Grey mob agro, all risk, no reward

[Naggyba]

If you are going to change it to where grey mobs can agro on the group, then those mobs should drop loot. Why should I suffer the risk, wihtout the reward? I can understand you wanting to fix it to where it's harder for people to use high levels to bypass dangerous content but, by making grey mobs agro the higher levels, you are just adding more risk to the people wihtout any chance of getting reward for defeating them.Instead of agro grey mobs (grey with red border), you could turn them green. That would give the people the chance to get the reward for the risk. Sure, people could use this to farm stuff but, who wants to farm lower level junk for very little loot? Heck, Raid level mobs drop crappy loot (and very little of it). You think normal mobs drop anything of value on a regular basis that could be farmed? I don't think so.ORJust not allow people to group past a certain level range. This would hurt efforts to help guild members recover their shards but, would fix the bypassing content problem. If you added the option of reviving wihtout leaving a shard and more XP debt, on top of the option to revive normally,then people would have shards in dangerous locations. They would have a way out.It's not right to have grey mob agro without the people getting something for defeating the mobs. You shouldn't fix a game mechanics problem by adding yet more game mechanics problems or hassle to the players.<p>Message Edited by Naggybait on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:49 PM</span>

[Iseabeil]

<DIV>there is no reasonable reason to be grouped with someone that is 10 lvls away from you, except shard recovery and harvesting, and those 2 things should be hard anyways if ye are in an area that is bad for ye.</DIV> <DIV>to be honest, i can say i never been in a group that would actually be affected by this, and i played since beta in september. thats pretty long time, and cant see why anyone could have a problem with this.</DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV>Can you think of any reason why grey mobs should be green when they pose no threat?</DIV>

[Naggyba]

<blockquote><hr>Ealix wrote:<DIV>Can you think of any reason why grey mobs should be green when they pose no threat?</DIV><hr></blockquote>Same reason Grey mobs will be agro. If they are now agro, then they pose a threat. If they pose a threat, they should give a reward.The current system is all risk and no reward, on top of the already risk and little reward they have in EQ2. This is just even MORE risk and even LESS reward.Yes, some grey mobs can and do pose a threat.<p>Message Edited by Naggybait on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:53 PM</span>

[Magar]

<DIV>If they pose no threat then why have them aggro?  The point being that this game is a large enough time sink as it stands.  We do not need the added time to deal with no challenge aggro mobs.  Some of those mobs have large hit point values and takes some time to defeat even though there is no challenge.  I  have to agree with the OP.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gray aggro is a bad idea designed toward a bad game dynamic.  Limit group range and leave the aggro system as it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One other note.  Does it really make sense that a mob would just attack even though it would be squashed?  I am only lvl 29 but I have yet to see a mob run from me when attacked due to status or what have you.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't let this new twist go live.</DIV>

[Eal]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ealix wrote:<BR> <DIV>Can you think of any reason why grey mobs should be green when they pose no threat?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR><BR><BR><EM>Same reason Grey mobs will be agro. If they are now agro, then they pose a threat. If they pose a threat, they should give a reward.<BR><BR>The current system is all risk and no reward, on top of the already risk and little reward they have in EQ2. This is just even MORE risk and even LESS reward.<BR><BR>Yes, some grey mobs can and do pose a threat</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It wasnt a rhetorical question. I am asking you to answer the question.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[WuphonsReach]

Let's look at some example numbers where the new rules come into effect.Level 28 player. Mobs will be grey if they are level 24 or below (assuming the average group level is 2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.Level 28 player groups with a level 14 player. Average level is now 21. Mobs would have to be level 17 or lower to be grey to the group. Level 17 mobs are yellow/orange to the 14 so they would still not aggro.28 with a level 8 player. Avg level drops to 18. Mobs have to be around level 14 to be grey due to avg level, but due to the new rule, level 12-14 mobs will now be aggro. A level 28 player is going to have zero risk at dispatching level 12-14 mobs.The reason this change is being put into effect is as follows:A high-level player parks at the zone line (or elsewhere in the zone) and greys out content for a group of low level players while they (risk-free!) bypass content in order to reach their camp spot. High level player disbands, group hunts from their safe location. Someone needs to go AFK? Low level group invites the high level player (who can be across the zone) for risk-free AFK'ing.The grey aggro change only affects groups with *huge* disparities in levels who were using (abusing) a high level grey shield to trivialize lower-level content. From a realism standpoint... if a group of level 20 mobs sees a level 10 player walk by, without a level 40 player shadowing their every step, why wouldn't the level 20 mob see that level 10 player as a tasty morsel?

