Steps to reproduce failure: Pet class with pet up Using any of these commands /tar %m /dance %m /hug %m All result in "I don't see anyone by that name around here." While these actions still function correctly as always: %m /assist %m /say Look alive %m! /con %m oops does NOT work, instead returns the character con not pet. It is my belief this bug is resulting in several issues that are talked about in these threads: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/targeting-pet-with-a-macro.281671/ https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/tar-playername.281699/ possibly this too: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq...te-raid-ally-npcs-targeted-for-emotes.281724/
Also possibly related? What is this 'updated name' for pet? Patch note from March 9 - Beastlord pets should more consistently display their name as a warder. Existing pets may need to be re-summoned in order to receive the updated name.
That was referring to whatever name had been applied using the "Potion of Companion's Amnesia". The patch note maybe should have said "receive the correct name".
Interesting. I ask because this current change to the way a pet name resolves, would seem to be related to the three threads I mention above. %m correctly resolves to the pet name as do /assist %m, /con %m and /say Look alive %m But /tar %m and /dance %m do not resolve to the correct name, returning "I don't see anyone by that name around here." I tested with explicitly named pet and generated name pet (different characters both necromancers), same results.
For the /target %m, if you have noone targeted would that resolve to your pet, and if you had a player targeted it would resolve to their pet ? and if you had a pet targeted it would simply return that pet ?
Currently /tar %m is broken (or never worked properly). But... Starting with or without a target %m - is always your pet (the person issuing the macro) If we can infer from this (/assist %m) functioning correctly, as expected, that /tar %m should work. (and I am inferring that) SO. Yes it should. As I infer from the above examples, /tar %m should resolve to target your pet. NO. It has never worked that way, with the other commands either. %m is always the pet of the person issuing the macro. So again it resolves to target your own pet. NO. In the same way as above, resolves to target your own pet.
Tested further today. Found a mistake in earlier results concerning /con %m. These don't change my belief that /tar %m, and /emote %m should function as /assist %m does. This is just further up to date test results. Red text incorrect results Pet class (Necromancer DJ - Test Server - Old pet summoned longer than a month ago) Pet (Jebtik) No Target: %m -say 'Jebtik' /tar %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here. /con -Consider whom? /con %m -(incorrect) con results of DJ /con Jebtik -(incorrect) con results of DJ /dance %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here. /dance Jebtik -DJ grabs ahold of Jebtik and dances DJ has pet targeted: /tar %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here /dance %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here /dance Jebtik -DJ grabs ahold of Jebtik and dances Pet has target, DJ No target: /assist %m -targets pet's target /tar %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here Pet has target, DJ has different target: /assist %m -targets pet's target /tar %m -I don't see anyone by that name around here
