KS99: Wyrm glitched?

[Demosthenes11]

...Because clearly there are no other NMs that can 1-shot you or don't have godawfully brutal AOE stuff. Great logic.
Thanks for looking even more brainless than me, please come again.

why do moves like spike flail exist? because if you stand in the wrong place and get hate, it won't turn and will use that move.

you seriously can't be this fucking stupid

[Aymee]

Seriously, what's the short summary of the report to the GM? "Hey, our wyrm attacked us with normal mob AI and ignored feet, so give us our item back". Ooh yea, and you wonder why the GM doesn't care. Unless the GM has fought or watched faf fights in detail, they wouldn't know what it meant to stand on his feet, so duh there doesn't look like there's anything wrong. Here's a good guideline: if it's something that the majority of players don't know to do, there's no way in hell a GM is going to know. ...And even then you're not going to get the item back.

why do moves like spike flail exist? because if you stand in the wrong place and get hate, it won't turn and will use that move.

you seriously can't be this fucking stupid

That's nice, but you failed to address my point of--despite the risk of 1-shots and bad AOE--we attack nasty NMs anyway. Just because there isn't a foot trick isn't keeping you from attacking those. So basically, wyrms are special in the case that you can avoid their typical 1-shot TP, and half of you would be killing yourselves if they acted like other mobs. Please learn how to read and reply to statements before calling anyone else stupid.

...
The bigger the mob model, the higher the number of degrees it takes for it to be able to turn. Moreover, the point of attack from the mob is different than its physical location (in 3 dimensions).

Yes, flail exists to prevent attacks from the back. That's nice. I doubt it was originally nothing more than a counter to SA, but still I know it's there.

The reason standing on feet works is because you're basically cheating the modeling system for large mobs. Yes, shadow dragons work the same way, as to dahaks, wivres, even stuff down to custard size lets you stand a little off-angle without it turning.

When you stand on faf's feet, the server see you from the perspective of where its placed the model, which is going to be in front of and between where you're standing, obviously. For all intents and purposes, cone attacks are the front 90 degrees. Yet we know that on the largest mob size if you move off more than 45 degrees it'll turn. Since neither group on a foot can be more than 45 degrees off, the total angle of spread will be less than 90 degrees, yet he doesn't hit you with breath? The attack point is situated differently--higher and between you, but not as far forward. So, when the server sees you at your slightly-over 90 degree spread in front of the model and says "hey I'd so hit these people on this side with breath", it switches to it's point of attack, where both feet are outside the front 90 degree cone. When he uses normal attacks, it would likely be considered a side attack, which is the 'special attack graphic' someone mentioned. It -is- actually special, but accidental in your triggering it.

The 'bug' of the BC would probably be the server placing the position point in the same spot at the attack point. Just to make it clear, position point = where it is on the 2D grid and radar etc., and attack point is (kind of) the spot you auto-target to when you lock on.

I still stand by the fact you should be thankful for this--it was likely put there to add some degree of realism to big mobs. And look, I never said anything like everyone should start staring faf in the face, or not kite things, etc., ... but my god, just a little greedy and complacent with how you're used to things? If you're so annoyed with this, might I suggest you go on a crusade of mob behavior bug reporting to GMs... stuff like "omigah this dynamis mob never used its 2hr!", or "hey, why did it say the mob was out of range and I lost my TP?". To them, reports of stuff like that probably look as serious as your wyrm issue.

[Aihree]

The reason standing on feet works is because you're basically cheating the modeling system for large mobs. Yes, shadow dragons work the same way, as to dahaks, wivres, even stuff down to custard size lets you stand a little off-angle without it turning.

You've never actually FOUGHT a dahak or shadow dragon model, have you?

They are _designed_ from the start, to not turn when you move off its face. You can, when you have hate, move all the way around to its backside, and it will animate with hind feet and tail attacking you.

Go find a Shadow Dragon in Xarc so you can know what you're talking about.

[anathema]

aymee, you're a fucking moron. wyrms are designed not to turn to face you head on. stop trying to sound smart like you know what the fuck is going on in the game's programming and shut the fucking fuck up.

we're all pretty convinced you've never fought a shadow dragon, a behemoth, or a wyrm. by your logic, people are abusing exploits on wivres by attacking its sides when it has frontal immunity. and you still haven't explained why all these mobs that people are abusing exploits on have specific side/back attack animations. wyrms actually bite down left and right towards its feet. what would be the fucking point of making these attack animations if they weren't meant to be used?

