Verant : Please make all Invisibility Spells non-group
meea
spells like SOW and Buffs.
Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
Thanks.
Brimlord
invisible and the pet kills itself.
Dylani
Magi of the 16th Tier of Kelethin
Povar, currently in Freeport
demonik...@demonic.com
m: I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
m: spells like SOW and Buffs.
m: Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
m: Thanks.
Except that you can kill a player's pet by casting invis on him or her.
This costs money, since each pet requires a reagent.
~*Megwedariel Drakonblayde*~ | <= unguilded =>
Wood Elf Warrior of Kelethin, The Rathe (Level 42)
meea
So what solution then..
I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians or allow the
magician to go invis with a pet.
I have seen several times that I would like to cast invis on people and it
is a pain in the but to group up.
If you group is full you have to disband just to do it.
What is the reasoning behind the mages pet suiciding?
Brimlord <brim...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991019152935...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
Mark Rafn
>I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
>
Pets suicide if their master becomes invisible.
--
Mark Rafn da...@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/> !G
When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I
realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just
stole one and asked him to forgive me. -- Emo Phillips
Sylath
group spell in the first place.
meea <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e94P3.11765$OH2.1...@typhoon2.kc.rr.com...
Lokari
>I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians or allow the
>magician to go invis with a pet.
The second one is the best answer, as far as I'm concerned.
>I have seen several times that I would like to cast invis on people and it
>is a pain in the but to group up.
Ditto. If I'm in a full group, we can't invite another in so that I
can invis him for corpse retrieval. It would be nice if I could invis
anyone, and if they could turn the invis off at will.
>What is the reasoning behind the mages pet suiciding?
I can't imagine why pets go poof when the caster is invis.
Programmatically, the pet doesn't *see* the caster, he knows the
caster by a data link. If it was visually based, the pet would go poof
every time the caster went around a corner.
This has always struck me as another one of those really weird design
decisions that Verant makes so many of, which could have been done
much more logically.
RSmith
many Rude people would Blatently stand and cast it on a Pet Class only to
watch his Pet slash itself for 320000 dmg, But then again I had to think
back about 10 patches when Verant announced that this Problem was Fixed ( it
never has been fixed ) , But also if im not mistaken Invis sorta works on
the same Principal as Gate or Group Gates so it wouldnt be too funny to have
a Wizard or Druid being able to cast those on a Troll, Ogre, Dark Elf, or
Necro (in general) and send them to the Middle of Cazic or a Druid Ring.
Matt Frisch
the ether:
>meea <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>m: I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
>m: spells like SOW and Buffs.
>
>m: Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
>
>m: Thanks.
>
>Except that you can kill a player's pet by casting invis on him or her.
>This costs money, since each pet requires a reagent.
Not to mention that if you want to be a dick, you can cast the invis while
the mage is fighting, pet shuffles from the mortal coil, followed quickly
by its master.
Jeff Stephens
away, or to solve disputes. As usual the needs of the many getting screwed
by a few...
meea wrote in message ...
>I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
>spells like SOW and Buffs.
>
>Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
Jim Kennedy
meea wrote:
>
> You're right I forgot about that.
>
> So what solution then..
>
> I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians
All pet users you mean. But that wont happen. Verant goes for the easy
fix on exploits. This was the case here, as was the case with the Eye
of Zomm 'fix'.
> or allow the
> magician to go invis with a pet.
NO, this leads to a major exploit and that was why the pets were made to
commit suicide on master going invis in the first place.
JubJub McRae
>I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
>spells like SOW and Buffs.
>
>Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
>
>Thanks.
>
Not a pet caster, are you.
me
casts invis on you (or vice versa dont remember which one), then both
icons will show, but you will NOT be invis to undead, so basically
your invis to undead would be ruined. This could be taken advantage
of very easily to try to get people killed in places like lower guk
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:27:44 -0500, "Jeff Stephens"
<jste...@iname.com> wrote:
>There were some asses early on who used it on pet classes to make them go
>away, or to solve disputes. As usual the needs of the many getting screwed
>by a few...
