Talk:Enmity

Why isn't there a "Gear that enhances this trait" link or section? Chocobits 06:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is gear enmity a flat addition or a ratio increase?" Personally, I favor the "one emnity line with exponential decay" model over the two-type model, so if my question is slanted that is where it is coming from. Enmity is accrued by various measures (hitting a monster, using provoke, etc.), each of which is assumed to have some matter of innate emnity. When you use Enmity+ gear, Breath Mantle as early as 18, for instance you are given an "enmity boost" (+3 in the case of the mantle). Is that enmity some flat rate added onto any enmity-gaining action you do, or is it a multiplier? In the case of the exponential decay model, it could also be a change in the rate of decay. So, basically, every time you hit the monster you get enmity, though not necessarily a lot. Do you gain, for instance, 7 extra enmity units per hit with +7 emnity, or do you gain 1.07*(Enmity from hitting) = New Enmity? If the later was the case, it would make sense for PLDs to use high damage low delay weapons as they currently do in xp. If the former was the case, it would make sense for PLDs to wear lower delay swords with lower damage and go for DoT because that would result in a higher enmity gain. It would also make more sense in the former case for the PLD to macro in Enmity gear for high enmity actions as it would result in a higher gain of enmity, and macro in DD gear for normal hits. - Byrthnoth

"Enmity is the rate at which hate is gained and dissipates."

I take strong issue with this statement; I have never seen anything from S-E which indicates they use the word "enmity" to mean "rate" of any sort.

Further more, "Enmity" should be the preferred term over "Hate"; it is, after all, the very (English) word which S-E choose to describe the various equipment.

"A tank wants as much hate as possible, while most other players want as little hate as possible"

I think that statement oversimplifies the role of tank and damage dealers with regard to enmity level.

The tank is there not just to create as much enmity as possible; rather, the tank's true purpose is to control enmity and thus the mob's attention. However, control really means control--not just "hit me only!"

For the most part, yes, a tank would want more enmity than the other players in party, but it's common in exp parties to desire a WS from a strong damage dealer to turn a mob so a thief can SATA (Fuidama) onto the tank and complete the weaponskill. That combination allows the DD to do more damage AND fix more enmity on the tank afterwards, while risking the damage dealer for only a brief periods of time.

"Spiked Hate" vs. "Gradual Hate"

This is a common way the players model the relative amount of enmity from different actions--and they tend to carry the distinctions too far.

It seems unlikely S-E would implement two different quantities of hate to track, since there is one action a monster has to make based on enmity--which player to attack. What players have observed is that some actions gain a lot of enmity (provoke, WS which breaks 1000 of damage, big cures), some moderate enmity (mid level cures, shield bash, Flash, Warcry), while others, minor amount of enmity (small cures, regular dagger strikes, Holy Circle).

Rather than trying to pigeon hole actions into "spike" and "gradual" hate, the simpler and clearer way to say is that every action results in some amount of enmity accumulation, and that amount depends on the type and effect/result of the actions.

Or, you can say "Every action results in a enmity spike, which is then added to the player's current net enmity quantity; the only difference is how large the spike is."

"It is possible for a tank to lose hate ... a damage dealer does an inordinate amount of damage, the monster will switch targets."

This author here is confusing "hate" for "mob's attack target". While it is possible for anyone to "lose hate" entirely (Dragoon superclimb, leaving zone, dying), what happens in the situation he described is merely someone else in party has gained greater amount of enmity than the tank.

There are ways to reduce net enmity one has, through decay and being receiver of negative actions from monsters, but that's not what the author has described.

BTW, who should be editing and fixing these things? I'm very new to the Wiki world...

---

You can feel free to do these edits. You sound like you have some pretty good information. Just be careful not to get too subjective on a "general" page such as this. But I think you shuld go ahead and change it up as you see fit - if anyone has objections then we can all duke it out here ^_^ You can also make your own guide if you really wanted to. --Rixie--

---

There are three things we're talking about here:

1. Enmity, the attribute affected by gear and merits.

2. How much the mob dislikes each player ("hate")

3. Who the mob dislikes most, and is therefore attacking

• Changes in the mob's target are often described as "pulling hate" or "losing hate"

As you point out, there is ambiguity in the use of the word "hate". However, you propose to fix this by making the word "enmity" ambiguous between #1 and #2, which doesn't seem like an improvement. Surely you don't think that they are exactly the same thing?

