Can we not put collectibles in group missions?

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Fian, Nov 26, 2021.

  1. Fian Augur

    Missions have pet taunt logic that basically prevents a pet from holding aggro if another character is within aggro range. Not a big deal for a mage with range dps, but a big deal for a beastlord, and any other melee class that wants to join a group with a pet tank.

    I accept that they want a real tank for a group mission, but when you are farming the trash for collectibles, there really is no reason to require a tank. Let's face it, finding a tank is the hardest part in forming a group these days.
    Skuz and Jumbur like this.
  2. CatsPaws No response to your post cause your on ignore

    Not sure which missions your having the issue with, but seeing as how most missions do have collects its kinda a "you" problem not a "game" problem. ;) I mean they can't have them all just laying on the ground for every collect. That's what makes them an achievement - the actual fact of getting them - be it thru a kill or a ground spawn or however.

    There are already a couple missions that have no collects in them and I avoid those, once done there is no reason to return. So I can see the advantage of having collects in missions.

    Otherwise:

    You can also get collectables thru Overseer and/or buy them in the Bazaar.

    Ask in chat stating all you want from the mission are the collect but others can have the loot.
    code-zero likes this.
  3. Vumad Cape Wearer

    The title focuses on the wrong problem. The pet taunt logic is the problem. There is no reason that a pet shouldn't be held to the same aggro logic as a player. Forcing gameplay to function in a particular manner is a bad idea. Putting a MAG and NEC together and it functioning different than a MAG and BST or a MAG and Rog is not the right way to balance the game. Pet aggro should work the same as merc tank aggro, applying the appropriate abilities for aggro management and etc for the class of the pet.
  4. Fian Augur

    I don't like the pet taunt logic either, but if they take it away is everyone ok with a pet being the MT on missions? I wouldn't personally mind that, but tanks might hate it if the pet is a better tank (not sure if that would be the case).
  5. Skrab East Cabilis #1 Realtor

    It makes it more accessible to a wider audience. There’s mechanics a pet can’t do though.
    Skuz likes this.
  6. Drencrom Beimeith's Supervisor

    Are you talking about live? They removed pet taunt logic years ago. I've been grouping my mage with a bard and ranger for quite a while now, several expansions of content. I regularly kill mobs as they stand practically on top of the group. The only issue is when the ranger or wiz steals agro, which requires going all out and not using silent casting/strikes. There is no pet taunt logic anymore except for those mobs which are tagged raid mobs (Would take an entire army to defeat).

    Hell, I can even do smoke trials with a mage pet.

    There is no pet taunt logic problem.
  7. Fian Augur

    Um, I saw it last night in DN instance. Your above group is doing range dps I assume, where the pet taunt logic is not an issue. This logic only applies to mission instances.
  8. Tucoh Augur

    as a warrior, yes. Eq would be ab etter game if pets and mercs were more capable tanks.
    I_Love_My_Bandwidth and Skuz like this.
  9. Bigstomp Augur

    I don't use pet classes so I cannot comment on it working differently in missions or not. But ideally tank, pet, and merc aggro should work the same mechanically.

    I think tanks should out aggro mercs (a real player should be better than a merc) and the merc (who is meant to be a stand in for a real tank in a group) should out aggro a pet, but the mechanics for aggro should not differ including pets pressing their virtual taunt button if it's turned on.
    Velisaris_MS and Andarriel like this.
  10. Vumad Cape Wearer


    The second partisan mission of ToV in Western Wastes would literally not allow you to complete it if a pet tanked. There was some check that occurred that forced a PC tank to complete the task. There are plenty examples of there being some problem, which presents as part of the intended design, where using a pet as a tank does not work out.


    Why would anyone have a problem with that? I don't see the opinions of a few poorly played tanks as worth consideration for major impacts on gameplay. A SK with weak gear can get out a 2H and hide behind a mage pet to DPS while they catch up on gear. Mage pets are dumb, and will never substitute a true tank for the majority of gameplay. Ego shouldn't be a factor of the game design.
  11. Sancus Augur

    You're partially correct. Shortly after TBM launched, they made it so pets could hold aggro on most NPCs with other PCs in melee range. Raid mobs were excluded from this change:
    However, missions in many of the expansions after this change use the same rules as raid NPCs where pets cannot hold aggro with a PC in melee range. This is applied somewhat haphazardly. In CoV, for example, the Vulak mission does not have that flag set, so pets can hold aggro over melee.

    This may be the result of missions being scaled down raids; oftentimes when they first come out on beta they also give raid timers or have other flags carried over from raids. However, this has been reported a number of times, and it hasn't been adjusted.

    As others have noted, this functions primarily to exclude certain classes from pet tank groups rather than discouraging using pets to tank content. It makes much more sense to stick to the initial intent of only having raid NPCs flagged to use the old pet aggro logic.