>
>meea wrote in message ...
Shortest Barbarian On The Block
book to the PoD. Heck, if they can do it for those, they can do it for bind
and non-group invis/camp...
(A mage I USED to group with insisted on summoning a pet when we were fighting
in dungeons. Damn thing did more harm than good and caused more damage than it
gave at times. Wish I'd thought about having our druid cast camo on him once
(to avoid harassment :P) to show him just how serious we were when we asked him
to ditch the pet in dungeons.)
"How many good omens involve things that come out of a chicken's butt?"
--Dogbert
"One is all that's needed." --Dilbert
Aaron Koolen
turned some of your party members
invisible? Youd have a hard time locating them...How can they become un
invisible?
meea <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kt3P3.11761$OH2.1...@typhoon2.kc.rr.com...
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>> or allow the
>> magician to go invis with a pet.
>
>NO, this leads to a major exploit and that was why the pets were made to
>commit suicide on master going invis in the first place.
What major exploit is this? I find that my pet gets me into all kinds of
trouble, especially in dungeons where they start pacing back and forth
(Could it PLEASE be fixed so that they stay the hell put like they do in
the outdoors?), and since they are nearly invariably lower level than I am
(I advance through level 1-2 of a new spell level so quickly because of the
power of the pet), they attract attention from critters that would normally
ignore me. When I go guardsman hunting in blackburrow, I have to run past
the gimp gnolls and then summon my pet, because trying to drag the pet
through the gimps would get me massively trained.
Invis would not alleviate this problem, so I am wondering what sort of
exploit would be possible.
JubJub McRae
Barbarian On The Block) wrote:
>Possible solution... A yes/no box, just like with destroys and giving your
>book to the PoD. Heck, if they can do it for those, they can do it for bind
>and non-group invis/camp...
>
>(A mage I USED to group with insisted on summoning a pet when we were fighting
>in dungeons. Damn thing did more harm than good and caused more damage than it
>gave at times. Wish I'd thought about having our druid cast camo on him once
>(to avoid harassment :P) to show him just how serious we were when we asked him
>to ditch the pet in dungeons.)
Most mages would INSIST on summoning a pet - without one, they're a
waste of a slot - you're better off with just about anything than a
petless mage. Unfortunately, there are mages out there who don't know
how to control pets, and many groups out there that don't know how to
function with pet classes.
meea
JubJub McRae <mrju...@REMOVETHISPART.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:380d42a7...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:18:02 GMT, "meea" <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I would like to see all lines of invisibility spells made into non-group
> >spells like SOW and Buffs.
> >
> >Invisibility, as far as I can see, has no malicious uses.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
meea
visibility.
Why you didn't mention the exploit since it's not currently exploitable
doesn't help your argument.
Jim Kennedy <jken...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:380D1577...@apk.net...
>
>
> meea wrote:
> >
> > You're right I forgot about that.
> >
> > So what solution then..
> >
> > I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians
>
> All pet users you mean. But that wont happen. Verant goes for the easy
> fix on exploits. This was the case here, as was the case with the Eye
> of Zomm 'fix'.
>
>
meea
The Yes and no box can be disruptive can't it?
Or does it go away when you start moving?
Shortest Barbarian On The Block <kaya...@aol.comRathe> wrote in message
news:19991020032554...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Possible solution... A yes/no box, just like with destroys and giving
your
> book to the PoD. Heck, if they can do it for those, they can do it for
bind
> and non-group invis/camp...
>
> (A mage I USED to group with insisted on summoning a pet when we were
fighting
> in dungeons. Damn thing did more harm than good and caused more damage
than it
> gave at times. Wish I'd thought about having our druid cast camo on him
once
> (to avoid harassment :P) to show him just how serious we were when we
asked him
> to ditch the pet in dungeons.)
>
>
>
>
SirTifiable
meea wrote in message ...
>The Yes and no box can be disruptive can't it?
>Or does it go away when you start moving?
