:: Updated by Hannar @ 01/20/04 06:32 pm ::

8. Combat and Encounters


Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:53 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=69622&highlight=#69622

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: A radial menu will be added, so the player can walk up to any NPC, friendly or no, and receive a detailed list of options, from fight to converse, rather than having to play "guess the aggressive mob" with every orc they come upon. *sigh* I missed this late last night when I skimmed that review. As others have pointed out, it has considerable errors in it, but none more egregious than this one. You will still need to con mobs and see whether they're going to attack you. Yes, there are tons of KOS mobs in the world. Running up to any random monster you see and bringing up its radial menu will get you killed--FAST. This game will be challenging. There are an enormous amount of things in the world that want to stomp all over you. We think that's a good thing.

Sat Aug 23, 2003 01:14 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70213&highlight=#70213

Moorgard wrote:

B_Ray wrote: I hope they allow similarly complicated effects, but I hope there's some method to the madness. I'll go into the melee combat system more in depth sometime down the road. As a person who loves playing a melee, let me tell you that I'm personally very excited about it. There are going to be some awesome arts available to all melee classes. And yes, you have to use logic to decide which arts to use when, and part of that depends on who you're grouped with and what skills they have. The idea we're embracing in the combat system for *all* our classes is one of choices. What works best for a given situation? You really have to get out of the mindset of how other games (even EQ) do it, because the way EQ2 combat works isn't just about having new sets of skills and spells; it's a fundamentally different kind of system. And to be your best at it--whether priest, caster, or melee--will require you to think and pay attention to the choices you make. I know it's difficult to understand what I mean based on my abstractions above. But what I try to do in posts like this is explain what the goal of our design is. When you understand combat more in depth and actually see it in practice, then you get to decide whether we succeeded in our goal. Quote: The part about discovering forgotten areas of the world... I hope that the first person to set foot in an area isn't simply the first one to run there without dying as soon as the server launches. One of the benefits of limiting where your players can enter the world is that you can design content to increase in difficulty the farther you get from the starting point. We don't have to stick newbie areas right after high-level zones, because you will be progressing outward naturally. Therefore entering areas way above your level--which pretty much covers the entire world outside your city when you start the game--means you won't make it far. Lots of nasty things will be waiting to stop you. Remember how I mentioned in discussing the death mechanic that we intend to foster respect for the environment? This is exactly what I mean. Our death penalty is designed to take that into account. See, we do try to think ahead, at least sometimes. Quote: What about alliances with NPCs? Sure you could raise faction in EQ1, but how about some more dynamic relationships between players and NPCs? That does sound fun, doesn't it?

Thu Aug 28, 2003 01:14 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=75154&highlight=#75154

Moorgard wrote:

Pilsburry wrote: Mez, Charm, Slow, and Complete Heal....oh and run speed/snare. I'm hoping those spells exist in the new EQ, but I'm unsure how they will manage them. The issue with some of those spells is that there's no counter-balance to them. You don't have to decide if you want to slow a mob; if the mob isn't immune, you do it. But what if combat required you to make choices? And what if the "best" solution wasn't so obvious? I'll let you think about that for a while. One spell you don't have to debate, though, is complete heal. Time to say goodbye to that concept.

08-28-2003 at 05:20 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19295#post19295

Moorgard wrote:

1. It's not meant to be realistic. It's a gameplay mechanic designed to address many of the griefing/powerlevelling issues that have arisen in EQ. In this case, we feel that the immersiveness of being able to mind your own business and adventure without fear of someone screwing with you is more important than the immersiveness of open combat. 2. As others have said, anyone can unlock an encounter with the press of a button. The rewards of the encounter will drop dramatically, though.

08-29-2003 at 02:28 AM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19315#post19315

Moorgard wrote:

Soren wrote: Hmm... then I must play on a server comprised of the nicest people on earth as I have yet, in my three years of playing EQ, to have to deal with someone attempting to KS me or any group in which I was a member. I had no idea it was such a problem. Many people who have played EQ can attest that it is, and in fact are doing so in this very thread. Quote: I SUPPORT methods of enorcing fair play. However, I am steadfastly opposed to anything that isn't logical. You will never convince me otherwise. To unlock an encounter, you yell for help. Yell for help >>>> Get help Don't ask for help >>>>> Nobody can help you Seems logical to me. Quote: So, Moorgard, if it isn't meant to be logical, why bother to try and make the game at all? If that one little feature in an Internet-based computer game full of spell-casting trolls and axe-swinging ogres who hunt dragons and gods is what you see as the ultimate breakdown in logic, I'm hard-pressed to find an adequate response. I mean, EQ and other games are full of illogical elements, from NPCs who behave oddly to incongruous lore to bad pathing. While it's fine to expect internal consistency in fantasy roleplaying games, you shouldn't look for logic or realism there. Until virtual reality is cheap and commonplace, immersion will be broken by the design of computer games. Hopefully when it happens, it happens for a good reason. Helping to prevent kill stealing and powerlevelling is a pretty good reason in our book, thus we will require players to yell for help if they want it.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:05 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=80905&highlight=#80905

Moorgard wrote:

I'm sure there will be some classes that prove to be somewhat more efficient at soloing than others. But if they are, it will not be for the same reasons that they were in EverQuest. Just as we're changing the concept of what a raid is, we have mechanics in place that will require new soloing tactics to be invented. The whole idea of locked encounters isn't just about preventing other people from interfering with your fight. It's a part of an overall game concept we refer to as the "closed set." Basically, any battle is about pitting your group's resources against your opponent's, and we're trying to eliminate, as much as possible, outside factors that might unbalance that equation. That's true even if your group consists of one person.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 01:25 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=81046&highlight=#81046

Moorgard wrote:

"Closed set" does not mean removing all risk from the game. You still have to pay attention to where you are and what you're doing. Play carelessly and I guarantee that you will die in spectacular fashion.

