haha yes!

Michael_Dark - Lost City

Aubree - Dreamweaver wrote: »

This is correct.

It has been my experience that there is one magus there and a skirmisher or something, unless you go further back. Either way, I have always considered that 1 magus to be a lucky mob, meaning if you kill it you will not be left short a mob at the end. For whatever reason and I may be superstitious, it increases drop rates on the rest of the mobs you kill.

There are two Magus to the left, and another one behind and to the left of the 2nd pilliar that nobody else I've seen run FB31 ever gets. Also, a lot of people seem to avoid killing the two groups of three mobs before the final boss, they like to go around them, but they each have a Magus in them.

Solandri - Heavens Tear wrote: »

The mob kill quest in fb51 got changed at some point from a 100% drop to some lower percentage drop. Killing the extra magus and warrior to the left helps, but not always. I've done FB51s where we did that, pulled every nearby magus along the way going down the right path (including the one past Rankar's pillar) and still ended up one short. At that point it's quicker to just restart the instance and kill the two near the entrance again.

As far as I know the drop rate never changed. I've been running the path I outlined for well over a year and have never had any problems. Judging by when people say "I'm done" I'd be willing to say that the drop rate actually increased but I have no proof of that, just from my observations of running FB51 a couple hundred times, which is enough to get a feel, but not enough for any statistical evidence even if I had kept track of how many mobs were needed to get all 8 drops.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

You people are hopeless.

The simple fact that you think I was talking about fb51 not having enough mobs proves it.

/argument

Learn to speak English... and having an average vocabulary does not mean that you know how to use it... you're a little less confusing than a monkey pounding on a typewriter. Somewhere you have a thought, but there's some sort of blockage that prevents your comprehension from being communicated, and you come across as one confused idiot.

And, no, I'm not even reading your babbling wall of text. You don't even understand the particular grammar you used in the sentence I chose to post previously, so why would I bother reading your confusing mind **** of a ramble?

Borsuc - Raging Tide

I clarified in the EDIT the difference between counter-arguments disputing the argument... and I don't know how to make it easier to read and less "wall of text", I put plenty of paragraphs. Any more and it would look like a poem. b:chuckle

Michael_Dark - Lost City

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Using my previous example. Claiming that you can complete it in one run (as you said Michael) without pulling through door/respawning mobs does disprove the argument that you must pull through door/wait for respawn to do it in one run.

Now, if you give an example of a similar quest where you can't pull through doors/wait for respawn in 30 mins... then it does shed a light that maybe devs didn't intend you to finish it in one run, eh?

Ok, I just read your whole wall of rambling. Ok, you were being sarcastic, BUT YOU ARE STILL WRONG. Stop trying to deflect the fact that you being wrong is ok because you were just being sarcastic.

/facepalm

No, you don't need to wait 30 minutes and you don't need to pull anything through a door.

Idiot.

Borsuc - Raging Tide

Michael_dark - Lost City wrote: »

No, you don't need to wait 30 minutes and you don't need to pull anything through a door.

In fb51 (both examples)? Yep you're right. (my example was specifically made to this). But here's the thing. So?

Why is it so hard to get it into your head that this wasn't the point. Let me put it another way. The point was not about fb51, or whether it's completable, or whether it's not. This was your point, but you used it in response to mine which was completely different. My point was about the following question "did the devs intend you to run an instance multiple times to get the quest done?"

You don't prove that by saying fb51 doesn't need it... because then you can either 1) wait for respawn or 2) kill all mobs on whole map (as you said), it doesn't say (1) is FALSE. That's why you won't see my with that **** argument, even though you insist it's what I meant. b:bye

If, however, you give an example of an instance where you must run it multiple times, respawn or not (no 30 min respawn or "pulling through doors" in my fictional example), that does answer the question if devs intend any quest like that requiring multiple runs.


EDIT: you want to know the truth? I didn't even know fb51 was not completable, or that it was... I forgot it's even a drop based quest. Yes, my memory sometimes is weird, but I'm just saying... it didn't matter to what I said because I said that thing even while having no clue about fb51 (for real), because it didn't matter.

Michael_Dark - Lost City

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

My point was about the following question "did the devs intend you to run an instance multiple times to get the quest done?"