[Chupunpupun]

Seriously, what's the short summary of the report to the GM? "Hey, our wyrm attacked us with normal mob AI and ignored feet, so give us our item back". Ooh yea, and you wonder why the GM doesn't care. Unless the GM has fought or watched faf fights in detail, they wouldn't know what it meant to stand on his feet, so duh there doesn't look like there's anything wrong. Here's a good guideline: if it's something that the majority of players don't know to do, there's no way in hell a GM is going to know. ...And even then you're not going to get the item back.


That's nice, but you failed to address my point of--despite the risk of 1-shots and bad AOE--we attack nasty NMs anyway. Just because there isn't a foot trick isn't keeping you from attacking those. So basically, wyrms are special in the case that you can avoid their typical 1-shot TP, and half of you would be killing yourselves if they acted like other mobs. Please learn how to read and reply to statements before calling anyone else stupid.

...
The bigger the mob model, the higher the number of degrees it takes for it to be able to turn. Moreover, the point of attack from the mob is different than its physical location (in 3 dimensions).

Yes, flail exists to prevent attacks from the back. That's nice. I doubt it was originally nothing more than a counter to SA, but still I know it's there.

The reason standing on feet works is because you're basically cheating the modeling system for large mobs. Yes, shadow dragons work the same way, as to dahaks, wivres, even stuff down to custard size lets you stand a little off-angle without it turning.

When you stand on faf's feet, the server see you from the perspective of where its placed the model, which is going to be in front of and between where you're standing, obviously. For all intents and purposes, cone attacks are the front 90 degrees. Yet we know that on the largest mob size if you move off more than 45 degrees it'll turn. Since neither group on a foot can be more than 45 degrees off, the total angle of spread will be less than 90 degrees, yet he doesn't hit you with breath? The attack point is situated differently--higher and between you, but not as far forward. So, when the server sees you at your slightly-over 90 degree spread in front of the model and says "hey I'd so hit these people on this side with breath", it switches to it's point of attack, where both feet are outside the front 90 degree cone. When he uses normal attacks, it would likely be considered a side attack, which is the 'special attack graphic' someone mentioned. It -is- actually special, but accidental in your triggering it.

The 'bug' of the BC would probably be the server placing the position point in the same spot at the attack point. Just to make it clear, position point = where it is on the 2D grid and radar etc., and attack point is (kind of) the spot you auto-target to when you lock on.

I still stand by the fact you should be thankful for this--it was likely put there to add some degree of realism to big mobs. And look, I never said anything like everyone should start staring faf in the face, or not kite things, etc., ... but my god, just a little greedy and complacent with how you're used to things? If you're so annoyed with this, might I suggest you go on a crusade of mob behavior bug reporting to GMs... stuff like "omigah this dynamis mob never used its 2hr!", or "hey, why did it say the mob was out of range and I lost my TP?". To them, reports of stuff like that probably look as serious as your wyrm issue.

Holy shit, wtf are you talking about. .

[Drex]

No guys, he's right. SE accidentally put in those attack animations for every direction on these mobs, and accidentally continues to add them whenever a new wyrm/behe/etc. is added. There is no strategy in this game, we should just stand wherever we want and every deadly TP move should be unavoidable. How does that not sound fun to you?

[Aymee]

we're all pretty convinced you've never fought a shadow dragon, a behemoth, or a wyrm. by your logic, people are abusing exploits on wivres by attacking its sides when it has frontal immunity. and you still haven't explained why all these mobs that people are abusing exploits on have specific side/back attack animations.

Edit: I fail to see how a complete and total explanation in my last post of how and why faf attacks things is proof I've "never fought". Did you even read it? I'm thinking no.

...
...So yea. Hell yes we're abusing a type of exploit. I never said that was bad. Exploits are more than things that horribly break the game. Perhaps I should paste in a definition.

ex·ploit /ɪkˈsplɔɪt/
1. to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote


There, #3 looks like what I'm talking about... whereas 1 and 2 are what we usually think of it as.


In any case, we're handling mobs/situations ('exploiting') in ways that were not the original intent of the designers. SE has made a lot of statements in the past about how surprised they were about how we figured out how to do some things, so obviously we do things that they did not originally anticipate. Again, this isn't bad. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS BAD, for god sakes.
If you want to tell me with a straight face that the development team truly, honestly, and deliberately set up faffy to be fought on his feet or KB to be kited, etc., I'm certainly giving you a chance to.

As for why these mobs have side and back attack animations--well, they'd be for side and back attacks, respectively. That's pretty straightforward. At no point did I say these had no purpose.

aymee, you're a fucking moron. wyrms are designed not to turn to face you head on. stop trying to sound smart like you know what the fuck is going on in the game's programming and shut the fucking fuck up.

