Recover HP/MP while standing still, out of battle, and enmity zeroed

[Viridiana]

A few points that should be addressed:

Firstly, given how the manner in which HP/MP is recovered is going through a significant change, one should not assume to know the rate at which they will regenerate while standing still. For all we know, said rate may have been increased to make up for the lack of regen while moving. There is also a mention of the regen rate increasing the longer one remains still. Currently we simply get a static increase in rate when we stand still as opposed to while moving, however it seems like post-1.19 since regen is only possible when remaining still, the increase in rate may be gradual.

Another thing worth mentioning is the significant boon passive casting will serve for mages as far as MP management goes. It is common practice for a healer to remain well-positioned and stationary for a long duration during boss battles. As the changes suggest, mages will be recovering MP constantly between actions.

Complemented with MP conserving habits that experienced mages built after 1.18, I feel that this change will allow for mages to keep MP at much higher values for a longer duration. In the end though, this is one of those things that we cannot know until we try.

You should appreciate the significant chance that, with mages having better MP regen, that healing will no longer be a major issue - effectively removing this bias on PGL, MRD and LNC you seem so keen on bringing up.




While it is true that problems do trickle down in that order, it is also true that not all problems have their source at the Dev Team. A problem can very well originate withing the community with no precedence, or justified reason due to Game Design.

And don't forget the hundred(s) of extra MP you can get with materia, gear bonuses, the stat changes that're coming, etc. . . .

[Neptune]

Seems to me they need to find a new LS then. If your LS is so crappy... etc etc etc

You are just not getting this concept at all. Who needs to find a new LS? Me? The people you're talking about will never read your post. You cannot get through to these people. Only the dev team can speak to this group through game design.

A few points that should be addressed:

Firstly, ... the rate ...

Another thing worth mentioning is the significant boon passive casting ... mages will be recovering MP constantly between actions.

You should appreciate the significant chance that, with mages having better MP regen, that healing will no longer be a major issue - effectively removing this bias on PGL, MRD and LNC you seem so keen on bringing up..




While it is true that problems do trickle down in that order, it is also true that not all problems have their source at the Dev Team. A problem can very well originate withing the community with no precedence, or justified reason due to Game Design.

#1, the rate is unimportant because the change prevents multitasking.
#2, please read the patch notes before attempting to discuss them. There is no boon. You do not regen MP in passive mode between actions.
#3, please try to follow the argument. MP costs affected the players and it was a bad supporting argument by MeowyWowie to illustrate the bounty of "adapting" to patch notes. I brought it up to point out that thinking you are just going to roll with whatever comes is a stupid way of looking at changes that affect players other than yourself.

And finally, why don't you give me a few problems that originated in the community that had no justified reason due to Game Design. And if you are right then we will learn more about the categories of problems, and if you are wrong you will learn more about game design.

[Raikki]

Neptune, what I'm seeing is a lot of kicking and screaming just because people on the Internet disagree with you. This is not a particularly effective way to convey your point. However, I think the root of your argument regarding Darkhold class bias is fundamentally flawed. MP management was never the issue in Darkhold. The issue was that boss mechanics (namely, the AOEs) were presented that could either be brute forced or completely ignored. You can brute force it by stacking healers as you suggest, or you can ignore it by using ranged DPS. Both encourage class bias, but since we're talking "4 healers" and MP management issues, I assume we're talking about brute force healing through AOEs.

The entirety of the problem actually lies in the fact that you can fill half your party with healers and win in the first place. This is an encounter design issue, and is not in actuality an MP management issue at all. If the encounter was tuned so that you could not afford losing those DPS slots for extra healers, groups would be forced to either switch to ranged DPS or learn how to deal with the AOE mechanics "properly". Of course, the ranged DPS issue is another big flaw with the encounter design, but that's another issue entirely unrelated to MP management. Either way it is unsatisfactory to "solve" the problem by reverting to pre-1.18 style heal-bombing when the MP is not the core issue.

[MeowyWowie]

#3, please try to follow the argument. MP costs affected the players and it was a bad supporting argument by MeowyWowie to illustrate the bounty of "adapting" to patch notes. I brought it up to point out that thinking you are just going to roll with whatever comes is a stupid way of looking at changes that affect players other than yourself.

A bad supporting argument? Why, because it's not something you agree with?

Look around you, many players have adapted to the changes just fine.

[NoctisUmbra]

You are just not getting this concept at all. Who needs to find a new LS? Me? The people you're talking about will never read your post. You cannot get through to these people. Only the dev team can speak to this group through game design.



#1, the rate is unimportant because the change prevents multitasking.
#2, please read the patch notes before attempting to discuss them. There is no boon. You do not regen MP in passive mode between actions.
#3, please try to follow the argument. MP costs affected the players and it was a bad supporting argument by MeowyWowie to illustrate the bounty of "adapting" to patch notes. I brought it up to point out that thinking you are just going to roll with whatever comes is a stupid way of looking at changes that affect players other than yourself.