Oh. My. God. You are schizophrenic. This whole latest exchange had nothing to do with holding instances or running instances multiple times... but lets backtrack and address this issue... FB69 can't be done in one run. There are not enough Adalwolfs. FB51 has enough mobs. It can be done in one run rather easily. I've been running FB51 for longer than you've played PWI and getting all the mobs for me or the people I play with has not been an issue.

No need to wall ****, door ****, wait for respawns or resetting the instance.

And this particular tangent that we were on started from this:

JanusZeal - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

JanusZeal - Heavens Tear wrote: »

How about respawning Hexocelot Mistrealm Warrior's in FB51? By your logic, completing Sign of the Talon quests waiting for them to respawn wasn't "ment as in game mechanic". Sorry guys, you gotta re-enter the instance as that obviously wasn't intended.

Did you really wait a day in your fb51 to do a stupid quest? That is pretty ridiculous. Everyone else did it in much less time.

It is absurd to think waiting AFK in an instance for 24 hours is an intended game mechanic for anything. No game would ever ask its players to do this since its boring to do nothing for so long. Why do you hold such a stupid belief so strongly?

Yes, 24 hours, because there aren't any Warriors (and other walkers) who re-spawn in 15 minutes.. right? Have you been to FB51 like.. ever? If so, might not have made such a foolish retort.

On a side note, respawning does not matter, quest mobs are easily done, I had nothing to add to their argument, it was pointless to me.

To which you responded with this:

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Because totally fb51 is the only instance with a 20/20/20 (or even less!) quest and not enough mobs in there. b:bye

You don't even remember the context of the discussion, why are you even bothering to argue when you're obviously clueless and wrong.

b:bye

Borsuc - Raging Tide

You do remember what I was arguing about before with him right? I strangely remember this thread was about timers in instances and saving instances, until you made something out from my post that wasn't there.

You can believe I fail all you want, or that I quoted the wrong part (I quoted only the recent post from him, I should've used @JanusZeal instead if that clears up your confusion, oh well). But my arguments don't come out of the blue, like fb51, when I was arguing about saving instances before, and my post continued that (showing that mobs respawning is not proof that devs intended you to finish in one run even if there weren't enough mobs, since a similar instance (fb69) exists without respawns).

I'll tell you one thing tho, it wasn't me who changed the argument into the fb51 one (hint: because I didn't care lol). b:bye

JanusZeal - Heavens Tear

All it took was two people who responded to me to completely miss the point of an analogy (in fact, several analogies) concerning "holding instances" and whether or not it was "intended" for things to respawn (their basis to show that people saving instances were abusing some unintended "glitch"), and the thread took a 90 degree turn off a cliff to pointlessness about FB51. Oh well.. it was fun watching.

Michael_Dark - Lost City

I didn't miss the point, I've been saying the past dozen or more pages that the argument was already over. Some people just continue to mindlessly argue and looking quite stupid in the process... I just commented on FB51 not needing to be held or reset to get the mob count, which is true.

This is the point that I thought everyone had finally agreed upon nearly 2 dozen pages earlier:

Held instances were the work of properly functioning in-game mechanics, not bugs, glitches or bad code, regardless if the desired result was to be able to stay in the instances till the bosses respawned or not. Clearly this became an issue with bot-farming on the CN servers after the fact. Holding instances was not a result of bad code, but just being overlooked by the developers when they created the game. Instance timers were installed making the issue moot, imo.

I guess I was mistaken. Continue debating. I consider the issue closed... days ago.

MagicHamsta - Lost City

Michael_dark - Lost City wrote: »

I didn't miss the point, I've been saying the past dozen or more pages that the argument was already over. Some people just continue to mindlessly argue and looking quite stupid in the process... I just commented on FB51 not needing to be held or reset to get the mob count, which is true.

This is the point that I thought everyone had finally agreed upon nearly 2 dozen pages earlier:

Held instances were the work of properly functioning in-game mechanics, not bugs, glitches or bad code, regardless if the desired result was to be able to stay in the instances till the bosses respawned or not. Clearly this became an issue with bot-farming on the CN servers after the fact. Holding instances was not a result of bad code, but just being overlooked by the developers when they created the game. Instance timers were installed making the issue moot, imo.

I guess I was mistaken. Continue debating. I considered the issue closed... days ago.

Fixed.
b:avoid