... NO subgroup has a problem with it because it doesn't prevent you from playing the game and completing content. Anet INTENTIONALLY made the aggro range larger in PoF ... and you are intentionally unwilling to understand that to portray aggro range in PoF as a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > if there was no problem, then this thread wouldnt even exist. > > No ... if there was no _complaint_, this thread wouldn't exist. That's not the same as there being a problem. The job of the proponents of the change is to show their complaints are due to a problem, that problem needs to be solved ... and by Anet. I've given factual evidence this isn't the case. > > when a business gets a complaint, that is usually a problem. if that business values money and customers, that is. how big a problem is debatable, but not the existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFishBob.6518 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Haishao.6851" said: > > > @"Eramonster.2718" said: > > > Could this be the reason why there aren't any players afk/parking their characters in expansion maps to "farm"(?). > > > > People afk farm in LS3 and 4 maps with same aggro range as PoF. I think PoF just really has nothing worth farming that can't be found elsewhere. > > Small correction: Season 3 maps do not have higher aggro range. It's PoF maps and onwards that have larger ranges. Which Season 4 map is afk-farmed btw? I think there's a spot in Istan that has some afk farmers, inside that cave. At least that's what I remember someone posting a picture of on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 I’m putting in my vote for ANet decreasing agro range and increasing respawn time. I don’t play on those maps and it’s primarily for those reasons. Examples of too fast respawn and too far agro I encountered 1) trying to get a hero point that requires defeating a mob. The area was surrounded by multiple mobs, a hydra, sand snakes and a shark. I cleared them out first and start the hero point fight. Right after I started the fight the surrounding mobs start respawning. I end up fighting the hero point while trying to fend off a hydra fireballing the area plus the other miscellaneous mobs putting in their 2 cents. Once I clear an area around a hero point it should stay cleared longer than a minute or two. 2) I went through a sand portal that led into a cavern and to another sand portal. I was dismounted so I needed to kill the mobs (and their friends) to remount. I killed them but I was still in combat because of condition damage still ticking as I had already used my heal during the fight. Then they all respawned. I killed them. I was still in combat. They respawned. I killed them. I was still in combat, they respawned, Rinse. Repeat. I finally managed to climb up on some rocks so I was out of reach for long enough to get out of combat. 3) I came across an escort event while playing solo so I thought I’d try it. In my opinion it wasn’t scaled well for one person as the event mobs coming to meet the escort had veterans as well as regular mobs, but whatever. What made it hard was the escort pulling in more mobs and their friends from further away so there was a bunch of mobs coming in while I was trying kill the event mobs. Eventually I was overwhelmed by too many mobs in the fight and had to back off from the event. Granted, some people are going to say ‘get gud’ but imo non meta events, hero points, just traversing the map, shouldn’t end up with the average player getting overwhelmed by mobs pouring in from far away or by respawns so fast that it’s difficult to get out of combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. Again ... you and others are presenting the view that the larger aggro range is the problem that needs to be fixed. That's not really an accurate view based on the game history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. PoF aggro range does not meet this standard and therefore does not need to change, strictly speaking. That's certainly a fact! The problem, of course, is that it isn't up to players to determine what needs to change. That's up to the developers, naturally. But this is not the standard by which the developers themselves determine what needs to change either. The question you should be asking is why we're debating the question of whether or not this is a "need" when that should go without saying. The answer? Apparently, so we can win the internet. Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFishBob.6518 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > @"DaFishBob.6518" said: > > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > And here we go again. > > > > More XY pages where everyone will discuss in a circle. > > > > > > If we could quantify annoyance among players it might be an easier conversation to have. What I perceive as totally fine others perceive as annoying. And neither of us are wrong as they are personal opinions. > > > > > > Where some players adapted their play style and expectations to the content, others feel the content should be adapted to their play style and expectations. Again neither is wrong in these approaches, however we know that some approaches are more successful to enjoying the game. > > > > How about we quantify how many times