fixed bugs from the patch June 16

doktoren · 06-25-2009, 02:03 PM

This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th:

Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted.

Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters.

First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message.

Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log:

a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage.

a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi.

Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic.

Azekah1 · 06-25-2009, 05:25 PM

I got a pet monkey, and for some reason it takes like 10s to cast...why would it not be instacast?

havent noticed the pet aoe dying thing yet...

urgthock · 06-25-2009, 05:26 PM

Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote:

This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th:
Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted.
Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters.
First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message.
Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log:
a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage.
a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi.
Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic.

God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats.

Sabutai · 06-25-2009, 05:57 PM

urgthock wrote:

Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote:
This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th:
Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted.
Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters.
First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message.
Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log:
a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage.
a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi.
Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic.
God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats.

no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view.

urgthock · 06-25-2009, 06:22 PM

Sabutai wrote:

urgthock wrote:
Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote:
This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th:
Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted.
Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters.
First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message.
Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log:
a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage.
a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi.
Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic.
God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats.
no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view.

Meh, I read that patch note as "purely" cosmetic.

Armawk · 06-25-2009, 07:38 PM

Sabutai wrote:

no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view.

No I think its obvious cosmetic means having no purpose BUT cosmetic. functional pets are different.

Sabutai · 06-25-2009, 08:30 PM

shaunfletcher wrote:

Sabutai wrote:
no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view.
No I think its obvious cosmetic means having no purpose BUT cosmetic. functional pets are different.

no... this was meant to address deity pets. The fact that when they're out they are subject to AEs and die is not supposed to happen anymore. Which is why when you use the /hide function they are no longer subject to any AEs and do not die. This fix was meant to allow people to have them displayed while making the buff unable to be removed by killing the pet.

woolf2k · 06-26-2009, 08:55 AM

cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty.

like the little mushroom from splitpaw

or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF...

that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs...

regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic?

no.

this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.

people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...

Estean1 · 06-26-2009, 10:44 AM

You have a pet named bambi and are shocked when it dies?

Azekah1 · 06-26-2009, 11:14 AM

Jaine@Nagafen wrote:

this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.
people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...

lol...here comes the termz polize

Sabutai · 06-26-2009, 11:19 AM

Jaine@Nagafen wrote:

cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty.
like the little mushroom from splitpaw
or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF...
that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs...
regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic?
no.
this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.
people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...

regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right?

Use your head man.

woolf2k · 06-26-2009, 11:36 AM

Azekah1 wrote:

Jaine@Nagafen wrote:
this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.
people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...
lol...here comes the termz polize

and you've been cited!

now go change before the Fashion police cite you too... or more like drag you to jail...

woolf2k · 06-26-2009, 11:43 AM

Sabutai wrote:

Jaine@Nagafen wrote:
cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty.
like the little mushroom from splitpaw
or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF...
that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs...
regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic?
no.
this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.
people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...
regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right?
Use your head man.

IRRELEVANT.

cosmetic means NO FUNCTIONALITY...

if pets are not being affected by AE's when hidden yet still provide a function...then that's a seperate issue.

I'm talkin about pets that are in plain sight but are not being affected by an AE because they are cosmetic pets...they provide no function.

and in my opinion that's what that blurb in the update is talking about.

if that's not the case then SOE should clarify.

Thunndar316 · 06-26-2009, 12:32 PM

God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast.

Azekah1 · 06-26-2009, 04:18 PM

Thunndar316 wrote:

God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast.

you mean you didnt put in the AA to reduce the cast time? lolz...

Sabutai · 06-26-2009, 05:11 PM

Jaine@Nagafen wrote:

Sabutai wrote:
Jaine@Nagafen wrote:
cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty.
like the little mushroom from splitpaw
or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF...
that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs...
regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic?
no.
this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass.
people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...
regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right?
Use your head man.
IRRELEVANT.
cosmetic means NO FUNCTIONALITY...
if pets are not being affected by AE's when hidden yet still provide a function...then that's a seperate issue.
I'm talkin about pets that are in plain sight but are not being affected by an AE because they are cosmetic pets...they provide no function.
and in my opinion that's what that blurb in the update is talking about.
if that's not the case then SOE should clarify.

wow irrelevant huh? Cosmetic does not mean no functionality. In the case of the god pets there are 2 sides of it, which should have been addressed with this last update but I guess seem to have fallen by the wayside. 1, if you hide the pet the buff will not drop if you get AE'd, thats how its supposed to work. The cosmetic portion of this spell has been so that people cannot enjoy the graphical nature of these buffs due to the fact they take massive amounts of damage from even the smallest AE.

