Sit aggro

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Volkier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes - he is taunting after the mob is running for the sitting casters. Just like it's already been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Which is the exact mechanic that is broken, as it is not doing what it should - ie. it is not putting the tank one point on top of hate list. Sitting currently does that instead.

As a guess--this is speculation only--I suspect taunt is taunting off the base hate of the caster in question, not the sit multiplier, so even after a successful taunt the caster still gets whacked. In the meantime just don't rely on white damage for hate. I've made no claim that it's fine as-is, only that it's not crippling if folks behave with it in mind.

Danth

[Volkier]

The other thing that I've just noticed, and this is MORE proof that the current mechanic is broken, is I've just noticed I lost a bunch of faction just by sitting next to someone killing a mob. I have not touched the said mob at all, the guy is not in the same group, he just happened to chase it when it was low hp past me while I was meditating. This was an Orc faction. My Dervishes faction has taken a hit too in the past two days - just because I tend to meditate at my hunting spot. This is the only explanation as neither I nor my group of dark elves, who are not KOS to dervishes to begin with have ever touched a single one of them.

Anyone else care to lie about how "this was what it was like in classic" ?

[Danth]

Full agreement there, the faction hits just from being in the vicinity is silly and broken to the extreme. I assume the final line of your post is not directed at me since I've not made such a claim.

Danth

[bartly]

Originally Posted by Fysts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tecmos I did post proof, straight on how aggro works from a everquest classic dev. Sit was a bonus to aggro, WHILE on the hate list. Meaning it only increased your already aggro on a mob. The only way a sitting player would get aggro on an inc mob, is if that mob was aggro by proximity only, then if the tank was fast enough to step infront of the sitting players and generate aggro, they would not even get aggro then. Basically sitting really only came into play majorly after casting a spell and then sitting because if say heal did 400 aggro and you sat it would bonus it out to say 550 aggro, but the bonus would disappear soon as you stood. Also it seems they added sit aggro, but they never added the proximity aggro bonus. Read my earlier posts, it explains all this.

This makes the most sense. I would never get sit aggro on a pull unless a bard was doing something. I would med up, get up, throw a couple nukes, sit down, then "you will not evade me Bartly!" Take my lumps get called a noob get a rez, med up, nuke some more.

[Quineloe]

taunting isn't guaranteed, but if the taunt is on top of the hate list, but a caster is just below and then sits down, is he moved above the warrior on the hate list? Or is he still second, and therefore taunt cannot work?

[Volkier]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Full agreement there, the faction hits just from being in the vicinity is silly and broken to the extreme. I assume the final line of your post is not directed at me since I've not made such a claim.

Danth

Not at all. Just at the numerous people who go on about how "this was classic - suck it up", when it wasn't [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EDIT:
Point is - the faction hit is proof that Sitting generates aggro by itself, instead of being the correct mechanic as to where it boosts the existing aggro of a player.

[baalzy]

Originally Posted by Volkier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not at all. Just at the numerous people who go on about how "this was classic - suck it up", when it wasn't [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EDIT:
Point is - the faction hit is proof that Sitting generates aggro by itself, instead of being the correct mechanic as to where it boosts the existing aggro of a player.

I think the problem is the way they're using proximity aggro. Instead of being added to the 'awareness' list they're being added to the normal hate list. The awareness list should mean the mob is aware of that person and will go murder them as soon as he's done murdering his current target.

Who is actively being pummeled still matters who has the higher number regardless of which list they're on, so a sitting player who is on the awareness list can still have a higher amount of hate than someone who threw a dagger at the mob and missed. The sitter shouldn't receive faction hits if they didn't do anything else.

Faction hits should only be given if the person took a negative action against the mob (either assisting a player fighting the mob, or fighting the mob yourself).

[Nirgon]

Everything about my experience last night was very classic as far as sit and proximity aggro.

I think we need the faction hits removed from indirect hate, though.

Getting used to it after having played so much P99 EQ without it took just a little adjusting.

I hope pet aggro fixes are next!

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Nirgon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we need the faction hits removed from indirect hate, though.

I laughed out loud last night when I got summoned by a 95% mob in south purely because of sit aggro, heh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Yoite]

Nirgon plenty of people have posted evidence via links from 99 era showing that sit agro is not correct. If you really think its correct why dont you post some evidence proving so?