mobs that players intend to fight turn around with the invulnerability buff because they actually came from several thousand units away while the players are getting in position to fight them and every other mob around them, resulting in somehow stepping out of their leash range. I can't recall any other place this happens besides maps with mobs introduced in PoF. Maybe I can purposely cause this on other maps by taking potshots at them from a cliff but not when I am putting my boots on the ground and engaging them close up. > > > > Can anyone claim it's acceptable that mobs will come at you and follow you all the way to the edge of their leash range, hit you, and then proceed to run back to where ever they came from while being completely invulnerable to you because you had to move just a bit farther to fight off one of the other mobs after you? > > If you agro a mob while running past it on a mount, and then stop at or near it’s leash range then what you described is expected. If you don’t attack that mob, you are out of combat (assuming you aren’t in combat with other mobs), if you do combat may take a second to fall off. > > This is a new take on what others have been complaining about. Mobs that enter combat and stay in combat from extensive range. Not mobs that run away! > > Again to the post you quoted, you find this behavior annoying and I don’t. How can we best quantify our experiences in a relevant way in the course of this conversation? Getting back to this, it is a somewhat new take but still related to larger aggro range. Larger aggro range means larger distance to attract mobs from, making it harder for players to keep track of where each mob they have chasing them came from. Also as I understand it, it takes much longer than a second for combat to fall off as the aggro mob with invulnerability might decide to chase you all the way up to close range before turning around, leaving you stuck in combat all that time. Then a scarab spots you and farts in your general direction, you remain in combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > I need facts. No assumptions! Facts! OK you got them. Those things aren't assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > 1) trying to get a hero point that requires defeating a mob. The area was surrounded by multiple mobs, a hydra, sand snakes and a shark. I cleared them out first and start the hero point fight. Right after I started the fight the surrounding mobs start respawning. I end up fighting the hero point while trying to fend off a hydra fireballing the area plus the other miscellaneous mobs putting in their 2 cents. Once I clear an area around a hero point it should stay cleared longer than a minute or two. That's the one in Crystal Oasis right? In close proximity to a forged camp, with patrols nearby that might engage at any time and sand sharks on the other side (and a hydra!) I know that place and I know that feeling, something must've been off when they designed that part. I can add one of my own experiences, I was in Dragonfall, burning forest area, went to mine a Mithril Node, there was a fire salamander close by, so I thought I'd ignore it, gather the node and leave. Once I started mining though it wasn't just the salamander that engaged but their friend fire hydra too. The hydra wasn't even visible, was behind a rock, but since the fire salamander came to eat me, it decided to call its friend hydra to join in the fun too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchslein.8639 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > 1) trying to get a hero point that requires defeating a mob. The area was surrounded by multiple mobs, a hydra, sand snakes and a shark. I cleared them out first and start the hero point fight. Right after I started the fight the surrounding mobs start respawning. I end up fighting the hero point while trying to fend off a hydra fireballing the area plus the other miscellaneous mobs putting in their 2 cents. Once I clear an area around a hero point it should stay cleared longer than a minute or two. > > That's the one in Crystal Oasis right? In close proximity to a forged camp, with patrols nearby that might engage at any time and sand sharks on the other side (and a hydra!) I know that place and I know that feeling, something must've been off when they designed that part. > > I can add one of my own experiences, I was in Dragonfall, burning forest area, went to mine a Mithril Node, there was a fire salamander close by, so I thought I'd ignore it, gather the node and leave. Once I started mining though it wasn't just the salamander that engaged but their friend fire hydra too. The hydra wasn't even visible, was behind a rock, but since the fire salamander came to eat me, it decided to call its friend hydra to join in the fun too. Yep, its the Djinn HP. I had the same experience there. Where I have not cleared the environment (because I knew how quickly the parts respawn) but jumped around with my Ele like a crazy rabbit and as soon as the Djinn was dead just as quickly sought the far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > And seemingly decreased it in later S4 maps which might be due to complaints about it in PoF maps. /shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > And seemingly decreased it