Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Answer to Jim Salabim's explanation on range nerf

  1. #1

    Answer to Jim Salabim's explanation on range nerf

    The news item states the monsters have also been hard capped at 40m. This is not true.

    The easiest way to verify = Go to any place with a plant. For instance Varmint Woods south of Newland. Walk towards the plant and constantly try to cast a nano. Once you step inside range the nano will start casting. Once its cast, move a step back and try again. You'll get "out of range". But you'll still keep getting hit by the plant. I just tested this again to get a screenshot. Find it at http://home.online.no/~meadow/scrn0063.jpg. For the test I used the same range extender I used to outrange the buggers with previously, as well as casting a 67% range buff on myself. Just to be on the safe side. As you can see, they keep hitting me well outside of my range. From where you see the "out of range" message I've moved back several steps and still getting hit.

    So... Mobs are *not* subject to range cap. Borgs in mort shoots me while I'm 60 meters up in the air as well, to name another example. Which also disproves Jim's claim that they have trouble beyond 40m.

    I used to have about 60m range and I never once hit a mob without it finding me and hitting me back. Not once.

    So, let's have a closer look at this "explanation". I'll quote:
    P2 is about 40 meters away from M1, and approximately 45 meters from M2. None of the players can see M2, neither can M2 see them.
    So, by that logic, I shouldn't have been able to see those sylvabanes. Look at my screenshot again. I would guess I'm at about 45m there (since I'm well out of range), and wouldn't you all agree that I can see them still? In fact I used to be able to see them just fine up to my max range previously.

    I think I'll send this post to support as well, since it's not likely to get any form of official reply through the forums. Explaining is good. In fact it's great. But when a game designer proves he doesn't know how the game works I get real worried.
    Last edited by Mascot; Dec 27th, 2001 at 13:52:17.

  2. #2

    Angry

    If this is true, then the Mobs should NEVER be able to find you if you were over 40m range. I have NEVER found that to be the case. They have ALWAYS found me at 50-60m. ALWAYS!

    Explain that one then.

    YES! Cap the range on MOBS too!
    Last edited by NitewolfX; Dec 27th, 2001 at 15:40:25.

  3. #3
    That's just my point. According to Jim's post mobs are capped at 40m as well. My screenshot prove that to be untrue. I'm honestly shocked a designer shows so little knowledge about the game he offers expert opinions on. It's as if they base themselves on how they designed the game to work, not how it actually works. As every AO player with a 2 digit level character knows, AO has plenty of "features" not working as the FC crew seems to think they do.

    If FC would only play the game a bit more, maybe they'd stop making fools of themselves.

    I want an official answer on this, please. I'm so fed up with inaccuracies from FC I'm choking on it.

  4. #4
    Mascot - Quote:
    "So, by that logic, I shouldn't have been able to see those sylvabanes. "

    I think there is a difference between view range and aggro range, and that even if you move outside 40 meters you can still see the mob before it becomes aggro as FC explained.

    To test, while running from a borg with my camera high up, I can see the borg go out of aggro range before he runs back and disappear.

    FC, capping aggro range is one thing, but please leave range the view/awareness range as an option in the client.

    I personnally and alot of others I know spent mucho on hardware to run this game and can easily handle the ranges that were availlable during beta and early release.

    BRING BACK LONG RANGE VIEW

    Ander

  5. #5

    Re: Answer to Jim Salabim's explanation on range nerf

    Originally posted by Mascot

    So, by that logic, I shouldn't have been able to see those sylvabanes. Look at my screenshot again. I would guess I'm at about 45m there (since I'm well out of range), and wouldn't you all agree that I can see them still?
    It is only your attack range that is caped at 40m. Your perception range is anywhere from 40 to 80 meters depending on where you and your target are standing in the grid. So it is possible and even probable that you could be outside of you attack range and still see the mob.

    Unfortunately, it seems that the 40m cap is only hard coded for the players but not for the mobs. That would explain why it could shoot you and you couldn’t shoot back.

    Another possible explanation is that the server and the client got out of sync about the location of the mob and yourself. The client thought you were further away while the server thought you were closer. When you tried to shoot, the client wouldn’t let you because the mob was too far away. However when the mob wanted to attack, the server let it because from its point of view, you were in range.

