Why do you have to screw Tamers at every turn ?

popps

PlayerSkillFTW said:

Seth said:

Another that picks the strongest target.

"Strongest target" is subjective. There are creatures that don't have beefy stats, but are far more dangerous (particularly to the Tamer themself) than beefier creatures due to the abilities they possess, such as Discordance (Satyrs), Peace (Dryads), Necromancy (AoE preventing the tamer from Vetting due to target switching), or Auras (once again preventing the Tamer from vetting). I'd prioritize my pet attacking a Lich, Succubus or Satyr any day over going after a Greater Dragon Paragon.

popps said:

Well, at the very least, the more expert UO players who know well all of the ins and outs of what does not work or works badly with Pet Training abilities, could point out a few "Major" ones which should really get Developers' attention for a fix....

Perhaps, the Developers might not fix any and all not working or mulfunctioning Pet Abilities but a few, highly prioritized ones, they could....

In terms of actual buggy abilities (not just sub-par), Magery Mastery has several bugs with it. MM pets will cast Bless on their opponent rather than themself (A +10-12% buff to stats on a boss is pretty significant), and cast Arch Cure on their opponent. In terms of "sub-par", MM pets will cast Magic Reflection when being hit with Elemental damage, even if the bulk of their incoming damage is Physical (a MM pet will cast Magic Reflection when fighting a Greater Dragon for example, and start taking more damage, even with Consume Damage on them). MM Pets will also start channeling Death Ray at point blank range, even when getting attacked, causing them to waste Mana for nothing, channeling Death Ray also pauses their melee attacks.

What Pawain was referring to, is that Necromancy and Necromage pets will cast Conduit, yet none of their single target Necro spells will chain to targets inside the Conduit radius, so Conduit is bugged for pets.

There's plenty of other examples of abilities either not working at all, or being completely sub-par, such a Crushing Blow not giving extra damage to a pet's attack, and only delivering the 10 Stamina damage to the victim.

There's plenty of other examples of abilities either not working at all, or being completely sub-par, such a Crushing Blow not giving extra damage to a pet's attack, and only delivering the 10 Stamina damage to the victim.

It would perhaps be interesting, and hopefully usefull, to the Developers, if it was possible to make, through the kind help and contribution of expert UO Tamers, a comprehensive list of all Magic Abilities, Special Abilities, Special Moves and Area of Effect which do not function well with pets, either because bugged or sub-par....

Number 1, it would be usefull to many UO players playing a Tamer to know what Magic Abilities, Special Abilities, Special Moves and Area of Effect they might want not to train their pet in, to then avoid problems and underwhelming fighting ability with their pets and, number 2, the Developers could then have a larger picture of what seems not to work with Pets' training....

Perhaps, @Kyronix , you might want to start a sticky Thread inviting UO expert Tamers to give their contribution on this matter and post what their findings are about Magic Abilities, Special Abilities, Special Moves and Area of Effect in pets being bugged, sub-par or in general not working as one would expect ?

ForeverFun

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

McDougle

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

The only issue I'd have with "charging " mana is that it should work correctly if melee weapons behaved in a similar manner there'd be an uproar 

Seth

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

ForeverFun

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

I didn't suggest that for "All Kill"  It was suggested for a new "All kill sticky" type operation.

Seth

ForeverFun said:

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

I didn't suggest that for "All Kill"  It was suggested for a new "All kill sticky" type operation.

Noted, I think they can fix this without costing us anything. For a legendary tamer, I can't see why the pet doesn't work properly as told.

Follow means follow, even round corners.

All kill this guy means this guy only.

He is legendary tamer everyone is talking about...

ForeverFun

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

I didn't suggest that for "All Kill"  It was suggested for a new "All kill sticky" type operation.

Noted, I think they can fix this without costing us anything. For a legendary tamer, I can't see why the pet doesn't work as told.

You're assuming that making "All Kill" behave differently across the board is straight-forward, too. There's a history of undesirable (and likely unpredicted) side effects from changes in this game.

 Imagine if juo'nar decided to kill you at the roof, and never switched targets.
 "Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI"

Seth

Juonar isn't a pet.

I am strictly talking about legendary tamer and its pet. 

For revenants and paragons and bosses that teleport to us or us to them, that is another coding.

ForeverFun

We know it's likely there is a quite a bit of code and AI shared between pets and monsters.
The usage of area effect abilities, and the side effects (aggress change, etc) appears common between pets and monsters is just one example.

Adding more pet context control options, which a "Sitcky" all kill could be included under, would be a good generic change foundational to improving the control over pets.

Pawain

That's why I said good luck after I wrote the basic attacking and following.  I doubt they can fix those.
Since they are all mobs AI.

But magery mobs don't do positive buffs to their targets, me, so why do magery Pets.  And fix the spells that don't work. Make the smart enough to leave EoO on and not turn it off on the next attack.

ForeverFun

Pawain said:

That's why I said good luck after I wrote the basic attacking and following.  I doubt they can fix those.
Since they are all mobs AI.

But magery mobs don't do positive buffs to their targets, me, so why do magery Pets.  And fix the spells that don't work. Make the smart enough to leave EoO on and not turn it off on the next attack.

Yep.  If these were explicit context control options, that all enable new behavior (on the pet), that avoids alot of the "compatibility" problems.  Which spells are used, whether masteries are used, turning off bleed, etc could all be done with new pet context control options.

popps

ForeverFun said:

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

I didn't suggest that for "All Kill"  It was suggested for a new "All kill sticky" type operation.

