[ QUOTE ]
Sarrate: You can pull a mob all across a zone if you keep damaging it (thus resetting its tether). If you hit a mob once and run across the zone it eventually gives up (at its tether range) and returns to its spawn (or despawns entirely). So yes there is a maximum tether ... it just can be reset by periodically re-agroing the mob.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really an accurate description of how the mechanics work.
As far as I have been able to determine, there are two conditions (outside of exceeding the aggro cap) that must both hold for a mob to return to its spawn point:
(1) Your threat must fall below a certain minimum value.
(2) Its AI must not see any option to continue attacking.
Example: I dragged a Behemoth Overlord across half of Founders Falls with Taunt, stopped, Taunted once more. Its AI got stuck in just attacking with Swipe. I quickly moved around 20 yards out of range (with Sprint), it took a step towards me, and then started running back rather than taking the extra steps towards me. In other words, it was not tethered to the point I had dragged it -- it started resetting after I had just moved a few yards from it (for the record, my tanker was the same level as the critter, and I had turned my aggro aura off).
You don't have to drag the mob far from its spawn point, either -- I've been able to engineer resets very close to the original spawn point as long as the two conditions above held.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sarrate: You can pull a mob all across a zone if you keep damaging it (thus resetting its tether). If you hit a mob once and run across the zone it eventually gives up (at its tether range) and returns to its spawn (or despawns entirely). So yes there is a maximum tether ... it just can be reset by periodically re-agroing the mob.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really an accurate description of how the mechanics work.
As far as I have been able to determine, there are two conditions (outside of exceeding the aggro cap) that must both hold for a mob to return to its spawn point:
(1) Your threat must fall below a certain minimum value.
(2) Its AI must not see any option to continue attacking.
Example: I dragged a Behemoth Overlord across half of Founders Falls with Taunt, stopped, Taunted once more. Its AI got stuck in just attacking with Swipe. I quickly moved around 20 yards out of range (with Sprint), it took a step towards me, and then started running back rather than taking the extra steps towards me. In other words, it was not tethered to the point I had dragged it -- it started resetting after I had just moved a few yards from it (for the record, my tanker was the same level as the critter, and I had turned my aggro aura off).
You don't have to drag the mob far from its spawn point, either -- I've been able to engineer resets very close to the original spawn point as long as the two conditions above held.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was told a couple of years ago by Castle (or Geko? forget which) that there was no agro list in CoH. So there is no threat level excluding damage, effects and proximity.
This holds true with some basic tests ... two blasters ... one hits the mob for 100 pts of damage, the mob turns to the blaster to attack. The other blaster hits the mob for 1 pt of damage, the mob turns to attack that blaster. In MMOs with an agro list (pretty much every other major MMO I've played) this would not occur as your "threat" level is based on a number based scale (i.e. in other games 100 pts of damage would equal 100 threat, while 1 pt of damage would equal 1 threat ... thus the mob wouldn't turn away from the first blaster in another MMO).
Additionally Taunt works differently in CoH then in most other MMOs. In other MMOs the taunt mechanic adds to the taunter's number on the threat scale. For instance in EverQuest, a Warrior's taunt adds a predefined number to the Warrior's current threat level. If the total of that comes in below the highest threat, then the taunt doesn't succeed in pulling the mob away from what it is currently agro'd on.
In WoW the taunt mechanic takes the currently highest threat and adds +1 to it, giving the taunter automatic agro. If the taunter's agro falls below the top spot after that, the mob turns away to the new highest threat.
In CoH Taunt acts like a control. When you taunt a mob, it can attack no other character except the taunter while the taunts duration runs. This includes if another person taunts right after you. However both taunts exist on the mob. Once yours ends, the mob will turn to the person who next taunted and be stuck on that person until the remainder of that taunt's duration fades.
In your example it sounds like you hit some buggy pathing and then your taunt's duration ended. You were out of agro range at that point, so the mob returned to its spawn point.
[ QUOTE ]
I was told a couple of years ago by Castle (or Geko? forget which) that there was no agro list in CoH. So there is no threat level excluding damage, effects and proximity.
