Pet changes

[SoDPlayer]

A quick test run.

Zone; Pet spell; mob name; consider; mob's health remaining after it ate my pet.

Just a simple pet summon and burnout IV:

Eastern Wastes; Envoy of Shiritri; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 85%
Eastern Wastes; Defender of Sihala; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 85%
Eastern Wastes; Lieutenant of Tarhyl; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 75%
Eastern Wastes; Chosen of Shojar; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 86%

Companion Health III; Companion Strength IV; burnout IV:

Eastern Wastes; Envoy of Shiritri; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 83%
Eastern Wastes; Defender of Sihala; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 85%
Eastern Wastes; Lieutenant of Tarhyl; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 78%
Eastern Wastes; Chosen of Shojar; an orc forsworn; dark blue; 78%

Apparently I was fighting two different orc forsworn's, so I am going to run the test on a more static mob and return with results.

All of the following fights were against a static mob:

No pet focus; Burnout IV

Eastern Wastes; Envoy of Shiritri; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 75%
Eastern Wastes; Defender of Sihala; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 70%
Eastern Wastes; Lieutenant of Tarhyl; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 57%
Eastern Wastes; Chosen of Shojar; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 78%

Companion Health III & Companion Strength IV; Burnout IV

Eastern Wastes; Envoy of Shiritri; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 74%
Eastern Wastes; Defender of Sihala; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 55%
Eastern Wastes; Lieutenant of Tarhyl; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 51%
Eastern Wastes; Chosen of Shojar; a frost giant watchman; dark blue; 60%

Conclusion:

Some NPC's eat through pets, and others do not, just as it was before the changes.

Mage root is barely enough to /camp with.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Being able to down 4 mobs in a row with just a couple debuffs is not balanced, charm risk isn't very big if you know what you're doing.

Charm xp does not work that way!

Changing how long your pet can last before you have to get one doesn't do at all what you want it to do here. Charming a new pet versus keeping the old is a hassle, but you're casting the same spell for the same mana cost--the only functional difference is that you have to haste and tash the new pet, and it takes a little time to do that. It also chews up more spawns, which again is a pain in the ass but doesn't actually do anything other than be an irritant.

Essentially, you can't endanger a charming enchanter by throwing more dps at his charm pet. It's not how charm fighting works. He will always be able to find more mob to put between you and him. Aggro is what kills enchanters. If I can't hotswap between my old pet and my new pet when the old one hits 0%, that's what kills me--not the fact that the mob was doing extra damage to my shit. What's the point of saying, "oh, you have to switch mobs more often so there's less mobs up but otherwise it's pretty much the same"? And for that matter, did charming get ridiculous since 2.0 that it deserves a nerf? It seemed to me that no cheal hit charming pretty hard, and this makes solo charming a bunch more annoying when it was never that good to begin with outside of ridiculous stuff like sseru from way back in the day.

Moreover, a 5~ level swing for mobs is a Very Big Deal. A level 58 mob can gobble up level 53 mobs like candy, but so what? Wizard AEs can gobble those same mobs, and ranger arrows, and every other way players use to kill monsters, but nobody cares because level 53 mobs don't bank much xp at all. So really, the whole "you cant use your level 64 spell to kill level 53 mobs efficiently" thing doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Wiz]

wizard AEs will use infinitely more mana to gobble up 4 level 53 mobs than a single cast of charm + debuffs

also you're ranting and not explaining why a nerf to attack speed that's applied to charm mobs for over a year is suddenly unacceptable

 

[Thinkmeats]

Ok, have some results to post.

Charmed (a plaguewracked puma) lvl 57? Hasted - Visions of grandure (60 chanter haste).
Target is (a plaguewracked scoprion) lvl 54 or less. Slowed - Forlorn deeds (57 chanter slow) & Crippled.

Puma is able to kill one and be around 40%. Before the bug fix, he was about to kill 3 or 4 with only haste.