My working assumption has been that -/+Enmity modifiers add or subtract that much hate from every action a player takes, which would certainly affect the rate at which hate is gained.

As for spike/gradual hate, I personally have no idea, but I have gotten the impression that the consensus among Paladins is that hate from Provoke decays much more rapidly than hate from other sources. The likeliness or unlikeliness of such a system doesn't seem like a strong argument for changing the page; SE have done plenty of unlikely things, and the formulas for, e.g. melee damage are quite arcane. But I would support qualifying the statement with something like "some believe".

I agree with the SATA observation, but that's an exception to the rule for advanced players. --Valyana 23:00, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

---

I don't mean switching to use of "enmity" instead of "hate" would resolve the ambiguity; rather, it would conform to S-E's terminology.

Equipments can have enmity adjustment, so what does they adjust? Why, they adjust enmity (per action is my guess as well)! So the quantity being altered is "enmity" instead of "hate", that's all. "Or, Enmity is the term, which is called Hate in slang."

I agree with you, Valyana, that I do not have a good enough argument for dismissing the spike/gradual hate model entirely, but I do not see a reason to mention in the first place, aside from tradition.

It happens that I have written an enmity guide on Allakhazam, but decided to remove it. (Curse you, IGE.) It's rather subjective--or at least very speculative--so I'm a bit uneasy about posting it here verbatim. For now, I think I'll just think about how I want to edit the page, but keeping things as neutral as possible. --Itazura 19:47, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

I don't think that 'Enmity' is SE's word for 'hate'.. I don't think SE even has a word for what people call 'hate' so far. In my opinion, those are completely different things, as several people have pointed out already. Enmity is what a certain player always has, like a stat (probably 100, according to Kaeko's results). That's why certain equipment/merits can add up or subtract from it. Hate on the other hand is accumulated according to the Enmity 'stat', much like damage is influenced by attack. So switching to 'enmity' altogether wouldn't comform to SE's terminology at all, it would obfuscate it at best.

People have always used those two words in their respective meanings for as long as I can remember. Nobody I know ever said "This cuirass gives you +3 hate." and also I've never heard anyone say "You pulled enmity off the tank.". People use the right words on those for a reason: 'cause they're really different.

So basically, I don't like the About "hate" section at all. And btw.... "Also, the player spearheading the Enmity testing prefers Enmity, Total Enmity, Cumulative Enmity, and Volatile Enmity" wtf? Should it really be mentioned that 'the player spearheading the Enmity testing' prefers ANYTHING? Especially since even he mixes up the terms for enmity and hate and sometimes uses both words in the same sentence. And not just a few times. Also, when he says 'enmity', it's ambiguous: it can mean the enmity stat (like, say 112) or the accumulated enmity, hate (i.e. 3520). You seem to be pretty focused on Kaeko.. how about looking around you for a change? (Btw, throughout his blog he says 'hate' about ten times as much as 'enmity'....) --Zaphor 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.playonline.com/pcd/update/ff11us/20070308c2bbd1/detail.html See how S-E uses the word 'enmity': "The enmity gained when using “Chocobo Mazurka” or “Raptor Mazurka” has been reduced." Clearly the quantity added to is enmity. S-E has been consistent with the use of the word enmity--as well as the exclusion of the word 'hate'. 'Subjob' is a word players often use, but S-E have always used "Support Job". Using orthodox terminology consistently is a good thing, IMO, when it comes to written documentation.