This holds true with some basic tests ... two blasters ... one hits the mob for 100 pts of damage, the mob turns to the blaster to attack. The other blaster hits the mob for 1 pt of damage, the mob turns to attack that blaster. In MMOs with an agro list (pretty much every other major MMO I've played) this would not occur as your "threat" level is based on a number based scale (i.e. in other games 100 pts of damage would equal 100 threat, while 1 pt of damage would equal 1 threat ... thus the mob wouldn't turn away from the first blaster in another MMO).
Additionally Taunt works differently in CoH then in most other MMOs. In other MMOs the taunt mechanic adds to the taunter's number on the threat scale. For instance in EverQuest, a Warrior's taunt adds a predefined number to the Warrior's current threat level. If the total of that comes in below the highest threat, then the taunt doesn't succeed in pulling the mob away from what it is currently agro'd on.
In WoW the taunt mechanic takes the currently highest threat and adds +1 to it, giving the taunter automatic agro. If the taunter's agro falls below the top spot after that, the mob turns away to the new highest threat.
In CoH Taunt acts like a control. When you taunt a mob, it can attack no other character except the taunter while the taunts duration runs. This includes if another person taunts right after you. However both taunts exist on the mob. Once yours ends, the mob will turn to the person who next taunted and be stuck on that person until the remainder of that taunt's duration fades.
In your example it sounds like you hit some buggy pathing and then your taunt's duration ended. You were out of agro range at that point, so the mob returned to its spawn point.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your information is outdated. Check out this post by Castle (it has since been purged from the boards here) to see that Taunt isn't a 100% override, it's a gigantic threat modifier. (Read all the posts archived there about "Taunt: How it works," they're pretty enlightening and match identically to everything I've seen and tested in game.)
[ QUOTE ]
In your example it sounds like you hit some buggy pathing and then your taunt's duration ended. You were out of agro range at that point, so the mob returned to its spawn point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I've done a LOT of testing of threat-related mechanics. Read what Sarrate posted for some further information.
My bigger point was, anyway, that the reset is not related to a tether/leash mechanic as far as I've been able to determine (in other setups, you can move the same distance from the mob and it keeps attacking). I've done more tests than the ones I listed here. If you have a better explanation that matches in-game data, by all means present it, but the one that you're currently providing is almost certainly not the right one.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have a Shields/Dark they want to comment on?
[/ QUOTE ]
I just got my Shields/Dark, Azuria's Daughter, to 50 the other night.
This is THE best soloing tanker combo I have ever played. I do soooo much damage, and I have a nuke that's up every other spawn.
My primary stacks well with Every kind of buff and debuff.
Endurance problems have been essentially nonexistent since I got decent IO slotting in the high 30s.
I'll be soft capped to all positions once I get a couple Obliteration and Mako's Bite sets in there.
I find this combo more fun than any other tanker combo I've tried.
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your example it sounds like you hit some buggy pathing and then your taunt's duration ended. You were out of agro range at that point, so the mob returned to its spawn point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I've done a LOT of testing of threat-related mechanics. Read what Sarrate posted for some further information.
My bigger point was, anyway, that the reset is not related to a tether/leash mechanic as far as I've been able to determine (in other setups, you can move the same distance from the mob and it keeps attacking). I've done more tests than the ones I listed here. If you have a better explanation that matches in-game data, by all means present it, but the one that you're currently providing is almost certainly not the right one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well short of actually being allowed to comb through the code myself, based on what I was told (by a dev) and what I've experienced in game, that's what has been my experience so far (your story seems to confirm that). However I will definitely concede, that I am no more "in the know" then anyone else.
Sarrate: Thanks for the link. Something interesting ...
Castle said:
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize to folks I've given incorrect information to over the last couple years. Our internal documentation was just plain wrong on all of this, and it wasn't until we started researching the issue that we (Ghost Widow and I) discovered the fact. Ghosty followed the code path with a fine tooth comb to get the details on all of this, a process which took over a day, so now we have a solid understanding of how and why it works -- and the general rule of "Twice the Duration of an existing Taunt to take aggro" is still a good general rule to follow. But, much like Euclidean physics, there are some edge cases it doesn't quite cover properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was lied to! (j/k Castle 
).
Being a programmer I understand how poor documentation and buried code can lead to misconceptions about the app you're working on.