in later S4 maps which might be due to complaints about it in PoF maps. /shrug Yes perhaps. Again, let's be clear. I'm not saying it can't change. I'm saying it doesn't need to change and certainly not because it annoys people. It's even questionable if it's worth changing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > And seemingly decreased it in later S4 maps which might be due to complaints about it in PoF maps. /shrug ... The opposite happened. Flesh wurms in dragonfall and dominion snipers in drizzlewood have EVEN greater range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > For anyone that doesn't know, in core tyria, season 2, heart of thorns and season 3 maps you can safely engage a mob with a 600 range skill because mobs engage at about **500** units. In starter zones you can safely engage an enemy with a 450 range skill as well, because starter zone mobs have an even shorter active radius of only about **400** units. I'm not sure at which exact level the radius increases from 400 to 500 units, but that's what happens. > > In Path of Fire, season 4 and Icebrood Saga maps you CANNOT safely engage a mob even at 900 range, because mob radius is 1000 units. You can still safely engage mobs at 1200 range and above, but use anything under 1000 and the mob will attack first. This also means _other_ mobs will engage as well at that distance because this engagement distance also comes into account when a mob calls for help and activates allies. A mob in Heart of Thorns will alert nearby allies at 500 range, while a mob in Path of Fire will alert allies at 1000 range. This creates the effect of being swarmed by mobs, occasionally mobs coming out of nowhere, while you aren't even close to them, because one of their allies was close to them and alerted them to your presence. > > Of course posts like "this is too hard please make it easier" don't really work, they are too general and offer very little value for a discussion, only heated debates between the "it's too hard, please make it easier" and the "it is too easy, please make it harder" crowds with some variations between the two. But a question that can be made is, should mobs in Path of Fire+ have their engagement distance reduced? I'm coming back to this reply because it DOES contain facts. And it hits the nail on the head for the OP's point, which is about mob engagement. I have no idea why this comment appears to have been ignored so quickly, even though it has multiple upvotes for helpfulness and thumbs up. Unless an Anet dev posts here, any speculations about what Anet "intends" is merely that: speculation. Re the snipers comment a few comments above. I don't think that is a good example of how mobs in later maps have long aggro distance. Snipers, by their nature, are designed for long distance attacks. It is not sufficient to cherry-pick mobs to support one's argument. One must consider all mobs in the LS maps that are post-PoF. Finally, a couple of us, pages earlier, pointed out that the aggro also occurs vertically - you can aggro mobs above and below. You can pop down and deal with the mob/s who are below you. But you can't pop up and deal to the mob/s above you, because you can't reach them - you're in combat, you can't mount, and there aren't any updrafts or bouncy mushrooms to assist. You also can't go to a WP because you're in combat. If you're lucky, you can run to an edge and glide off. But if you're surrounded by terrain that is higher than you, you're stuck there. It's like, and yes I have experienced this, when an enemy NPC shunts you through a polygon. They now cannot hit you, you can't hit them, but they continue to be aggo'd on you. There are times when I wish /gg was an option in open-world PvE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. Well, it's not because game mechanics and intent are what determines if changes are needed, not what player 'feel'. Put it this way, if there is a justification that the game needs to change because some people dislike something ... then there is JUST as much justification to not change it because some other people might like that thing. It's pretty simple: There isn't a right/wrong here and game change in not about liking or disliking something. Whatever the reason, Aggro range was increased in PoF. We can think of reasons that was done and all the pros and cons. WHATEVER those are, lead to the decision we have on range aggro in PoF. OK ... and now we are discussing it, I have no reason to think WHATEVER those reasons are, they aren't ANY less relevant now than they were when they were made because those facts are not invalidated by the reasons being presented for changing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. > > Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. Again, the discussion is not about what ANet "needs" to do. We don't get to decide that. My point was that ANets original intent (which I will also point out is not known to us!) is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they may or may not change something. Obviously, any time they change anything (aside from new content and bug fixes!) they deviate from the design intent. There are numerous reasons why they may do so, but again, that's beyond the scope of this discussion because we have no say in that. If you'd