I do agree the article is overly focused on Kaeko--but that's only because we wouldn't have the level of understanding of these issues if not for him. And, yes, Kaeko freely uses 'hate' in discussion--and consistently calls the quantities accumulated Volatile Enmity, Cumulative Enmity, and Total Enmity. --FFXI-Itazura 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, SE apparently has a word for hate, which doesn't really help the situation, since it's ambiguous (my examples mentioned above still apply). Bad usage of words on their part. Also, there's a few other things I disagree with. First of all, hate still is no old word for anything. It's as common as your 'subjob' example, and widely used by most players, not excluding enmity. As I said, given different situations, people will use different words. And this page shouldn't try to dictate or suggest which word people should prefer. So what SE uses enmity over hate? Hate is still frequently used and thus is perfectly acceptable, just like subjob instead of Support Job or fame instead of Reputation (though SE has used both of those only a few times). The whole About "hate" section reads just like propaganda, trying to lead players away from using the term, when instead it should describe it's meaning and its current use in the community.

And the whole Kaeko thing is still ridiculous. There's links to the man's homepage where interested reader's can get further information on the subject and he's mentioned by name already, in the right section: See Also. But the article itself is for information on the subject related to the game and nothing else. Attribution of any discoveries whatsoever just don't belong there, or else every other sentence of this page would have a link to its author's homepage or myspace profile or w/e. Certain players and what they're thinking aren't interesting, but their discoveries are. Even if he were the creator of the hate system he wouldn't be mentioned here, so why should he be mentioned now? There's lots of people doing various very useful things for the community and researching stuff, but this is not about showing off who did what, but to accumulate the acquired knowledge and use it for further research and a deeper understanding of the game. Zaphor 00:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Revamped the entire article. Here's hoping no one would kill me for it. ^_^;

I'm still rather unfamilar with the expected sytle of prentation, much less all the fancy editing markup codes available. --Itazura

---

I don't know that the "Enmity and Tanking" section really belongs here. The way I've viewed this page is merely an introduction to the concept, not a guide on how to use it to a players advantage. --Syeria 18:33, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

---

The article before my revision had substantial text on hate and tanking, so I preserve the information I see as correct and expanded upon it.

Should I remove it all together? Chop it down? --Itazura 19:21, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

Is there any knowledge out there as to what happens to enmity when a player dies? I always thought it was reset, but earlier in our exp party, as the DDs were zoning mobs, the WHM reraised and the mobs went back for her, so I guess this old "knowledge" wasn't true?

I just delevel my RDM from 70 to 69 yesterday. When I was raised, I attracted no attention from monster who would not have aggroed, but was beating me previously (used them to delevel). The standard model that death takes a player off the enmity list seems to hold up; I'm inclined to believe that WHM you mentioned did something else to aggro the monster after RR, such as being within the range of detection. --Itazura 19:49, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I believe that debuffs give hate over their duration, so it's possible that if the WHM debuffed one of the mobs before dying, that gave her new hate after she reraised. Alternatively, some mobs have "party hate" so that when one person in the party gets hate, everyone is added to the hate list. Or perhaps the mobs saw her resting. --Valyana 11:13, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm rather doubtful on the first two ideas. If debuff continuously give enmity while in effect, then no one would recommend casting Dia or Bio on monsters before wipe in BC fight to lessen their HP regen before RR and recovery from weakness.

The "party hate" idea also contradicts with my experiences; I've intentionally let party members die (including myself) when they aggro'ed and mis-targeted monsters too difficult or too numerous to handle. (That saved time; raising one member isn't too bad, compared to full party wipe.) If there are monsters which puts everyone in party on its enmity list w/out provocation, I have not encountered even one.

To get on the monster's enmity list, one has to perform a direct action on the monster, or a direct action on someone already on the enmity list. If after RR, the WHM cast even one spell on the monster or any party member on its enmity list, he would be placed on the enmity list himself, and the monster may very well chase other members to the zone line, then come back to KO him again. --Itazura 06:19, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it seems I was wrong about the hate over time idea. As for "party hate", most mobs don't have it, but some (notably Darters in Dragon's Aery and most BCNM mobs) definitely do. --Valyana 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Enmity gear, a flat boost to hate or simply a percent increase?

Personally, I think it's a percent. Like +1 enmity equals +1% hate gain and -1% hate loss. It just doesn't make sense if it was a flat boost instead of a percentage boost.