>
easily solved have all yes no boxes (except maybe resurrect) controlled by
the same option that controls trading.
Good luck and good hunting.
SirTifiable
"of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most"
SirTifiable
Aaron Koolen wrote in message <7uirrq$9k19j$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>...
>invisible? Youd have a hard time locating them...How can they become un
>invisible?
>
just hit the AutoAttack button invisibility will drop.
pragmatic
run up and cast invis on a mage, necro, enchanter and it would kill their
pet.
when it costs 1p or more for the component to summon the pet, these classes
rightfull bitched, and it was changed....
"Lokari" <lok...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:380cc79f...@nntp.enteract.com...
> "meea" <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians or allow the
> >magician to go invis with a pet.
>
Lokari
>it used to be this way, they changed it. it used to be a dastardly trick to
>run up and cast invis on a mage, necro, enchanter and it would kill their
>pet.
Yes, I know.
>when it costs 1p or more for the component to summon the pet, these classes
>rightfull bitched, and it was changed....
And, in usual fashion, it was changed the wrong way.
Presumably, the "in-game" logic behind summoning of pets is that the
caster uses *magic* powers to call up and control the pet. The magic
should be independent of the pet being able to actually see the caster
- after all, when the caster goes around a corner, the pet can't see
her, yet doesn't go poof.
However, when invis is cast upon the caster, the same situation exists
- the pet cannot see her. But she is still there, still has the magic,
and should still have control, if the connection is a magical one and
not a visual one.
The fix that Verant should have made, imnerho, is to simply make pets
not poof when their owner goes invis, plus allow anyone to dispel an
invis buff that has been cast upon themselves.
Shortest Barbarian On The Block
waste of a slot - you're better off with just about anything than a
petless mage.
Unfortunately, there are mages out there who don't know
how to control pets, and many groups out there that don't know how to
function with pet classes<<
Our group consisted of...
1 Barbarian Warrior (lvl 18 who plays a necro)
1 HE Druid (lvl 19 who plays a necro and an enchanter)
2 Barbarian Shaman (both lvl 19, one of which plays a necro and an enchanter as
well, unsure about the other)
1 Magician (lvl 17 or 18--our main nuker who was good at nuking)
1 Human Warrior (lvl 17, unsure who else she played)
As you can see, we almost all had familiarity with how to work with pets. Our
mage simply refused to control his. We were hunting tentacle terrors and ogre
guards, back in that little nook, and the occasional skeleton. Trust me, his
pet was NOT needed, and we knew what do to around his pet... Probably better
than he did. ;X
Kay Anders
Shortest Barbarian On The Block
dno...@my-deja.com
lok...@enteract.com wrote:
> "meea" <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians or allow
the
> >magician to go invis with a pet.
>
> The second one is the best answer, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> >I have seen several times that I would like to cast invis on people
and it
> >is a pain in the but to group up.
>
> Ditto. If I'm in a full group, we can't invite another in so that I
> can invis him for corpse retrieval. It would be nice if I could invis
> anyone, and if they could turn the invis off at will.
>
> >What is the reasoning behind the mages pet suiciding?
>
> I can't imagine why pets go poof when the caster is invis.
> Programmatically, the pet doesn't *see* the caster, he knows the
> caster by a data link. If it was visually based, the pet would go poof
> every time the caster went around a corner.
>
> This has always struck me as another one of those really weird design
> decisions that Verant makes so many of, which could have been done
> much more logically.
>
>
while invisible. If the caster was invis, but had a pet which was
whipping up on a mob, he'd be pretty much invulnerable, yes?
This theory is borne out by the fact that ANY invis type spell (invis
vs undead, etc.) kills your pet, even if the pet type doesn't match the
spell type. So it's sadly not even some sort of in-character reason;
just an excuse.
I suppose they could make changes such that whenever a pet attacked
something, its master also went vis, or what have you, but it seems
they like it the way it is now.