Without slow and cripple on the target the charmed puma dies with the target scorp being under 20%.

Being able to down 4 mobs in a row with just a couple debuffs is not balanced, charm risk isn't very big if you know what you're doing.

Is what I was posting about.

Edit: Also, not infinitely more mana, though they do use more. You don't just toss tash, charm, haste, and slow+crip and then wait. You could, but it would take a retarded amount of time for anything to die. There's generally roots, mezzes, recharms, nukes, etc. Wizzies use more mana but are safer, the usual tradeoff.

The only real metric that matters are 'how fast you pull in xp/cash', with risk being factored in because wipes take time. Beating up lbs and low-dbs charmed hasn't been awesome (or even all that terribly good, especially solo) since sseru.

 

[mortuflious]

I haven't played yet but one benifit from this I can see if lower level bard charms. As a bard soloing with charm it becomes hard when your mob breaks the charm and then chases you down with his speed plus selos and stuns you until you die. With the charmed mobs dieing quicker there is less chance of this happening and less death for the bard.

with a mage before the change level 28 mage fighting white and blue gargolyes I would have to chain heal the pet and burn all my mana to kill 1. with a 27 druid chain healing pet and mage nukeing gargoyle it dropped with half our mana left. I could see the mage being a little more in need of sow now.

 

[Mjay]

Don't worry, you didn't waste your time, thanks to this thread we all know you're a vindictive little shit who will resort to insults if he can't get staff to agree to repeal a balancing measure on charmed mobs pretty much just because he says to, and then play the victim because those insults weren't well received.

I didn't insult anyone.
I attempted to point out a balanace problem (some players observe it even if you do not).

I have been completely polite and even went so far as to attempt to withdraw from the conversation when I relised you were not going to acknowledge that a problem even existed. As demonstrated in this post:

So basically your just refusing to see the problem.

pfft. ok, fine. It's your sandbox after all.

A confirmation of your attitude toward what I was saying and a statement that you had a right to have that attitude. Even if I didn't agree with the attitude.

Franky sir, your the one who lauched personal attacks toward myself. As evidenced in this most recent post and also this post:

Oh yes Mjay, I was being so very unconstructive when I was explaining why I made the conscious decision to limit the power of charmed mobs.

Clearly the only way to be constructive is to agree with you, and if I don't, hell, I'm just ignoring the problems in my sandbox, aren't I?

Congratulations on being one of a very few people on these forums to ever earn my utter and complete contempt. Grow up and come to terms with the fact that people can and will disagree with you.

I also really like how you quote my obviously sarcastic reply to your extremely insulting remark as the excuse to make that insulting remark in the first place!

furthermore the above post is not accurate, as you did not explain why you made the decision to limit the power of charmed mobs, only stating that you had made the decision. Possibly your comments would be better received if you responded to all parts of a post instead of choosing a line or two on which to comment.

Oh, and you can call me more names if you like, I don't mind.

 

[Thinkmeats]

I didn't insult anyone.

"Correct, why should I be constructive when others are not?" and "EDIT: Decided I'm wasting my time trying. So I'm shutting up now." are what, hugging?

I attempted to point out a balanace problem (some players observe it even if you do not).

I have been completely polite and even went so far as to attempt to withdraw from the conversation when I relised you were not going to acknowledge that a problem even existed. As demonstrated in this post:  A confirmation of your attitude toward what I was saying and a statement that you had a right to have that attitude. Even if I didn't agree with the attitude.

No, you made a point, Wiz disagreed, and you assumed that because he disagrees he's "refusing to see the problem", which doesn't even make all that much sense. You got your and :dumb: over what was originally a productive thread. Wiz and I disagree on charm, often, but there's a big difference between that and what you did.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Oh, and in case you're confused:

Ok, have some results to post.

Charmed (a plaguewracked puma) lvl 57? Hasted - Visions of grandure (60 chanter haste).
Target is (a plaguewracked scoprion) lvl 54 or less. Slowed - Forlorn deeds (57 chanter slow) & Crippled.

