Info Needed pets in missions

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by Svann2, Feb 20, 2023.

  1. Svann2 The Magnificent

    A pet cant hold agro when there are players meleeing. You can let it get tons of agro but as soon as a melee player steps in the pet loses its agro and the mission mob will turn to the melee player.

    I know some may think this is by design, but I dont think so. It makes no sense for them to be able to hold agro against casters but not against melee, and Ive never seen a dev support that idea that this is intended. If it is intended then feel free to move this to vet forum.
    Beco, Yinla, Fanra and 33 others like this.
  2. Eaedyilye More stonehive bixies.

    I box 4 mages. Doing missions can be real pain in the butt. Even a mission like Under Siege can almost impossible to beat at times when the mobs solely focus on my mages and totally ignore the pets. Other times, it's one of the easiest missions I ever done. I've always hated anti pet mechanics. (Need them in raids)
    Alnitak likes this.
  3. anonymous_ Lorekeeper

    Sounds like raid behavior leaking over into non-raid content. Question would be if that was intended for some inexplicable reason or if a quest designer just clicked a checkbox without really understanding what it did.
    Ileasa, Quatr, Alnitak and 1 other person like this.
  4. TrueNorth Developer

    Hello! Sorry to hear that you are having issues. To better understand the problem, could you give the names of the mission(s) and or NPC(s) that you are encountering this issue with? Thank you!
  5. Sancus Augur

    One example: When One Door Closes (mission), Mutable Monstrosity. That said, most mission NPCs since EoK exhibit this behavior.

    Pet melee behavior was changed in the 12/9/15 patch:
    Subsequent to that patch, as the note states, only raid content had pet melee tanking disabled. Therefore, behavior in content released prior to that patch (up through TBM) is consistent. Starting in EoK (after that patch), most (but not all) missions had pet melee tanking disabled. Thus far, it's been hard to determine whether it was an unintentional flag inherited from the raid versions of the missions or if it was intentional.
    Yinla, Cassiera, zylle and 6 others like this.
  6. kizant Augur

    Yeah it does seem like pets shouldn't be able to hold agro from melee or casters in missions and raids. Content that you should have a real group for.
  7. Alnitak Augur

    Hmm, i was under impression that such mechanics is actually intended by DPG, and I am very surprised that you were not aware of it.
    I play in the group with beastlord's warder being a main tank. It reliably and solidly holds aggro in static zones, old and current. In the missions up-to and including RoS mobs behave similarly, bosses and ordinary monsters attack the "most hated" opponent, which in my case is beastlord's warder, which reliably hold aggro against the beastlord in melee range, berserkers, bards, mage pets, shooting ranger, rogues. in other words - acts as a reliable main tank. no "issues".

    Starting from TBL the "boss" monsters (non-ordinary) in instanced group missions changed the behavior: if a character (or a mercenary) is within melee range of the monster it will completely disregard pets (tanking warder or assisting mage pets or swarm pets, all the same) and principally attack the character. If that character is not on the top of the aggro list and steps away from the melee range of the monster, than the monster will go back to attacking the most hated target (in my case - the tanking warder)
    Such behavior is similar to raid monster's behavior and is known in conversations as "raid mob flag" or "anti-pet-tanking mechanics", which was used numerous times in discussions on these forums.

    Here is my list of instanced missions I have encounter such "issues" with:
    All TBL missions, all ToV missions, all CoV missions, all ToL missions, all NoS missions.
    All pet-class characters i play with have experienced it: beastlords, mages, nercomancers. None of those pets can hold aggro of a "boss" monster if a playable character is within melee range.

    Such mechanics lead to a development of "pet tanking range fight" mission build-ups, with primary-melee-dps classes being benched such as berserkers, rogues, monks, non-tanking knights. And the beastlords having to resort to casting from a distance instead of meleeing the boss monster, and bards just playing the tunes without swinging the weapons. Warders and mage pets hold aggro just fine against characters at the distance outside melee range.

    A group (box or individuals) with a plated tank as a main tank do not even notice such behavior, due to the tank being in the melee range and tanking and holding aggro anyway, hence "anti-pet-tanking" moniker.
    Ileasa and Xyroff-cazic. like this.
  8. Alnitak Augur

    It started in TBL, RoS and prior had no such "issues".

