I agree with this. I don't see any reason for them to show up on the Pet window and be targettable. I think they should act just like Eathquake or Quicksand and do their job without being targeted.
In the meantime, I guess you'd just have to use "target_NEXT" instead, which is what I personally like better anyway. If you just killed something, it'll select your next closest foe anyway, and if that happens to be a bad target like a summoned pet, I can just press it again to move on. I only use the closest target bind if I happen to have cycled through a bunch of foes looking for something specific, or changed the direction I am facing and want to "reset" it.
Is the NPC AI written to target Spectral Terrors summonded by Illusion Controllers, or do the NPCs ignore them (assuming they are not afraid of them)? If NPCs don't attack them, then they should not be targetable by players, IMO; otherwise they should.
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
Quote:
I've had a lot of problems with target_next since issue 13. I can't tell you how many times I press TAB only to have the reticle skip the 3 guys beating up on me and get the guy in the next group or way down the hall.|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
In the meantime, I guess you'd just have to use "target_NEXT" instead, which is what I personally like better anyway. If you just killed something, it'll select your next closest foe anyway, and if that happens to be a bad target like a summoned pet, I can just press it again to move on. I only use the closest target bind if I happen to have cycled through a bunch of foes looking for something specific, or changed the direction I am facing and want to "reset" it.
|
I have a couple of theories on that, the main one being that the extended melee range means the guys fighting you can be at different ranges and the one you happen to be beating up on could be further away from you than the others even if it doesn't look that way. But sometimes, it seems to use the distance where you FIRST targeted the person instead of where he is when you target-next. Especially if you kill him and he fades from your target box.
Maybe that's been fixed since last December. Maybe it's all in my head (and every friend I have playing the game). Whatever, I'm now in the habit of using target-nearest then using TAB to find the exact enemy I want (although generally it is the same thing). It works well in every situation until now.
I was just curious if there was a known reason for being able to target them.
I have to agree though, if Terror's cause NPC's to sometimes fight them then I suppose it should be an option for PC's, however dumb
I'm pretty sure any combat able entity is targetable simply due to the way the engine works.
Never surrender! Never give up!
Help keep Paragon City alive with the unofficial City of Heroes Tabletop Role Playing Game!
Quote:
Why isn't Earthquake targetable?|
Originally Posted by IanTheM1
I'm pretty sure any combat able entity is targetable simply due to the way the engine works.
|
Why is the Ouroboros Portal targetable for Villains?
I'm sure there is a way they could change it if they really wanted.
On a side note.. I suppose we can think of Spectral Terror as just another Decoy.. they are targetable and you can't affect those either.
I think the reason spectral is targeted is that it is considered a pet. This means for instance if you had a mind controller or illusion controller, you could actually deceive the spectral and have its fear effects work for you, versus against you.
Tempstra.
Tempstra 50 Rad/Dark Defender/War'nt 50 Warshade/Heliosa 50 Fire/Rad Controller//Captain Blue Balls 50 Fire/Ice Blaster/Pinky Swear 50 Dark/Dark ScrapperMind Dreamer 50 Mind/Kinetics Controller/Rex Bubbles 50 Illusion/Forcefield Controller/Cool Wind 50 Ice/Storm Controller/Lil' Miss Dangerous 50 Gravity/Kinetics Controller/Observationist 50 Illusion/Empathy Controller/Kansas City Brawler 50 Stone/Fire Tank/Hades Exhibit One 50 Dark/Robots MM
Quote:
Point taken. I'm entirely unsure if there's any actual difference between pet entities and pseudo-pet entities like Earthquake outside of targetability and looks. Stuff like Lightning Storm and Voltaic Sentinel blur the line even more.|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
Why isn't Earthquake targetable?
Why is the Ouroboros Portal targetable for Villains? I'm sure there is a way they could change it if they really wanted. On a side note.. I suppose we can think of Spectral Terror as just another Decoy.. they are targetable and you can't affect those either. |
A more thoughtful answer then, is that I would not at all be surprised if during early drafts of Illusion Control, Spectral Terror was a full pet, perhaps even capable of moving. Eventual changes gave it the self immobilize and the invincibility effect.
Though, it being targetable does at least provide a weak metagame advantage in PVP. The more time your enemy wastes tabbing/mousing through targets means less time he's attacking you. (In before lolpvp.) PVE-wise, it being targetable makes it viewable in the pet window, which means you know exactly when it drops (does ST get the blinking icon?) and its location. I realize these are minor features, though.
Never surrender! Never give up!
Help keep Paragon City alive with the unofficial City of Heroes Tabletop Role Playing Game!
Quote:
Tab targeting has always worked this way. Tab always seems to target the enemy furthest away from you, even if the enemy is so far way, they're not even rendered. And if you're in an enclosed space where distance isn't a factor, Tab will psychically know which enemy unit is most important to you and refuse to target it. Tab will always target the least threatening enemy elements, including repeatedly skipping the ones who are directly in front of your view beating on you if you try to cycle through the targets. |
Originally Posted by Golden_Avariel
I've had a lot of problems with target_next since issue 13. I can't tell you how many times I press TAB only to have the reticle skip the 3 guys beating up on me and get the guy in the next group or way down the hall.
|
I have learned to not trust Tab in a fight. I deal with it by moving myself as close to my intended target as possible to limit my view and then hitting Ctrl-Tab (default for target nearest enemy).