Yup, just keep in mind that what a Dev told you two years ago might not be the most up-to-date information that we've gotten.
Everything I've seen in game, at least since I starting diving around aggro as well when Castle gave us the updated facts, has held to what Sarrate has demonstrated here.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
Yup, just keep in mind that what a Dev told you two years ago might not be the most up-to-date information that we've gotten.
Everything I've seen in game, at least since I starting diving around aggro as well when Castle gave us the updated facts, has held to what Sarrate has demonstrated here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I'm starting to find I'm running into a lot of that here in there and in the fine details.
BTW when was the combat meter put in?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yup, just keep in mind that what a Dev told you two years ago might not be the most up-to-date information that we've gotten.
Everything I've seen in game, at least since I starting diving around aggro as well when Castle gave us the updated facts, has held to what Sarrate has demonstrated here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I'm starting to find I'm running into a lot of that here in there and in the fine details.
BTW when was the combat meter put in?
[/ QUOTE ]
In one of the more recent issues. Maybe I12?
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
One place where Whammer has gotten a lot of bang for his buck is all the knock up & knock down effects in SS. Early on Whammer purchased Air Superiority from the Flight pool. This, along with Knockout Blow & Foot Stop, go a LONG way to keeping particularly nasty mobs on their butts.
For example, any group of high level mobs with a Sapper can easily spell death for a Tanker. But by targeting the Sapper first, a SS Tanker can use his knock-up & knock-down attacts to keep the Sapper from attacking at all until it is defeated.
Some pics for Sarrate regarding tanking over the agro cap:
http://dmech.org/pics/
In the pics this is with a group of four. They timed their swoops and nukes with my Footstomps. As you can see it's well over the cap limit. As I said before, tanking like this is a group effort but very doable (and loads of fun). This is something I would think most every new Tanker would like to be in the middle of at some point.
Caveat: You are correct in that while solo this is harder to produce (the ITF spawns being what they are allow for this however). The first pic is me solo in Crey's Folly with about 24 or so (I haven't done an ITF in a bit but can post some pics the next time I do).
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see it's well over the cap limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not over the cap limit. The enemies over the aggro limit are either ignoring you or looking for someone else to attack.
I see it all the time. Here you can see a bunch of Freaks standing around waiting for their turn to fight, because I'm already at the aggro cap.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see it's well over the cap limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not over the cap limit. The enemies over the aggro limit are either ignoring you or looking for someone else to attack.
I see it all the time. Here you can see a bunch of Freaks standing around waiting for their turn to fight, because I'm already at the aggro cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's exactly what I see as well; nothing demonstrating that are more than 17 enemies trying to attack you, Kruunch.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see it's well over the cap limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not over the cap limit. The enemies over the aggro limit are either ignoring you or looking for someone else to attack.
I see it all the time. Here you can see a bunch of Freaks standing around waiting for their turn to fight, because I'm already at the aggro cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's exactly what I see as well; nothing demonstrating that are more than 17 enemies trying to attack you, Kruunch.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine except that wasn't the point. I acknowledged the agro cap. The point was that I could pull and tank over the agro cap for my team which I have demonstrated. Whether they are all attacking me or not is due to CoH's limited coding.
In other words, I can pull (however many) with or without the aid of my team (depending on spawn placement, which I commented on originally) and with a coordinated effort by the group, kill off said pack in whole.
It certainly isn't what it was like in the old days of being able to pull 80+ across a zone solo, but it's what I previously posted I could do. The agro cap just makes it more tedious (balancing the transferred agro to group members).
Incidentally there was a comment made earlier about not being able to kil fast enough and that the mobs' regen would actually make this type of herding ineffective which is plainly silly. As I said above, this was with 3 others in the group, two of which were leeching XP. So basically this was just a concerted effort between me and a Blaster. With a full sized and competent group I gather 3 to 4 times what's shown in the screen shots (and yes, that's with help of the group members due to the agro cap and depending spawn placement).
Note: In my original post about this particular issue, I mentioned leash/agro tether mechanics applying here which they do but I did not intend to mean that is all that applies here or that they supercede the agro cap mechanic (my bad if I was unclear).