Thu Sep 04, 2003 03:07 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=82469&highlight=#82469

Moorgard wrote:

Let me spring a little concept on you and see where you run with it. In EQ, haste spells are essentially meaningless, because encounters have to be balanced assuming players have an unlimited supply of the best haste available. That's really the same as if you took haste out of the game completely and rebalanced all encounters with that change in mind. Mezzing is basically the same way. Encounters have to be balanced assuming there will be enchanters or bards around to mez mobs. The choice when designing, then, becomes whether to flag mobs as unmezzable. Otherwise, you have to assume that any mob that can be mezzed will be mezzed. But what if you had to make choices? What if haste wasn't a long-lasting effect that was in limitless supply, but instead you had to choose whether it was better to haste the tank or debilitate your opponent in some other way? And what if the "best" tactic varied from fight to fight? What if you had to choose between mezzing a mob for a limited duration or aiding your fight in some other way? And what if the "best" tactic was also variable depending on your opponent? Our combat system is about tactics, and the whole idea of locked encounters means we can control the resources of a group or raid and balance encounters accordingly. No unlimited healing. No unlimited haste. No unlimited crowd control. You have to choose the best way to play your class in every single situation. Sound fun and challenging?

Thu Sep 11, 2003 01:01 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=86483&highlight=#86483

Moorgard wrote:

The ability for certain classes to mez and charm will still be there, but those abilities won't be without practical limits. Other forms of crowd control will definitely come into play.

Fri Sep 12, 2003 01:18 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=87494&highlight=#87494

Moorgard wrote:

The conning system may still change, but currently the basics are that as you move the mouse pointer over a mob, the color changes to show the old EQ level-based con. Clicking on a mob puts a little box above its head with an icon that shows generally how it regards you (friendly, neutral, hates you) and another that gives you an idea of how rewarding the encounter will be exp-wise. If the mob you click on is linked to other mobs in an encounter, you'll be shown which mobs are connected to it. Scouts will have an additional ability that lets them quickly survey a field of adversaries and determine the threat they pose. Basically, we wanted to make the con system fast and easy, providing all the information you need with a minimum of clicks and key presses.

Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:13 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=89623&highlight=#89623

Moorgard wrote:

While there can certainly be arguments made for just about any group size, we're not putting the matter up for a vote. The maximum group size is six. We have no plans to change it.

Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:31 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=90765&highlight=#90765

Moorgard wrote:

Trendor wrote: I think we can all agree that SOE is using EQ as a testbed. That's an incorrect assumption right off the bat. EQ hasn't been relegated to testing code for other games. EverQuest is the flagship game of this company, and it's not going to step aside for anyone. Will EQ2 become more popular than EQ? Who knows. But if it does, it will be because EQ2 earned it, not because of some secret company plan to make EQ obsolete. Nor was there some giant developer meeting where the EQ2 people asked the EQ guys, "Hey, we're gonna use instancing. Want to make an expansion that tests it out for us?" Instancing is not a new concept, and each team has its own take on using the technology. Quote: If they plan on making dungeon instances similiar to LDON, then we are all in for a real treat. Our use of instancing is not the same as in LDoN. Their implementation was designed as an expansion to an existing game--one that never used the technology before. For us, instancing is being included from the ground up as a core element of gameplay. That's a huge difference right there. LDoN's reward and item augmentation systems are unique to that expansion. We aren't setting out to duplicate their functionality, at least not at this stage of the game. Most of the time, our use of instancing won't be for entire zones, but rather for specific areas within a given zone. Plus, our instancing isn't just limited to dungeons, but is used for parts of overland zones as well. Again, huge difference. Quote: There are lots of down sides. Like the amount of time it takes to get the group together, get buffed, get the mission (total pain in the ass to get the mission you want to do), and run to the zone-in. Grouping up is always a process that takes a varying amount of time based on the members of the group. We will minimize the time-intensive mechanics on our end as much as possible, but a lot of it still does fall to the players. As for buffing up first, that won't be much of an issue. Quote: I believe that EQ2 will not have the classic group mold (CC, Tank, Cleric, Slower). Our design will strongly encourage you to have a Fighter, a Mage, a Priest, and a Scout. Anything beyond that is up to you. Quote: A huge time sync goes into group memebers disbanding to run to PoK to find crack. This definitely isn't going to be an issue in our game. And I don't just mean because PoK isn't around anymore. All of this is not to say that if EQ introduces some cool new feature we won't add it to our game as well. Heck, what's the point of being in the same building with other developers if you can't copy their good ideas? But just as I was adamant about the SWG devs being a separate group from the EQ2 devs, so it is with the original EverQuest team. Different teams. Different games. Making use of the same ideas sometimes? Sure. But we may have vastly different implementations of those ideas.

Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:15 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=104726&highlight=#104726

Moorgard wrote:

Kendricke wrote: As I understand it, the system they hope to implement will be basically "autoattack plus tactical options". So far as I've been able to discern (and I'll freely admit that I may be off base here), combat will allow for simple auto-attack, but that may not be the most efficient way to combat a foe. That's a pretty reasonable description. The idea is that you can just hit autoattack (or, in the case of a healer, mem one spell and hit a hotkey) if you want--but you definitely won't earn the reputation of being a skilled, tactical player. We're giving you the tools to excel at your craft and really distinguish yourself regardless of your archetype. How much effort you wish to put into making yourself an exceptional player is entirely up to you.