[Naggyba]

Gotta love those 1 star bandit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] holes that are too childish to debate an issue. Too childish to debate a game mechanics problem or offer solutions.Just to clarify something I think would be a better option.1. Offer another option to reviving. Allow the person to revive with his shard, yet more debt. This would do away with the problem of getting high levels to grey out the mobs so you can get your shard out of a dangerous situation. This would remove oen of the main reasons to group with a high level.2. Now that you fixed one of the reasons of grouping with high levels, limit the ability to group with people outside of a certain level range. If they cannot get experience or quest updates from grouping with the person, then don't allow them to group. With mentoring going in, people can drop down to the level range of the player and help them. Just don't allow them to group if they are past the range that the lower levels no longer gain any benefit.3. Fix other game mechanics issues that cause people to want to group with higher levels to grey out the mobs.To me, this is better than adding more hassle to the players and adding more game mechanics issues and adding more risk with even less reward.<p>Message Edited by Naggybait on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:09 PM</span>

[Iseabeil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Naggybait wrote:<BR>Gotta love those 1 star bandit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] holes that are too childish to debate an issue. Too childish to debate a game mechanics problem or offer solutions.<BR><BR>Just to clarify something I think would be a better option.<BR><BR>1. Offer another option to reviving. Allow the person to revive with his shard, yet more debt. This would do away with the problem of getting high levels to grey out the mobs so you can get your shard out of a dangerous situation. This would remove oen of the main reasons to group with a high level.<BR><BR>2. Now that you fixed one of the reasons of grouping wiht high levels, limit the ability to group with people outside of a certain level range. If they cannot get experience or quest updates from grouping wiht the person, then don't allow them to group. With mentoring groing in, people can drop down to the level range of the player and help them.<BR><BR>3. Fix other game mechanics issues that cause people to want to group with higher levels to grey out the mobs.<BR><BR>To me, this is better than adding more hassle to the players and adding more game mechanics issues and adding more risk with even less reward.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> making it impossible to group outside lvl restrictions would be very bad when not adventuring. if my illusionist is crafting, and i have friends crafting as well, their lvl shouldnt be able to stop me from casting breeze on them. crafting is already slow, the few ways to increase power regen shouldnt be banned from it just to make a few less mechanic issues for adventures.

[Naggyba]

They could allow grouping in towns and tradeskill instances.

[Eal]

<DIV>What does 1 star do for me? It doesnt affect my ability to make a point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    The whole con system was to separate levels in places where they shouldn't be. I have no business farming mobs 15 levels lower than me just so I recieve loot. Also, Knowing Rare chest may drop from any mob. One could look for the easiest green mob and just sit there. This really sucks if people who are 15 levels lower than you are looking for the same mob. The risk vs reward is thrown out the window.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Naggyba]

That's why I think a better solution would be to fix the game mechanics issues that have people grouping with higher levels (shard recovery being one of them) and just do away with the ability to group with higher levels, outside of towns, if the lower levels cannot get any benefit from the grouping. This would fix all the issues wihtout causing higher levels even more grief with no chance of reward.It would fix the parking of a high level at the zone line while lower levels bypass dangerous content. This is not a game mechanics problem, just people using the game mechanics in the wrong way.It would fix the problem of grouping with a high level to get your shard, if they offer another option to reviving.Etc.