It's similar to Store TP. If Store TP was a flat TP gain instead of a percent, then it'd favor low delay weapons and would not be "balanced" at all. This is the same case for Enmity, IMO.

A method to test if +enmity is a percent based is Horror Head II and several other enmity gear.

Simply have two players, one with enmity gear and one without test this against a low level mob. Have one player have Provoke or Flash or anything, have them provoke/flash the mob. Have the other player with enmity cast a spell such as Blind or Paralyze or anything that seemingly increases hate by a tiny amount. If the person that casted Blind/Paralyze gets hate, then it may be a flat boost instead of a percentage base. Petco 21:48, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the test you're suggesting won't really work unless we can establish baseline values for various actions' enmity. We'd also have to either quantify or rule out the "decay over time" effect. (Though, we can probably get around "lose enmity when hit" problem with third person casting gravity, bind, and sleep.) Otherwise, the test results cannot be reliably interpreted, IMO.

As to percentage increase making more sense to you, the first things which came to mind are the the +dmg (Hand-to-hand weapons), +evasion, +skill, +attack, and +accuracy equipment, so there are plenty of examples of non-percentage, flat increases in the game. --Itazura 14:59, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I asked this question up at the top as well, and an efficient way to test it would be to have two PLDs with identical high-enmity gear except for weapon melee a monster. One PLD would use a low delay weapon, the other a high delay weapon with about the same DoT (Martial Wand + Battle Staff) and same skill level. If the low delay PLD consistantly kept hate, then it's a flat increase on any action. If they kept hate about equally or dependant upon the amount of damage they did/took to/from the monster in that particular fight, then it's a percentage increase. This test would need to have a large sample size and not involve weaponskills. Theory is, the low delay guy hits more often, so if it's a flat increase he's going to accrue more enmnity. If it's a percentage increase then, barring truncation errors on the lower delay guy's enmity additions (as they would be smaller numbers than the large delay guy's enmity additions), the two PLDs would come out about even based on the DoT of their weapon. If Enmity+ changes how someone's hate level moves over time, then we might get a false positive because the low delay PLD would be updating their enmity total more often and suffering from the delay less. In general though, this test would be decisive. -Byrthnoth 10:39, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

This is a bad test because fails to isolate the testing from A) The difference between damages caused by the two PLD's, and B) The difference in amount of damages taken by each PLD and the number of times each was hit. Without more precise control over those factors, it will be very difficult to tease out a reliable conclusion, IMO. Plus, it still won't account for the possibility of enmity decay over time (without player taking damage or negative action from monsters)--bigger delay means more decay between actions--if there's such a decay.

Maybe the first thing needs to be done is to figure out if there is such a thing as an "enmity decay over time". Need a test which doesn't involve difference in damages (Magical attack is good for that), and doesn't involve receiving damages or copy image effect (since losing those entails losing enmity). Probably should have a three people test: two identical nukers, plus one more person to Gravity/Bind. --Itazura 23:57, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I have been doing some testing and, for now, I'm certain that enmity adjusts your hate generation by a percentage, but doesn't affect your hate loss. I haven't finished testing yet and data/info about level correction, if any, is missing.--JKL 23:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

"Enmity and Tanking" section removed, at last.

All gone. If you miss it, it's at over here for now. Added a fair amount of info from a BG thread. (Thanks to SearainGaruda for pointing it out on Enmity Numbers' talk page). The same thread/post also inspired me to drop tanking, and just pick out gain/loss enmity and special conditions. Also did some reorganization. Probably should steal the enmity reset material in a bit. --Itazura 19:15, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

"Enmity Numbers"

I like the "See Also" section, but I want to either remove Enmity Numbers in it for the moment, or add a disclaimer that: 1) There is no consensus on the validity of those numbers, 2) There is no explanation of how those numbers came about, and 3) There's no controlled testing independent of its primary author currently.

This is not a personal attack on JKL, but I do not have reasons for high confidence in his work on Enmity Numbers at this point in time. I am waiting on additional explanation and evidence. --Itazura 15:51, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I understand the skepticism so I made it a guide. The way I see it, testing enmity is easier to control than what most people make it out to be but, oddly enough, I haven't seen any serious testing on the subject even though this game is quite old.