10/4/03 11:51am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=57338969&start=57401210

Moorgard wrote:

You're catching on. EQ2 has some mechanics that differ significantly from those in EverQuest. The whole reason kiting became an emergent form of gameplay was because it allowed players to attack mobs without getting attacked in return. Thus certain classes could solo because they had abilities that allowed them to stay one step ahead of the mob and take little or no damage. While there was risk, that risk wasn't effectively balanced, or else kiting wouldn't remain so popular. At the core of our combat system is a significant principle: If you can do damage to a mob, that mob can do damage to you. When you engage an enemy in combat, more happens with locking the encounter than just preventing outsiders from interfering. Your party begins to move at combat speed, which is significantly slower than running. The only way to flee from an opponent, then, is to unlock the encounter. Thus in your example, kiting won't work, because as soon as you pulled the mob, you'd be at combat speed and would be killed in short order. If you unlock the encounter so you can move at full speed, others can engage the mob, which therefore defeats the purpose of you kiting it. If you unlock the encounter, you effectively surrender your claim to it. Saying you were there first doesn't give you the right to run the mob around endlessly--it's whoever is there first ready to actually engage the mob in combat. And now we have the means to show exactly where a party gives up their claim to a mob. Fundamental changes to the way combat works is why we have to design content specifically for soloers. It's not because we don't want people to solo; it's that the old ways of doing it simply will not work. There are other factors that make the situation described in the original post unlikely. Ubermobs won't just be sitting around alone where some solo player can pull them--boss encounters will generally consist of you fighting the boss plus a certain number of additional opponents. No feign death splitting, remember. And snare splitting won't work, because as soon as you unlock the encounter, whatever detrimental spells you cast on the mob will be removed. Also, non-locked mobs will regain hitpoints at an extremely accelerated rate. We really want combat to be tactical, pitting your finite resources against those of your opponent. Our whole "closed set" design is built around this idea.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:15 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106568&highlight=#106568

Moorgard wrote:

Loki_d20 wrote: Who has the power to unlock an encounter? Leader or everyone in the group? As with looting rights, the group leader can determine that. Quote: If you're in combat speed, are the mobs still in normal speed? Yep. Quote: Won't this lead to problems in groups without healers, which is a possibility, because the tanks of the group have to take a certain amount of aggro before the casters can hit them with their good stuff (I ask this, because the dynamics have been said to allow for any group that knows what it is doing to survive equally well, but this seems to be hard to do in this instance)? Groups will need healers. We designed groups to work best with one of each archetype, and while there is a bit of flexibility in that, the lack of a Priest is probably not going to work in most any circumstance (aside from solo content).

Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:42 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106640&highlight=#106640

Moorgard wrote:

Every resource players make use of in combat will be subject to the rules of the encounter. Allowing pets to be exempt from those rules would be subject to exploitation.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:55 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106650&highlight=#106650

Moorgard wrote:

Etoh The Mighty wrote: In addition to that, the game looks like each character is going to be so complicated to play that multiboxing of most types will probably be entirely out of the question. There will be a baseline of functionality that will be easy to play. If a melee person wants to hit autoattack and walk away, they can do that and achieve minimum results. Likewise, if a Priest only wants to make one hotkey and cast it over and over, they will be mostly functional as a healer. However, neither player will be anywhere close to fulfilling his potential. Truly exceptional players will be known for maximizing their abilities and managing their resources with the greatest possible efficiency. That last point is key, because the closed set nature of our game demands the careful use of a finite pool of resources. The idea is that skillful and tactical players reach the highest potential, but even someone playing at a minimal level will be able to contribute.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 02:20 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106745&highlight=#106745

Moorgard wrote:

Hannar Stormwolf wrote: There isn't much hard info on the subject, but most info seems to suggest that there will be some mechanism to prevent folks from obtaining buffs from players outside of their group. Most also expect that these buffs will be dependent upon the group remaining in tact. Bingo. The majority of buffs will be group-based. Why? It goes back to our decision to make combat a closed set. One of the major causes for encounters getting out of balance is that the designers lose control over the amount of resources that players bring to the table. Encounters are designed to require a certain level of resources to defeat it, such that it provides a challenge for the people involved. When you allow long-lasting buffs that dramatically change a character's level of power, you drastically change the balance of the encounter and you run the risk of making certain classes obsolete. Why group with enchanters if you can just get their best buffs and group with some other crowd control class that gives you additional benefits? Our game is about choices. You want certain buffs? You have to group with the class that provides them. But you can be just as effective going without those buffs if you group another class that provides a different kind of benefit. We want to get away from the notion that you're useless without a particular set of buffs, and instead teach you that there are plenty of other choices you can make that will let you be every bit as effective. The bottom line is that the closed set allows us to maintain balance, at least to a much greater extent than is possible without those restrictions. I know some players love nothing better than to run around and buff others, but when they do that they are, without even realizing it, severely impacting the overall balance of the game. While we recognize that imposing limits on that behavior won't be popular with everyone, we feel that helping ensure the health and longevity of the game is worth it.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 02:31 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106759&highlight=#106759

Moorgard wrote:

Kendricke wrote: I believe in a system which encourages skill rather than punishes a lack of it - which is exactly what I feel Everquest 2 has been presented as. It's positive reinforcement for those who are actually good at playing their character. If someone chooses to get good to exhibit skill playing as two characters at once, then all the more reward should be that person's. In no way should this reduce anyone else's enjoyment, but neither should that player be punished for choosing a differing path toward individual enjoyment. Exactly. We have no problem with people who play two, three, four, or however many accounts simultaneously. The thing is that in EverQuest a person is able to achieve a high level of efficiency playing this way, whereas in EQ2 doing so will be much less likely. But hey, if someone can pull it off, more power to them.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 03:50 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108851&highlight=#108851

Moorgard wrote:

Gadfly wrote: By blocking out anyone from interference with your chosen group of creatures, you are merely limiting the social activity that can take place between the players. Not really. What we're doing is shifting the focus from the giver to the receiver: if you want help, you can ask for it. People tend to point out what they see as the negatives for someone not being able to aid them in a fight. But I can remember times when I was leveling up that another player would come along as I was winning a fight and heal me or do extra damage to the mob. This kind of cheapened my sense of accomplishment, and if I had a way to stop them from "helping" me without being rude, I probably would have done so. Don't get me wrong--I understand the social value of letting one player freely help another, and ideally it would be a nice thing to allow players to do. The problem is that such behaviors are easily exploitable, as has been proven in EQ for a long time. Adding in the extra step of calling for help may not be ideal in the eyes of all players, but it does increase the integrity of the game. Honestly, I imagine the notion of locked encounters will take some getting used to on the part of EQ players, but new users will likely take to it a lot easier. Quote: Now of course everyone hates trains.. Even with all that against them though, I will be deeply upset with the lack of them that EQ2 is promising. I've never said that there wouldn't be trains. Quote: :Instancing: Yet, even with all these (seemingly) shortcomings, I fear the day that I do not have to go through any of them to get that which I desire. You seem to be arguing that the reason you had a sense of accomplishment is because you went through the horrors of KSing and camping and farming and dealing with rude players. I submit that you felt a sense of accomplishment because you got a cool item that took a heck of a lot of effort to obtain. Don't misunderstand: we have every intention of making good items be very, very hard to get. The fact that we're getting rid of some of the old, aggravating mechanics used to gain items in EQ doesn't mean you won't be challenged. We simply choose to invent new methods of doing so.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 07:26 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=109068&highlight=#109068

Moorgard wrote:

Oops, I just noticed an error in my original post that I should clear up: Quote: Also, non-locked mobs will regain hitpoints at an extremely accelerated rate. Mobs don't get the accelerated regen until their hate list is cleared. So say someone is fighting a mob, and the player yells for help. The encounter is now unlocked, and anyone who kills that mob will get little or no exp/loot for doing so. If it isn't killed, the mob will remain in this state until its hate list is cleared, at which point it will regen to full health in very little time. Sorry for the confusion.

10-08-2003 at 08:21 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=25909#post25909

Moorgard wrote:

Oops, I just noticed an error in my original post that I should clear up: Quote: Also, non-locked mobs will regain hitpoints at an extremely accelerated rate. Mobs don't get the accelerated regen until their hate list is cleared. So say someone is fighting a mob, and the player yells for help. The encounter is now unlocked, and anyone who kills that mob will get little or no exp/loot for doing so. If it isn't killed, the mob will remain in this state until its hate list is cleared, at which point it will regen to full health in very little time. Sorry for the confusion.

10/8/03 5:30pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=57338969&start=57628962

Moorgard wrote:

Oops, I just noticed an error in my original post that I should clear up: "Also, non-locked mobs will regain hitpoints at an extremely accelerated rate." Mobs don't get the accelerated regen until their hate list is cleared. So say someone is fighting a mob, and the player yells for help. The encounter is now unlocked, and anyone who kills that mob will get little or no exp/loot for doing so. If it isn't killed, the mob will remain in this state until its hate list is cleared, at which point it will regen to full health in very little time. Sorry for the confusion.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 07:28 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=109071&highlight=#109071

Moorgard wrote:

Keranthis wrote: From that, I infer that there are various options for who can unlock and the leader will pick one of those options. For instance, you join a party and it shows something like: "You have joined the group. Cash is split equally among all party members, and any member may call for help." Just as with looting, if you decide you don't like those options, disband and find a different group or start your own. Correct.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 08:02 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=109115&highlight=#109115

Moorgard wrote:

Control Freak wrote: So does the mob continue to beat on the person or just start to walk back to thier spawn point once unlocked? The mob doesn't care if you unlocked the encounter or not. So yes, it will continue to attack.

10-10-2003 at 03:37 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=26496#post26496

Moorgard wrote:

When we implement mounts, they will primarily act as a movement buff for players or as a symbol of prestige. They won't give regen benefits of any sort--that was a bug in EQLive, if you weren't aware of it. Some melee classes will have arts that make use of the fact that they are on a mount. But because we don't want to force someone to play on a mount (they do add to the amount of on-screen data, after all), there will be comparable combat arts that one can choose that don't require the mount. We've also decided that it doesn't make sense that a Brawler would be running around on horseback and attacking that way. As such, Brawlers will be able to obtain a combat art that gives them the speed buff of being on a mount without actually having to use one. That art would have the same limitations that a mount does (i.e. outdoor only). In short, aren't designing mounts to be used a lot in combat, although the option will be there for some. But you won't see every caster sitting on one like you do in EQLive.

10/10/03 12:40pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=57707224&start=57732975

Moorgard wrote:

There will indeed be a delay in how quickly you can equip things while you are in combat.

Fri Oct 10, 2003 01:12 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=110609&highlight=#110609

Moorgard wrote:

You can move. You just can't do it quickly. Zuzka wrote: I dislike the idea of "if you can hit it, it can hit you" As a caster you are not surpose to be in range of being hit, thats the whole idea.... and you gotta be on your toes. You're right, a caster isn't supposed to get hit. That's why the caster needs to do his job correctly, as does the fighter. Aggro management will be key. Given that the tank will not be able to chase after ping-ponging mobs as easily, it behooves players to watch what they do.

Fri Oct 10, 2003 02:10 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=110674&highlight=#110674

Moorgard wrote:

Adds? You want to talk adds? So I'm strolling in Commonlands yesterday, checking out the scenery, and I had somehow forgotten that mob aggro got turned on in that zone a couple days back. So I see this handful of plague rats come charging toward me and I'm like, "Hmm, guess I have to fight those." Then suddenly I see another gang of rats pathing my way, and again I said "Hmm." By the time the third group of rats showed up, it occurred to me that I should start snapping screenshots. Hopefully one of them will turn up in the not-too-distant future.

Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:24 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=122313&highlight=#122313

Moorgard wrote:

Logan wrote: When your locked in combat with a monster, I am wondering if there is a way for someone to tell that the monster is taken besides trying to attack it. When you click on the mob, you'll see an icon next to its name that tells you if it's open or locked.

11-07-2003 at 01:58 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=33701#post33701

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: People can buff and regen you to high heaven in-between fights so you can continue PLing. Sure, people can heal you between fights. But downtime has been reduced anyway, so it won't make that much difference. As I've pointed out, most buffs are group-based only and will drop when the person who cast them drops from the group. Additionally, many buffs you are used to having last a long time in EQ will be very short in duration. Haste in particular comes to mind. Quote: Woohoo! You still get some exp. Sweeeet. Plus, you get to live, and as we all know: the fastest way to level is to not die. Currently you don't get any exp or loot when you unlock an encounter. We might tweak things to give you a little, but I can't say that with certainty. In any case, it would be about the least efficient way to PL someone imaginable. Would you PL a character in EQ if you could only get light blue exp for every kill? I doubt it. PLing is all about getting more exp per kill than the character can get on its own, and that's simply not going to happen in our game. Quote: Whatever. I'm sure their pathing is perfect everywhere and they will never get hung up on any obstacle anywhere in the game world where they will get nuked into oblivion from a safe distance.... No need to run. Exploiting pathing is a punishable offense in EQ, and it certainly will be in our game as well. But aside from that, the whole reason kiting works is that the caster can stay ahead of the target. That won't be a valid tactic in our game. Quote: Moorgard has made it clear that "If you can hit the MOB, then it can hit you." Does that mean that root is out the door as well? On the contrary, root spells will be a staple of crowd control. The difference is, doing damage to the mob will immediately break root. It is intended to immobilize an opponent, not create a dartboard that can't fight back. Quote: There is no way that EQII dervs expect any caster to stand toe to toe with any mob. Those cloth wearin finger wagglers are going to get their arse handed to them on a silver platter. Mobs that are intended to be soloed will be tuned such that they can be soloed by anyone. But when it comes to encounters that are intended for groups, you are quite correct in your assessment. The same holds true for other archetypes as well.

11-12-2003 at 12:32 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=34448#post34448

Moorgard wrote:

I haven't made such blanket statements about all buffs. Some will be able to be cast outside of your group. Some will last a long time. It's mainly the buffs that allowed a character to accomplish things alone that they would normally require other classes to achieve that we are limiting to group-only. Huge hitpoint boosts, mana regen, and things of that nature will be limited. Why? Because buffs are a part of what a class is, and if you want those buffs you should also want to have that class around. As for duration, some things will indeed be different, but not all. I believe the example I gave before was haste spells, which will be much shorter in duration in our game but will also be much more powerful. In essence, it becomes a strategy choice for the mage: do you cast a nuke that does X amount of damage or do you give haste to a melee who can then do Y amount? And if other factors in the fight make it so the answer to that question is not always the same, so much the better for the diversity of the game. That last bit borders on poetry, in a Shakespearean couplet sort of way.

Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:44 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=139621&highlight=#139621

Moorgard wrote:

There are certainly similarities to our combat system. There are also similarities to EQOA's combat as well as that of other games. Again, EQ is not a testbed for us. They had a problem they needed to solve, saw some of our concepts that they liked, and adapted some for their use. If anything, they need to test their system to make sure it will work well in their already established game. Since our combat system is at the core of our game design, we don't really need them to test anything about it on our behalf.

11/21/03 12:52 pm
http://pub150.ezboard.com/fmonklybizeq2frm2.showMessage?topicID=89.topic&index=5

Moorgard wrote:

Daitan is correct. We are certainly testing our own product, even as I write this.

Mon Nov 24, 2003 03:27 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=143038&highlight=#143038

Moorgard wrote:

neuropvp wrote: But, when I played a druid, there was such a feeling of serenity being able to root a dungeon mob and then dot it up, then sit down a few feet away and stare him down. It's not just a way of killing, its a zen. An ability to affect disaster and violence on your foe, without having to move is utterly gratifying. Like smoking a cigarette. We make no apologies for removing the ability to do damage to a mob without fear of reciprocation. You can call it zen if you like, but I call it a broken mechanic. Claritin wrote: When you screw up SoW is your friend in EQ1... but in EQ2 our friend seems MIA. I have never said SoW wouldn't be around in our game. It will not, however, be usable as a way of avoiding damage from a mob you are trying to kill. Quote: but since EQ2 is so determined to be radically different you might be starting down the path of "more harm than good" on your modifications. Tell that to all the people who are saying that we're not being different enough from EQ, please. Quote: Melee owned the game in EQ1.... It looks like the path will be the same in EQ2 from the current spell nerfing trends. You would have a hard time finding reasonable arguments that pure melee are currently overpowered in EQ. The very fact that spells like snare, root, and SoW are pretty much required for you to be able to solo in EQ should indicate an imbalance that favors casters. Our entire system is designed around the premise of players needing other players in order to be effective. Again, we make no apologies for that.

Wed Nov 26, 2003 04:03 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144854&highlight=#144854

Moorgard wrote:

Look for some answers on this subject in an upcoming Q&A. I will say that there will be no severing of limbs or puncturing of lungs, however.