[LumpusDaGno]

<DIV>Rather than making an incongruous system even moreso, just remove the con shift based on group level range.  What I mean is keep it simple... If you're level 40 and you group with a level 10, mobs that were red to the level 10 are still red to level 10. Mobs that are green to level 40 are deep red to level 10.  Mobs that are grey to level 40 are whatever they are to the level 10 solo.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Don't change the con just because you're grouped*.  It didn't make sense before and it makes even less sense to have grey cons aggro. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the live servers, only mobs that con green or higher to the highest level member will con green or higher to the rest of the group.  If they con green or higher, they con whatever is appropriate to each member of the group.  A blue-con to the level 45 in your group is going to con yellow to the 41 in your group.  The only time con shifts is when the mob is grey to the level 45 it becomes grey to the rest of the group.  I presume this was to help groups get to their hunting spots rather than having to wade through miles of too-low content to get there.  Now they propose to make the system more complex in order to unwind the only reason the system existed in the first place?  Bad idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't make greys aggro. Remove the con-shift when grouping.</DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV>Or you could have it where the loot is based on the the highest level in the group versus the level of the mob.  The higher the level of the highest level in group the less probable loot will drop. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For example:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a group of 20s who has one 35 in their group fighting a lvl 20 mob.  The difference between mob and player is 15. This has a 1% chance of dropping loot. The reverse scenerio would be group of 35s with one 20. This would yield a 75% chance to drop loot. The higher the ratio of the highest level to mob would be calculated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you have to options. Add a higher level character in your group attacking smaller mobs for faster exp less loot or visa versa.</DIV>

[Lancealittle]

<DIV>If you are in a group that has something that is grey to the highest member but red to the lowest member then you have no legitimate reason to be grouped. The lowests level person is not getting xps or quest rewards in this situation, so they should find people their own levels in a more apropriate area.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The new system makes sense and fills a couple holes in an exploitable group system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV> <DIV><EM>If you are in a group that has something that is grey to the highest member but red to the lowest member then you have no legitimate reason to be grouped. The lowests level person is not getting xps or quest rewards in this situation, so they should find people their own levels in a more apropriate area.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>The new system makes sense and fills a couple holes in an exploitable group system</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>I assume you are against the mentoring system. Nothing wrong with that. Sony was just trying to find a way so friends and family could play without the level constrictions. If you are strictly into role-playing, levels are just a number.</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by Ealix on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:55 AM</span>

[aeio]

<blockquote><hr>Naggybait wrote:<blockquote><hr>Ealix wrote:<DIV>Can you think of any reason why grey mobs should be green when they pose no threat?</DIV><hr></blockquote>Same reason Grey mobs will be agro. If they are now agro, then they pose a threat. If they pose a threat, they should give a reward.The current system is all risk and no reward, on top of the already risk and little reward they have in EQ2. This is just even MORE risk and even LESS reward.Yes, some grey mobs can and do pose a threat.<p>Message Edited by Naggybait on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:53 PM</span><hr></blockquote>They don't pose any REAL threat to the high levels. They should pose a REAL threat to the lower levels though, as they are more than 4 levels higher than them. Your particular group combination has decided to try and reduce their risk to virtually non-existant levels by having much higher people with them. You don't get rewarded, because you are not taking a risk. Killing a grey mob 10 levels lower than you is not risky, it is just annoying. You are being annoyed because you are trying to help someone lower than you by-pass content that should likely kill them in two rounds of combat. That is your reward, helping your lower level friends not die.Either don't group with them, or mentor down to their level and face the appropriate challenge. You should not be rewarded because of your desire to exploit game mechanics.