The stuff I posted on the other page are only my conclusions from testing. I'm not good with words so it's difficult for me to explain the tests without making it look like a 2+ page research paper that has been written in a foreign language. --JKL 01:24, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Single Quantity

A fairly well rounded model: Kanican - Modeling Enmity. Should take a couple more reads through it and see how it can help fill out the "Model: Single Quantity" section. --FFXI-Itazura 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite needed

Based on the very well devised testing and methodology by Kaeko of Odin, this article is now in need of a complete revision. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain permission to directly use the detailed information in his blog. His testing partner, Ashira, may put up the details on BG-Wiki in the near future, and we may have to settle for a brief summary and a link to URL there and Kaeko's blog entries. --FFXI-Itazura 03:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change until people have had a chance to comment on it. Your change is too sudden. --User:Charitwo/Sig 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While it is sudden, it's a great disservice to the users to leave blatantly false and now proved to be unclear information on the article. The truncated article conveys the meaning of Enmity, and catches up the readers with the major research recently performed. As someone who wrote up much of the previous version, I see it as the best compromise for the moment. --FFXI-Itazura 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BG can be juvenile in it's absolute terror of any of its information appearing in our wiki. If it is facts like the existance of a mob, then just put it in. If it is something like this, which is serious research, treat the article like you would a research paper: Put it in your own words and cite everything. But don't not put it in just because BG doesn't want us to have the information. --FFXI-Mierin Talk / Contrib 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary source is Kaeko's blog, Kanican, not BG's forum or Wiki. On it, I've asked Kaeko to take over main editorship of this article, which he refused, and in fact indicated he'd rather not see his work used on FFXIclopedia at all. He did suggest the now defunct model of single quantity enmity be taken down (including attribution to his version), and I did that along with wiping out the other now useless model. Given that there likely will soon be ways to accurate quantify VE and CE for all the add/subtract enmity listed, those were taken out as well to stop muddling the picture for the readers.

Fundamentally, this is not a FFXIClopedia vs. BG issue, and it's not strictly a copyright one, either. Not putting the "meat" of Kaeko's work here is about respecting a major contributor to FFXI player base's knowledge and understanding of the game. Over time, I hope he can be convinced to change his mind, but what we have on the article now is sufficient to clarify what Enmity means, and has the pointers to the source of the information.

When the people ripped off Elmer the Pointy's information, he was mad, and deleted the material. However, when staff members respectfully approached Elmer the Pointy politely to apologize, he relented and instead personally helped to improve the article on Scholar. While the copyright issue doesn't apply here, I would like this community to show respect to Kaeko by offering him the same courtesy of being able to decline having his work replicated here--not even in rewritten words.

This is not a court fight; we don't need to "win"--the goal is to make sure the users have a relatively easy way to get to the to information they need. The "See Also" section does just that. --FFXI-Itazura 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Though some time has passed now, I think what's important are facts and facts alone, and not who discovered them or who added them to the wiki. If something has been proven (and I'm not talking about any enmity model here..), then it SHOULD be on this page, regardless of what some blog author thinks. It's not him who created that model, but SE, and he/she has no right whatsoever to keep it for himself or some other page. This is for all FFXI players and anything else is selfish and arrogant.

Also, nobody is trying to steal Kaeko's studies or work here. This shouldn't be an article that's documenting his studies and experiments (that's what his blog is for), only the results. It's an information page on a wiki, and as such should always contain the most relevant and accurate information, until it has been disproven or updated in whatever way. And if a new model still isn't completely proven, but seems to be more accurate then the last one, it should have a verification sign next to it, maybe with reference to the older model. --Zaphor 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts? You mean the enmity numbers? Those numbers compiled by Kaeko were generated using his testing methodology, vetted by by him for accuracy, and revised/updated/retracted at his discretion. The VE numbers are also subjected to experimental imprecisions due to limitation of timing measurements. Those numbers are not simple "facts"; they are educated estimates derived from testing under a certain model assumption. If you really have read his blogs, you should also realize that he is concerned about their accuracy, and want to dig deeper and research further before declaring them good for wiki projects like this or BG wiki--before they can be considered "facts". (Welcome to the scientific method.) Even if you don't wish to respect the wishes of someone who has contributed so much to FFXI player base, at least understand the nature of those enmity numbers before you demand they be put on this wiki.

