Magician is just not fun in P99

[PatChapp]

Originally Posted by Zenren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I played a magician in live, up until Luclan, when I finally left the game and I don't remember it being this miserable to play. Sure there was chain summoning, but the agro thing is just absurd. It was absolutely not like this. I feel like a core group of people get to say "this is what it was like" and even though the majority don't remember it being like that, if you have the ear of the emperor that's how it's going to be. Even if, and I say that with a grain of salt, even if it was like this, if everyone on green says they hate it, why keep it? Is it really that important to maintain the integrity of the actual P99 experience, if everyone that's experiencing it is miserable?

I've put my magician away now and I probably wont return unless it's fixed. It just isn't fun to play anymore and I don't see the point of playing if the only way I can efficiently solo is with an earth pet alone. Anyways that's my two cents. I'm sure this has been beaten into the ground, but I just returned and found out about these changes the hard way (mobs killing me because my pet dies and the second pet can't grab agro). Any thoughts?

Mage still pretty fun, chaining pets on overly tough mobs isn't the only way to level. It's still trivial using earth pets anyway,just less so indoors.

[Toxigen]

mages are purely for leveling to 55 and parking in some remote location for raid coths

play any other class

[unleashedd]

dont solo a mmo. next!

[Stonewallx39]

Originally Posted by unleashedd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

dont solo a mmo. next!

^this!

Also wonder if they could buff group xp modifier to incentivize grouping. It’s a little broken that solo xp is the best xp. That was not “classic” in the sense that no one was able to min/max xp like that before we had the knowledge we do today.

[Gustoo]

Only feature I don't care about is that the original PVP implementation of mage pets meant that a mage pet could be attacking a player at a guard, and the guard would do nothing to the mage pet owner (possibly if he was just outside of aggro range?)

But then, if the attacked player hits the pet, the guards would kill the player, based on faction. If player attacking pet was ally the guards would not aggro. I don't remember if they always attack the lower faction person or they just attack anyone they see attacking in their presence. It's been a long time since newbie pvp sadly.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Only feature I don't care about is that the original PVP implementation of mage pets meant that a mage pet could be attacking a player at a guard, and the guard would do nothing to the mage pet owner (possibly if he was just outside of aggro range?)

But then, if the attacked player hits the pet, the guards would kill the player, based on faction. If player attacking pet was ally the guards would not aggro. I don't remember if they always attack the lower faction person or they just attack anyone they see attacking in their presence. It's been a long time since newbie pvp sadly.

Guards should just straight up kill elementals and skeletons. Those things don't belong in civilised areas (wish listing).

[starkind]

The mage pet agro transfer thing isn't something I recall either way.

U should be fighting mobs your fresh pet can taunt off you. Or kiting with an air pet stun.

Get 3 air pets going for an exp grp and it's just amazing lol.

Mages can easily solo, and grp to 60 and are highly desirable pals to have for healers, duos, trios, etc. Even iffff they are horribly broken and wrong on this timeline.

The game is instantly funner when u stop trying to solo all content and give the slower pace a chance by chatting it up or doing quests.

[Zenren]

So my complaint is that I've died due to agro, even when I've been in a group. A few times this has happened. Pet agro is not as it was, at least not as I remember it, and I would like to see where they deduced it worked like this. I don't think anyone is going to be able to provide evidence, because it was literally 20+ years ago and the technology to prove it doesn't exist, nor does the source code, so all we have is opinions and memory. My argument is that enjoyment should be held in higher regard than "perceived authenticity" because one is speculation and the other is factual.

[ReoDobbs]

Originally Posted by Zenren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So my complaint is that I've died due to agro, even when I've been in a group. A few times this has happened. Pet agro is not as it was, at least not as I remember it, and I would like to see where they deduced it worked like this. I don't think anyone is going to be able to provide evidence, because it was literally 20+ years ago and the technology to prove it doesn't exist, nor does the source code, so all we have is opinions and memory. My argument is that enjoyment should be held in higher regard than "perceived authenticity" because one is speculation and the other is factual.

But see, since it likely accidentally got changed with a patch (or else it would have been mentioned) you have to go find some archived useless post where someone acknowledges that pets kept aggro with it not transferring to the caster (who the fug is going to post about something working correctly?).

It's clearly a bug and people defending it just like to be condescending because it makes them feel good for some odd reason

[loramin]

Originally Posted by ReoDobbs [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's clearly a bug and people defending it just like to be condescending because it makes them feel good for some odd reason

Or maybe no one is defending any bug. Maybe they're defending the development process that has worked for over a decade here.

Meanwhile, as a mage who didn't play in classic, I'm curious how this all worked: if your pet died, and you hadn't hurt the mob ... it just went back to what it was doing?