like an explanation of my position on PoF aggro range from the perspective of what I presume is at least part of ANet's design intent, here's a copy from several pages ago in this thread: _"I'm sure they were probably thinking... Okay, we're giving you mounts. You can get around much easier than before and we don't want all these enemies to become little more than scenery in the game. Why don't we just increase the aggro range so you get hit a little more as you're flying past? While that's perfectly sensible, I don't think they considered the impact on player perception. As I said before, **there is now a greater difference between movement speed in-combat vs. out-of-combat due to the addition of mounts. Increasing aggro range to a level appropriate to hassle mounted players has the side-effect of locking unmounted players into combat much more frequently and for longer periods of time than in pre-PoF content**. So now not only do I really want to get out of combat so I can mount up and get moving again, but I'm also finding myself stuck in combat more often because enemies aggro from further away whether I'm mounted or not. While this is not specifically a complaint about difficulty, a reduction in aggro ranges to something more similar to HoT would likely go a long way toward improving quality of life for those who do struggle. So, while I disagree with some of the specific complaints being made here, arguing them back and forth is a waste of time as what I want is likely also what they want. However, to those who disagree that this is a problem requiring a solution, I'd like to hear your thoughts. How would you feel about a reduction in aggro range to pre-PoF levels? Would this trivialize navigation in PoF? Has that been the result for you in HoT?"_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. > > > > Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. > > Again, the discussion is not about what ANet "needs" to do. We don't get to decide that. My point was that ANets original intent (which I will also point out is not known to us!) is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they may or may not change something. Obviously, any time they change anything (aside from new content and bug fixes!) they deviate from the design intent. There are numerous reasons why they may do so, but again, that's beyond the scope of this discussion because we have no say in that. > > If you'd like an explanation of my position on PoF aggro range from the perspective of what I presume is at least part of ANet's design intent, here's a copy from several pages ago in this thread: > > _"I'm sure they were probably thinking... > > Okay, we're giving you mounts. You can get around much easier than before and we don't want all these enemies to become little more than scenery in the game. Why don't we just increase the aggro range so you get hit a little more as you're flying past? > > While that's perfectly sensible, I don't think they considered the impact on player perception. As I said before, there is now a greater difference between movement speed in-combat vs. out-of-combat due to the addition of mounts. Increasing aggro range to a level appropriate to hassle mounted players has the side-effect of locking unmounted players into combat much more frequently and for longer periods of time than in pre-PoF content. So now not only do I really want to get out of combat so I can mount up and get moving again, but I'm also finding myself stuck in combat more often because enemies aggro from further away whether I'm mounted or not. > > While this is not specifically a complaint about difficulty, a reduction in aggro ranges to something more similar to HoT would likely go a long way toward improving quality of life for those who do struggle. So, while I disagree with some of the specific complaints being made here, arguing them back and forth is a waste of time as what I want is likely also what they want. However, to those who disagree that this is a problem requiring a solution, I'd like to hear your thoughts. > > How would you feel about a reduction in aggro range to pre-PoF levels? Would this trivialize navigation in PoF? Has that been the result for you in HoT?"_ > I don't know how I would feel about it ... probably the same thing I felt about it when I first played PoF and saw it was increased. It's a moot point anyways because Anet isn't going to change the game based on what I (or anyone else) feels because the game isn't catering to me and reducing aggro range in PoF is a low/no value proposition. You say this discussion isn't about what Anet needs to do ... but it is because every time someone complains about a thing on the forum, the underlying reason is to influence change. I mean, if the discussion ISN'T about what changes people would like to see made and what they would like Anet to do .. then what's the point? Just to make sure everyone knows what everyone else thinks about whatever? I don't buy that. I'm going to make this simple: I don't want to see it changed. Not because it's a good or bad change ... but because it doesn't do anything to change people being able to be successful in playing the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. > > > > > > > > Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. > > > > > > Again, the