Aggro Limit / Buffer

[Dini]

It never occurred to me to even ask about this till now....

 

Since there is interest in revisiting certain matters in the game and making changes (changes to telekenesis on mind control), is there any interest in addressing the aggro limit and/or buffer that was added to the game?

 

I would love to be able to pull like we used to. Perhaps, even make it optionable for the party leader to allow it?

[Greycat]

Not going to allow herding a zone into a dumpster or an entire level at once, no.  That's long gone (and should stay that way.)

[kelika2]

32 minutes ago, Dini said:

I would love to be able to pull like we used to.

I do not want to spend most of a task force sitting at a zoneline while the tank herds ever again

[lemming]

Pull like we used to?   Do you mean back to issue four?  Aggro mechanics have gone thru a lot of changes in twenty years

 

Several discussions have taken place about his since HC existed, they've made changes, but not to that. (which I think is good)

[JasperStone]

Aggro is in a good state now, given the game's pace.

 

[Dini]

Aggro limits were added in issue 5, not 4. 

 

Beyond that, we all are learning to let others enjoy the game as they wish. 

 

Perhaps allowing an increase in aggro limits in notoriety could be considered by the Homecoming team.

 

If anyone does not want to partake, just as they would not join a "kill all" or "speed" team, they could be warned away from a "high aggro" team.

[Glacier Peak]

Nope

[lemming]

1 hour ago, Dini said:

Aggro limits were added in issue 5, not 4. 

Yes, which is what I asked if you wanted back to issue 4.

 

You'll notice most people aren't putting in a lot of detail in just saying "Nope".   This argument has been beaten into the ground, but if you look at how aggro has been changed by HC, you'll note how little traction your idea will get with the devs.    In regards, the aggro cap has been already raised, but in a fashion that won't have everything follow you into a dumpster fire.

[tidge]

What is it with OPs that hit thumbs down every post that expresses disagreement with the suggestion? I feel like such people would "thumbs up" their own posts if they could.

 

Often an original suggestion is crafted in such a way that a thumbs up/down seems completely neutral, and a followup post expressing why someone disagrees often express pretty politely the reasons for their disagreement with the original premise. The OP hitting thumbs down in these cases strikes me as rather immature.

[JasperStone]

1 hour ago, Dini said:

 

Beyond that, we all are learning to let others enjoy the game as they wish. 

This is where you lose traction in your argument.

 

You wish to have the original taunt - DO IT!

There are those that wish to keep what we have now - KEEP IT

 

There is a mantra flooding our forums recently where:

"This powerset sucks -Make these changes."

"This effect sucks! - Change it."

"More options, more better."

 

No.

This response is not gatekeeping and trying to protect the game and keep it in a certain state.

Efficient changes.

Viable changes.

What does our dear spaghetti code allow

Changes that do make the GAME better. <--- people tend to argue from this belief ... 

Also, given the possible workload, is it doable with our amazing Volunteers who keep the game running?

 

 

I tested a tank recently (IcE/Ice/Ice) where I slotted taunt everywhere I could ... LOL a taunt magnet.

 

 

 

[Dini]

53 minutes ago, tidge said:

What is it with OPs that hit thumbs down every post that expresses disagreement with the suggestion? I feel like such people would "thumbs up" their own posts if they could.

 

Often an original suggestion is crafted in such a way that a thumbs up/down seems completely neutral, and a followup post expressing why someone disagrees often express pretty politely the reasons for their disagreement with the original premise. The OP hitting thumbs down in these cases strikes me as rather immature.

 

Possibly because the idea is being discounted out of hand rather than options offered for how it could be included. But you do you and, guess what, others can do what they want as well.

[Dini]

1 hour ago, lemming said:

Yes, which is what I asked if you wanted back to issue 4.

 

You'll notice most people aren't putting in a lot of detail in just saying "Nope".   This argument has been beaten into the ground, but if you look at how aggro has been changed by HC, you'll note how little traction your idea will get with the devs.    In regards, the aggro cap has been already raised, but in a fashion that won't have everything follow you into a dumpster fire.

 

The aggro cap still seems to stand at 16 and the buffer that I mention still exists for a short period such that if you can move mobs off you, more that were aggro'd will come.  So, it seems a bit murky what other changes have been made. But, arguing back and forth is pointless and you and others are determined to shoot down the idea instead of investigating how it could work so.... have at it. 

[Dini]

22 minutes ago, JasperStone said:

This is where you lose traction in your argument.

 

You wish to have the original taunt - DO IT!

There are those that wish to keep what we have now - KEEP IT

 

There is a mantra flooding our forums recently where:

"This powerset sucks -Make these changes."

"This effect sucks! - Change it."

"More options, more better."

 

No.

This response is not gatekeeping and trying to protect the game and keep it in a certain state.

