Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

[Gobo]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

Re-read that, they only used the death and zone as examples. This statement is stating that the mob has a range that it normally exists in, if taken out of that range and then for any reason is free roaming again that it will despawn and respawn back were it should.

-If a player is KO'd or moves to a new area while fighting a monster at a location in which the monster does not usually inhabit, the monster will not begin attacking others in the surrounding area. Instead, it will simply disappear.

This measure refers to the radius that the monster walks about when not engaged in battle. After being drawn out of that radius during battle and released, the monster will disappear, and then reappear after a short time in its proper location. In addition, the monster that reappears will be the exact same monster that disappeared, and not another monster of the same type. This rule will not apply to notorious monsters.

I believe they ment for it to be read as a single entity (that and I am optemistic) It doesnt have any intication that zoneing and KO are examples. Again Squares poor wording of the information leaves room for many interpretations

[Macht]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

-If a player is KO'd or moves to a new area while fighting a monster at a location in which the monster does not usually inhabit, the monster will not begin attacking others in the surrounding area. Instead, it will simply disappear.

This measure refers to the radius that the monster walks about when not engaged in battle. After being drawn out of that radius during battle and released, the monster will disappear, and then reappear after a short time in its proper location. In addition, the monster that reappears will be the exact same monster that disappeared, and not another monster of the same type. This rule will not apply to notorious monsters.

Bolded the key marker that indicates that the first paragraph is an example. You never use if when the statement is not an example. I colored red the section that is actually more specifically stating how this change works, this statement actually makes logical programmable sense in an object oriented field.

To do what you are requesting they would then have to also add tags to the mobs indicating if a BST has currently released it and to not despawn it. Problem is like any free roaming mob these ones have always acted in same behavior so a BST could then just tame a like mob and release it near a party fighting that same class mob to get an aggro link. The MPK design you are suggesting becomes flawed then.

[Moaku Hyena]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

All I can say is "About time". This means no more Goblin Trains and everyone hiding in fear in Valkurm Dunes. But from the wording of SE's system the first part has a major flaw.

The mob despawns if it is taken out of its normal place, right? Well, let's say that the party was in the room of....oh, 60 or so Weapons that aggro, but they are in a safe area and out of the way of aggro just barely, caming some NM. Then we have some evil Gilseller seeing the pt as competition. Now, what if at that point that the Gilseller aggros all of the weapons in that room. Sure, the pt would laugh as the Gilseller makes his way out of the room, trailing the Weapons with him.

NM pops, whoo! Now the pt is after the NM, and is doing just fine until the Gilseller comes back into the room with all 60 weapons, and dies or warps. The monsters will not vanish, and will instantly aggro the other party. "OH SHIT!" "WHAT THE FUCK?!" "ARRGH!" "[Run away!]" "[Flee]" "BLIMEY HELL!" (Insert death music here).

A complete MPK. Not only that, the NM is still in the radius, which means that it goes unclaimed and a pt member of the Gilseller's party (or anyone else) could easily claim it.

And from above, it is possible to do a MPK with a BST by releasing a monster on a party using the above method and the traditional method.

[Macht]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

All I can say is it seems like SE did use Allakazham as a source for this ideas. Because that despawn idea was like of the leading suggestions there, that is quite sad considering Allakazham's level of intellect I generally find there.

[kuu]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

Macht probably has the right of it as programing-wize, it is the less bug ridden patch without sacrificing the core reasons in stopping mpk.

But this mean an indirect slight "nerf" to bst no? bst tend to have charmed then released then charmed again pets around as extras sometimes.

If monster "A" moved out of certain location without having a target, it's automatically recalled.

It will also stop trains that make ripples for sometimes hours for various groups.

All I can say is "About time". This means no more Goblin Trains and everyone hiding in fear in Valkurm Dunes. But from the wording of SE's system the first part has a major flaw.

The mob despawns if it is taken out of its normal place, right? Well, let's say that the party was in the room of....oh, 60 or so Weapons that aggro, but they are in a safe area and out of the way of aggro just barely, caming some NM. Then we have some evil Gilseller seeing the pt as competition. Now, what if at that point that the Gilseller aggros all of the weapons in that room. Sure, the pt would laugh as the Gilseller makes his way out of the room, trailing the Weapons with him.