Edit:
My own theory of how Tab targeting works is that as the enemies for the map are spawned, they are numbered. Tab then cycles through their numbered sequence regardless of where they are relative to you, except by line of sight (except if the obstuctions aren't rendered due to distance).
Teams are the number one killer of soloists.
Quote:
You couldn't be more wrong about that.. unless you accidentally changed TAB to "target_enemy_prev" which will incrementally target the next closest foe, starting with the one furthest away. |
Originally Posted by SerialBeggar
Tab targeting has always worked this way. Tab always seems to target the enemy furthest away from you, even if the enemy is so far way, they're not even rendered. And if you're in an enclosed space where distance isn't a factor, Tab will psychically know which enemy unit is most important to you and refuse to target it. Tab will always target the least threatening enemy elements, including repeatedly skipping the ones who are directly in front of your view beating on you if you try to cycle through the targets.
I have learned to not trust Tab in a fight. I deal with it by moving myself as close to my intended target as possible to limit my view and then hitting Ctrl-Tab (default for target nearest enemy). Edit: My own theory of how Tab targeting works is that as the enemies for the map are spawned, they are numbered. Tab then cycles through their numbered sequence regardless of where they are relative to you, except by line of sight (except if the obstuctions aren't rendered due to distance). |
TAB is "target_enemy_next" by default, which will incrementally target the foe that is next farthest away from you, starting with the one that is closest.
In the example above, he was targeting a foe that might be 5 feet away, and uses "target_enemy_next". The target moves to a foe in the next mob down the hall for the exact reason he stated.. the other 2 foes attacking him were less than 5 feet away from him, which is why he prefers using "target_enemy_near" instead, which only targets the closest foe and always gives him a target he can wail away on. lol
On a side note: While I'm sure that spawns are probably somehow labeled internally on some array of numbers somewhere, it has NOTHING to do with targeting. The commands "target_friend_next" and "target_friend_prev" work the exact same way (relative to distance), so unless you're going to tell me that players are also targeted by their internal IDs and PlayerA will ALWAYS be targeted in favor of PlayerB.. I'm afraid your binds are just mixed up.
target_enemy_next and target_enemy_prev pick random people and then target normally from their (back or forward depending on the command). I have never, in my years of playing, gotten it to reliably choose the closest or furthest and then go from there.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
At the very least, targetenemynext should start with the closest (I don't use prev so not sure what it does) when none are selected.|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
target_enemy_next and target_enemy_prev pick random people and then target normally from their (back or forward depending on the command). I have never, in my years of playing, gotten it to reliably choose the closest or furthest and then go from there.
|
I don't get why people always complain about the targeting system, it's always acted entirely as I'd expect... it targets the NEXT enemy distance-wise, not 'the enemy I'm thinking about' or anything magical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
THIS.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
At the very least, targetenemynext should start with the closest (I don't use prev so not sure what it does) when none are selected.
I don't get why people always complain about the targeting system, it's always acted entirely as I'd expect... it targets the NEXT enemy distance-wise, not 'the enemy I'm thinking about' or anything magical. |
I've used targetenemynext since I started playing, and it's never acted crazy or random for me. It's always done exactly what I expected and targeted the closest foe (if I had nothing else targeted), and then went to the next furthest after that. Once it gets to the foe that's farthest away, it cycles back to the closest again. Maybe the confusion comes when the foes are moving around and the foe you want might actually moves closer than your current target and you don't end up targeting him as you are cycling through. I suppose that could look random to some people, but it's really not.
Even right now I'm messing with it and testing it by clearing my target (with Escape) and pressing my bind again, with the same (closest) foe being selected every time. There is nothing random about it.
Actually, I was wrong in my last post. I do use targetenemyprev quite a bit, via shift+tab and I'd simply forgotten. And it works exactly as one would expect as well: It goes from furthest enemy to closest in a loop, starting at the furthest if no target is selected.
And I just decided to spend a while testing both commands. Many Cimeroran Traitors lost their life in the name of SCIENCE!!!! today
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
I don't use binds at all. I just use Tab and Ctrl-Tab as they are provided in default state. |
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
You couldn't be more wrong about that.. unless you accidentally changed TAB to "target_enemy_prev" which will incrementally target the next closest foe, starting with the one furthest away.