If you're not holding aggro, you're not tanking. Tanking specifically means preventing enemies from attacking other people by making them attack you. For you any mobs more than 17 are completely irrelevant, since you can't affect them. It only matters for your teammates who has to survive the aggro you can't hold.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're not holding aggro, you're not tanking. Tanking specifically means preventing enemies from attacking other people by making them attack you. For you any mobs more than 17 are completely irrelevant, since you can't affect them. It only matters for your teammates who has to survive the aggro you can't hold.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's your definition of tanking (and might very well be this board's accepted definition by proxy) however tanking to me means being the focus (but not necessarily the end-all-be-all) of agro and/or spawn management.
The fact that we can do those amount of spawns in the same amount of time it takes normal groups to do a spawn smaller then the agro cap size and that we can only do that with a Tanker (or more precisely, only do it as easily as we can do it with a Tanker) satisfies my definition of tanking.
If you want to call it spastic noodling, I'm ok with that too.
P.S. - While I may not physically be able to hold agro on more then 17 mobs, I can still physically effect more then 17 mobs which is why this works. And whether the mobs are agroed on me or are flopping up and down because I Footstomped them while they tried to hit the Blaster or just stood there like badly coded zombies is just semantical diarrhea.
Quid Pro Quo: Relying on taunt auras and spamming Taunt isn't "tanking" in my book. I'll let the novice Tanker decide which he/she thinks would be a more fun version of "tanking" to aspire to.
I can see what Kruunch is trying to say: tanking is more than just holding the attention of 17 targets, but more minimising the danger to the entire team.
On the other hand, I personally would call what he's demonstrating as "tanking" so much as "good team play including his tanking." It's taking a lot more than his prowess to make what he's showing work, which is fine, but his tanking is only a subset of that, and saying otherwise is conflating a subset for its superset.
As for affecting more than 17 enemies, technically you're still only handling 17 or less at a time. If the Blaster with you was a bit less cautious, you'd see everything beyond your current 17 peel off like cheap wallpaper. So again, this seems more about good team play than about tanking.
[ QUOTE ]
I can see what Kruunch is trying to say: tanking is more than just holding the attention of 17 targets, but more minimising the danger to the entire team.
On the other hand, I personally would call what he's demonstrating as "tanking" so much as "good team play including his tanking." It's taking a lot more than his prowess to make what he's showing work, which is fine, but his tanking is only a subset of that, and saying otherwise is conflating a subset for its superset.
As for affecting more than 17 enemies, technically you're still only handling 17 or less at a time. If the Blaster with you was a bit less cautious, you'd see everything beyond your current 17 peel off like cheap wallpaper. So again, this seems more about good team play than about tanking.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now this, I can agree with.
I'd generally avoid groups of this size since it doesn't increase kill speed and is much more dangerous to the team; but when it happens (say multiple ambushes) you have to be able to roll with it. I don't consider it it to be tanking more than 17, though.
[ QUOTE ]
I can see what Kruunch is trying to say: tanking is more than just holding the attention of 17 targets, but more minimising the danger to the entire team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I personally would call what he's demonstrating as "tanking" so much as "good team play including his tanking." It's taking a lot more than his prowess to make what he's showing work, which is fine, but his tanking is only a subset of that, and saying otherwise is conflating a subset for its superset.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with this but "tanking" shouldn't be a replacement for "teamwork". From what you said above, I'm inferring that you are presenting an "either/or" scenario which I wouldn't agree with. Specifically the part I'm showing is my "tanking" (rather than showing the Blaster's maneauvering). Am I "tanking" each mob simulteneously that we've engaged? No. Am I tanking multiple packs at once which make up a number over the agro cap? Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
As for affecting more than 17 enemies, technically you're still only handling 17 or less at a time. If the Blaster with you was a bit less cautious, you'd see everything beyond your current 17 peel off like cheap wallpaper. So again, this seems more about good team play than about tanking.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this statement always applies, whether you're fighting 5 or 50 mobs. The agro cap just makes it apply more when fighting above it.
Haven't you ever tanked a spawn less then the agro crap and had that over eager Blaster or Scrapper start nuking/charging ahead of you (or a spawn on the side or out of your immediate agro radius) and get themselves killed? I get that all the time (and happily giggle to myself when it does).
