Hot Patch: Monday, February 24th, 2014

[Asap]

Originally Posted by Haynar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And as long as pets can be adjusted without them becoming tanks for raids, they will.

What's the best way to implement this change? Max 4 pets per mob?

[nilbog]

Originally Posted by Asap [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's the best way to implement this change? Max 4 pets per mob?

When we used to kill Dain with 6 mages, the actual caster could perform no action. No pet heals, buffs, anything, or Dain would kill the mage that tried. fwiw.

[Asap]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When we used to kill Dain with 6 mages, the actual caster could perform no action. No pet heals, buffs, anything, or Dain would kill the mage that tried. fwiw.

So if pet tanking raid mobs is classic, why was it nerfed? This is a legit question, not trolling 1 bit.

Edit- you don't have to answer, you don't owe me or anyone any explanation, it's your project after all

[nilbog]

Originally Posted by Asap [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So if pet tanking raid mobs is classic, why was it nerfed? This is a legit question, not trolling 1 bit.

There's a difference in pet tanking raid mobs, and what I said. I wanted to point out that the pets alone would be okay, but as soon as any PC attempted anything to benefit the pets, or detrimental to the npc in any way, the npc would kill the PC.

I don't want to convolute this process at all, just providing some historical data. NPC seemed to always want to choose a PC if it at all possible.

[Asap]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a difference in pet tanking raid mobs, and what I said. I wanted to point out that the pets alone would be okay, but as soon as any PC attempted anything to benefit the pets, or detrimental to the npc in any way, the npc would kill the PC.

Via summoning or just straight up instant aggro?

[Buellen]

Originally Posted by Haynar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With no significant actions done to mob, would like to get pet hate generation so you can sit fairly quick after engaging. Somewhere in 2-5% range of damage done to mob by pet.

Haynar

for completeness sake ill run same test with a thrown dagger as that is far less hate generation than weakness spell. ill post it later when i get it done.

[Buellen]

Hello


Just finished my test on using thrown dagger instead of pulling with weaknes like in my previous post.

zone: qeynos aquducts

Class: enchanter Pet : animation

Pulled mob with a thrown dagger with a missed throw i pulled mob back till animation engaged. I could sit down immediately in mob line of sight without puling agro from my animation.

More info:

Pulled mob with thrown dagger hit for max 10 pts damage. pulled mob back and pet engaged. Had to wait mob was 5 percent to sit down without pulling mob of pet.

[Teerian]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a difference in pet tanking raid mobs, and what I said. I wanted to point out that the pets alone would be okay, but as soon as any PC attempted anything to benefit the pets, or detrimental to the npc in any way, the npc would kill the PC.

I don't want to convolute this process at all, just providing some historical data. NPC seemed to always want to choose a PC if it at all possible.

I'm not sure what era of EQ you're thinking of, but this was not the case for all the way up to Planes of Power at the very least. Beyond that, my memory gets fuzzy due to my slowly losing interest in the game. I was a magician from day 1 of EQ all the way up to the end of Omens of War. I joined a raid guild that ended up becoming the top guild of the server, and I was present for just about every raid done up until GoD/OoW. The last time I checked my mage's /played before quitting, it was (sadly) around the 800 days mark. I don't say this in an attempt to brag but rather to express that I've been around and know a fair amount about the class.

Due to having some of the best gear a mage could have at my disposal, I often went out of my way to solo (and sometimes duo with a warrior friend) targets that most would have deemed impossible or at least not worth the risk. I often succeeded. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that pet aggro here on p99 is absolutely wrong. It's not even CLOSE to correct. If live aggro during late Kunark/early Velious was like p99, I would have failed many of my solo attempts. I likely would not have even stuck with the magician class. I can understand the desire to keep pets from being raid tanks and such, but there are other solutions to that issue besides pissing all over the one class who relies on pets for ALL of their defense and a fair chunk of their damage.

Countless times I chain healed pets and nuked in the same manner I would with a PC tank without stealing aggro from my pet, and even chain-casted pets and had them - newly summoned - gain aggro off of me despite actions taken previously assuming I didn't unload half a bar of mana trying to fry my target. Unfortunately, I can't back my knowledge up with any kind of visual proof as I didn't record things back then (nor do I now really), and I doubt random screenshots showing my pet tanking while I cast would be sufficient proof. Then again, all you've done so far is pulled from your own memories as well. I have to say, though, yours aren't even close to the same experiences I had. Only reasons I could think of that you would have pulled aggro from a tanking pet would be the following:

A) Standing too close to the target. I doubt this one is the case. The way this particular mechanic works on 99 is how it worked on live. If PC and pet are in melee range, NPC will always target PC first.

B) Sitting too quickly after one too many nukes/heals putting you on the threshold of stealing aggro.

C) Healing/nuking too early. As with a PC tank, pets needed time to get some damage in. Combined with B seemed to be a mistake a lot of mages made.

D) Pet taunt turned off maybe?

E) Wonky NPCs. Some targets just behaved oddly. I recall Dain being one of these, so that might be why you had issues with him in particular.

If none of those, I'm not sure why you had issues. All I know is any aggro issues I ever had were usually brought on my my own lack of judgement rather than mechanics. Here on this server, it's the opposite. The current pet aggro mechanic makes the magician class completely unenjoyable, especially when combined with the Kunark era pet experience sharing crap that, like racial/class penalties, should have never have been classic to begin with. If I have to dig up those old screenshots to convince you to fix it, I'll be glad to to exactly that.

[bartly]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a difference in pet tanking raid mobs, and what I said. I wanted to point out that the pets alone would be okay, but as soon as any PC attempted anything to benefit the pets, or detrimental to the npc in any way, the npc would kill the PC.

I don't want to convolute this process at all, just providing some historical data. NPC seemed to always want to choose a PC if it at all possible.

Wasn't it hard capped at any more than 4 people on the hate list and pets were totally ignored?

I know I could pet tank with my enchanter and druid, solo or duo, but in say a full group you had to have an actual tank. Pets couldn't hold a mobs attention with 4 or more people unless the mob was rooted.

I didn't know you could get around the restriction with a group of pet casters who just stayed off the hate list.

[nilbog]

@Teerian:
That's how Dain Frostreaver worked, in probably early Luclin, on eqlive, with 6 mage pets attacking him. That's it. I don't have some type of agenda with it, and went as far as to say I didn't want to convolute the process. Could have been because he's a raid npc, because of the rule of 4, or who knows what. I posted it fwiw.

@bartly:
That seems like a good explanation of what I was describing.