Kael & npc tanking/dpsing

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by blood & gufts, Feb 12, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. svann Augur

    Clearly the change they made still allows you to have giant NPC's tank for you, but just reduces their dps. Implied is that this is allowed, but that it was OP before. Just like when they fixed dex after realizing that it was OP against light blue cons. Unintended, but not considered exploitative.
  2. Narlee Scholar

    Just to clear the mystery on whether or not this is an exploit, allow me to say:

    Using faction differences (or other interactive mechanics between non-player controlled npcs; i.e. non-charmed and non-pet npcs) that cause npcs to fight each other as a primary means to gain character progression, experience, and/or items is indeed an exploit in this case. there are cases where similar actions may not be an exploit such as part of an raid or mission where it is the intended mechanic for npcs to fight each other as part of that raid or mission and you are intended to kill one of the npcs.

    this is not something that needs to have the servers brought down right away to fix. it is something however we are still working on. the reports are appreciated. the constructive replies have definitely been well received!

    If you are still confused, the giants are intended to fight each other, but using that as a means to gain exp is considered an exploit and you should stop doing it or you will risk action taken against your account(s).
    Cicelee, Duder, Bigstomp and 6 others like this.
  3. enclee Augur

    So, if someone attempts to kill the quest mob that spawns there while the giants are attacking they’re subject to action against their account? Just make the mobs reward 0 xp, if engaged by a NPC. Sergeant Slate used to kill steal me all the time in EC.
  4. Narlee Scholar

    read primary means and in this case
    Duder and Thunderkiks like this.
  5. enclee Augur

    The terms and conditions are all subject to interpretation and some group sitting by the quest giver room trying to spawn the quest mob could be viewed as exploiting or violating terms of service.
  6. svann Augur

    Thanks for the reply!
  7. Narlee Scholar

    you would also need to intentionally be causing the action to occur. if another viable alternative exists you should engage in the correct behavior.

    i.e. if you stand in a specific spot and become immune to damage, that is also an exploit; you do not have to stand in that spot to play the game. is it really cool yep, but still an exploit in most cases.

    this is not something that can be "rules lawyered", you have now been told it is specifically an exploit, why it is an exploit, what actions cause it to be an exploit, and what the potential consequences might be if you choose to ignore what I have clarified.
  8. Voxynn Elder

    Ever since ive started playing this game.

    There have always been people looking to get over by any and all means they find. Theres an entire couple web sires deeicated to that very thing.

    This is just the latest way to do just that. And in my personal opinion those whom do utilize this method are just too weak to play the game as its intended. Cause they suck to bad to get into grps that actually plow stuff.
    Narlee and Cadira like this.
  9. enclee Augur

    Your clarification is very specific, clear, and greatly appreciated. It doesn’t change my views that the mobs should reward 0 experience, if engaged by the NPC. Only a fraction of the player base engages in the forums, while there will be players that engage in this continued behavior pattern oblivious to your post. The best action is to eliminate the possibility of players unknowingly engaging in behavior violating the established rules.
    Duder, Drogba and Sancus like this.
  10. Fian Augur

    Thanks for the response devs. Count me disappointed as I found the tanking mob a new way to play the game, and with the lessened damage, not OP compared to other ways of earning experience. It gave tankless groups a way to still earn some experience. And for those saying there was no risk, you obviously spent very little time there, especially after the revamp. It is higher risk than a standard group with a solid tank.

    Anyway, devs has spoken. I am curious about one thing, though. Why did you nerf the dps but still allow the mechanic to continue? The fact that you changed it made me think that you had balanced it and accepted it as a playstyle.
  11. Duder Grand Poobah Troll

    Your humble approach at trying to garner support is too much. Give it up. Play the game.
  12. Thraine Augur

    my favorite part of this thread is when that one guy called this a "new and interesting way to grind" lol
    Duder and Cicelee like this.
  13. Ofearl Augur

    Had to do the partisan with the cleric of tallon zek... of course he was fighting aggressive corpses... then died... and now the guards dps is so low it takes them 15 mins to kill an enemy... Just make quest mobs that are turn in type immune, the other ones most of us dont care!
  14. Velisaris_MS Augur

    Seeing a dev step in and answer a "rules" question in such a clear and definitive manner is quite refreshing. It's just a shame that the debate was allowed to fester as long as it did before the clarification came.
    Sancus, Cicelee and svann like this.
  15. Fian Augur

    I AM playing the game. Killing in the npc tank camps has risk and reward. Devs can decide what playstyles they want to support. Currently tanking, root rot, charm, kiting are allowable forms of earning exp, apparently NPC tanking is not.
  16. Duder Grand Poobah Troll



    Is cheating playing?
  17. Wanuven Journeyman

    I was thinking the next big post would be “my account got banned because I was using a tank mercenary to tank my mobs for me.”

    ...then I remembered that tank mercenaries are awful. That’s probably why people resorted to Kael giants for tanking.
    Hellowhatsyourname likes this.
  18. svann Augur

    Dont remember you calling people cheaters that abused the obviously wrong calculation of miss percent based on dex in TT. And those people tried to keep it a secret for as long as possible as opposed to honestly asking whether it was considered an exploit so they were WORSE.
  19. Duder Grand Poobah Troll


    If it had been deemed an exploit I wouldn't have argued that it was right or asked for explanations for the change in hopes of trying to reason my way into it being acceptable. But I see your point. It is the lack of accepting after a dev has posted a clear and concise response. When rules are clarified and people continue to defy is the issue, not people exploiting things to their advantage, that is human nature.
    svann likes this.
  20. Natal Augur



    Oh I am not at all confused. There is a difference between consent and a situation where intervention is required as a consequence of duty of care. The latter has nothing to do with consent, implied or otherwise.

    The fact remains that if someone ignores your request, it is not an affirmative response. The default is the exact opposite and always has to be assumed as such. You might act, but you do NOT have consent. Consent is never implied under any circumstances. That does not mean that someone does not have a duty to intervene in certain situations depending on who they are (a medical professional or law enforcement official for example), but that is not the same thing.

    If you are confused about the difference, might I suggest you retake your ethics classes.
    Duder likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page