Game Mechanics: Shaman pets don't equip weapons!

[Byrjun]

There's zero evidence there, unless you believe links that lead to 404 errors are evidence. I could also provide that same type of "evidence."

And from the random quotes, it appears to just be random people from who knows when guessing about game mechanics.

[Furme]

Just being the devil's advocate here..

But all of his proof says that shammy pets don't dual wield.. with exception to 2 people saying that they don't wield any weapons at all..

I will say I do remember trolling shamans on live around luclin era by buying a blade of firey lamentations and giving it to shammy pets during raids <.<

From what I understood, you could give them one weapon.. and they could proc it.. but they wouldn't dual wield weapons

[Byrjun]

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

Just being the devil's advocate here..

But all of his proof says that shammy pets don't dual wield.. with exception to 2 people saying that they don't wield any weapons at all..

I will say I do remember trolling shamans on live around luclin era by buying a blade of firey lamentations and giving it to shammy pets during raids <.<

From what I understood, you could give them one weapon.. and they could proc it.. but they wouldn't dual wield weapons

[Fri Sep 13 11:13:15 2002] Your Bane of Nife spell has worn off.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober tries to pierce a guard sonic wolf, but misses!
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober tries to pierce a guard sonic wolf, but misses!
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober slashes a guard sonic wolf for 47 points of damage.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober slashes a guard sonic wolf for 53 points of damage.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Taunting attacker, Master.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:17 2002] You say, 'Hail, a guard sonic wolf'

[Fri Sep 13 20:19:03 2002] A small mushroom's skin is rent by shards of velium.
[Fri Sep 13 20:21:59 2002] A small mushroom is stunned.

[Ele]

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

[Fri Sep 13 11:13:15 2002] Your Bane of Nife spell has worn off.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober tries to pierce a guard sonic wolf, but misses!
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober tries to pierce a guard sonic wolf, but misses!
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober slashes a guard sonic wolf for 47 points of damage.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Kober slashes a guard sonic wolf for 53 points of damage.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:16 2002] Taunting attacker, Master.
[Fri Sep 13 11:13:17 2002] You say, 'Hail, a guard sonic wolf'

Post Luclin, almost PoP-era log.

You're going to need to present something that has a date before December 2000 if you want to get this changed now or before December 2001 if you want it changed at all.

[Byrjun]

Your logic makes no sense and at this point I feel as though you're just trolling and nay-saying this thread because you don't want another class to gain an ability they should have.

[Ele]

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

Your logic makes no sense and at this point I feel as though you're just trolling and nay-saying this thread because you don't want another class to gain an ability they should have.

I'm trying to help you form the best bug report you can get in order to support your desired reversal of a decision that has already been implemented. If you review my other posts in this sub-forum you will see what it takes to get things like this changed.

You are wanting to implement a feature that a dev has already removed from P99 (link above, with his reasoning). You have the burden of proof to present evidence contemporaneous with the timeline for this server in order to get things changed. Otherwise, the dev's position stands.

All the evidence you have presented so far is outside the time line of this server, 1999 Launch -> Last patch before Luclin (December 2001).

Your position so far has boiled down to: Evidence from 2002+ shows this being implemented, so it was true for all of classic. Which doesn't add up considering the previous change implemented by the dev in question.

[Byrjun]

Basic logic is evident that the original devs would not have randomly added shaman pets being able to equip weapons during a time that they also stated that they felt they were too powerful. I'm just repeating myself here, but I'll restate some things. You're not going to find evidence of advanced mechanics / tricks from a period where the game was brand new and most people didn't even know how simple things like mez worked. Especially after instances such as necromancers openly recommending for others to give their pets fine steel daggers to reduce the delay, and having that nerfed. Even the person who originally posted the logs of the shaman pet dual wielding went back and deleted his post so this didn't become common knowledge, and that was in 2002. If this was indeed an intended change like you say, where are the patch notes? Where is the proof to the contrary? Why would shamans want this information to be kept secret if the devs themselves had added recently this feature? None of that makes sense, because it's incorrect.

This sort of reasoning is applied throughout our emulator project. For example, can anyone post a screenshot proving that rations cost 2sp 5cp during 1999? Probably not, however we are intelligent human beings who can reason that the price of rations probably didn't change since there was no reason to change a mechanic like that.

[Treats]

Consider. Although we *finally* get superior heal, a level 53 spell will
*not* channel through hits. I will likely find that for most occaisions I
am stuck using Greater because I can at least rely on it casting. The pet
is *weaker* than a Shadowknight's pet (one level higher but no dual wield).
The Poison DoT is 20% more damage. I costs 50% more mana!

Yes it does. The necro pet dual wields. The shaman pet does not
so the damage margin is a bit wider than 7 points.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt....oredirect=true

Necro pets get dual wield at 29. I'm not sure when magician pets
get it. Shaman pets don't get it at all.

All pets get double attack.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt....e1ffd1edcb7a46

[Furme]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

None of those references truly clarify as to whether the wolf pet wields a weapon or not.. They all specifically state that the pet does not "DUAL WIELD".

There are posts from back then that say that pets wield no weapons.. but as was currently stated.. Most mechanics weren't actually known back then and people made guesses..

It could be more like most npcs where the pet would wield the weapon and proc it's effect.. but the attack text would be overridden to say bites regardless.

[Treats]

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

None of those references truly clarify as to whether the wolf pet wields a weapon or not.. They all specifically state that the pet does not "DUAL WIELD".

There are posts from back then that say that pets wield no weapons.. but as was currently stated.. Most mechanics weren't actually known back then and people made guesses..

It could be more like most npcs where the pet would wield the weapon and proc it's effect.. but the attack text would be overridden to say bites regardless.

C'mon, really?

If the pet cannot Dual Wield, please explain how he would be able to equip two weapons?????

The highest pet summoned by a Shaman at 55 DOES NOT auto dual wield, it is way too low.

There would be no other way for these people to know this other than actually GIVING THE PET WEAPONS.

I'm sure it could have been possible that the Shaman pet could wield a weapon, but only one.