Tue Dec 02, 2003 03:32 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=148650&highlight=#148650

Moorgard wrote:

It is worth noting that there is one primary reason we're using locked encounters: to make combat more tactical. Hindering KSing is a nice side benefit, but it's not the motivation. As such, it stands to reason that we'd like PvP to be strategic as well. But is open PvP really tactical, or is it most often a case of might making right? Is there a way our mechanics could make PvP more tactical in a way that would increase the satisfaction you get by outplaying someone else?

Tue Dec 02, 2003 06:21 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=149149&highlight=#149149

Moorgard wrote:

Artillis wrote: Plus you wont necesarily be able to single pull. Now that's what I call an understatement.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 06:43 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=150546&highlight=#150546

Moorgard wrote:

Again, the purpose of closed encounters is to make combat more tactical--finite resources vs. finite resources. The fact that such a change also helps curb kill stealing and powerleveling simply highlights the flaws in the original system.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 07:02 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=150563&highlight=#150563

Moorgard wrote:

Pugman wrote: An encounter isn't locked until the player takes some kind of offensive action toward the mob, even if the mob aggros. Correct.

12/5/03 12:28pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=60650636&start=60657472

Moorgard wrote:

Innate regen is percentage based, so whether you are level 1 or level 50 you will take the same amount of time to go from half health to full health. Outside assistance, of course, can speed that process up.

12/7/03 8:30pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=60650636&start=60755810

Moorgard wrote:

Keep in mind that downtime is also one of the doors to socializing. You're much less likely to strike up interesting conversations with groupmates if you are killing non-stop all the time. I think a certain amount of downtime is good, for a variety of reasons. We aren't out to eliminate it totally, especially at the early levels when forming relationships becomes key to getting to know people. But nobody wants it to be excessive.

Mon Dec 08, 2003 03:33 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=153233&highlight=#153233

Moorgard wrote:

Yes, there are spells with persistent visual effects. And yes, root is one of them.

Wed Dec 10, 2003 01:15 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=154452&highlight=#154452

Moorgard wrote:

I'm sure there will be groups who plop down in one spot and let one member run out and use proximity aggro to pull mobs. However, efficient groups will be on the move. Scouts have the ability to give their party the element of surprise, which will provide certain useful combat advantages.

12/16/03 12:45 pm
http://pub150.ezboard.com/fmonklybizeq2frm2.showMessage?topicID=89.topic&index=8

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "Would you care to prove me wrong?" Sure. I'll install hidden microphones in the EQ producers' offices. Then I'll follow the EQ2 producers around with a camcorder to make sure there aren't any secret meetings in which devious plans to test our design features are being held. Sorry, but there's no way to "prove" anything to you that you can't refute by simply saying "I don't believe you." But then again, you can advance just about any theory you want; the fact that I can't give you anything to disprove it does not mean you are correct. I can understand why you would assume your theory to be right, because it does make a certain amount of logical sense. But melee combat is only one small part of the overall combat equation. EQ will not be adding locked encounters, or adopt our class structure, or use the same spells we will, or balance their mobs the way ours are balanced. Therefore testing just this whole openings idea would be of extremely limited use. We already know it works in other games--EQ didn't invent the system, after all--so what exactly do we need them to test for us? Ultimately it doesn't matter that much whether you believe me or not. EQ is going to keep rolling along, as is development on EQ2. While we're more than happy to borrow ideas from one another, there's simply no scheme for them to act as our testbed.

Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:50 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=172326&highlight=#172326

Moorgard wrote:

The spellbook will provide descriptions of what each spell does.

Thu Jan 08, 2004 07:32 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=173897&highlight=#173897

Moorgard wrote:

cepheus wrote: The operative word when describing raid content groups is the word 'Maximum' -- as in, the Maximum size of a raid force is 24 players. This suggests that they will design raid content for forces less than 24, though greater than 6, players. Correct. There will be two-group raid content, for instance. Nothing says you have to have a full group for non-raid content. Certainly things will go more smoothly for you if you have at least one of every archetype, but skilled players who want to do more with less will find ways to do so.

1/22 2:01pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63033459&start=63075940

Moorgard wrote:

Jennyfyr is asking for legal language to cover any possible situation that may arise in the future. Sorry, but that isn't likely to be forthcoming. To be clear, in this thread I was addressing hacks, exploits, and cheats--activities that break the license agreement or use third-party technology to interfere with the way our game code is designed to work. I wasn't talking about tactics like powerleveling at all. Again, the purpose of locked encounters is to make combat strategic and tactical. The elimination of old methods of powerleveling and kill stealing is a happy side effect. That doesn't mean we saw those tactics in EQ as illegal, but rather as behaviors we just didn't want to see in our game. How we address emergent player tactics will depend entirely on how those tactics operate within the intent of our design. And of course "intent" is a tricky thing to quantify. Let me give an example. It is not our intent for players to be able to kill mobs with absolutely no risk (and by risk, I mean the chance that the mob can kill you). Players who use hacks or unintended bugs to accomplish this are cheating, and almost all of the time they know full well that they are doing so. The grey area comes from players using things other than clear bugs--some terrain element, for example. If a player manages to climb to some point where a mob can't reach him and yet he's able to damage the mob, is that cheating or smart playing? This is where the intent of the game designer comes into play. Since we designed combat to involve risk, tactics that completely remove it from the equation are by definition going against the intent of the design. And again, I think that many players who engage in such an activity know that they're doing something shady. Now, using a hack or a cheat to accomplish something is different from making use of an unintended side effect of the game's design, but here *player* intent becomes important. If you're doing something you know to be wrong, are you really surprised when you get punished for it? What this boils down to is that our policies on the matter of exploits will evolve based on the situation. I'm not going to set something in stone now and say it's going to be a policy for all time--after all, our legal statutes in the real world change constantly, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they would evolve in the game world as well. All I can say is that we will try to be clear about our intent as designers and will do our best to determine the intent of the gamer as well. But if we are to err, it is more likely to be on the side of protecting the overall integrity of the game world.