NM pops, whoo! Now the pt is after the NM, and is doing just fine until the Gilseller comes back into the room with all 60 weapons, and dies or warps. The monsters will not vanish, and will instantly aggro the other party. "OH SHIT!" "WHAT THE FUCK?!" "ARRGH!" "[Run away!]" "[Flee]" "BLIMEY HELL!" (Insert death music here).

A complete MPK. Not only that, the NM is still in the radius, which means that it goes unclaimed and a pt member of the Gilseller's party (or anyone else) could easily claim it.

And from above, it is possible to do a MPK with a BST by releasing a monster on a party using the above method and the traditional method.

It's not a flaw, it's a compromise. It makes it a lot harder and more effort to do for a party of "gillsellers" to do that. the whole pt or one person with all the hate not in alliance would have to survive "60 weapons" all the way out of the area, then die, and hope the random spawning spots hit the NM fighting alliance. Also a moment a monster spawns, you have about 4 seconds before aggro, in which case the PT would simply have to be fast enough to move to a safe spot, or only semi aggro.

It will probably effect Bst as well... if the monster doesn't spawn in that spot, they will disappear if released...most likely... in which case the bst has to keep /randoming monsters till it hopefully aggrose it's mpk target into a link...again..if the pt is fast, they would simply move to a safe distance before thr 3-5second aggro timer kicks in.

You can't cover every situation, then covery most of it. It's reality, can't please everyone.

[Ayrlie]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

the bind thing was flawed from the start. it hurt people that were just passing through and minding their own business rather than the peeps attacking it.

[Gobo]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

To do what you are requesting they would then have to also add tags to the mobs indicating if a BST has currently released it and to not despawn it. Problem is like any free roaming mob these ones have always acted in same behavior so a BST could then just tame a like mob and release it near a party fighting that same class mob to get an aggro link. The MPK design you are suggesting becomes flawed then.

This is very true. :/. Either way someone will get screwed in the update

[Aeni]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

In reality, however, as a BST, you would tend to use monsters that spawn in the area you are going to fight other monsters. I would be suspicious of any BST charming a pet from one end of a zone and moving to the far end of the zone to just fight. Why? That to me does not make any sense at all (I've been to most zones in this game and have not seen any justification of this practice)

Irregardless, in some MPK situations, BSTs have intentionally released a charmed monster from another area of the zone so that it will aggro the party currently engaged fighting the NM. If not main BSTs, then subbed BSTs. This abuse is starting to become widespread as I've also noticed a sharp increase in interest in BST (coincidence?). For example, Bark Tarantulas do not spawn nor roam in the room where Fafnir/Nidhogg spawns in Dargon's Aery. They aggro to all players up to level 75. This then poses an interesting problem if you have a team of BSTs charming these spiders and then releasing them near an alliance fighting the dragons. I can name many more situations where this can occur and in other zones.

Hence, the changes were made. However, I don't really think it changes how a BST should behave, unless that player were not behaving in accordance to the rules of good sportsmanship and breaking the ToA, as my example of BST induced MPK above.

[Rodin]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

Aeni, I've been leveling BST lately, not for MPK, but for MPK defense against my HNMLS. Like the example you said above...if some BSTs trained those spiders on us, we'd just charm them and release them in a different spot. It's not too big of a deal, but everyone always hates BST because we MPK and are evil players who steal all the mobs -_-;;; This is completely untrue. BST is fun, we don't take up every mob in the zone, we have 2 to 3 mobs that we use as pets, and usually, there's a lot more mobs that people can XP on. But that's a little off topic. BST has too much bad press against it. Yes, it can be used for MPK, but it can also be used as a defense against it. People just need to start thinking of ways to use it.

[aegina]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

>.> please calm down, people. there is no way se would plan to destroy the bst's soloing capabilities.

come on, people. this patch is a good thing.

[JeanRC]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

nothing will please everyone in the world. full stop

[PetriW]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

While it might cause problems for BST I'm certain they will be able to adapt and at least this is SOMETHING as opposed to how it is now. If there's a change someone like there's always 50 others who find something wrong with it, no matter what the change is.
Let's say they roamed back instead without aggro, would they roam at some higher than normal speed? Or just roam like normal? What if there was a major crawler train in CN, how the heck would you know if there were some crawlers who would aggro you in the bunch because they're not actually roaming? If they roamed back you'd also still have the lag that a large train can cause when you have 50+ mobs on screen along with your HNM raid or whatever.
You can always find something bad in something good, think of all the noble MPKs we can no longer do!