    I think that the server and client getting out of sync is the cause of other problems too. I have rooted a mob only to have it continue to pursue me. When I first rooted the mob the client thought it was further away. Then the server updated its position and instead of popping the mob to the new location, the client will quickly move it there. As a result, I have a rooted mob still chasing me.

    The solution to range problem is not to have hard caps or interpolation of mobs position, but to send the positional data more often. I realize that that would cause a performance hit so I am not suggesting widening the perception fields or sending all mobs positional information more frequently. I am suggesting prioritizing the information that you do send and have an exception for any mob that you are targeting or attacking.

    In short, keep the perception fields as they are but if you are attacking or are being attacked by a mob, it’s information should always be frequently sent regardless of range. The AI should also be adjusted to include the fight or flight response. If the mob doesn’t think it can find you, it should run away.

    Example:
    You see a mob and target it. The code now realizes that this is your focus of attention and now frequently updates both the mobs position to you and your position to it. You try to take advantage of your long range attack and back up beyond the perception limit, but because you have it targeted both you and the mob know exactly where the other is. You now attack. The mobs new AI checks the damage that it is taking, its run speed and current health to determine if it should try to close to attack or run.

    Solution II:
    I don’t know the details of how Funcom’s system works but another possible solution would be to include your coordinates in any field’s data that you are attacking. So if you attack a field outside of the perception cap, every mob in that field will still know your location.

  6. #6

    Smile Horizontal range, not vertical

    Just to note statement about being hit while in Yalmaha >40 m above ground...this is still in the same "square" as this range only extends horizontally, not vertically ..ie it is not 3D but hey AO is not
    Chirurgie

    Omni-Med Doctor

    "Dammit, I am a doctor. not a MOB Magnet!"

    "Humidity Extractors for all Doctors, NOW!"

  7. #7
    Read the quote of Jim again.

    P2 is about 40 meters away from M1, and approximately 45 meters from M2. None of the players can see M2, neither can M2 see them.
    It specifically states none of the players can see M2. I can only interpret that as meaning exactly what it says, that we're not supposed to be able to see M2. I'll concede that this is probably Jim's confused mind trying to say that the mob can't see (aggro) you and you can't attack it due to range cap.

    On the Yalmaha, I don't think it's a square issue. F9 lists height and getting high enough up will get you out of range. My point was just that they have more than 40m range, which is my main beef with Jim's post. Since, according to him, mobs are supposed to have the same range restriction we do.

    I also got a problem with this "not see" thing. Since it's a fact witnessed by many that mobs never did have a problem returning attacks from beyond 45m. Beyond 80m, probably, but not 45-60 which is what most people with range extenders had as range.

    While it's admirable that after all the weeks of asking for a decent explanation to the range nerf, FC are trying to address it, it's not as admirable that they seem to have invented an explanation instead of telling us the truth to why they did it.

    Edit: If our range of perception stops at the edge of that grid, why does Jim state we can still target the mob outside the grid? That post is so inconsistent it's silly. The fact that the grid doesn't move with you would explain the awful monster popups people are having in areas like 4holes. Probably mobs hanging out at the spots where you move from a grid to the other (and, no, tabbing won't get you a target before you can see the mob).

    FC: Why aren't mobs capped at 40m. And why are you claiming they usually couldn't target you back when attacked from 45m+ when this wasn't the case (I didn't see it a single time when I had my long range).
    Last edited by Mascot; Dec 27th, 2001 at 19:47:59.

  8. #8
    Originally posted by Mascot
    Read the quote of Jim again.
    It specifically states none of the players can see M2. I can only interpret that as meaning exactly what it says, that we're not supposed to be able to see M2.
    The reason you can’t see m2 is because the play field it is in is not adjacent to the player's field, not because of the distance. P1 & P2 can both see M1 because it is only one playfield away and M1 is about 80m from P1.

    Once again, the perception limit is from 40-80m depending on the mob and player’s position in their play fields.

  9. #9
    Yeah, Crin, I've finally figured out the drawing and its message. What I can't figure out though is how he can claim both P1 and P2 could still target it. You can't target across grids since you have no idea what's there, right? Like I said in my previous post, it would explain creature popups (due to unlucky grid placements), but you can't target those mobs untill they do pop into your grid either.