If you mean the model, all the major points are there on the page already. That model is not a "fact", either; it's a model which can predict game behavior very accurately--at least more accurately than previously listed models. Thus, useful, and so listed. --FFXI-Itazura 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed the point entirely. Not sure where you got the idea that I wanted the enmity numbers included on this page. I never even mentioned them, and I don't want them to be included unless verified (see the Enmity Numbers page). I wasn't even really talking about the enmity page, but pages in general. This was just used as an example. You seem to be quite fond of Kaeko's enmity research, and I admit that I am too. The research is well theorized, well executed and well documented, and as a scientist that's all I like to see. All I said was this page shouldn't be focused on Kaeko, but on the results we get from his research. And I do respect players who contribute so much to the community as I respect everyone else, but that doesn't mean I will accept their wishes if they are counter productive and keep the community from learning new things that might aid them in understanding the game. If someone discovers something revolutionary, writes about it on his page but says that this information may not be used in certain online communities, then that's just retarded for two reasons. First, as soon as this information gets out in the open, everyone knows about it, can reinterpret it and republish it. And second, such a person actually tries to slow down the learning progress of the whole community, which is not only dumb but disrespecting and insulting. And again, this is not about Kaeko, I'm talking about that stuff in general. So in short, even if the discoverer of something doesn't want it published on certain places, he's got nothing to say about it. Zaphor 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want you guys to here this from me as to why I asked not to have the "facts" posted on wikis at this point... I make a good number of ninja edits to my blog all the time concerning this enmity stuff. I really fear people seeing something I wrote and then immediately putting it somewhere else because if I end up editing it, there could be some other site with still has bad or contradicting information. This can get especially bad on an information database like this wiki. One example of this was one of the original tests regarding Foe Sirvente Ashira and I did turned out to be wrong, but it was still posted for a few days on my blog. It was translated by some Japanese blogger and still floats around on various Japanese Wikis and BBSs despite the fact that information was proven false like months earlier. In my opinion, if you were to post all the details of the model I have developed here, you would not be posting "game facts", but a fluid and constantly changing (and updated) model. This isn't like someone finding and posting the store TP formula here... any number I get isn't actually a real value you can read in game (like say TP gain), but just a quantified representation of a MODEL developed through experimental testing. That being said, when I asked Itazura not to post my findings on this Wiki, it was about 2 weeks after I had just posted all the original major findings. As someone that does a lot of "sciency" work, I know it's generally necessary to make sure your testing stands the test of time and scrutiny before it's considered remotely accurate - if not that, at least just sit on it for a bit to see if you made any glaring errors. Changing the entire wiki page based on 1 person's work that's 2 weeks old is not a good idea, so I asked that everyone just hold off back then. That was like 9 months ago, and that's why I was so vehement about not posting the exact details of this here. I was not trying to "hold back" player knowledge, but safeguard the chance I screwed up big somewhere. I still personally do not feel enough has been experimentally proven to be worthy of Wiki, but if you want to make that case, at least it makes sense to now (but certainly not when I asked for this not to be detailed here 9 months ago). - Kaeko