Soo, you're saying that I should see that as irrelevant because the pet provides a stat increase? Its not a seperate issue unless people like you come here with mindless semantics. Its a cosmetic pet, pure and simple. Sorry if you don't like it but that's kinda how the way its coded, just missed a few in the last update which is all the OP was trying to point out.

doktoren · 06-30-2009, 02:22 AM

To make matters worse i noticed today that Bambi actually AGROES mobs that i run invis by. Put on an invis totem and ran through the skellies in Karnors castle (NOT the named). Without the pet visible no problems. With the pet visible i suddenly get the melee combat bar up.. i feign death successfully.. melee bar doesnt disappear. It is shaded orange as I am not in the combat stance myself obviously.. i just feigned death. 20 seconds or so later.. after a long detour picking up friends.. 20 skeletons pop on Bambi killing it and then turns to me.

I actually retested this crap 5 times cause it seemed so unplausable that the pet would be the reason. Same everytime

CoLD MeTaL · 06-30-2009, 10:35 AM

Thunndar316 wrote:

God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast.

QFE

10s to cast and they must be level 1 with 5 hit points, because heavy breathing seems to destroy them.

(I am still chafed by the fact they made them longer to cast JUST so they could add a waste of AA points to the tree. And no one is going to take that cast reduction option please)

I haven't tested with my 'Squire' to see if he survives a hard glare these days as I gave up casting him ages ago.

liveja · 06-30-2009, 10:44 AM

Sabutai wrote:

Cosmetic does not mean no functionality.

Appearance slot armor is cosmetic. It has no function. That is what the term "cosmetic" means: it enhances appearance, & nothing else.

Anything that actually provides a benefit to the player is not cosmetic.

Yimway · 06-30-2009, 11:26 AM

Wait, some fool hasn't set their diety pet to auto-hide?

06-25-2009, 05:26 PM	#3
urgthock Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Houston, TX. Posts: 1,308	Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote: This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th: Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted. Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters. First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message. Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log: a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage. a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi. Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic. God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats.

06-25-2009, 05:57 PM	#4
Sabutai Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 640	urgthock wrote: Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote: This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th: Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted. Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters. First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message. Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log: a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage. a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi. Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic. God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats. no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view. __________________

06-25-2009, 06:22 PM	#5
urgthock Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Houston, TX. Posts: 1,308	Sabutai wrote: urgthock wrote: Malkavion@Blackburrow wrote: This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th: Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted. Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters. First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message. Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log: a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage. a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi. Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic. God pets are not cosmetic. They buff your stats. no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view. Meh, I read that patch note as "purely" cosmetic.

06-25-2009, 07:38 PM	#6
Armawk Server: Everfrost Guild: Nos Es Rutilus Rank: Tirones Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,240	Sabutai wrote: no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view. No I think its obvious cosmetic means having no purpose BUT cosmetic. functional pets are different.

06-25-2009, 08:30 PM	#7
Sabutai Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 640	shaunfletcher wrote: Sabutai wrote: no, they are cosmetic in the fact that you can remove them from view. No I think its obvious cosmetic means having no purpose BUT cosmetic. functional pets are different. no... this was meant to address deity pets. The fact that when they're out they are subject to AEs and die is not supposed to happen anymore. Which is why when you use the /hide function they are no longer subject to any AEs and do not die. This fix was meant to allow people to have them displayed while making the buff unable to be removed by killing the pet. __________________

06-25-2009, 02:03 PM	#1
doktoren Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 70	This is from the patch notes from the big patch at june 16th: Beneficial spells will no longer fail to cast if you have an object such as a harvest node or non-attackable npc targeted. Cosmetic pets will no longer be killed by AOE from monsters. First one.. erh no.. did you even test that out? Havent been able to find a single non-attackable npc that i could target while casting a beneficial spell. Get the usual "Not a friend" message. Second one from just a minute ago in my combat log: a drolvarg guardian critically aoe attacks Bambi for 55275 crushing damage. a drolvarg guardian has killed Bambi. Now Bambi is my Anasti Sul god pet. I assume its considered a cosmetic pet as you can put on the buff and hide the pet to still get the buff. So choosing to show the pet is purely cosmetic.

06-25-2009, 05:25 PM	#2
Azekah1 Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,887	I got a pet monkey, and for some reason it takes like 10s to cast...why would it not be instacast? havent noticed the pet aoe dying thing yet...

06-26-2009, 08:55 AM	#8
woolf2k Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 845	cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty. like the little mushroom from splitpaw or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF... that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs... regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic? no. this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc...

06-26-2009, 10:44 AM	#9
Estean1 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 308	You have a pet named bambi and are shocked when it dies? __________________

06-26-2009, 11:14 AM	#10
Azekah1 Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,887	Jaine@Nagafen wrote: this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc... lol...here comes the termz polize

06-26-2009, 11:19 AM	#11
Sabutai Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 640	Jaine@Nagafen wrote: cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty. like the little mushroom from splitpaw or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF... that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs... regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic? no. this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc... regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right? Use your head man. __________________

06-26-2009, 11:36 AM	#12
woolf2k Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 845	Azekah1 wrote: Jaine@Nagafen wrote: this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc... lol...here comes the termz polize and you've been cited! now go change before the Fashion police cite you too... or more like drag you to jail...