Puma is able to kill one and be around 40%. Before the bug fix, he was about to kill 3 or 4 with only haste.

Without slow and cripple on the target the charmed puma dies with the target scorp being under 20%.

I don't know how it's even physically possible you got these results. I just spent a bunch of time testing charm scenarios that I've done so many times they're worn into my eyelids, and I don't see any change from the 'pet bug fix' at all. Unless that bugfix was rolled back when I wasn't watching, nothing has changed. When I was disagreeing with Wiz, I was disagreeing with what he said about the longevity of pets and what is/isn't balanced that a charm pet can chew up x mobs of y level or whatever.

Honestly, you probably just charmed a really dinky puma and happened to fight some best-level scorps. That's the problem you get with small sample sizes.

 

[Wiz]

Saying that the only reason I could disagree is that I'm sticking my head in the sand and refusing to see the problem is infinitely more insulting than twelve pages of whatever cuss words you can think up, particularily in a thread where I was discussing and dealing with an ongoing problem, and taking the time to explain why charmed mobs are weaker after they are charmed. If you don't see how utterly insulting it is to just say that I am being willfully ignorant then that's a big problem for you.

I told you that charmed mobs were limited in power because they are otherwise too much DPS/tanking. How is that not explaining it? Do you require a spreadsheet? The entire basis of your argument was that a charmed mob should be identical to an uncharmed counterpart which has never been the case and will never be the case, and then I was being an ignorant plebian for not seeing the problem with disagreeing with you.

syduck:

 

[xardas]

Honestly Wiz, you can't wait for something good or a mature discussion from someone who finish his/her posts with :

1-Mjay

So basically your just refusing to see the problem.

pfft. ok, fine. It's your sandbox after all.

2-Mjay

EDIT: Decided I'm wasting my time trying. So I'm shutting up now.

and on this one i should say that it's more Wiz who is loosing his time replying...(Wiz you're too much patient in my opinion)
besides mjay...you said you were going to shut up...(your words)...so must be your ghost who wrote the 3rd text i quoted below...

3-Mjay

Oh, and you can call me more names if you like, I don't mind.

Basically Wiz it's what i call "frustration"...he took what you said for personnal attacks...(i wonder if it would be better with smileys)
and untill the "frustration" worns off, it's not going to get anywhere trying to discuss with this person :keke:

 

[nemxx]

So how about them godswords :dumb:

 

[Mjay]

Saying that the only reason I could disagree is that I'm sticking my head in the sand and refusing to see the problem is infinitely more insulting than twelve pages of whatever cuss words you can think up, particularily in a thread where I was discussing and dealing with an ongoing problem, and taking the time to explain why charmed mobs are weaker after they are charmed. If you don't see how utterly insulting it is to just say that I am being willfully ignorant then that's a big problem for you.

I told you that charmed mobs were limited in power because they are otherwise too much DPS/tanking. How is that not explaining it? Do you require a spreadsheet? The entire basis of your argument was that a charmed mob should be identical to an uncharmed counterpart which has never been the case and will never be the case, and then I was being an ignorant plebian for not seeing the problem with disagreeing with you.

Just to be clear, I never said anything about anyones head being stuck in the sand. The only reason I even said sandbox was in ref to the second item on the EULA. It was a way of saying that it's your vision.

As for the basis of my argument, it is: Since the mitigation change charmed pets are substantially weaker. (this is also what I was refering to when I talked about the problem). thus charmed pets need some sort of buffing in order to be servicable again.

 

[Maimai]

You don't have to have your pet tank in plaguelands anyway, you can nuke once, send in pet then tap recall minion 2 every time it gets agro...

My hotkey is:

/alt activate 176
/pet attack

 

[Thinkmeats]

i miss osm giants, they were the best for kiting because their hitbox was insanely huge. MEEEMMMORRRIEEESSSSS

 

[Zhak]

i miss pre-nerf councilor spawn!