TAB is "target_enemy_next" by default, which will incrementally target the foe that is next farthest away from you, starting with the one that is closest. In the example above, he was targeting a foe that might be 5 feet away, and uses "target_enemy_next". The target moves to a foe in the next mob down the hall for the exact reason he stated.. the other 2 foes attacking him were less than 5 feet away from him, which is why he prefers using "target_enemy_near" instead, which only targets the closest foe and always gives him a target he can wail away on. lol On a side note: While I'm sure that spawns are probably somehow labeled internally on some array of numbers somewhere, it has NOTHING to do with targeting. The commands "target_friend_next" and "target_friend_prev" work the exact same way (relative to distance), so unless you're going to tell me that players are also targeted by their internal IDs and PlayerA will ALWAYS be targeted in favor of PlayerB.. I'm afraid your binds are just mixed up. |
In my play experience, I can't trust Tab to target what I want. I do use it though, as a Tab+attack combo to aggro everything (regardless of archetype, that's just what I do) along frequent resets with Ctrl-Tab. But this is a non-specific, shotgun targeting method because that's all Tab is good for. If I want to specifically target something, I click to target or run up to it (to limit my view) and Ctrl-Tab.
Teams are the number one killer of soloists.
Quote:
Tab and Ctrl-Tab are binds. | I don't use binds at all. I just use Tab and Ctrl-Tab as they are provided in default state. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
Whether Tab or Control-Tab is "default" or not, they are still binds. All I'm saying is that if they are not acting the way we are describing it to you, then your "bind" is broken, and it's apparently set to something else unexpectedly. Either that or you are misunderstanding the way it's working somehow.
|
Originally Posted by SerialBeggar
I don't use binds at all. I just use Tab and Ctrl-Tab as they are provided in default state.
In my play experience, I can't trust Tab to target what I want. I do use it though, as a Tab+attack combo to aggro everything (regardless of archetype, that's just what I do) along frequent resets with Ctrl-Tab. But this is a non-specific, shotgun targeting method because that's all Tab is good for. If I want to specifically target something, I click to target or run up to it (to limit my view) and Ctrl-Tab. |
Quote:
Yeah, yeah. I was emphasizing that I do not mess with their functions. They have worked the same way for every character I've made and played for the past 5 years. During which, my peeve threshold is exceeded periodically and I have devoted time to try to reverse engineer Tab's method for choosing or not choosing the expected next target.
|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
Whether Tab or Control-Tab is "default" or not, they are still binds. All I'm saying is that if they are not acting the way we are describing it to you, then your "bind" is broken, and it's apparently set to something else unexpectedly. Either that or you are misunderstanding the way it's working somehow.
|
Teams are the number one killer of soloists.
Quote:
Well hopefully our information will help you complete your "research". If you can't figure it out, I'd love to see what information you've gathered. A video or something would be lovely to pick apart. For all we know, there might actually be a bug somewhere and we could help fix it for others who seem to have the same opinion as you do.|
Originally Posted by SerialBeggar
Yeah, yeah. I was emphasizing that I do not mess with their functions. They have worked the same way for every character I've made and played for the past 5 years. During which, my peeve threshold is exceeded periodically and I have devoted time to try to reverse engineer Tab's method for choosing or not choosing the expected next target.
|
But until then, we can only tell you how it's "supposed to work", and that our own personal experiences have shown it to be working as intended, as designed, and as expected. lol
LOL re SerialBeggar's description of how target-next works. My wife would swear that is exactly right.
I can give you examples of how it works for me.
Yes - if I press escape and start Tabbing it starts with the nearest and works it's way out, always going in the same order. So far so good.
I come across a trio of enemies with my scrapper (this was yesterday). The middle is a lieutenant so I target him. I engage and eventually defeat him. I press tab and instead of going to either of the two standing right next to me swinging their maces, I get the warrior a good 70 feet down the hall ignoring me.
With the 10' melee circle, it is possible that the person I defeated was actually slightly further away than either of the other two. Since I never had this problem prior to i13 when the circle was expanded, that's what I think is actually happening. That would be WAI which is fine but you can see why I prefer using target-nearest as my default.
Next scenario...
I defeat the other two warriors. I haven't pressed escape. I close to throwing-knives range of the guy down the hall I had accidentally targeted earlier. I press tab and get the 2nd or 3rd warrior beyond the guy closest to me. It had been plenty of time for the previous target to fade away and clear my targeting box. I find if I press escape first it works fine, but until I do it seems to think the long dead guy, getting further and further away, is my target and it attempts to find the next one that far or further. I assume if there is no one further away than the faded body I'll get the closest person because the range cylces. That last point, I think, makes it seem random - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
At any rate that is my experience so I use target-nearest since that is the target I want 90% of the time anyway.... just not when there are spectral terrors around. I guess what I should do is simply move away from them since they are immobile.
Ran some missions last night where these were being summoned in almost every fight (Turg's excellent Ghost in the Machine arc). They were no real threat to my scrapper EXCEPT that every time I hit my "target nearest enemy" key I would get these stupid things. Trying to click on an enemy was equally difficult since they are so big so I was forced to tab through all the spectral terrors hovering over me before I could get a real enemy.
It isn't like I could DO anything to them. No power I had would even trigger while they were targeted. All they did was slow me down from trying to hit the people that really were threatening me.
So here's my question... why are unhittable enemy pets even targetable? Is there some player power I don't know about that does affect them? Like, can they be used by a kin for buffing or used as a debuff anchor (that would be sweet) or what? Or is it just a case that since some pets are hittable all pets are targetable?