There were many other good suggestions posted on allakhazam, maybe we'll see some of them eventually. It was after all not all that long ago they posted the thread and both these seem like "quick fixes" that are relatively easy to test.

[lionx]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

*(2) Claiming monsters
Players are no longer able to use spells or abilities to claim a monster as soon as it appears.
If players attempt to use spells or abilities to claim a monster before a set amount of time has passed since it appeared, they will be unable to use those spells or abilities again for a certain duration.

Dude omg @_@ i forgot about this and i wasnt able to claim hectayte(sp) eyes monsters for the hat, it was me, and a THF vs 4 other RDMs, but the THF would ALWAYS win because theres a delay for ranged attack(or maybe its not a spell or ability as the game looks at it) and he got the claim while i got the delay. That means those with ranged attack will get a much easier time claiming...><;

[Macht]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

Dude omg @_@ i forgot about this and i wasnt able to claim hectayte(sp) eyes monsters for the hat, it was me, and a THF vs 4 other RDMs, but the THF would ALWAYS win because theres a delay for ranged attack(or maybe its not a spell or ability as the game looks at it) and he got the claim while i got the delay. That means those with ranged attack will get a much easier time claiming...><;

That was already discussed when that change was made. The proven methods that work best for that situation is to engage and use WS or a Range Attack with very low Delay. This means darts or NINs shurikens have best chance.

Double Post Edited:

In reality, however, as a BST, you would tend to use monsters that spawn in the area you are going to fight other monsters. I would be suspicious of any BST charming a pet from one end of a zone and moving to the far end of the zone to just fight. Why? That to me does not make any sense at all (I've been to most zones in this game and have not seen any justification of this practice)

Irregardless, in some MPK situations, BSTs have intentionally released a charmed monster from another area of the zone so that it will aggro the party currently engaged fighting the NM. If not main BSTs, then subbed BSTs. This abuse is starting to become widespread as I've also noticed a sharp increase in interest in BST (coincidence?). For example, Bark Tarantulas do not spawn nor roam in the room where Fafnir/Nidhogg spawns in Dargon's Aery. They aggro to all players up to level 75. This then poses an interesting problem if you have a team of BSTs charming these spiders and then releasing them near an alliance fighting the dragons. I can name many more situations where this can occur and in other zones.

Hence, the changes were made. However, I don't really think it changes how a BST should behave, unless that player were not behaving in accordance to the rules of good sportsmanship and breaking the ToA, as my example of BST induced MPK above.

Some zone do seperate monster of varried difficulty quite a bit. So at the higher levels a mob at one end of the zone is weak enough to charm very easily and are of good use again mobs on the opposite side of the zone. What this change will do that I can see is making the use of the Reward system more critical. Also if the time it takes for them to disappear is delayed enough that could give a BST a chance to recharm the pet before it despawns on them if they loose hate and tame it.

There are a few tricks that can be done that still make the change not as damaging to BST, but one thing for sure is it will hurt their soloability. As far as BST getting a bad rap that's simply because of players lack of knowledge on their function and their ignorance to actually learn more about it. Many players still think that a BST in the party with a charmed pet will reduce the EXP by 25% (Or whatever it was 20%-30%) for having the pet for the party when it is only the BST taking this EXP hit.

[Enialas]

Re: Here it is. December update addresses MPK.

<snip>

There are a few tricks that can be done that still make the change not as damaging to BST, but one thing for sure is it will hurt their soloability. As far as BST getting a bad rap that's simply because of players lack of knowledge on their function and their ignorance to actually learn more about it. Many players still think that a BST in the party with a charmed pet will reduce the EXP by 25% (Or whatever it was 20%-30%) for having the pet for the party when it is only the BST taking this EXP hit.

so true and confirmed by me, we had a bst in my xp pt right before the xp band update, we were all the same level (very rare in a high level xp party) while i was getting 200-250 xp per kill, he was getting 150-180ish per kill. Sure us non-bsts will start to move ahead if they forget to release before the end of the fight, but at 25k+ xp per level, the only person they'll hurt is themselves because by the time the xp difference becomes noticiable, you've had an xp party or two since then without them.