The difference between that and doing it above the agro cap is that the team *has* to pay attention or dies more readily. So one could make the arguement that tanking over the agro cap is solid team building.
But it still is tanking to me and the really fun part of tanking
[ QUOTE ]
I'd generally avoid groups of this size since it doesn't increase kill speed ...
[/ QUOTE ]
So so so so untrue (which any farmer will tell you).
[ QUOTE ]
... and is much more dangerous to the team;
[/ QUOTE ]
True .... we find excitement where we can. I would never attempt to do this without a team I was comfortable with AND that knew and agreed to do it.
[ QUOTE ]
... but when it happens (say multiple ambushes) you have to be able to roll with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Much easier to do with some practice wouldn't you agree?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider it it to be tanking more than 17, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine ... we'll call it Multiple Mob Cold Shoulder Spooning then (MMCSS). Whatever definition fits into your world.
But it's still tanking
[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with this but "tanking" shouldn't be a replacement for "teamwork". From what you said above, I'm inferring that you are presenting an "either/or" scenario which I wouldn't agree with. Specifically the part I'm showing is my "tanking" (rather than showing the Blaster's maneauvering). Am I "tanking" each mob simulteneously that we've engaged? No. Am I tanking multiple packs at once which make up a number over the agro cap? Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the one part where you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying tanking is a part of good teamwork. There's no either/or. If you weren't doing your job, that Blaster wouldn't be doing what he/she's doing. Tanking is a sub-set of team play. Good tanking enhances good team play, and good team play can make good tanking look amazing (as your screenshots show). That is why tanking is a subset of team play. However, the mechanics of tanking (such as the aggro cap) remain unchanged no matter how good a job anyone does when tanking or working within a team. It's just that good enough team play can make such limitations of zero consequence (such as defeating enemies fast enough such that those outside of the aggro cap don't get a chance to attack).
[ QUOTE ]
But this statement always applies, whether you're fighting 5 or 50 mobs. The agro cap just makes it apply more when fighting above it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of. Aggro is such a high threshold game that it almost becomes binary with pretty much all Tanker primaries outside of Willpower. It takes immense amounts of damage to pull aggro off of most Tankers. It's extremely rare, for instance, that a Fire/Fire Blaster can pull aggro off an Invul (possible, but under normal circumstances no--the Blaster has to actually try and somehow not end up defeating that enemy in the process), and I've yet to see anyone pull aggro off of a well-built Ice Tanker.
After the aggro cap has been hit, the other mobs are for all intents and purposes completely unaffected by the Tanker's taunt mechanics, which means anything can get their attention and be attack-worthy.
Again, I get the sentiment of what you're saying: tanking is more than just running around collecting people in your auras and Taunt AoE--it's about actively mitigating damage for your team with all the tools at your disposal. It's just that the aggro mechanics in this game are pretty cut and dry with no way around them other than players throughout the team being sharp and spreading excess aggro amongst them--or simply doing the rest of the job and mitigating whatever the Tanker isn't handling.
EDIT: Ultimately, what I'm saying, is that a good Tanker will be able to hit a certain peak, but be unable to surpass it. A good team, however, can take what's left and do such a good job themselves that it extends a Tanker's good play to be (or at least look) even better than what a Tanker can do themselves.
I agree with this but as I stated before I believe this exists above and below the agro crap (oops Freudian slip) and your summations apply to all team play in that regard.
Also it's important to note that what I've shown above (and do most every night I might add) isn't the product of some special "super team" (heh pardon the pun). These aren't hand picked guys that I run daily with and I don't usually have to do any more explanation then "1-2 packs, don't worry about agro ... 3+ packs make sure you only hit what I Footstomp and then run". After the first couple of multi-packs we hit, most everyone gets it by then.
The one reason I'm belaboring this point ... I can do this with any pick up team. To do this without me (that is to say, without a Tanker) and triple the amount of deaths (or more) you'd need to hand pick the team in the vast majority of cases.
Tanker needed for tanking to fast kill multi-packs of mobs ... see what I mean?
[ QUOTE ]
Tanker needed for tanking to fast kill multi-packs of mobs
[/ QUOTE ]
And I still find this a contentious point: it is a way, a simple way, and a good way, but "needed?" No, I don't think it is. I think a lot of others would agree.