discussion is not about what ANet "needs" to do. We don't get to decide that. My point was that ANets original intent (which I will also point out is not known to us!) is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they may or may not change something. Obviously, any time they change anything (aside from new content and bug fixes!) they deviate from the design intent. There are numerous reasons why they may do so, but again, that's beyond the scope of this discussion because we have no say in that. > > > > > > If you'd like an explanation of my position on PoF aggro range from the perspective of what I presume is at least part of ANet's design intent, here's a copy from several pages ago in this thread: > > > > > > _"I'm sure they were probably thinking... > > > > > > Okay, we're giving you mounts. You can get around much easier than before and we don't want all these enemies to become little more than scenery in the game. Why don't we just increase the aggro range so you get hit a little more as you're flying past? > > > > > > While that's perfectly sensible, I don't think they considered the impact on player perception. As I said before, there is now a greater difference between movement speed in-combat vs. out-of-combat due to the addition of mounts. Increasing aggro range to a level appropriate to hassle mounted players has the side-effect of locking unmounted players into combat much more frequently and for longer periods of time than in pre-PoF content. So now not only do I really want to get out of combat so I can mount up and get moving again, but I'm also finding myself stuck in combat more often because enemies aggro from further away whether I'm mounted or not. > > > > > > While this is not specifically a complaint about difficulty, a reduction in aggro ranges to something more similar to HoT would likely go a long way toward improving quality of life for those who do struggle. So, while I disagree with some of the specific complaints being made here, arguing them back and forth is a waste of time as what I want is likely also what they want. However, to those who disagree that this is a problem requiring a solution, I'd like to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > How would you feel about a reduction in aggro range to pre-PoF levels? Would this trivialize navigation in PoF? Has that been the result for you in HoT?"_ > > > > > I don't know how I would feel about it ... probably the same thing I felt about it when I first played PoF and saw it was increased. It's a moot point anyways because Anet isn't going to change the game based on what I (or anyone else) feels because the game isn't catering to me and reducing aggro range in PoF is a low/no value proposition. You say this discussion isn't about what Anet needs to do ... but it is because every time someone complains about a thing on the forum, the underlying reason is to influence change. I mean, if the discussion ISN'T about what Anet needs to do ... then what's the point? Just to make sure everyone know's what everyone else thinks? I don't buy that. > > > > > > Luckily we have you prowling the forums, ensuring ANet keeps their eye on the ball. Thank you for your service, Cap'n. > > Look. It's called player feedback. Are you just here to troll or did you want to discuss any of the points people are actually making? Sheesh! There isn't any trolling ... I ALSO gave my feedback and the reasons why I don't think it should change. You want me to discuss the point though ... OK here we go. You say you don't think Anet considered the impact on player perception. Well, if everyone would have the _same_ perception and Anet had a way to know exactly what that perception was, you would have a point. The fact is that there will be a large range of perceptions on this change and Anet can't pick a single design point for a feature that will 'consider all the impacts on player perception'. So again, like I said, the game can't cater to individual players (oh there is point #2 again). Hey, maybe in the future, we get games that are more 'custom' to the player ... but until then, decisions are made for what these points will be for EVERYONE and there isn't any right or wrong ... they just have to pick a value based on what they intend and go with it. If it doesn't break the game ... then it's not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchslein.8639 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. > > > > > > > > > > Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. > > > > > > > > Again, the discussion is not about what ANet "needs" to do. We don't get to decide that. My point was that ANets original intent (which I will also point out is not known to us!) is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they may or may not change something. Obviously, any time they change anything (aside from new content and bug fixes!) they deviate from the design intent. There are numerous reasons why they may do so, but again, that's beyond the scope of this discussion because we have no say in that. > > > > > > > > If you'd like an explanation of my position on PoF aggro range from the perspective of what I presume is at least part of ANet's design intent, here's a copy from several pages ago in this thread: > > > > > > > > _"I'm