    So I fail to see the exploit potential he's yapping about. If your client doesn't know it's there, how does one target it. Does the target remain if you target it inside its grid then move out of it?
    If that is the case, I find it ridiculous that they decided it was too much work for them add code to remove our target lock when moving out of the grid, and instead implemented a hugely balance shifting 40m range cap.

    My two previous questions for FC remain. It's proven mobs did NOT have a problem aggroing back at 45m+ (unless, presumably, in a different grid), and it IS proven mobs have 40m+ range currently. The fact the mob's 40+ range is a problem should be proof enough they can hit us just fine....

  10. #10
    http://www.un4u.com/~nitewolf/RangeTest.png

    I also have proof that Mobs can hit 40m+.
    If you will notice I'm using a range increaser +122
    And two nano programs +13 (Crunchcom), +42 (Enhance Nano Cohesion)

    We have two screenshots by two different people proving that Funcom doesn't play this game.

    http://www.un4u.com/~nitewolf/RangeTest2.png

    This screenshot is just for the disbelievers that my 'sight' range is too low, though the 'sight' range has absolutely nothing to do with it.

  11. #11
    Mascot,

    You can target across a grid boundary. You just can't target across two grid boundaries. You can see, and target if you have the range, anything that is in your grid OR anything in an adjacent grid. Anything beyond that is not visible but can be targeted if you targeted it in range, then moved out of range.

    I do like your idea that you lose your target if you move outside of perception distance as a quick "down and dirty" fix. The problem with that would be that is wouldn't be consistant. Somtimes you would get great range and at other times it could be as low as 40m. It's still better than making NTs tank.

  12. #12

    I just thought of another fix to the range problem

    In the article Jim wrote
    Another method would be to allow the monster to teleport to the position of any player it cannot "see", but this is an inelegant solution, that would make certain tactics useless. It would also make it impossible to outrun any monster.
    Instead of teleporting, how about having the mob move towards the area of the attacker until it could get an absolute position. I am guessing that with the current system it would be too much work to have the coordinates of the attacker constantly sent to the mob or else, instead of teleporting, the mob would know where the player was and could follow without problems.

    I am suggesting that when the player attacks, the mob would know where the player was at that moment and could move in that direction even without knowing the exact location. If someone threw a rock at you, you might not know exactly where it came from, but if you wanted to catch the person, you would know which way to start running. Add to this, some sort of distance penalty and an improved AI that allowed the mob to run away if it couldn’t find its attacker, and the range problem would be solved.

    As for PvP, in addition to telling the player that someone is attacking them, show the direction that the attack is coming from. A red line on the compass for 5 seconds would be perfect for that. It wouldn’t track the person’s movement, but would just show you the direction to the attacker at the time of the attack.

    Finally, instead of just being a fix to a bug in the game, this would also add a little realism. If you wanted to snipe at someone, the best thing to do would be to attack, quickly move to another location to avoid detection, then attack again.

  13. #13
    When I say "grid" I mean the entire area. "Square" being one of the squares that builds up the grid.

    I would take "my" quick-fix over FC's generation of tank NTs any day, yeah. It would be inconsistent, but sure does beat their solution. The exploit of targetting and moving across outside the grid while retaining target and being safe while killing is removed. And in a lot more elegant way than what FC chose to do. Mobs teleporting straight to you if beyond a certain range would be a solution too, but that would ruin the point of roots.

    All we can ever hope for from FC are quick fixes. They don't have the ability to code more thorough changes for anything it seems. Pisses me off they always choose braindead quick-fixes over somewhat elegant ones

  14. #14
    I'll try to give Funcom a little credit here. They may have looked at the suggestions proposed on these boards already and decided that they weren’t viable. Remember, we’ve only gotten a “dumbed down” version of how it really works so there could be issues that we haven’t thought of.

    I am holding out hope that one of these posts will spark an idea in one of the programmer’s heads that they hadn’t thought of yet. That is why I got upset at Funcom, when they refused to list specifics as to why they couldn’t do things, i.e. IP reallocation and fixing the range exploit.

    If you state a problem here, you are going to get solutions. Granted most will be totally useless, but at least it’s a fresh look. I know from personal experience that having an independent view helps enormously.

    Funcom, the openness policy is great. Keep it up.

  15. #15
    I'm a bit more cynical I'm afraid. FC have yet to take player suggestions on major issues seriously. They have a long history of implementing very poor solution without airing them with the community. Also, it took them weeks and weeks and hundreds of posts before they decided to try and explain their reasons. And when they did, it still seems their reasons are rather weak compared to the solution they chose.