    P.S. I may have mis-evaluated EoK and RoS situation. I am very certain that TBM mission mobs let pets tank against melee character, and I am very certain TBL mission bosses do not. I burn through EoK and RoS bosses, so I am not certain if they do or do not ignore pets as a rule. To my recollection - they let pets tank, but I maybe wrong on that.
    Ileasa likes this.
  9. Evurkvest Augur

    This is in place to preserve the “holy trinity” and prevent players from being creative and play in odd groups. Not a bug.
  10. Xyroff-cazic. Director of Sarcasm

    How do you know this, and why was this policy to preserve the "holy trinity" silently changed after The Broken Mirror expansion? Or did you just make this up?
  11. anonymous_ Lorekeeper

    A player's personal opinion on how they think it should work isn't really a replacement for an official dev response on whether the behavior is intentional or accidental. Historically there have been very few examples of group content with anti-pet tanking mechanics and those few instances made it pretty clear it was intentional. If the design philosophy has changed then it deserves an acknowledgement.

    If it is intentional then it's not a very good implementation of that intent since pet tanking is still possible depending on the specific group comp. As such it seems more likely to be bleeding over from the raid settings.
    Ileasa likes this.
  12. Evurkvest Augur

    Sorry, i should know better. Sarcasm does not function on the internet :)
    Ileasa likes this.
  13. Svann2 The Magnificent

    Ill add that even trash mobs in current content missions ignore pet tank in favor of other melee.
    clarity edit: meaning the trash in the mission but not part of the event. Stuff you kill for collects.
    Yinla, Ileasa, Alnitak and 2 others like this.
  14. Velisaris_MS Augur

    Just to nitpick a bit, that patch message states that it applies to "raid difficulty NPCs", not simply mobs in raids. I suspect that because most missions nowadays (if not all) are just stripped down versions of raids, there's a tag in the code somewhere on the mobs, particularly boss mobs, that triggers the raid mechanic with regards to pets.

    Whether or not that's intentional is what the devs need to address. I just assumed that the pet mechanic was always supposed to apply to missions as well as raids, but now after re-reading that patch message, I think that question needs to be answered.
    Carden, Ileasa and Kendeth like this.
  15. Soapy Journeyman

    I would argue that a group is no less real for lack of a melee tank.
    Hardwater, Moirraine, Ndaara and 7 others like this.
  16. anonymous_ Lorekeeper

    Mostly likely that phrasing is referring to it applying to both raid bosses and raid trash. There are certain raids where it doesn't apply to specific adds or even bosses, though.

    Generally you can tell if the raid mob pet code is in effect by conning the mob and seeing if it gives a "would require an army to defeat" message. Do these group mobs have special con messages?
  17. Alnitak Augur

    Not always. Specific example - names ("rare creature") in ToL Vex Thall. Those names also have "anti-pet-tanking" flags active, though they are typical ToL names, without any remarkable features, no excessive HP, dps, spells etc. Just a common "rare creature" but have that raid mob behavior.
    And those are in a static zone, not even inside the mission. And they do not /con as "army to defeat".
  18. anonymous_ Lorekeeper

    I notice that all but 1 of those have the same names as the old Luclin era raid bosses. Wonder if that was intended behavior or maybe more crossover from the raid versions, like if they duplicated the database entries for the raid versions then simply changed the relevant fields to turn it into a ToL rare.
  19. SteamFox Augur

    The first mission I noticed this on was the Empires of Kunark Lceanium mission "Before the Siege". Notably the 4 "a hunter" sarnak that spawn when you are on the step "Defend Tsaph 0/4".
    https://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/quest.html?quest=8393
    It would be great if pets were able to be viable tanks on most/all missions, not every group has the same comp and allowing a pet to tank can be useful if no real tanks are around.
    zylle likes this.
  20. bard007 Augur

    Static zones pets tank like tanks hold agro like tanks and you can play like a group.
    Instant zones, pets do not tank like tanks, or hold agro, if you are in melee range, the closest person gets agro hit! your bard gets eatten on pull. It took a while to work out what was going on, now all missions/instants are range! making it boring as hell. The DEVs should think about allowing pets to hold agro in instant zones, ... if the mechanic you speak of in raids is pets dont hold agro, why are pet owners always screamed at to control there pets .. lol sounds like the raid zones this is ignored.