(would be fun if you could have a pet while invis in PVP, though ...
hide, let the pet beat on your opponent, once he kills it and is
bleeding after the battle, summon another, sic it in, and invis
again ... not much risk there. )
--
Drew Norris
dno...@my-dejanews.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lokari
>It must have been done strictly so that pet classes couldn't fight
>while invisible. If the caster was invis, but had a pet which was
>whipping up on a mob, he'd be pretty much invulnerable, yes?
You may be onto something there. And I agree that it's not a great
in-character reason.
>I suppose they could make changes such that whenever a pet attacked
>something, its master also went vis, or what have you, but it seems
>they like it the way it is now.
If I, as a druid, whack something and then run like mad to put some
distance between us, that critter can then see through any invis I
might cast after poking it. Apparently some sort of "attention" flag
gets set, which allows it to see through my subsequent invis.
Now, why not set that same attention flag for the monster-caster
relationship when the casters pet engages the monster? The
in-character aspect is still somewhat flakey, but at list it would be
more consistent with other in-game behaviours.
Dorian Brytestar
pet. Fun for you, but not too fun for the other player =)
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 35 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar
<dno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7uqhi6$f7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <380cc79f...@nntp.enteract.com>,
: lok...@enteract.com wrote:
: > "meea" <oes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > >I would say either fix it so you can't cast it on Magicians or allow
: the
: > >magician to go invis with a pet.
: >
: > The second one is the best answer, as far as I'm concerned.
: >
: > >I have seen several times that I would like to cast invis on people
: and it
: > >is a pain in the but to group up.
: >
: > Ditto. If I'm in a full group, we can't invite another in so that I
: > can invis him for corpse retrieval. It would be nice if I could invis
: > anyone, and if they could turn the invis off at will.
: >
: > >What is the reasoning behind the mages pet suiciding?
: >
: > I can't imagine why pets go poof when the caster is invis.
: > Programmatically, the pet doesn't *see* the caster, he knows the
: > caster by a data link. If it was visually based, the pet would go poof
: > every time the caster went around a corner.
: >
: > This has always struck me as another one of those really weird design
: > decisions that Verant makes so many of, which could have been done
: > much more logically.
: >
: >
: It must have been done strictly so that pet classes couldn't fight
: while invisible. If the caster was invis, but had a pet which was
: whipping up on a mob, he'd be pretty much invulnerable, yes?
:
: This theory is borne out by the fact that ANY invis type spell (invis
: vs undead, etc.) kills your pet, even if the pet type doesn't match the
: spell type. So it's sadly not even some sort of in-character reason;
: just an excuse.
:
: I suppose they could make changes such that whenever a pet attacked
: something, its master also went vis, or what have you, but it seems
: they like it the way it is now.
:
: (would be fun if you could have a pet while invis in PVP, though ...
:
SirTifiable
Lokari wrote in message <380f1e2c...@nntp.enteract.com>...
-snip
>The fix that Verant should have made, imnerho, is to simply make pets
>not poof when their owner goes invis, plus allow anyone to dispel an
>invis buff that has been cast upon themselves.
Iirc the reason the pets suicide when the caster goes invisible, is to
prevent the caster from using the pet to attack something while hiding
safely behind invisibility.
I believe any one can dispel invisibility by simply hitting the autoattack
key.
Matt Frisch
<sirtifiable@_REMOVETHIS_mail.wowmail.com> scribed into the ether:
>
>Lokari wrote in message <380f1e2c...@nntp.enteract.com>...
>
>-snip
>>The fix that Verant should have made, imnerho, is to simply make pets
>>not poof when their owner goes invis, plus allow anyone to dispel an
>>invis buff that has been cast upon themselves.
>
>Iirc the reason the pets suicide when the caster goes invisible, is to
>prevent the caster from using the pet to attack something while hiding
>safely behind invisibility.
Which wouldn't work. When you are invisible, or hiding, or camoflaged, or
whatever...players can't see you, but the mobs still can. It simply adjusts
their faction to indifferent to you. This is why if you attack something,
and say, gate to the far side of the zone and cast invis, it will still
find you, even if it cannot see invis.