[aeio]

<blockquote><hr>Magar wrote:<DIV>If they pose no threat then why have them aggro? The point being that this game is a large enough time sink as it stands. We do not need the added time to deal with no challenge aggro mobs. Some of those mobs have large hit point values and takes some time to defeat even though there is no challenge. I have to agree with the OP. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Gray aggro is a bad idea designed toward a bad game dynamic. Limit group range and leave the aggro system as it is.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>One other note. Does it really make sense that a mob would just attack even though it would be squashed? I am only lvl 29 but I have yet to see a mob run from me when attacked due to status or what have you. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Don't let this new twist go live.</DIV><hr></blockquote>They are a threat though, to the lower levels in the group. In fact they should like wipe the floor with those lower level players. The higher level player, though, is protecting them... All this change does is force them to actually do the protecting instead of having it happen automagically.By-passing content and risk through exploitation of game mechanics is never a good thing.

[Robocrot]

<DIV>If the mob is level 30</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The lower level would have to be... 25 -- (?) for the mob to con red. The DUOwould have to be 'level' 35 for the mob to con grey.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Highest level + Level of lower level) / 2 == 35</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Say the lower level is 25, the higher level would have to be 45 for this to even be in effect ((25+45)/2 = 35) . </DIV> <DIV>If the higher level is anything below 45, the DUO will be less than level 35 which means the level 30 mob will con green.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why would a 45+ group with a lvl 25?</DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV>Because they are RL friends or there isnt anyone to group with or they have the same common goal; ie heritage quest.</DIV>

[Lancealittle]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ealix wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV><EM></EM></DIV><EM></EM></DIV> <DIV>I assume you are against the mentoring system. Nothing wrong with that. Sony was just trying to find a way so friends and family could play without the level constrictions. If you are strictly into role-playing, levels are just a number.</DIV></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ealix on <SPAN class=date_text>03-04-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:55 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I'm all for the mentoring system. The thing is, if you mentor down to the level of the lowest person the mob will be red to everyone, so that won't help much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you in a mentoring group, then the entire group should hunt someplace else rather than wander around reds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Tradeskill_Addict]

<DIV>1. As far as i understand (and i might be wrong) in the future grey mobs wont have a red border anymore and wont aggro anyone as long as they look grey to everyone in the group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. As far as i understand (and i might be wrong) mobs that would con RED to anyone in the group (if soloed) will get a red border and attack the group as long as they are an aggro mob at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. That every risk should yield a reward makes the word "challenge" obsolete and turns every player into a mercenary who lives by: "as long as the payment is ok i'll risk my life" (I might not be wrong on this one). I just hope the mercenaries stay of the rpg preferred servers.</DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV>I personally think SOE should have mobs that fly around and look for people cheating. A Bolt of thunder should strike down those that want to CHEAT. Die You CHEATING CHEATER and CHEAT no more so sayeth the Devs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>p.s. feel free to one star. I have reached a monumental moment in my posting career.</DIV>

[Xalibur]

<DIV>they should make it range based, considering having a very high lvl at your side, he is your bodyguard or so, if you move to far away from him, remove the bodyguard status <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></DIV>

[Eal]

<DIV> <DIV><STRONG>they should make it range based, considering having a very high lvl at your side, he is your bodyguard or so, if you move to far away from him, remove the bodyguard status <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" width=16 border=0><BR></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>Rather than changing the system, you added something that would make it better furthering the balance of the game. I wish more people would do this rather than just adding to the problem by not offering a solution.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Evolution of problem solving</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why can he do that and I can't? = Whine</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can't do this because of X and Y and Z. = complaint.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can't do something because of X and Y and Z and this would help to fix it. = Alternative solution.</DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV></DIV>

[Theramor-GoV]

<DIV>Personally, I think this is the best solution.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That way, higher level characters can help those who need it (when recovering shards and what not) and it also stops the loophole of having it work zone wide.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If they make it a "bodyguard" type effect within a certain radius, along with the TLC code (no chests or exp for grey mobs) and possibly extending the No Quest Credit (for example, if there is a person in your group who is 10+ levels higher than your lowest level, then any mob kills can not count for any quest credit), that should fix any real loopholes I can see in the system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If they want to use someone to bypass content to get to a camp spot, that should be their choice.  But they will not be able to keep the bodyguard around if they want any quest or chest drops.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Opinions?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>T</DIV>

[SideshowBob]