    Anyways, it's never too late for a miracle. But I doubt it'll happen in the case of FC.

  16. #16
    This issue is so messed up at this point.

    One observation I would like to add is I also believe elevation many times messes up these caps. If your higher then the target you seem to get more range and if lower less.

    Very small adjustment though.

    The real problem though is not necessarily the cap itself. I mean yes in some situations you get a creature that hits you further then it should but it really doesnt happen but in odd situations. The real problem is that they did not do anything to adjust the usefullness of range increasing items after they implemented this range nerf.

    Previous to the nerf NT's ruled long range nuking and agents ruled long rang shooting. This made sense.

    Then they made the nerf and essentially everyone has the same range now. A Crat with a pistol can shoot as far as an agent with a high powered rifle. Insane.

    They should have just bit the bullet properly and as soon as they did the range nerf they should have nerfed all shotguns and pistols to 15m max range, assault rifles and the sort to 25m max range and left rifle ranges as is.

    Then on the NF side they should have decreased the range of most professions nukes to shorter ranges leaving NT's at the longer range.

    Again I think many people including Funcom missed the biggest dummy move on this nerf...they essentially completely nerf range increasing items usefullness and along with it ruined about 3 or 4 professions that were able to benefit from the increased range as was originally intended (based on how it was pre nerf).

    I will agree with a few others though...this is a case of Funcom making a quick knee jerk fix and not looking over all the angles and all the things that needed to be fixed. It surprised me that they would put up an article trying t oexplain this issue when there are so many related problems to making this change.
    Last edited by Tekkor; Dec 28th, 2001 at 01:04:12.
    Gregg "Tekkor" Alsaqri
    Webmaster of: Agent Sector (Rip 2006)

  17. #17
    I've got to agree with Tekkor on this one.

    As much as I hate to call for further nerfing (and I really, really hate it!) having all weapons be capable of the same range is silly.

    Sniper rifles should be effective at the longest ranges and pistols at the shortest, with the rest in between.

    Of course, the difficulty is that the problem isn't that simple (when is it ever?). As things stand I can easily go out and get a Movement Predictor which will take my pistol up to max range - and that's just silly too.

    Ideally the solution would be to extend the ranges back to what they used to be, but since there are technical reasons why that won't work then the only way to maintain the spread on weapons is to nerf them down to reasonable levels and _also_ limit the effects of Movement Predictors, etc. No amount of fiddling should be able to bring a pistol up to the range of the high powered rifle. Perhaps a modified assault rifle could match an unmodified high powered rifle, but never a pistol.

    Likewise nanos need adjustment too. NTs should clearly, I think remain the long range nukers, with the other nano classes arrayed throughout the various ranges.

    Diversity is good, especially when it comes to weapons and nanos!

  18. #18
    To kabir and Tekkor,

    Ahh, if only life and MMORPG's were that simple. The problem with reducing everyone's range to keep it propotional is that now you have made melee classes too powerful.

    There simply isn't enough room under 40m to have much distinction in the ranges. If you nerf everyone's ranges then the soldiers' range will be in melee range or so close as to not make a difference.


    If it is a quick down and dirty fix that you want make it so you can't attack outside your perception range, even if it is within your actual range. It's not perfect but it is the best of the bad ideas and should be easy to do.

  19. #19
    Originally posted by Crin
    If it is a quick down and dirty fix that you want make it so you can't attack outside your perception range, even if it is within your actual range. It's not perfect but it is the best of the bad ideas and should be easy to do.
    hehe, let FC try to implement the conceal/perception first...(i think we gonna rofl if they do it : first it will not work as intented as usual, then new tactics will appear)
    -Marssss
    RK1 Agent
    RollerRat Diplomatic representative (www.rollerrat.com)
    "i come in peace"

  20. #20
    "We are aware that certain people, and certain professions, might have felt "dependent" on using the exploit, most noticeably so the Nano-Technicians."



    I didn't like the way he phrased that....grrr



    "We could also allow players and monsters to see wider than their current 9 "fields", but this would also seriously decrease your performance."

    I love this idea(people dont upgrade their computers for nothing)
    Last edited by Chillaxer; Dec 28th, 2001 at 05:51:45.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •