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

[NoctisUmbra]

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.

That sort of arrogant, condescending tone isn't helping your credibility, Neptune. I urge you to read my post again, perhaps you missed the ninja edit. I attempted to explain it to you.

[BruceyBruceyBangBang]

Just pop on Featherfoot/Featherfoot II and call it a day. I mean, really.

[NoctisUmbra]

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.

Based on previous use, there are really two ways to interpret "incurring enmity:"

1. You perform an action that increases your enmity value.
2. You have a target's attention. (blinking red)

Accounting for a situation as irrelevant as standing and doing absolutely nothing from when your party engages a target onward is silly.

Regardless, one can at least appreciate after reading the patch notes that it is indeed probable that HP/MP will regenerate between spells. That alone casts significant doubt on the argument presented by the OP.

[MeowyWowie]

Regardless, one can at least appreciate after reading the patch notes that it is indeed probable that HP/MP will regenerate between spells.

Yea, definitely probable, not gonna argue with that. Really don't care for another omg end of the world thread fueled by speculation anyways lol

Patch is 2 days away, I can wait.

[Chardrizard]

[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 (means you incurred enmity)
The player moves or performs an action (means you casted a spell)

Incurring enmity clearly means blinking red here.

[Neptune]

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.[/COLOR]

I did miss your ninja edit. That is quite a selective reading from the notes. Thanks for explaining yourself. It sounded like you hadn't read over that part.

Based on previous use, there are really two ways to interpret "incurring enmity:"

1. You perform an action that increases your enmity value.
2. You have a target's attention. (blinking red)

Accounting for a situation as irrelevant as standing and doing absolutely nothing from when your party engages a target onward is silly.

Regardless, one can at least appreciate after reading the patch notes that it is indeed probable that HP/MP will regenerate between spells. That alone casts significant doubt on the argument presented by the OP.

Indeed probable? I doubt it, but I could be wrong. Here's the thing though: this is math. Your party engages an enemy. Do you have enmity before you take action? It has to do with programming. Either the dev team assigns your character enmity or not. Let's say they don't until you take action. You take action. You now have enmity. If you recall, they changed enmity to accumulate - instead of disappear after a period of time like it did previously. So in other words, because of that one action you will have enmity for the duration of the encounter. This is math, stored in some code somewhere. I think it's quite liberal to read into this some kind of scenario where your enmity meter must be -what, going up all the time? every 5 seconds? every 2.5 seconds? before you are "clear" to regen. Do you see how complicated your assumption is?

Incurring enmity clearly means blinking red here.

Not so fast. It doesn't refer to the color of your enmity meter. If the dev team set it up this way, your party could be engaged and you could have no enmity due to not being attacked or taking action.

[Raikki]

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've not run Darkhold with more than 3 healers, and the third is only for speed. I can hardly fathom needing a 4th (let alone 5th??) mage to tank heal. It is clear that whatever is going on these groups are doing something seriously, seriously wrong, and should not be succeeding at all. That's why this is an encounter design issue. You should not be able to do everything wrong and still win; that's poor design. The solution is to prevent people from winning this way by removing the "stack a ton of healing" loophole in the encounter design. You suggest doing exactly the opposite by making it vastly more convenient for them to win this way, while at the same time trivializing this and future content for everyone else.

[Viridiana]

Neptune, I feel I must now ask you a rather basic grammar question. Specifically, do you understand the difference between past tense and progressive tense? Like, say, the difference between "incurred" and "incurring"? >_>

[Chardrizard]

Not so fast. It doesn't refer to the color of your enmity meter. If the dev team set it up this way, your party could be engaged and you could have no enmity due to not being attacked or taking action.

Yes, let's make a system where you can only regen MP when you have not been doing anything after your PT engages something, Oh wait.. what am i regenning? i have full MP due to have not been doing anything. I don't even..

You are trying too hard to rationalize whatever idea you have right now.

[Neptune]

I've not run Darkhold with more than 3 healers, and the third is only for speed. I can hardly fathom needing a 4th (let alone 5th??) mage to tank heal. It is clear that whatever is going on these groups are doing something seriously, seriously wrong, and should not be succeeding at all. That's why this is an encounter design issue. You should not be able to do everything wrong and still win; that's poor design. The solution is to prevent people from winning this way by removing the "stack a ton of healing" loophole in the encounter design. You suggest doing exactly the opposite by making it vastly more convenient for them to win this way, while at the same time trivializing this and future content for everyone else.

Well, before we go there, allow me to suggest.. the quality of your tank had something to do with your healer group size? Your character is fairly well maxed. If you or a character comparable to you were tanking you would have more abilities at your disposal than say someone with only Gladiator ranked. That has a lot to do with how many healers you need.

I'm all for super difficult gameplay. But I don't want it to seem like it's some kind of thing where people weren't paying attention that caused the influx of healers - it was due to how much MP it cost to cast Cure. They tripled to quadrupled the MP cost.. and parties tripled to quadrupled the amount of healers. It's really just as simple as that. Doesn't matter how legit it was.. it was caused by the game design.

You could argue that the community should dig in its heels and tighten up its game and respond to quadruple MP costs by REDUCING the amount of healers it first wants to take.. but what is the point of doing so? Unless you can counsel each and every party leader the second a new patch goes up.. why not leave it to the dev team to set the conditions that determine predictable community responses?