Empathetic Fury

[Urim]

SoE has acknowledged pet survivability, and are going to address it (hopefully in a significant manner) in the upcoming patch/exp release.

If you think that .... then i got a bridge to sell ya.

[maxawesome]

No offense max, but I think you totally missed what I was saying. 

I'm not disagreeing with him, I'm not being snitty, or talking about anything lofty.  I'm saying the situation is bad and just by what people you say you can tell something is off.

It'd be like a wizard saying, "boy I wish this buff were castable because it only triggers when my spell lands, but they get resisted so much I can't always use it"  or...something like that.  8P   Fact that people complain about an effect that doesn't work in some situations because some major part of their class is that out of wack.  *shrugs*

If you re-read what I posted, I have called out exactly what you both are saying. I understand that a fundamental part of our class (pets) are "broken" with regards to raid content etc., but what I think is occurring is false bifurcation, whereby we are saying that we have to accept that one or the other is not going to happen.

I think both should happen. I, for one, would love to see this be self-target with pet recourse, for the simple fact that shit happens, and my pet DOES die on great occassion, and generally it is in those rare times that I would love to have added DPS to regain control of the situation.

For those who think I'm drinking my own bath water thinking that SoE will address pet survivability, check out the post from the dev chat. They COMPLETELY dodge all other BST questions, EXCEPT to say that pet survivability WILL be addressed in the patch. We can only go by what they tell us and their history, so I'm sure their changes will be ultimately dissappointing, but its at least a start in the right direction.

And I'm sorry if I read between the lines a bit, Tast, but when people use phrases like "obvious" to describe something that they then claim is "ungraspable" by others....maybe snitty isn't the right word....

-Iidun

[sunkash]

"Really annoying thing about this is that you have to have a pet active to use it."

Still there' something basic I must be overlooking here. As Tast said "EF is basically an upgrade to our BF disc"; so if you're pets not up,
why would we want to use this vs. just clicking the BF disc?

Bestial Fury Discipline
1: Increase All Skills Damage Modifier by 100%
2: Increase All Skills Minimum Damage Modifier by 400%
Duration: 5 ticks
Recast Time: 1530

Empathic Fury
1: Increase All Skills Damage Modifier by 100%
2: Increase All Skills Minimum Damage Modifier by 400%
3: Increase Chance to Critical Hit by 100%
Duration: 5 ticks
Recast Time: 1530

Only only 2 differences I can see between EF and BF is the autocast on pet, and the additional chance to crit; BF is 0 endurance,  EF is 3K End.
So to me, if pet's not up, I'd be better off just using BF, and save the endurance? The 2 discs are also on the same timer?

 I recently seem to have aquired to an inate ability to not see the obvious, and assume I'm overlooking something tival point that make EF without pet more desirable to the old BF.
What am I overlooking?

----
Edit:

" would love to see this be self-target with pet recourse"
Sounds like an exception idea to me; would additionally add that some buffs like Frenzy for instance are self-only and can be cast, and does not switch targets.

"WILL be addressed in the patch. We can only go by what they tell us and their history, so I'm sure their changes will be ultimately dissappointing, but its at least a start in the right direction."
We're heard this old song more than once, last time the difference was not even parseable.;
will have to wait and see on this one, but more expecting very much.

[Tastian]

"If you re-read what I posted, I have called out exactly what you both are saying. I understand that a fundamental part of our class (pets) are "broken" with regards to raid content etc., but what I think is occurring is false bifurcation, whereby we are saying that we have to accept that one or the other is not going to happen."

We don't have to accept it and we shouldn't.  The pet survivability issue is one that is a major problem for several classes that clearly needs to be addressed and as you say sony has mentioned for awhile now they are working on it.

The buff issue is one of code whereby a spell cannot currently recourse onto a pet.  It is more a case of EQ engine and code than anything else.  If it were possible to have the spell hit us and then recourse to pet it would be great and there really isn't a reason to not have it work that way.