06-26-2009, 11:43 AM	#13
woolf2k Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 845	Sabutai wrote: Jaine@Nagafen wrote: cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty. like the little mushroom from splitpaw or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF... that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs... regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic? no. this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc... regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right? Use your head man. IRRELEVANT. cosmetic means NO FUNCTIONALITY... if pets are not being affected by AE's when hidden yet still provide a function...then that's a seperate issue. I'm talkin about pets that are in plain sight but are not being affected by an AE because they are cosmetic pets...they provide no function. and in my opinion that's what that blurb in the update is talking about. if that's not the case then SOE should clarify.

06-26-2009, 12:32 PM	#14
Thunndar316 Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,681	God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast. __________________ Sleight of Hand is USELESS

06-26-2009, 04:18 PM	#15
Azekah1 Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,887	Thunndar316 wrote: God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast. you mean you didnt put in the AA to reduce the cast time? lolz...

06-26-2009, 05:11 PM	#16
Sabutai Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 640	Jaine@Nagafen wrote: Sabutai wrote: Jaine@Nagafen wrote: cosmetic pets are just that cosmetic... they do nothing but look pretty. like the little mushroom from splitpaw or the monkey you got for retail pre-order of DoF... that would NOT include diety pets...they provide you with buffs... regardless of whether you can hide them or not... you can hide all pets...does that mean they are alll cosmetic? no. this seems to be a increasing problem with the eq2 population they do not know how to use terms properly and start trying to blur and confuse topics because of it... another example I see is archetype, class, subclass. people are using them interchangably and they shouldn't... archetype is fighter, class is crusader, subclass is palidan... etc... regardless of the fact that when you hide the pet, it is no longer able to be removed from you via AEs right? I mean that would make it so that these things aren't included in the patch notes, right? Use your head man. IRRELEVANT. cosmetic means NO FUNCTIONALITY... if pets are not being affected by AE's when hidden yet still provide a function...then that's a seperate issue. I'm talkin about pets that are in plain sight but are not being affected by an AE because they are cosmetic pets...they provide no function. and in my opinion that's what that blurb in the update is talking about. if that's not the case then SOE should clarify. wow irrelevant huh? Cosmetic does not mean no functionality. In the case of the god pets there are 2 sides of it, which should have been addressed with this last update but I guess seem to have fallen by the wayside. 1, if you hide the pet the buff will not drop if you get AE'd, thats how its supposed to work. The cosmetic portion of this spell has been so that people cannot enjoy the graphical nature of these buffs due to the fact they take massive amounts of damage from even the smallest AE. Soo, you're saying that I should see that as irrelevant because the pet provides a stat increase? Its not a seperate issue unless people like you come here with mindless semantics. Its a cosmetic pet, pure and simple. Sorry if you don't like it but that's kinda how the way its coded, just missed a few in the last update which is all the OP was trying to point out. __________________

06-30-2009, 02:22 AM	#17
doktoren Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 70	To make matters worse i noticed today that Bambi actually AGROES mobs that i run invis by. Put on an invis totem and ran through the skellies in Karnors castle (NOT the named). Without the pet visible no problems. With the pet visible i suddenly get the melee combat bar up.. i feign death successfully.. melee bar doesnt disappear. It is shaded orange as I am not in the combat stance myself obviously.. i just feigned death. 20 seconds or so later.. after a long detour picking up friends.. 20 skeletons pop on Bambi killing it and then turns to me. I actually retested this crap 5 times cause it seemed so unplausable that the pet would be the reason. Same everytime

06-30-2009, 10:35 AM	#18
CoLD MeTaL Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,217	Thunndar316 wrote: God pets should be AoE immune. As is, they are not worth taking the time to cast. QFE 10s to cast and they must be level 1 with 5 hit points, because heavy breathing seems to destroy them. (I am still chafed by the fact they made them longer to cast JUST so they could add a waste of AA points to the tree. And no one is going to take that cast reduction option please) I haven't tested with my 'Squire' to see if he survives a hard glare these days as I gave up casting him ages ago. __________________

06-30-2009, 10:44 AM	#19
liveja General Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 4,793	Sabutai wrote: Cosmetic does not mean no functionality. Appearance slot armor is cosmetic. It has no function. That is what the term "cosmetic" means: it enhances appearance, & nothing else. Anything that actually provides a benefit to the player is not cosmetic. __________________

06-30-2009, 11:26 AM	#20
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	Wait, some fool hasn't set their diety pet to auto-hide? __________________