Aggro management, controls, buffs, debuffs, and of course, damage, are all subsets of team play, along with communication and co-operation. Have enough of the others and you can use minimal amounts of any one of those to get through content. About the only one of those that can't be minimised to chew through naturally or artificially difficult content is damage.
It's good that you seem to be doing a good job tanking, as well as communicating. I'm not trying to take away anything from what you're doing. I'm just saying that there's a line, due to mechanical limitations in the game engine, where tanking peaks and other factors come into play--factors not directly tied to the abilities of the Tanker AT.
I think I said it wasn't "needed" (several times). You're either misunderstanding what you quoted or misunderstanding the point entirely. Read again.
And as I also stated, to replace a decent Tanker in this situation *and* still go as quickly as we do, you'd have to handpick most (if not all) of the rest of your team.
So in this case the Tanker is "needed" (or more precisely, more desireable) then trying the samething without. Of course I could pick 8 Fire/Dark Corruptors and have them solo packs on the same map and kill off the map *much* more quickly then any other combination of team mates could. But again, you're hand picking 8 people (and a certain AT combo no less) versus hand picking 1 general AT.
Caveat: Yes even in my scenario you have to "hand pick" to a certain extent, damage being the overriding factor here to killing quickly enmasse (as you've pointed out). But I think you'll agree that it's much easier to find 2-3 in any combination of scrapper/blaster/scranker/pb/ws then it is to hand pick say 8 Fire/Dark Corruptors specifically.
In any event we're starting to debate in circles I think. If your playstyle demands that you adhere to "rules and regulations" of what the popular consensus on these boards are of tanking, then far be it for me to stop you.
I just wanted to point out that there are other (and more fun by my measure (and certainly more efficient)) ways of tanking then what you guys popularly consider "tanking".
Heresy to go against conventional wisdom I know. 
Edit: I freely admit that some of my knowledge can be out of date at times. But as I've been doing this for the past few months (since my last return to CoH) this isn't one of those times. It's a shame when others who so gleefully point this out, fail to admit when they themselves are in fact wrong. Anyways I do this on a daily basis because doing it the way you, Sarrate, et al. would have me "tank" would drive me out of my skull with boredom and this game is boring enough as it is. The fact that I've been told it wasn't possible and then when I showed proof was told it isn't really "tanking" is fairly laughable. But we all need our comfort zones.
[ QUOTE ]
Sarrate: You can pull a mob all across a zone if you keep damaging it (thus resetting its tether). If you hit a mob once and run across the zone it eventually gives up (at its tether range) and returns to its spawn (or despawns entirely). So yes there is a maximum tether ... it just can be reset by periodically re-agroing the mob.
[/ QUOTE ]
I specifically said "if you keep its attention," implying tagging it every so often. When you said 'tether,' it seemed to me like you were describing a hard limit on how far you could pull mobs away from their spawn point.
[ QUOTE ]
Also on another note, your analysis of how I was pulling is wrong. I don't have to hit a single mob to bring the whole pack with me ... proximity agro and the taunt aura being run (in my case, Invince) pretty much do the work for me (again, tether range being an issue here). I assume your 5-7 number was just taking into account the punchvoke effect which isn't really the mechanic at work here (although can add to it). I just can't pass up the opportunity to KO Blow a mob who has it coming
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is why I said 5-7 mobs:
*) I've established only 17 mobs can be actively trying to attack you at any one time.
*) From my previous test with the pistol, damaging a mob will automatically put it on your aggro list and push something else off. (Presumably to prevent someone from herding weak mobs and killing a tougher one without risk of reprisal.)
*) If you run into spawn2 and use Foot Stomp, that takes up 10 mobs in on your aggro list, only leaving room for 7 more. This is where the 7 comes from. (If your Footstomp hits less mobs, then it would allow for mob from spawn1 to keep chasing you.)
*) The low end of my guess was likely wrong, I said 5 to account for the 5 hit by KO Blow's gauntlet, however, it's possible that Invincibility's longer duration and more recent interactions with spawn2 would push the mobs from spawn1 off the list (sans for the mob you hit with KO Blow).
I do not, however, know specifics of what actions/conditions will cause mobs to be added / dropped from the active 17 mob aggro cap.