What proof of this do you have? Proof please.

As for things I've done, I would be more than happy to give you a list of people you could ask that I've been doing things with for over 4 years now.

Last I knew it was rude to be so vulgar toward people without actually making a case against them. I'm halfway tempted to flag that. I'd also welcome the opinion of people of who speak English and can type more than 1 line without having a heart attack.


Actually, there's nothing to have an opinion about. Sorry you lost your orb, but unless you expect SE to have a special week-long training program for GMs regarding the ins and outs of kings there's absolutely no freaking way in hell they're going to understand what happened. Even if someone does prove for me that wyrms were "meant" to be fought on feet... again, I reeeealy really doubt that's in the GM handbook. To them, seeing it turn toward each person is normal mob behavior.
So it was a bug and he raped you once. I just find it amusing that bugs are only worth reporting (for most people) if it resulted in their failing something.

[Stromgarde]

I see what you did there.

Go back under your bridge.

[anathema]

Edit: I fail to see how a complete and total explanation in my last post of how and why faf attacks things is proof I've "never fought". Did you even read it? I'm thinking no.What proof of this do you have? Proof please.

shit like this isn't proof?

No guys, he's right. SE accidentally put in those attack animations for every direction on these mobs, and accidentally continues to add them whenever a new wyrm/behe/etc. is added. There is no strategy in this game, we should just stand wherever we want and every deadly TP move should be unavoidable. How does that not sound fun to you?

seriously, i'd like to hear your explanation for this.

and it's not about people losing an orb. we all know GMs are dumb. this is about you actually believing that SE didn't intend for people to stand on fafnir's fucking feet to avoid mega breath and spike flail.

face it, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. just because you say shit so matter-of-factly, doesn't mean it is fact. goddamn.

In any case, we're handling mobs/situations ('exploiting') in ways that were not the original intent of the designers.

since you're so smart, prove this for wyrms using facts we know about the game (and not what you've heard SE say or some other bullshit.)

[Sagacious Sundi]

Dude, you went from calling wyrms not moving a possible bug to contradicting yourself.(You say they have their purpose, which is what other than big stuff looking weird turning? Hell, dragons aren't that Xbox-sized.)

As a side-note, what is the full list of monster-types that have side/back attack stuff? Rams?, dragons, behemoths, 'toises, wyrms, Omega, yovras?, hydras, Cerb, khimairas, wivres, and sandworms?

[Alina]

I was wondering why this jumped to three pages, but I am thoroughly amused, and would read it again.

But seriously, you don't think the damage reduction based on where you were standing was intentional? Although the development team now is questionable, keep in mind that the people who made Fafnir also designed gear that is still sought after 5 years later. If Wyrms were meant to be fought face to face, it'd only take two Breaths to kill your tanks, and on Fafnir, that wouldn't take long to happen.

But you seem intent on defending your position, so just keep at it I suppose.

[Aymee]

since you're so smart, prove this for wyrms using facts we know about the game (and not what you've heard SE say or some other bullshit.)

Lol, you're asking me to prove a negative? You do know that's not possible, right? I asked you for proof in my last post, actually... so technically I asked you first... so I'm waiting. I don't even care anymore, but you should live up to the standard you're trying to set for me at least.

Seriously, you can't prove a negative. You're the one accusing me of bs, and acting all high and mighty about your understanding of this stuff and accusing me of being entirely ignorant, so the burden of proof is on you, good Sir. I've never said you were wrong--I'm just asking you to accept there's other ways of looking at it. ...Or look at it this way... the fact you can't even keep a cool head over a total nonsense topic shows that you've run out of argument and are just trolling me now. So again, I asked you for proof first, and I'm waiting for it.
Hey I'll try it anyway--
1) SE often implements features without any testing or consideration for difficulty. This includes spells, job abilities, etc.
2) SE often implements new features without any thought as to their practicality. This would include 'special activities' like choco circuit, picture taking, the pit, not fixing kings system, etc.
3) SE has never once dictated any one particular way to fight something. The closest we got was the AV video that no one ever really managed to put together usefully.

I'm liking #3.
Actually, #3 is pretty solid on its own. Go ahead, go find a quote somewhere about how we're supposed to fight something, and I might actually believe there's a "supposed to" way on faf. If you've played this game for more than a year you'd understand how much stuff has changed over time and that there is never any true way we are meant to do things. I remember when the idea of meleeing Kirin was insane, or throwing blinktanks at anything but decos was suicide, or that bubu need kiting... all very 'required'... and now we laugh about such things. Hell, people straight Vrtra and KB now if they want? You'd have died laughing in the past if someone told you it were possible.