<DIV>I like the range-based idea! I wonder how hard it would be to implement it? Given the way some of the existing in-game range-based stuff works, perhaps it wouldn't be so difficult? Afterall:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Group buffs drop if you get too far from the person who cast them.</DIV> <DIV>You don't get credit for kills if you're too far from the group fighting the mob</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least range-based agro would serve to eliminate what it appears the purpose behind the proposed change seeks to correct - lower level characters grouping with significantly higher level characters, who are usually on the complete opposite side of the zone from them, thereby allowing them to avoid situations that would otherwise prove dangerous and challenging to the lower levels characters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The way I think of it is like having a 98-pound weakling strolling some dangerous, really bad part of town all by himself. Chances are, if there's some thief or thug out prowling looking for people to mug, the little guy is gonna get mugged. However, if that same 98-pound weakling found some giant 300-lb armed-to-the-teeth and dressed in full plate bodyguard to accompany him, chances are the muggers are going to find easier pickings and leave him alone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact is that people group together for an endless number of reasons, and not all of them are nefarious. If there is a way to get rid of the most common exploits associsted with grouping disproportionate levels together, while still preserving players' rights to group with whoever they want, I'm all for it.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I'd also make the suggestion of a range-based limit to inviting someone into your group (line of sight kind of thing), but I know what a pain in the butt it can be to find the rest of the group you just joined in some rather maze-like  zones, and being able to waypoint them is just too darn nice to want to see go away.</DIV>

[Talo]

While the range based bodygaurd idea is very interesting, I think it over complicates an already complicated system. I would agree with LumpusDaGnome that removing the con shift completely from grouping is the best and simplest solution to the whole problem.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LumpusDaGnome wrote:<BR> <DIV>Rather than making an incongruous system even moreso, just remove the con shift based on group level range.  What I mean is keep it simple... If you're level 40 and you group with a level 10, mobs that were red to the level 10 are still red to level 10. Mobs that are green to level 40 are deep red to level 10.  Mobs that are grey to level 40 are whatever they are to the level 10 solo.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Don't change the con just because you're grouped*.  It didn't make sense before and it makes even less sense to have grey cons aggro. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the live servers, only mobs that con green or higher to the highest level member will con green or higher to the rest of the group.  If they con green or higher, they con whatever is appropriate to each member of the group.  A blue-con to the level 45 in your group is going to con yellow to the 41 in your group.  The only time con shifts is when the mob is grey to the level 45 it becomes grey to the rest of the group.  I presume this was to help groups get to their hunting spots rather than having to wade through miles of too-low content to get there.  Now they propose to make the system more complex in order to unwind the only reason the system existed in the first place?  Bad idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't make greys aggro. Remove the con-shift when grouping.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>Con-shifting has nothing to do with helping groups get to a hunting spot, or anything of the sort.  Mobs con grey to a group because of the Trivial Loot Code - grey mobs don't drop chests, which prevents farming.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[WuphonsReach]

Range based would be ideal... but it's tricky to program (have to keep track of multiple 'bubbles' of group level aggro) and possibly even easier to exploit then the current system.It probably was considered and tossed based on the complexity issue. Imagine a group of 6, widely-ranged group members who become separated in a dungeon. Who is within range of who? What is the new average level of those who are within range of each other? Can there be weird things where a high level player stays one step away from the shield range?

[Landrethi]

All I can say is that if grey mobs aggro, soloing or even simple harvesting trips for a mage would be history. Take a mage out to Antonica and head NW, toward the island with the skellies on it. There's a huge field of groups of dangerous mites (klicniks of some kind) that are usual 4-5 in number, aggressive, and painful. Once they're grey to you, you can go through them now. But if they aggro on a mage that is only 1 or 2 levels above the point where the mobs turned grey, those mites will kill him/her very quickly.L

[FamilyManFir]