One is an issue of game mechanics that need addressing for multiple classes and sony has said they'd address.  The other is a code based issue that we've asked for changes to since before the spell even left beta so many years ago.  Can both be fixed?  Sure.  Do I want both changed?  Yup again.  Will both happen?  No clue atm lol.

"And I'm sorry if I read between the lines a bit, Tast, but when people use phrases like "obvious" to describe something that they then claim is "ungraspable" by others....maybe snitty isn't the right word...."

Lets see an exact quote of what I wrote...

"It's amazing how obvious and clear somethings seem to be and yet seem to be totally ungraspable by others sometimes.  8("

Note where I say "and yet *SEEM* to be totally...".  I'm not saying "OMFG this math stuff is so easy for me, but *those* people don't get it".  I'm commenting not on how difficult these things are to grasp, but rather the almost complete unwillingness of some people to act as though they do understand these basic things.

I even said "how obvious and clear somethings *seem* to be".  That is me saying that many of these issues seem, appear, one might think would be clear and obvious, yet...  blah blah blah.

Seriously, I'm not upset now, but you falsely accused me of something that you yourself say is unlike me and I'm at a total loss.  You didn't even have the right targets in mind when talking about my statement originally as you thought I was on opposite sides of an discussion with someone else in this thread when really I'm on both sides and actually agree with him, and I agree with you too lol.

Boards are funny sometimes and how things get taken interests me a lot because communication can be a struggle.  I'm just at a loss as to how "seems obvious, yet seems they don't get it" can be misconstrued as me talking myself up as some lofty demi-god of beastlord knowledge...although I would wear a T-shirt at fan faire's that said that.  8P

Oh and...

"What am I overlooking?"

There is an upkeep cost for BF, no upfront cost like EF, but a duration cost per tick.  I don't recall the number off the top of my head, so I'm not sure exactly what it is, however, if your pet is down just using BF will yield very similar results because the +crit mod isn't huge.  If pet is alive and biting/whatever, then EF has a more noticeable impact on dps because of the warder's gains as well.  *shrugs*

[maxawesome]

I apologize Tast. I'm not upset either, nor am I trying to make you out to be holier-than-thou. I know you're not, and I know you truly want people to understand the BST class.

Sorry for misconstruing what you said, and I'm also a bit embarrassed that I didn't see who it was to whom you were originally replying. You're an upstanding BST, and I apologize for any vitriol in my previous posts.

I think these things need to happen with regards to EF, in this order:

1. FIX PET SURVIVABILITY. This is a fundamental problem that has given rise to complaints about less significant, and less important problems with pet-related utilities/spells.
2. Change EF to self-target with pet recourse
-OR-
3. Change EF to pet-target with self recourse but do not change targetted entity (a la Frenzy)


-Iidun

[Tastian]

"1. FIX PET SURVIVABILITY. This is a fundamental problem that has given rise to complaints about less significant, and less important problems with pet-related utilities/spells.
2. Change EF to self-target with pet recourse
-OR-
3. Change EF to pet-target with self recourse but do not change targetted entity (a la Frenzy)"

As I say, 1 is a game issue that I seriously hope is going to be fixed or atleast tweaked.  I think my biggest problem with pet survivability is that it falls into the "uhhh do you really get what the issue is?" category.  If they were tweaking the number of hits on the pet rune spells, removing DS from them, adjusting AE ramp % damage or something like that I'd feel much better.  That would show that they are aware of exactly where the issues fall and are trying to balance the changes.  I think most EQ players will allow months for "balancing" changes.  Really though the only "balancing" we've seen is some tweaks to pet heals, the counter cures(which are nice at times) and that has been all.  Like you say, this is a fundamental problem that multiple classes face that actually creates more issues.