But seriously, you don't think the damage reduction based on where you were standing was intentional? Although the development team now is questionable, keep in mind that the people who made Fafnir also designed gear that is still sought after 5 years later. If Wyrms were meant to be fought face to face, it'd only take two Breaths to kill your tanks, and on Fafnir, that wouldn't take long to happen.

As I've said, it's not as though there aren't other NMs that kill you just as quickly if you don't react, or have TP moves that are [very literally] instant death unless stunned. That's no different.
...There's also the matter of -% breath dmg gear! Kidding. No one will ever understand the use of that... but technically it was also added in by those same developers

As a side-note, what is the full list of monster-types that have side/back attack stuff? Rams?, dragons, behemoths, 'toises, wyrms, Omega, yovras?, hydras, Cerb, khimairas, wivres, and sandworms?

Bahamut (I separate him because of his storyness and special battle conditions), Ixion. ...I've theorized that Kirin uses great whirlwind as a flail-type move (or, at least for hate shifts) but that's just my observation. Hum... you could call Diamond Shell as a normal TP move flail-like, as in it eliminates any benefit to attack from behind... though this would not follow the same convention. There are probably a handful of [mission] bosses that either use flail stuff or will be more likely to use a certain TP move when conditions are met, though this sort of thing is harder to test since you don't see the things much. Alexander has a reverse-flail he only uses if someone is in front of him (I think) and the same one repeated attack if someone is at any other angle.

[Tekki]

Aymee you should stop posting while your not ahead.

[Priran]

In any case, we're handling mobs/situations ('exploiting') in ways that were not the original intent of the designers.

Ok, so then it's not an exploit, since it was blatantly intentional. Wyrms have an attack animation for players on their feet, and breaths do a fraction of the damage they do to a player face to face with the wyrm when you're standing on their feet.

I should point out that this isn't even an argument anymore, this is an exhibition of your stupidity.

[Aymee]

Ok, so then it's not an exploit, since it was blatantly intentional. Wyrms have an attack animation for players on their feet, and breaths do a fraction of the damage they do to a player face to face with the wyrm when you're standing on their feet.

I should point out that this isn't even an argument anymore, this is an exhibition of your stupidity.

...For the last time, I'm going to remind you that none of you have offered any proof whatsoever that we're "supposed to" fight faf like that. You've all only ever said "because it makes sense", and I've reminded you that SE has never, ever done anything that made any sense.

...
Oh, and I never said I wasn't being terribly stupid/stubborn. I knew long ago this was rather helpless, but I was kind of hoping that maybe people would answer a few of my questions instead of just scream at me. So really, that's no better than my being an idiot.
I think my original idea was that the OP matter probably isn't something GM-attention worthy, but as always I couldn't shut up and went into way too much detail about it... thus confusing myself and everyone else until [as you said] we don't even have an argument. So I like detail, and I like to think about the 'why' instead of just the event. Meh. Yes, I'm aware this is just a game.

Sorry for wasting your time reading it all, but hey you got to laugh at me so it's cool, right?

[Priran]

I never said Fafnir was "supposed" to be fought that way, and if anyone else did, it wasn't until you tried to backpedal from your argument that it was a bug and people were exploiting it. Which it isn't, and they aren't.

[S N K]

Yes, seriously. I'm not saying it's wrong that we do stuff this way, but you can't honestly tell me that we were "meant" to fight things like we do. For some reason I'm highly doubting that standing on feet as a way to avoid breath was a deliberate addition when faf/wyrm model was introduced.

You have to be trolling this thread. Nobody is this retarded...

[Theenabler]

Certain "big" mobs will turn to face u right away, it doesnt matter the radius u stand at. The ones that dont turn to face u are designed that way for a reason. If there wasnt a reason for it, salvage bosses, wyrms, would all act exactally how this bcnm was.

[JigglyJam]

You have to be trolling this thread. Nobody is this retarded...

Yeah, seriously...

Are you looking for an explicit strategy to go about killing a certain monster coming from SE? I don't think they've ever explicitly stated how to kill any monster. Even with AV, they really didn't tell us anything.

However, SE did design the mob's behavior, animations and TP attacks and from these player strategies are born to counter with what is put in place by SE. So implicitly, yes they're telling you how to kill mobs.

[BRP]

Or they could just give out 99 KS? Not too much trouble, is it? (No, I was not expecting them to do that)

I don't think GMs are allowed to make up rules on the fly. Even asking them seems silly.