The range-based idea is a nice one, and probably readily implemented, but it has a flaw: the new Mentoring system.With Mentors in a group it becomes simple to trivialize content. A group of low-level chars groups up with a high-level char. The high-level Mentors one of the low-levels and they go merrily on their way to do a difficult quest. This quest has a barrier: some mob or group of mobs that you must defeat (or somehow sneak past) to get to the eventual goal, and they con red to the group. Well, no problem! the Mentor just un-Mentors and suddenly the group has an "escort" who walks them past the mobs. After they're well away from the mobs the high-level re-Mentors and voila! content trivialized.You could come up with lots of complicated ways to implement range-based aggro and handle Mentors but what they've done is much simpler and, I think, reasonable. Since I <i>really</i> like the Mentoring concept I'm content with the aggro changes. There's no legitimate reason for groups of such widely disparate levels to be near aggro mobs, anyway, IMHO.

[Aeva]

<DIV>lot of people saying gray mobs pose no threat.  as a wizard I have to be a good 7 or 8 levels Above a Group mob level before I will even dare try to solo it.   That means for a group mob to be No Threat it has to be a good 10 to 12 levels below me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>lets keep that in mind when throwing around the words "no threat" please</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS. Ranged based Idea is Great, and it makes more sense</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>pps. Familymanfirst, have you seen any quests where part of it is to walk or sneak past a mob? everything I have seen has had Kill the mob as the hard part.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Aevarr on <span class=date_text>03-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:13 PM</span>

[Eliar]

<DIV>Well... I think the jboots quests has been mentioned in several threads regarding this topic :smileyhappy:</DIV>

[Birdrunn]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I personally think this will be a horrible add on. You work and work so monsters are gray, and you are past that level. Now level 50s are going to come riding through Antonica, and have to deal with the annoying factor of level 12 bears attacking them. Yeah they may kill them quick, but what an unneccesary hassle.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV>

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>Birdrunner wrote:<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I personally think this will be a horrible add on. You work and work so monsters are gray, and you are past that level. Now level 50s are going to come riding through Antonica, and have to deal with the annoying factor of level 12 bears attacking them. Yeah they may kill them quick, but what an unneccesary hassle.</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV><DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV><DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV><hr></blockquote>Eh? Are you reading those Patch Notes? The level 50 will only be attacked by a level 12 bear if he's grouped with a level 6 or lower character. This change only applies to high-levels grouping with low-levels, it doesn't apply to soloers (or groupers who don't have huge disparities in level within the group for that matter).

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>Aevarr wrote:<DIV>pps. Familymanfirst, have you seen any quests where part of it is to walk or sneak past a mob? everything I have seen has had Kill the mob as the hard part.</DIV><hr></blockquote>No, but I have read of quests where you have to kill bunches of mobs to get to the back area where your quest goal is. Or, rather, there are bunches of aggro mobs between you and the back area. You can kill them (normal solution), you could try to have a Rogue group-stealth you past (rare solution, due to the uncertainty of stealth), or, previously, you could have a high-level char escort you in. You can still do this (which I'm sure SOE isn't happy about, but they haven't found a way to stop it yet), you just can't do it when the mobs are red to the lowest-level char in the group.

[Aienaa]