And finally, why don't you give me a few problems that originated in the community that had no justified reason due to Game Design. And if you are right then we will learn more about the categories of problems, and if you are wrong you will learn more about game design.

Actually I did read them. I read them quite well, and multiple times.

[dev1151] The following changes have been made to passive mode HP and MP recovery:

• Players will not automatically recover HP and MP when incurring enmity.
• HP and MP will automatically recover only while the player is stationary, regardless of whether or not he/she is engaged in battle. The amount of HP and MP recovered will increase based on the amount of time a player remains stationary.
  • The recovery amount will reset under the following conditions:
  • The player is attacked
  • The player moves or performs an action

Perhaps you should read the patch notes before making a thread based on a misunderstanding?

I think the common misunderstanding here is that "incurring enmity" is not the same as "having incurred enmity." Essentially, your enmity does not have to be zero for you to be able to regen. That would be in direct contradiction to the areas I have bolded.

[Viridiana]

You are just not getting this concept at all. Who needs to find a new LS? Me? The people you're talking about will never read your post. You cannot get through to these people. Only the dev team can speak to this group through game design.

Forgive me for using a generic "you." Would you (you, you this time) prefer I go edit my post to say "one," where appropriate? As for getting through to. . . whoever it is you think I'm trying to get through to. . . Actually, no, I have no idea wth you're talking about at this point.

People shouldn't stick with shitty LSs. People whose LS won't let them run should 1) find a new LS, and 2) find/make a different group to run with. . .

[Neptune]

Either way it is unsatisfactory to "solve" the problem by reverting to pre-1.18 style heal-bombing when the MP is not the core issue.

You bring up a worthwhile point. Should the encounter require more DPS? Unfortunately this point is buried under another, more dominant issue. Did you notice in your playing that of the 4-5 mages in a group most were healing.. 1 person? To solve the problem of DPS not getting invited, they could have not raised MP costs. The result of that would have been 1 or 2 healers instead of 4 to 5. I'll stop there because we were discussing the problem of party composition, not the problem of a challenging encounter.

A bad supporting argument? Why, because it's not something you agree with?

Look around you, many players have adapted to the changes just fine.

You must not have read my post, or surely you would not have concluded that I called your supporting argument bad because I disagreed with you.

Actually I did read them. I read them quite well, and multiple times.



Perhaps you should read the patch notes before making a thread based on a misunderstanding?

Go back and read about the changes to HP/MP regen and come back in here when you're done. Or, ask nicely and I'll explain it in greater detail.

Forgive me for using a generic "you." Would you (you, you this time) prefer I go edit my post to say "one," where appropriate? As for getting through to. . . whoever it is you think I'm trying to get through to. . . Actually, no, I have no idea wth you're talking about at this point.

People shouldn't stick with shitty LSs. People whose LS won't let them run should 1) find a new LS, and 2) find/make a different group to run with. . .

Rhetorical question. I lost you? I agree with you about people and crappy linkshells, but my point is it doesn't matter to these people what I think or what you think about what they should do differently. I'm asking you to try to understand these people and imagine how game design affects their decisions and their opportunities.

[Viridiana]

You bring up a worthwhile point. Should the encounter require more DPS? Unfortunately this point is buried under another, more dominant issue. Did you notice in your playing that of the 4-5 mages in a group most were healing.. 1 person? To solve the problem of DPS not getting invited, they could have not raised MP costs. The result of that would have been 1 or 2 healers instead of 4 to 5. I'll stop there because we were discussing the problem of party composition, not the problem of a challenging encounter.



You must not have read my post, or surely you would not have concluded that I called your supporting argument bad because I disagreed with you.



Go back and read about the changes to HP/MP regen and come back in here when you're done. Or, ask nicely and I'll explain it in greater detail.

Except for, y'know, the groups already running 1-2 healers. . .

[Neptune]

Except for, y'know, the groups already running 1-2 healers. . .

It's of no consequence if it CAN be done with 1 healer.. it WASN'T when it mattered!

[MeowyWowie]

I think the common misunderstanding here is that "incurring enmity" is not the same as "having incurred enmity." Essentially, your enmity does not have to be zero for you to be able to regen. That would be in direct contradiction to the areas I have bolded.

I'm still not 100% sure about this myself, although I really wouldn't mind either way. It is possible to be engaged in combat without ever performing an action against an enemy (someone in your party attacks a mob). In this case, the mob is claimed and you are engaged in combat, but there is no enmity meter under its name. In other words, you're engaged in combat but not incurring enmity.

I'm assuming that once that enmity meter appears you will be "incurring enmity" as they put it. But that's just the way I took it. I have no problem waiting 2 days to see for myself.