 

[Aaubert]

i miss pre-nerf councilor spawn!

/qft.

but yeah, if you're a chanter, and currently pissed off with how charm works, send aalaisia a /tell in game. You're missing the point. I can charm for XP... not as well as i can group for XP... but I can charm decently well in the right zones. Finding the right mobs with the right abilities, and pairing them against mobs that have matching weaknesses... It puts *gasp* strategy into charming.

And if you're dying, then I'd suggest investing time in your Rune AA... its the most powerful rune you can get (more than relic rune), and it doesn't take a component, and has a recast of just-barely longer than the charm.

 

[vistachiri]

Can we get a seperate thread going on chanter charmed pets? It really isn't as far as I've seen a class focus of enchanters anyway, more of a handy perk, and the main point of this thread seems like it would be more about the regular spell pets that 7/11 classes get (bst mag nec ench dru sha sk, probably in that order of importance as well based on the seeming roles of the aforementioned classes, and not counting wiz or cleric pets that most certainly will not be tanking.) whose pet is moderately to absolutely necessary (sk's and shamans being the odd ones out, shaman's being somewhat useful and sk's being only good for pet suicide pulling) for their class to function as anything more than a underpowered version of another class or several. Not even only in relation to soloing either but overall. Not trying to bash any of the points made about charmed pets as I really know not much about them, but it just seems like the entire discussion would be a bit more productive if it weren't more expansive than it already is.

 

[luciferblack]

Can we get a seperate thread going on chanter charmed pets? It really isn't as far as I've seen a class focus of enchanters anyway, more of a handy perk, and the main point of this thread seems like it would be more about the regular spell pets that 7/11 classes get (bst mag nec ench dru sha sk, probably in that order of importance as well based on the seeming roles of the aforementioned classes, and not counting wiz or cleric pets that most certainly will not be tanking.) whose pet is moderately to absolutely necessary (sk's and shamans being the odd ones out, shaman's being somewhat useful and sk's being only good for pet suicide pulling) for their class to function as anything more than a underpowered version of another class or several. Not even only in relation to soloing either but overall. Not trying to bash any of the points made about charmed pets as I really know not much about them, but it just seems like the entire discussion would be a bit more productive if it weren't more expansive than it already is.

I think the shaman pet is a little more "useful" than the druid as shaman get a pet from 34-62 and with the ability to buff and heal the pet while slowing enemies...it's pretty useful... Don't druid's only get one at 55? Hell the shaman pet is probably more useful than the chanter pet although I've never watched the two duke it out...

IMO it's BST MAG NEC SHM (though debatable with SHM and ENC) ENC DRU SHD CLR (and wizards doesn't even really count as a pet)

 

[Thinkmeats]

It really depends on the enchanter. They're close enough that it doesnt really matter what order they're in, kinda like MAG/NEC.

Also this thread was a few days old; the discussion about charming was a derail, and purely academic. It doesn't really need its own thread.

 

[vistachiri]

I think the shaman pet is a little more "useful" than the druid as shaman get a pet from 34-62 and with the ability to buff and heal the pet while slowing enemies...it's pretty useful...  Don't druid's only get one at 55?  Hell the shaman pet is probably more useful than the chanter pet although I've never watched the two duke it out...

IMO it's BST MAG NEC SHM (though debatable with SHM and ENC)  ENC DRU SHD CLR (and wizards doesn't even really count as a pet)

From what I've seen the shaman pet seems to die pretty often, like every few mobs. Druid pets seem to be able to take alot more punishment from simply observation though I'm not sure of the exact numbers and havent seen them duke it out. Of course seeing as a druid pet is usually ds'ed + gets a few buffs and a shammy's is not.. I would say druidpet wins against a sham pet. Both enchanter and shaman pets seem more like emergency countermeasures more than anything. Any time I ever soloed my shaman dot+root was always far more effective than bothering to heal up the pet + take the time to buff him with a million things etc.