<DIV>The ability to grey out zones for what ever reason is nothing compared to what bot farmers are doing to the game..   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Me being a Lev 50 I have been asked a few times to join a group to help them recover corpses...  Let's look at the difference between grey non-agro and grey agro...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>lev 20 group died in a really bad spot, and all attempts to make it back to thier corpses have fail thus far, so they seek the help of a high level person...  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, with the current way, the high level person could join the group and with minimal loss of time on thier part, can assist the low level group to get thier shards..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>with the proposed grey agro, now the high level person has to go clear the way, thus taking alot of time out of thier play time..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or, what will probably end up happening, is the high level person will tell them that they don't have the time...  And since you can't summon or drag corpses and thier is no graveyard, nor can you get your shard from the zone line in some zones, this could lead to alot of people suffering from reduced stats until they can get help getting to thier corpse</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok... another example....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>High level person harvesting in Feerrott... low level person (access granted because of thier trade skill level) joins high level character for risk free harvesting...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Explain to me why a low level person should be granted access to a zone just because they have high tradeskill level..  Seriously, what does a level 10 person do in Enchanted Lands or Lavastorm?  Yes, I have actually seen this..  it's not like the zone offers any content to tradeskill person, other than for them to zone in and use /auction to sell thier goods..  Oh but wait...  Tradeskill level also increases your maximum for harvesting...  so basicly, these zones are opened up to these low adventure level people with high trade skill levels so they can harvest... But, everything in the zone can 1-2 hit kill these people...  So, they turn to a high level adventure type to grey the mobs for them, since being level 50 tradeskill doesn't grey out mobs..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In all my time being level 50, I have only been asked to grey stuff out twice for shard recovery and once for harvesting purposes..  Personally, I hate harvesting, and if someone else want to do it, that's fine..  An abundance of trade skill resources can lower the end price of tradeskill produced items, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned, because making money in this game is not the easiest thing to do especially when you factor in the day-to-day costs of food, drinks, arrows, poisons and so on...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If all this is comming about because of people risk free harvesting, then I would like to say that the whole harvesting concept sucks...  As it stand now, I can and have spent 8 straight hours harvest for that elusive ebon cluster to make my armor or ruby for my spells...  And after 8 hours, have gotten 0 rare harvest resources, which leaves me with tons of normal resources you can't do a thing with because the market is so flooded from everyone else trying to get thier rare harvests for spells and armor..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's my opinion, that if they want to spend time on something that will make a difference, then spend some time figureing out a way to end bot farming....  For thoes that do not know what bot farming is, here is the basics....  1 person controls a whole group of characters through use of macros and other techniques.  They get thier character to the optimal farming level (Feerrott is lev 43-44) and then turn off adventure exp, so they never level, thus preventing greying out the named thier farming....  This 1 person then farms every name in a zone, atleast the easiest and most frequest respawning ones...  Which now these named also drop rare harvest items..  The bot farmer then sells everything on the market, making alot of in-game cash..  they then turn around and sell the in-game cash to one of the web sites that sell in-game cash, thus receiving real life money for it....  The web site then sells the in-game cash back to other players making sure they make a profit off it...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gwern - 50 Assassin - Kithicor</DIV>

[jerich]

This new rule is very bad. So what, a high level helps a guy recover his shard. And what ? Is is the end of the world ? Didn't you died at least one time in a dangerous place ? and then your group disband ? Where is the community in this game ? No health, no revive. The game is so locked, that it is becoming more and more stupid. But during the same time, we have botters and farmers. The fun is removing from this game at an astronomical rate.

[Tradeskill_Addict]

<DIV>*sigh*</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>only RED-CONNING mobs who are aggro-mobs will aggro even if greyed out due to grouping - not RED-BORDERED mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>frankly spoken, if someone has a shard in a place full of red-conning aggro mobs, he simply shouldnt have been there - period</DIV>

[Malachi]

<p>Message Edited by Malachi74 on <span class=date_text>03-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:00 AM</span>

[Malachi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>Gray aggro is a bad idea designed toward a bad game dynamic. Limit group range and leave the aggro system as it is.</blockquote>You do realize that you solved your own problem with this system in the sentence above? Instead of having SOE put an artifical cap on the level range, why not just regulate yourself so you don't have to worry about this ever happening?I personally think this change is great. It gets rid of the 'invite higher level player to bypass content' trick, which is ZERO risk for the low level player. What it also does is still allow a higher level to *help* you retrieve your shard if they choose, at limited risk even due to the fact the higher players will destroy grey mobs.The fact is that you shouldn't any problem with this change at all, unless of course you were one of the many who were abusing the con system yourself with the help of someone much higher than you. I mean seriously, when is the last time you actually grouped with someone that mobs would have conned grey to you and red to them?Oh, and half of the complaints aren't valid, because you don't even understand the change. Grey aggro mobs aren't going to suddenly start aggroing you just for the heck of it. They will only attack if someone in your group is low enough that the mob would con red. Please read the patch notes before you start crying about changes you don't even understand!<p>Message Edited by Malachi74 on <span class=date_text>03-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:04 AM</span>

