Maybe they just classify it as a "feature":-)
What I find ironic in this situation is the overall problem with pathing AI
bugs in the game. In Cazic, you have the pathing bug we have been
discussing that works in the players favor. On the opposite end of the
spectrum you have Mistmoore. In Mistmoore, there are numerous pathing bugs
that work against the player. One wrong move in the castle and you can pull
every mob inside. If you cast an AE spell/song near the zone border you can
aggro stuff in the castle and they will nuke you from behind the wall. In
the case of Cazic, you can get banned for exploiting a pathing bug. In the
case of Mistmoore, mobs exploit pathing bugs to the players detriment but no
way will you ever get EXP reimbursed if you die this way. Now both of these
situations are avoidable if the player knows about them but how many people
does that apply to? I would venture to say that the vast majority of people
who play EQ, for whatever eason, do not subscribe to a mailing list like
this or read websites like EQVault. As a result, they are unaware of issues
like pathing bugs that have a major impact on the game.
Sidebar: Case in point about the mailing lists and websites comment. I was
grouped with another bard the other night. I was using Chains against
greater dark bones in Unrest. GDBs never run away so you dont have to use
ensnare/chains on them for that purpose. He asked me after the fight why I
was wasting my time singing Chains when GDBs never ran. I told him that
Chains also slowed down a mobs attack speed. He told me that I was flat out
wrong and that the only thing Chains did was stop mobs from fleeing. I told
him to believe what he wanted but if he wanted to confirm it for himself he
could subscribe to this list or check out Rokenn's website. He told me he
had never heard of either site. I've had numerous conversations like this
with other bards on E'ci I have grouped with (but not the ones on this
list). I'm sure it applies to every other class as well.
Back to the pathing bug issue. I haven't seen anything from Verant in a
long time addressing the pathing bug issue. A few weeks ago on EQVault
there was a poll asking what areas of the game you wanted Verant to focus on
fixing. Off the top of my head, I think the possible answers were a) fix
existing known bugs 2) add more quests 3) class balance, 4) overcrowding. I
think I left a few off but IIRC fixing existing known bugs was the #1
response. Seems to me though that fixing known bugs (and pathing AI is a
big one) doesn't seem to be a very big priority. When I get the time, I'll
post a message on the official EQ message board and bring this issue up
again.
Galtin of E'ci
> From how you describe the situation, I would guess that you were
> unknowingly
> using an exploit. I imagine the other Bard was one of the one's on the
> steps? (I'm not sure I'd call it an exploit, tho, since I believe the
> word
> "exploit" implies "intent" :)
>
> It's unfortunate that Verant can't fix this pathing bug, even though
> they've
> known of it for a long time now. It does make it impossible to fight in
> the
> temple if attacked without exploiting unless every member of your group
> stands within melee range. Obviously this is impractical. I've never
> camped with a group in the halls for this reason alone. Pulling to the
> bottom or pulling to the top seem to be the only ways around this. It's
> the
> players who knowingly camp the halls and abuse the bug that bother me. 1
> wizard and 1 mage (w/o pet) standing in the corner nuking a mob standing
> on
> the stairs are definately "knowingly" using the exploit. 3 tanks engaging
> a
> mob in the hallway and 1 cleric standing behind are technically exploiting
> in that the cleric could never possibly be attacked, but may not be
> knowingly abusing the bug. While they might wonder why the cleric is not
> getting attacked, if it was their first time there, they would really have
> no way of knowing. This is the reason I jumped in this thread in the
> first
> place. To educate anyone who did not know of this bug, so they would know
> what they were doing if and when the situation came up.
>