Pet Tanking Raid Mobs

Keep in mind my guild does not and I'm in no way or shape "jealous" and I'm NOT calling for pet nerfs ...but I have to ask. WHY is this even a viable strategy?

Sure, it's fun to point and laugh when you hear about "x" guild winning a raid via pet tanking but I think at this point in the game that it shouldn't even exist.

They still bypass pretty much every detrimental tank effect known in the game (the reason SS2 was changed to disallow it), on top of that they have a ridiculously large amount of hp that almost promotes this kind of awful strategy. I say awful because it cripples any melee you might have in your raid

Inb4 "lawl u just hate pets" etc etc etc. I don't think anyone really cares that pets can already tank better than most (group) geared tanks in the group game, the issue is that they're tanking -raid- mobs...with no real explanation as to why it's continually allowed.

Whoa, adding a mechanic to a raid to disallow pet tanking sure isn't a nerf ---unless you're pet tanking raids. Where did I mention that the pet itself should be nerfed? No where.

You've missed the point entirely, I think. Maybe mentioning SS2 wasn't enough to bring it into focus, but what I'm saying is why are pets allowed to tank RAID mobs (essentially gimping mechanics/scripts) when there are clearly ways to prevent this without nerfing the pet itself.

Reading comprehension is pretty neat, maybe you guys ought to google that so you at least know what it is.

Oh there's the common and typical reading comprehension argument. I knew it would show up. It usually does when your argument falls apart.

Let me spell it out for you. It's a nerf call. You're doing it on the boards to get attention. If you really didn't want attention you would just message a dev like we've been told to for years. Let's look at reading comprehension for a moment, if you "fix" (we'll use that word so you don't have a nervous breakdown) raid targets in such a way, it is still a nerf to pets. Much as if they decreased the damage taken from secondary weapons would be a nerf to dual wielding classes. It's indirect, but still a nerf.

No. Don't lock this stupid thread. It is not a call to nerf anyone's pet.

OP: Can you provide specific examples when you say, "They still bypass pretty much every detrimental tank effect known in the game"?

Leave the pets as they are. Nobody's nerfing any pets. But if they are dodging effects that would harm player characters, then the effects should change. That would be a bug and corresponding exploit.

Posting exploits would be against the forum rules.

Why would a raid guild want to turn all of its melee into range DPS, thus dramatically lowering the guild's overall DPS? That just seems silly to me.

In before the lock!

Devs can't be bothered to tweak raid encounters. They're busy creating Marketplace polymorphic items with sparklies. Money talks. Bs walks.

Later!

When the devs don't want something pet tanked - they make it very clear. Try to pet tank the boss in the Chapterhouse raid for a shining example (bravo, Elidroth!).

Other than that, why bother with a repeat of the Kiting Raid Mobs debate? Pet tanking is just as legit or not, depending on your point of view. But it's not illegal and has never been declared an exploit by the devs.

Explain to me how it's a "nerf" to pets, I don't recall tanking raids ever being part of a pet's intention and/or design

Why did I post this here?
Because I sincerely wanted to know why it's still viable in today's game. Do I want pets nerfed? Nah, I stated that a few times already but hey...obviously you're dead-set on calling this a nerf. Comparing decreased damage on secondary weapons to pets being disallowed from tanking RAID EVENTS is rather silly, they're not even remotely related.

Does every raid encounter have to be the exact same mechanics?? It's only legit if a warrior tanks the boss and is healed by a cleric?? Anything else is an exploit?? I like the fact that in EQ you can think outside the box and come up with different stragities to beat different encounters. Soooo leave it alone and be thankful that EQ still allows ingenious ideas once and awhile.

Pet tanking is legit and in and of itself, is not an exploit. Learn reading comprehension skills, please.

Raid mobs' effects unintentionally not affecting pets would be a bug. Using a bug to defeat an encounter is the definition of an exploit.

Explicit, I play a mage since 10 years and I'm very surprise when I read what you wrote. Let me explain : a mage pet can't tank a raid mob ! Why ? A mage is always played by a lazy player (I know I'm in), we play mages because we can go afk while we pretending grouping and raiding. I fact we are most of the time afk while pet is doing the dirty work.
Saying a mage pet is tanking a raid boss means the guy playing the toon is paying attention, focusing in heal, tricks, buffs, and all annoying stuff you need to do when you raid for real.
So it means some other player is playing the mage, perhaps some officier. So the true call is not to nerf mages BUT making dumb theses casuals mage players !!!!

Kearis, the colapizza Mage
True Everquest Mage

LOL, you're my hero Kearis

I did explain. They were related, you just don't care to acknowledge it because it doesn't help your argument. It's a nerf. Maybe an indirect one, but a nerf it still is.

Pet tanking is a problem and definitely should be addressed some way, maybe have raid con mob just ignore pet until they re the last ones left in the aggro list.

While not an exploit, they definitely said it wasn't intended but had no way to counter it "yet".

Decreased secondary weapon damage would carry over into group content and nerf a wide variery of classes. Having a raid mob banish a pet or whatever other mechanic there is would only affect pets on that particular raid -- obviously not carry over into group content.

If you can call that a nerf, really.

He isn't asking for a nerf to pets. He is asking that there be certain mechanics that limit or impair the ability for a raid mob to be tanked. by pets While I read the subject line and sighed, the post isn't something to get all up in arms over. I think we can all figure out the difference in what he is asking for.