[Theodo]

<DIV>I really don't understand all this uproar. It seems anyone here is constantly fighting in places with tons of red-con aggro mobs running around. And in the (likely) case one dies they summon a LVL 50 player to help them recover a shard. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The new rule is to prevent low level players from making discovery/run quests trivial by grouping with a high level player. Want to do Nek-forest J-Boots run as LVL 15? No problem group with a LVL 50 afking at the docks. This is in no way logical and I doubt  this will ever happen in a "normal" group. Even if the level difference is 12 levels at the end-game now, for a LVL 38 any mobs LVL 44+ con red, for a LVL 50 player mobs LVL 44 still con green. So if a LVL 38 groups with a LVL 50 the mobs would be aggro but they would also con and they would have conned to to both players even if they were solo. With the average grouplevle being 44 any mobs LVL 38 would be grey, the con white or below to the LVL 38 when solo so they will be grey-noaggro the that duo. The LVL 38 / 50 combo is the highest leveldifference which still earns EXP for both players, if a player lower than 38 groups with a LVL 50 he does it for the sole purpose of exploring content which would be to dangerous for him otherwise. If you really want to explore that area, well feel free to do so but take the LVL 50 as bodyguard and don't let him AFK at the zone-in. If you want to group with that high-LVL player because he is your friend or whatever reason -> have him mentor you.</DIV>

[Ibis]

they should simply make those that would be red to the low level in the group agro him. dont make them agro the higher level player. your objective should be to limit low level players from entering areas that are too dangerous for them, having grey mobs agro a high level player has no impact on the low level player.

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>The uproar, Theodore, is because people are reading part of a statement, and failing to read the rest and/or process it completely before going into <FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>SOE IS THE DEVIL </STRONG></FONT>rage mode.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(<U><EM>most</EM></U> detractors, that is - some people do read the whole statement and still think its a bad change, but there'd be a lot LESS uproar of everyone read the dang information before reacting)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Almeric on <span class=date_text>03-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:20 AM</span>

[ingolds]

It looks to me like most people are not understanding how it works. I actually didn't understand it correctly at first either. I thought all grey mobs with red borders would now attack, which I thought was a horrible idea. If it is only grey mobs that would normally be a RED CON to the player, but are now grey from grouping that are doing the attacking, I see now real problem with it. The only reason you're going to be passing a ton of red con mobs is to do something that SOE doesn't want you doing at that level anyway.However, if it is all grey con - red border mobs that are attacking, that would be a horrible implementation.

[Havlen]

I didn't see anything in the test notes that I thought would cause any real problems. I think it only effects very large level ranges and eliminates difficult tasks from becoming trivial (like running the 'go to point a,b,c,d,e' quests at a much lower level because you have a level 50 grouped with you to gray everything out). That's the only major effect I see the change having. 99% of groups won't be effected by it at all.

[Almeric_CoS]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ingoldsby wrote:<BR>It looks to me like most people are not understanding how it works. I actually didn't understand it correctly at first either. I thought all grey mobs with red borders would now attack, which I thought was a horrible idea. If it is only grey mobs that would normally be a RED CON to the player, but are now grey from grouping that are doing the attacking, I see now real problem with it. The only reason you're going to be passing a ton of red con mobs is to do something that SOE doesn't want you doing at that level anyway.<BR><BR>However, if it is all grey con - red border mobs that are attacking, that would be a horrible implementation.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>In a way, it IS all grey con red border mobs that are attacking.  The red border is being removed from any mob that refuses to attack you out of fear.  So that may be part of the lack of understanding too.  Once this is implemented, anything you see with a red border WILL attack you.</P> <P>It's another plus because if I'm running through an area while tabbing, anything with a red border will catch my eye really nicely.</P>