Rather then based on costing Mana, how about, instead, basing it on the Animal Lore skill of the Tamer ?

If the Tamer has 120 Animal Lore, the command gets "sticky", no matter what.... less Animal Lore, less reliability in the "stickiness" of the kill command for the pet on a set target....

Seth

popps said:

ForeverFun said:

Seth said:

ForeverFun said:

Regarding pet path-finding, and pets easily getting stuck, per Pawain.  I note that pets in "guard" mode will take very aggressive routes to the aggressor when the guarded is attacked.  That includes navigating tricky terrain, going through and around passages (e.g. deceit), etc.  However, the "all follow" appears to be a single straight line pathfinding attempt, which isn't good.  Recommend looking at adopting the same pathfinding used for guard response.

A more aggressive "All kill" that stays on target seems good.  Making this generic default behavior could be problematic, if the logic is copied to monster AI.  Recommend this be a new pet context option instead.  You could also charge a  little mana -- say 5 -- to the tamer for these commands.  (It does require some sort of mental effort, eh?)

There are many prior posts in these forums on the sub-optimal pet AI, usage of masteries, needing more control over pet behavior, etc.  Some of these observations are also noted at the uo-cah.com pet abilities sections.

Why should the tamer crack his brain for 5 mana to ask pet to all kill... Maybe he needs to think of a reason.?

All kill ... err... because I don't like that creature... 5 mana expended. 

I didn't suggest that for "All Kill"  It was suggested for a new "All kill sticky" type operation.

Rather then based on costing Mana, how about, instead, basing it on the Animal Lore skill of the Tamer ?

If the Tamer has 120 Animal Lore, the command gets "sticky", no matter what.... less Animal Lore, less reliability in the "stickiness" of the kill command for the pet on a set target....

No need.

Just have separate codes for pets and monsters. They are already different, who says they are the same?

Does a pet run towards its target like a paragon? 

All kill should perform as intended on a target and pets should be able to follow round corners. If monsters can do it then it proves it can be done - code-wise.

It it's not working as intended, what has that got to do with using mana or other skills to make it work? Why make it more complicated?

Instead of fixing the wheels you are adding more things to it. Just fix the code for the Pet. It's not a monster!

So for every bug we must sacrifice mana or a skill to get it to work?

Come on don't suggest crap. Deal with the problem, not make it worse!

gay

Tamers have it pretty good tbh.

Just kick back, all kill and chill.

Here is tamer POV of a friend of mine if you don't believe me,

Video removed by Mariah due to evidence of exploits used.

He has pretty good gold per hour using a tamer to hunt.

Yoshi

“What game is this with the flat fields and the tree stumps and the health percentages above the heads, and the triple frame rate for faster running speed?
it’s strange because it looks exactly like Atlantic shard, but surely if someone was using a speed hack to run client at triple fps they would be banned”

gay

Yoshi said:

“What game is this with the flat fields and the tree stumps and the health percentages above the heads, and the triple frame rate for faster running speed?
it’s strange because it looks exactly like Atlantic shard, but surely if someone was using a speed hack to run client at triple fps they would be banned”

Weird because the EC legally does the same exact thing, and runs faster.

Double standards though, right @Mariah?

Pawain

If someone would do a comprehensive write up including what different clients can do compared to EC and Pincos.  And email that to Mesanna, she may put out a ruling on them, since the leg work is done.

gay

Pawain said:

If someone would do a comprehensive write up including what different clients can do compared to EC and Pincos.  And email that to Mesanna, she may put out a ruling on them, since the leg work is done.

It's not really relevant because the precedence has been set via the following facts:

• EC was designed to be open source and the devs intended, and made that intention very clear by announcing it, for players to be able to customize the EC.
• the way EC files have been legally manipulated are largely with the same exact tools that pre-date the EC, and they have had no problems with their use to do so as evidenced by the fact that people like Pinco and some others have openly discussed and exampled their use to modify/add art files and such on these forums.
• Nobody has been banned or actioned in any way for client modification in over a decade.

So it's no longer something that's "exploitative" just because the devs (@Mesanna @Kyronix @Misk @Bleak could weigh in and clear the air easily enough) haven't said thr magical words that exempt the CC from the standards set with the EC. It's more of a bunch of nerds stuck on stupid about how rules were enforced 15+ years ago who are desperately clinging to that time, all the while sitting happily content with their modified versions of the EC.

Petra_Fyde

@gay to what 'art files' do you refer? Because although I have created new icons to represent better my macros, I have NEVER altered an art file that appears on the actual playing screen, and I haven't seen any mentioned on this forum that do. Please link to these discussed modifications?

gay

Petra_Fyde said:

@ gay to what 'art files' do you refer? Because although I have created new icons to represent better my macros, I have NEVER altered an art file that appears on the actual playing screen, and I haven't seen any mentioned on this forum that do. Please link to these discussed modifications?

Are macro icons not client sided art that are stored within files?

I would love to go further into details but it's already been done here once already https://forum.uo.com/discussion/comment/73755#Comment_73755 (in your very own thread about modifying artfiles in the EC) and I don't think we need Dipshach coming in waving his "NO EC VS CC DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED" flag around and overmoderating the entire thread into oblivion.

Also, did you post from the wrong account? Asking for a friend.