2 & 3 on the other hand are both code issues.  When I say say code I mean actual code issues too.  This isn't something scripting will fix, it's not a simple DB change.  It's not even as simple as rash or prath or someone going "yeah that does make more sense".  The EQ engine treats spells/disc differently than AAs and it doesn't allow for recourses to hit a pet currently.  Again, it'd be great if it did and I'd like that as it just makes more sense.  However, when dealing with EQ code I've found some of the things many might think are simple can actually be extremely difficult and time consuming.  hehe

For now with the spells I simply assist off my warder after using and always make sure they are on what I want to be on before using.  It's definitely a workaround atm, but really it's the best we've got currently. 

Oh yeah and not upset either, takes a lot to get me upset lol.  I was just curious because I do find a lot of mis-understandings online stem from one person having a predisposition toward certain words/phrases or whatever and the other sees them differently.  Especially with this position I've tried very hard to phase out any phrasing or word useage I might normally use in favor of what comes across better to others.  There are times where I mis-type(speak) though and I like to try learning from that as much as possible to try to keep those instances to a minimum going forward.  8)

*shrugs*

[Shieara]

The only irritating thing to me about EF is that it can be blocked.  I've run into situations where it landed on my pet, but not on me, and then I basically was out of luck on discing.  At least Fluffy enjoyed it!

The target thing doesn't bother me, but I can see how it would annoy some folks.

[mogtoth1]

The only irritating thing to me about EF is that it can be blocked.  I've run into situations where it landed on my pet, but not on me, and then I basically was out of luck on discing.  At least Fluffy enjoyed it!

I am not sure how you can tell If EF was blocked on you, unless you have something on your UI I dont, as it isnt a cast spell but a Disc with no item on the buffbar.  As it effects combat damage it is sometimes hard to spot the amount it does. Normal sized damage from you could just be a run of low (but EF increased) hits, no noticable extra hits could be just some bad RND numbers and lack of procs could be the same

[Tastian]

The damage shift from BF/EF is sizeable enough that most people can easily tell if it is active or not.  Also if you have the disc window open you can see the duration and even click off the "disc buff" if you so choose.

Not totally sure I read it right though because I think the response was included in the quote hehe.  If I'm off, I'm sorry, but I think I got it right.  8)

[Shamno]

I usually have pet spam on. Though I do hear those who do notice when I disc that my pet spam on crits becomes unbareable *Shrug*

[Shieara]

Hmm...you know what?  EF does have an icon...on your pet.  It looks like a strength icon to me (I still use the old ones, so the arm). Maybe I saw the pet icon and didn't see a similar one on me and thought it didn't land. 

I don't watch my damage.  I have it off the screen and as much of it turned off as possible.  So I might not have noticed.  You could tell if it were blocked though.  When you hit it there is a message...something like "Bob's Warder is consumed in beastial fury."  So if you don't see that for both your pet and yourself then it didn't land.

Edit:  It can indeed be blocked.  Hit protective spirit then hit EF.  Since you are already discing it won't land on you...but it will on your pet.  On you, you will get the blocked message.  I knew I wasn't crazy :P

[Tastian]

"I knew I wasn't crazy"

From a purely scientific point of view your data doesn't prove that you aren't crazy.  8P 

It is in fact possible to have EF on pet and not you though as was mentioned using prot spirit first will block the recourse onto you.  Old annoyance that I'm not sure ever got commented on.  Will have to mention that again. 

[hakaaba]

It also works with resistant  :|

Nothing like a totally gimp disc to waste a halfway decent one.

[Kroshx]

I have BF up on my default hotkey bar, and EF on the secondary. I don't know the key combination to press anything on the secondary bar, and usually when I'm told to go offensive I press for my default bar. It's only after I realize I have a pet that I can use EF from my second. XD

[dainfrol]

I don't know the key combination to press anything on the secondary bar,...

To change the "key combonation" to use any other hot key bars, you have to go in to your EQ menu, go to options, then (I'm not sure on the tab name) Keys, then pick what group of keys you want to change.  With disc's you don't even need to hot key them.  If you haven't changed your default key settings (which I'm guessing you haven't) the default to use your disc's is ctrl-# of the disc you want to use.