Efficient changes.

Viable changes.

What does our dear spaghetti code allow

Changes that do make the GAME better. <--- people tend to argue from this belief ... 

Also, given the possible workload, is it doable with our amazing Volunteers who keep the game running?

 

 

I tested a tank recently (IcE/Ice/Ice) where I slotted taunt everywhere I could ... LOL a taunt magnet.

 

 

 

 

Holding aggro on mobs beneath the cap is not even the discussion. But, like the others doing the gatekeeping, you do you. I am getting back to gaming.

[Glacier Peak]

2 minutes ago, Dini said:

Holding aggro on mobs beneath the cap is not even the discussion. But, like the others doing the gatekeeping, you do you. I am getting back to gaming.

You've made no attempt to address the fact that this has been brought up countless times on this suggestion forum. Have you read through those posts and found something not already thought up, or that's entirely unique that would change Homecoming’s stance on the aggro cap? 

 

Nope.

[JasperStone]

1 hour ago, Dini said:

 

Holding aggro on mobs beneath the cap is not even the discussion. But, like the others doing the gatekeeping, you do you. I am getting back to gaming.

Not gatekeeping .... even said so in my response.

...

Are you not gatekeeping yourself by wanting to return to something from Issue 4

 

But you are right about one thing - you be you.

1 hour ago, Dini said:

But, arguing back and forth is pointless and you and others are determined to shoot down the idea instead of investigating how it could work so.... have at it. 

Then, explain how it could work.

I have no issues with how aggro now is, but you seem to. 

 

This is the forums, and as free as you are to post something, so are we free to respond.

 

In addition, as has been stated, this has been argued.

 

Edited July 7 by JasperStone

[Haijinx]

41 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

You've made no attempt to address the fact that this has been brought up countless times on this suggestion forum. Have you read through those posts and found something not already thought up, or that's entirely unique that would change Homecoming’s stance on the aggro cap? 

 

Nope.

I think it's been *months* since we had a good aggro limit flamefest.  

[tidge]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

What is it with OPs that hit thumbs down every post that expresses disagreement with the suggestion? I feel like such people would "thumbs up" their own posts if they could.

 

Often an original suggestion is crafted in such a way that a thumbs up/down seems completely neutral, and a followup post expressing why someone disagrees often express pretty politely the reasons for their disagreement with the original premise. The OP hitting thumbs down in these cases strikes me as rather immature.

 

56 minutes ago, Dini said:

 

Possibly because the idea is being discounted out of hand rather than options offered for how it could be included. But you do you and, guess what, others can do what they want as well.

 

I LOLed because the OP couldn't help but to toss a thumbs down on a post that literally expressed no opinion on their suggestion; I wonder if there are some aggro issues IRL.

[Ghost]

Why even ask for the limit to be raised or eliminated?

Go right to asking that all mobs get so mad at the presence of you tank, that the entire map immediately charges to the mission entrance to attack.

[JasperStone]

2 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Why even ask for the limit to be raised or eliminated?

Go right to asking that all mobs get so mad at the presence of you tank, that the entire map immediately charges to the mission entrance to attack.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Dini said:

 

The aggro cap still seems to stand at 16 and the buffer that I mention still exists for a short period such that if you can move mobs off you, more that were aggro'd will come.  So, it seems a bit murky what other changes have been made. But, arguing back and forth is pointless and you and others are determined to shoot down the idea instead of investigating how it could work so.... have at it. 

Maybe because they remember how it used to work, like how some of them have already said, and don't want it to go back to that? There is a reason the aggro limits were added. So I doubt you will even be able to convince the devs to give an option of getting that back.

[lemming]

3 hours ago, Dini said:

 

The aggro cap still seems to stand at 16 and the buffer that I mention still exists for a short period such that if you can move mobs off you, more that were aggro'd will come.  So, it seems a bit murky what other changes have been made. But, arguing back and forth is pointless and you and others are determined to shoot down the idea instead of investigating how it could work so.... have at it. 

Like others said, it's been argued a lot.  You didn't put any effort in your suggestion on how to change it, just "like we used to"    For that, you'll be referred to past arguments and about the same level of effort for a response.

[skoryy]

In the immortal words of Rocket J. Squirrel: "Again?"

[Glacier Peak]

[Psyonico]

I didn't start playing until Issue 6, so after the aggro cap was implemented.  That being said, I *still* get bored when tanks insist on herding.

[Rudra]

22 minutes ago, Psyonico said:

I didn't start playing until Issue 6, so after the aggro cap was implemented.  That being said, I *still* get bored when tanks insist on herding.

There are few things as fun as doing nothing while waiting for the Tanker to grab the entire map and bring them to you.

 

(Edit: For clarification, please note that I am being sarcastic.)

 

Edited July 7 by Rudra