1/25 10:21pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63198342&start=63234840

Moorgard wrote:

I love the combat camera in EQ, and you can definitely do the same thing in EQ2. However, now that we've got more of the motion-captured attacks hooked up, I must confess that I really enjoy watching fights in third person.

Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:39 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=197801&highlight=#197801

Moorgard wrote:

I played FFXI as well so I know what you mean. No, we don't keep you facing the mob as you fight even if the encounter is locked. You can move around all you want, though of course you'll be at combat speed. The start of the attack process (as well as the fight itself) feels very much like EQ does.

Tue Feb 17, 2004 01:58 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=214496&highlight=#214496

Moorgard wrote:

By yelling for help, we mean something that works very much like it does in EQLive. You hit a key, people nearby get a message like "Soandso yells for help behind you and to the right." It won't be a zonewide broadcast or anything of the sort.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 03/08/04 11:11 am ::

3/2 1:58pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=65210322&start=65221033

Moorgard wrote:

I'm sure playing two or more accounts simultaneously will be possible for some folks. They likely won't be as efficient as someone specializing in a single character, but no doubt there will be people who can pull it off. I played with people who could 3- or 4-box effectively in EQ. As for me, pretty much all my attempts to run an account on a second machine led to disaster.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 02:47 pm ::

03-22-2004 09:30 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=14891#M14891

Moorgard wrote:

Denryu wrote: Actually not true. It was stated somewhere (Moorgard Index? I would look it up but I gotta head to school) that mobs that were pulled this way would wander back to their previous spot without aggroing other player characters that they pass UNLESS the player characters attack them. Nope, that is not in the Moorgard Index, nor was it said by me. There will certainly be trains. You shouldn't be so quick to disagree with Hannar.

04-05-2004 11:51 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=34372#M34372

Moorgard wrote:

Klapton wrote: 1. Is a Scout really necessary in a group to activate the Combat Wheel? 2. Is there any advantage to having TWO Scouts in your group? 1. No. You can activate and complete heroic opportunities without a scout at all. You can even get them solo. Scouts, however, will have the ability to shift from one heroic opportunity to another. 2. Having more damage output is an obvious advantage.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 05:14 pm ::

04-09-2004 09:48 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=39789#M39789

Moorgard wrote:

Saelus wrote: All buffs affecting run speed (anyone know if its just run speed or all buffs in general?) are dispelled when you go into a locked encounter. No. Movement buffs are suspended while in a locked encounter. They resume once the encounter is completed. Cusashorn wrote: This is actually what they're intentionally designing the buff system to do. No SoW unless your in a group. Incorrect. Scouts get a movement buff they can give to anyone at level three. Most utility spells like this won't require that you be in a group to receive them. Aalweina wrote: Finding someone willing to give up some of their con to give noobs run speed enhancement will be nearly impossible and quite likely might support creating scouts and druidic classes (hopefully druids get it too since we had it in EQ). Movement buffs like this don't consume concentration. The idea behind concentration is to limit the number of powerful buffs and control spells that any one player can cast, not to make it so every spell requires it. Most won't, including SoW-like buffs. I have no doubt that movement buffs will continue to be extremely popular and quite desirable for players. There is going to be a lot of travel on foot for a very long time, and mounts simply aren't going to be economically viable for everyone.

4/13 11:14am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=67005756&start=67338977

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "It's good they have dropped the lower combact speed aspect of the game... However there is still the bad taste of not being able to run away from a mob if you see that you can't win the encounter... I'll explain how the typical combat scenario works. Let's say the player has a SoW buff. When the player takes an aggressive action against an opponent, that buff is suspended and the player begins to move at normal run speed. This speed will be slightly slower than the rate at which the typical NPC moves. If the player breaks the encounter by yelling for help, the player still doesn't get the SoW buff back. However, every character has a sprint ability, so the player does have a chance to escape from a bad situation. Sprinting lets you run faster for a brief period of time, which should allow players to flee without letting them kite mobs around indefinitely. Once clear from any hate lists, the suspended SoW buff will resume.

04-13-2004 01:29 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=45476#M45476

Moorgard wrote:

Kendricke wrote: In fact, by breaking combat, you also remove most, if not all, of the rewards and experience the encounter would have supplied in the first place, thus invalidating most of the reasons for attempting to use such a tactic in the first place. Correct. You lose all experience and loot. In lieu of Hannar, I will quote myself: Let's say the player has a SoW buff. When the player takes an aggressive action against an opponent, that buff is suspended and the player begins to move at normal run speed. This speed will be slightly slower than the rate at which the typical NPC moves. If the player breaks the encounter by yelling for help, the player still doesn't get the SoW buff back. However, every character has a sprint ability, so the player does have a chance to escape from a bad situation. Sprinting lets you run faster for a brief period of time, which should allow players to flee without letting them kite mobs around indefinitely. Once clear from any hate lists, the suspended SoW buff will resume.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 08:47 pm ::

05-21-2004 05:31 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=108548#M108548

Moorgard wrote:

FAQ'ED!!! Will other NPCs still be able to “add” into our locked combat encounter? Locking only affects other players, not NPCs; you must still be mindful of preventing other opponents from entering the fray. Managing adds remains a crucial element of strategy.

05-25-2004 12:15 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=113713#M113713

Moorgard wrote:

The ideal group size is four to six players. Six is the maximum.