If a good amount of the information is disseminated from another source, but is not a direct copy, then the original source should be cited as research. If it's just a question of a copy and paste with a few word changes, then we should probably remove it, as it is then not an "original work". Paraphrasing is acceptable, but I think we can be intelligent enough about whether or not someone's ideas are being used without their permission. If someone else doesn't get to it first, I'll take a look at the original (since you were so kind to link it above). If ours is too close to the original, then it'll have to be revamped, as you suggest. Otherwise his blog can be cited as a research source. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a grey area between "original work and/or research" and in-game facts. We need to differentiate between the two. Elmer's translations of Japanese periodicals or websites should be credited somehow, I suggested to Elmer that he add his info himself, which he agreed to so that someone from Alla, BG, KI, or anywhere else doesn't just copypasta it somewhere else and say "Hey guys look at this" whether they were claiming it's theirs or not. Stuff like in-game facts about job abilities, monsters, NPCs, quests/missions, etc are just that...facts. They do not need to be cited, the addition of these is noted in the articles history revisions. A good example would be: The effect of Treasure Hunter comes into play as soon as the Thief generates enmity from the target enemy. This is a fact, it's been stated by Square-Enix. Nobody can claim ownership or demand a citing for an addition like this. Whomever added it to the article is accredited by the article's history, that's where it stops. --User:Charitwo/Sig 14:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, unlike facts that are easily seen, such as with SE statements regarding Treasure Hunter, or the fact that bees drop beehive chips, enmity is a grey area subject where not much is immediately obvious. The information in the enmity article would not be there if this person had not gone and done this research to give us these concrete statements on the enmity model. As such, his efforts deserve citation if we are using them in our definitions. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to clarify what I said early, I think what is there now fits what I was saying perfectly. I wasn't saying put all his tests in there, or even the numbers. The description of the types of enmity and their interrelation was sufficient. If people want more in depth analysis, we refer them to the original researcher, which was done by citing Keako's page at the bottom. In this way, we have provided the community with sufficient information for them to understand the true nature of Enmity, and provided them with links to the underlying research for further information. Ultimately, the table showing the values may go in there, or somewhere else on the wiki, but that table will contain a note saying where it is originally from giving all credit to Kaeko and his crew. --FFXI-Mierin Talk / Contrib 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the article is succinct enough with it's definitions as it stands now. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just rewrote the article for a number of reasons. First of all, there was too little information on enmity and how it functions, considering what there is to say about it, just some things a player new to the game might want to know and tries to look it up (especially the modifiers from equipment and merits, or the fact that there are enmity related moves and what they do). I kept the information about the two types of enmity, just worded it differently. I don't know if it's better or not, but before it sounded too dictating, and I tried to put up a more neutral approach to this. Also I removed the "About "hate"" section, for various reasons stated above on the talk page. Well, in short I think it was giving a player who's new to this the wrong idea about how "hate" is being used in the community. Can't stop anyone from reverting the article or parts of it, but please share your thoughts on this with me.

Also, I was thinking of including the Hate Reset page in the enmity article, maybe as a subsection of Enmity Control or Enmity related moves, I don't know. Either that or rewrite the page itself, since now it seems a little out of place and unorganized.

One more thing.. I'm not natively english-speaking, so there probably are a lot of things in the article that can be said better. Please keep that in mind when reading the article and edit anything that sounds weird or wrong. Zaphor 08:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Losing Enmity" needs adjusting

A small modification needs to be made to "Losing Enmity" on the main page, but it seems to be a touchy subject so I'm submitting it here for someone else to add, and also doing so because I'm not quite sure how to phrase it properly for the main page. The article says:

Upon zoning or dying, a player will be removed from all monsters' hate lists it was on before. That means the monster(s) won't pursue this player anymore.

In some situations, this isn't entirely accurate. For example, in campaign battles, an allied npc is tanking several campaign mobs. If you directly hit one or more of those mobs (thus changing their name color to red) but don't pull hate onto yourself, and then subsequently die and raise while they are still fighting the allied npc, their name will remain red and they will still come after you. Even if you die, your hate will not be reset until the allied npc is dead and the mobs you hit start going through their "player hate" table as opposed to their "npc hate" table. If you're dead when the allied npc is defeated, the mob will essentially "realize" you're dead, the red name will clear, and your hate will be reset. If you die and raise through whatever means before the allied npc is dead, your hate will not be reset and the mob will come looking for you.

Similarly, zoning will not always work either. If you sleep a mob you're fighting and then zone out, or even log off, if you zone back in, or log back in, before the mob wakes up from your sleep spell, it will still have hate on you. Basically, it was asleep at the time, so it doesn't know you left.

I'm sure there's some technical way to word this for the main article, but I'll leave that to someone who can explain it better and more briefly. --Jakk Frost 08:03, April 24, 2010 (UTC)