sure they were probably thinking... > > > > > > > > Okay, we're giving you mounts. You can get around much easier than before and we don't want all these enemies to become little more than scenery in the game. Why don't we just increase the aggro range so you get hit a little more as you're flying past? > > > > > > > > While that's perfectly sensible, I don't think they considered the impact on player perception. As I said before, there is now a greater difference between movement speed in-combat vs. out-of-combat due to the addition of mounts. Increasing aggro range to a level appropriate to hassle mounted players has the side-effect of locking unmounted players into combat much more frequently and for longer periods of time than in pre-PoF content. So now not only do I really want to get out of combat so I can mount up and get moving again, but I'm also finding myself stuck in combat more often because enemies aggro from further away whether I'm mounted or not. > > > > > > > > While this is not specifically a complaint about difficulty, a reduction in aggro ranges to something more similar to HoT would likely go a long way toward improving quality of life for those who do struggle. So, while I disagree with some of the specific complaints being made here, arguing them back and forth is a waste of time as what I want is likely also what they want. However, to those who disagree that this is a problem requiring a solution, I'd like to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > How would you feel about a reduction in aggro range to pre-PoF levels? Would this trivialize navigation in PoF? Has that been the result for you in HoT?"_ > > > > > > > I don't know how I would feel about it ... probably the same thing I felt about it when I first played PoF and saw it was increased. It's a moot point anyways because Anet isn't going to change the game based on what I (or anyone else) feels because the game isn't catering to me and reducing aggro range in PoF is a low/no value proposition. You say this discussion isn't about what Anet needs to do ... but it is because every time someone complains about a thing on the forum, the underlying reason is to influence change. I mean, if the discussion ISN'T about what Anet needs to do ... then what's the point? Just to make sure everyone know's what everyone else thinks? I don't buy that. > > > > > > > > > > Luckily we have you prowling the forums, ensuring ANet keeps their eye on the ball. Thank you for your service, Cap'n. > > > > Look. It's called player feedback. Are you just here to troll or did you want to discuss any of the points people are actually making? Sheesh! > > There isn't any trolling ... I ALSO gave my feedback and the reasons why I don't think it should change. > > You want me to discuss the point though ... OK here we go. You say you don't think Anet considered the impact on player perception. Well, if everyone would have the _same_ perception and Anet had a way to know exactly what that perception was, you would have a point. The fact is that there will be a large range of perceptions on this change and Anet can't pick a single design point for a feature that will 'consider all the impacts on player perception'. So again, like I said, the game can't cater to individual players (oh there is point #2 again). > > Hey, maybe in the future, we get games that are more 'custom' to the player ... but until then, decisions are made for what these points will be for EVERYONE and there isn't any right or wrong ... they just have to pick a value based on what they intend and go with it. If it doesn't break the game ... then it's not a problem. But this is exactly the crux that you don't seem to understand or don't want to. There have been many changes based on player input. GW2 wouldn't exist for a long time if they didn't listen to their players. There is a reason for all the decisions Anet makes. BUT, these are not decisions that are set in stone and must remain forever. As we have seen thousands of times. And that is FACT. There have been good and bad reasons given here why mobs should not be made weaker. And there were many good and bad reasons why aggro and respawn time should be changed. The only fact here is that Anet decides in the end what is implemented. But Fact is also, everyone has the right to present and discuss his problems. Fact is, your way of repeating the same 3 points over and over again since 3 pages without responding to your opposite and pretending to be the only one here who knows what's going on is extremely to***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > But this is exactly the crux that you don't seem to understand or don't want to. There have been many changes based on player input. GW2 wouldn't exist for a long time if they didn't listen to their players. > > There is a reason for all the decisions Anet makes. BUT, these are not decisions that are set in stone and must remain forever. As we have seen thousands of times. > And that is FACT. I don't disagree with these things. Sure, changes based on player feedback. Sure, Anet can change whatever they want for whatever reason they have. Yes, those are facts. There just isn't a need for any changes to aggro range because players are annoyed by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now