05-25-2004 01:00 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=113775#M113775

Moorgard wrote:

That post you quoted is quite old. In addition to level, our mobs also have a "tier" value. Two orcs could be the same level, for instance, but if the second is higher tier than the first, then the second is much harder to defeat because it has greater innate abilities. We are working on a way to indicate mobs that are more powerful than average (i.e. higher tier) in the UI. The idea is that you can look at a mob and judge not only its level range, but also whether it is more of a bad mutha than usual. This tier system is one of the tools that allows us to differenciate content intended for soloers from mobs that will require a full group to take down.

05-27-2004 12:11 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=116526#M116526

Moorgard wrote:

Exploring is supposed to have risks. It's a dangerous world. But as I've said before, combat speed is out. And as I've also said, you don't enter into a locked encounter until you take an aggressive action to deliberately do so. A mob being aggro does not lock the encounter.

05-28-2004 09:26 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=118631#M118631

Moorgard wrote:

FAQ'ED!!! Who will be able to unlock an encounter? The group leader will be able to set unlocking rights.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/04/04 08:16 am ::

06-18-2004 09:01 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=135630#M135630

Moorgard wrote:

FAQ'D!!! How do I determine the difficulty of an opponent I’m going to fight? Simply moving the mouse pointer over an NPC tells you its level relative to you by changing the cursor color to one of the traditional EQ con colors (green, light blue, blue, white, yellow, or red). Mousing over also shows the NPC's name, which indicates whether it's aggressive toward you (white names are non-aggro, red names will attack you).

06-20-2004 11:57 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=136769#M136769

Moorgard wrote:

Don't assume too much based on the combat you've seen so far. All we've actually shown is the low-level game; things like the E3 movie are meant to be entertaining, not to detail how every combat mechanic works. Lots of spell types you saw in EQ will change in our game, being shorter in duration but with a more dramatic impact.

06-25-2004 09:44 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=140244#M140244

Moorgard wrote:

Okay, couple things: One, I'm hiring Lothos to be my head of security at all FanFaires and public events. Two, our goal is to make combat both visually entertaining and something that rewards smart playing. Our intent has never been to duplicate real-life fighting, but rather to use a cinematic style that is just plain fun to watch.

06-25-2004 09:45 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=140245#M140245

Moorgard wrote:

Six

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/12/04 05:56 pm ::

07-10-2004 01:24 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=149104#M149104

Moorgard wrote:

I made a couple edits to the Combat and Raid FAQs that may be of interest, as they detail our new con system. A summary of the new information is below: How do I determine the difficulty of an opponent I’m going to fight? The target window tells you several important things about your opponent. It shows you the numerical level of the entity you have targeted. The color of the target's name indicates how challenging the encounter is: grey names mean the fight is below your abilities and will give no experience or reward, green names mean the opponent is very easy, blue names mean an easy fight, white names indicate the opponent is even with your abilities, yellow names mean the fight will be challenging, orange names indicate a difficult encounter, and red names mean the battle will be very dangerous. If the target has a red glow around its name, that means the target is aggressive toward you and will attack if you get too close to it. Targets with a threat level of grey will not attack you, even if they are aggressive to players within the intended level range of the encounter. In other words, you won't be attacked by anything that won't give you some reward for defeating it. I clicked on a goblin with a white name and saw it was level 8. I clicked on another goblin that was level 8, but its name was yellow. What makes them different? Level alone doesn't determine how challenging the encounter will be. Creatures have a tier value assigned to them that affects their capabilities; a higher tier means the opponent will be more challenging than the same type of creature with a lower tier. While the goblins are the same level in the example above, the one with the yellow name is tougher and will present more of a challenge (as well as a greater reward for defeating it). The tier system allows us to provide much more valuable feedback to the player than just an indication of the target's level. How will I know the number of groups that a raid is intended for? In the case of instanced events, you will be told either by a character in game or through some other means how many groups can enter the pocket zone where the encounter takes place. For contested boss fights in open areas, an icon next to the name of the boss will tell you the size of the raid force that is allowed to attack it. If you try to attack the encounter with a force larger than intended, you will be unable to lock the encounter or do damage to it; however, the opponent can attack and kill you at will. Attempts to cheat are therefore discouraged.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 08/01/04 03:37 pm ::

07-12-2004 11:13 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=150920#M150920

Moorgard wrote:

The current presentation hasn't changed since the last FanFaire. In other words, it's already outdated and we know we need to improve the way it works. So far the vast majority of people who have played the game like the concept, but are confused by the presentation. Our designers and UI types have ideas on how to improve it, but to be honest it hasn't been a huge priority yet to change the wheel. It works well enough to get us by until we can replace it with something a bit more intuitive and hopefully less obtrusive.

07-21-2004 09:48 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=156490#M156490

Moorgard wrote:

FAQ'D!!! (This has been asked and answered many times. Please read the FAQ section. Really.) If an NPC attacks me when I'm running through a zone, do I automatically lose my movement buffs and enter into a locked encounter? No, the encouter doesn't lock until you take an action that locks it. While aggressive NPCs can attack you at any time, only players can actually lock the encounter by purposely doing so.

07-24-2004 12:26 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=157866#M157866

Moorgard wrote:

Yep, you just sit down. Speaking personally, I don't want to be fully ready to fight two seconds after I get done defeating a tough opponent--that seems too fast to me. Nor do I want to be forced to sit for two minutes after killing a blue--that feels too slow. Last night I was soloing in the Caves, trying to complete a quest by whacking some spiders (blue to me). I could kill those, plus the occassional white mob, with minimal downtime between. The fights against the white mobs were generally close calls, but that seems like how it should be against an even-con opponent. I didn't time it or anything, but with the blues it was taking me a minute or less to regen to full health and power after a fight. Everything was going great until this giant albino mole came out of the back of the cave... but that's a story for another day.

07-27-2004 12:30 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=159711#M159711

Moorgard wrote:

Correct. Once unlocked, the mob would have to reset before attacking it would yield any reward.