Improving Pet AI

[imported_revenant2]

<blockquote><hr>

I believe I have internally improved Pet AI.

Here is how the new AI should behave:

Commands:

Guard – The pet should guard as it does currently.
Follow – The pet should follow. It will not attack anything, even if it is attacked. (unless it is guarding)
Come – The pet should walk to. It will not attack anything, even if it is attacked. (unless it is guarding)
Kill/Attack – The pet will attack its target as it does currently.
Stop – The pet will stop attacking. It will not attack anything, even if it is attacked, and may wander.
Stay – The pet will stay where it is currently, and will not attack anything, even if it is attacked. (unless it is guarding)

Note: The pet will revert out of passive mode if the pet's owner dies, if the pet is stabled, traded, player character transfers, player and pet log off, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

These all sound like a huge improvement over the current behavior. I'll make a point to go to test center and mess with it once it's there (could use pet balls and powder as someone else mentioned, though!).

If this is the only big review you intend to do to pet command AI for a good while, you'll probably want to note two further things:

For me, right now, the 'guard' command does not result in the expected behavior when more than 1 pet is out of the stable at a time. When I say "all guard me", and a monster attacks me, only one of the pets will attack the monster back. That one pet will consistantly be the one confronting monsters that attack me, while the other one does not respond to such attacks. When I was looking into this a while back, I found that it didn't matter if I used 'all guard me' or selected 'guard' from the context menu on the problematic pet, the behavior remained the same (my pets names at the time prevented using "petname guard me" because the pets' names all contained spaces).

I've heard some people say that it's related to the order in which the pets are removed from the stable, but I didn't test for this.

It could be that your code changes remove this issue without further consideration needed. The QA team will want to be certain to check for this behavior though, since it does exist in production right now.

Second thing - - someone else mentioned this, I'd want to make a further point about it:

Within the new structure of AI you are setting up, it would be most convenient if a pet which has been freshly ressurected is set into a mode where it is "stop" and "follow owner". This isn't a bug fix of course, it's a decision. The tamers would prefer it this way, is all, because fresh rez pets are never combat-ready and the tamer wants the pet to be close to him for several reasons.

I want to make a last point, this is to readers of this thread moreso than to Leurocian...

The way that pets are able to go aggressive on a target that's unreachable on the other side of a wall is a characteristic that is shared by both monsters and pets.

If the means to 'fix' pets doing this, in the absence of a command from the pet owner, would also make monsters behave this way, it's a more terrible idea than you may initially realize.

Nearby monsters that did not see a way to attack you or get to you for some pre-determined period of time would go into passive mode, where they are waiting to see something to attack. For most monsters this would be very bad. Some otherwise-powerful monsters, in certain terrain situations, would even be helpless. Monsters would behave more 'stupid' and seem to 'give up' more. It would moreso affect monsters that have a significant delay possibility in attacking people (not all of them do, but most), In short, changing monsters in this way would overall have extremely undesireable results!

Changing pets this way would also make their effectiveness in combat plummet. Pets would go passive and stop attacking at unexpected times for reasons that would seem nonsensical.

On the monster side, I can't think of a good way to keep monsters properly aggressive and non-exploitable without allowing what amounts to this wall-stacking behavior. The UO monster AI is actually really good right now. It's got a nice variety of sensible behaviors among different kinds of monsters, from headlesses all the way up to Lady M (I can tell that she was a piece of work).

If they've detemined that they can't take this behavior away from pets without either messing up pets or worse, messing up pets plus monsters, then the changes we're getting now seem to be the best choice.

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

pet reverts to stupid mode
* monster 2 eats pet, tamer =

[/ QUOTE ]

While I have reservations about the proposed changes as is, I don't see this happening. Wouldn't it more likely go

* all guard me, all follow me
* 2 monsters spawn
* all kill monster 1
* monster 1 dead,
* all kill monster 2,
* monster 2 dead.
?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. The previous example would not revert to a passive state. That would only happen if a passive command was initiated such as follow. In the previous example, after it killed something, and if it wasnt commanded, and the pet gets attacked, it would act normally and attack the aggressor. Then, of course, the tamer can decide to command it however she desires after that like normal.

[/ QUOTE ]I’m confused; which previous example are you referring to? The example from BadManic that went:

<blockquote><hr>

* all guard me, all follow me
* 2 monsters spawn
* all kill monster 1
* monster 1 dead, pet reverts to stupid mode
* monster 2 eats pet, tamer =

[/ QUOTE ]
or something else?

From your original post at the top of the thread:

<blockquote><hr>

Examples of new macro command combinations:

You can tell your pet to guard while it's following you. This will put it in autodefend mode for itself and its master.

<u>To turn off guarding, tell your pet to stop or kill/attack.</u>

So for passive follow, you could do 'pet name' stop, 'pet name' follow me, and it will ignore attacks on you or your pet.

[/ QUOTE ]Underling is mine.

According to that a kill/attack command turns off guard mode and, if I understand your plan correctly, guard mode is the only mode where the pet will auto-defend. So, in the scenario outlined by BadManic, auto-defend would be off when the first all kill was issued so the pet would not attack monster 2 (the aggressor) as you have described in your response to Petra Fyed.

Do you plan to fix existing bugs and wrinkles in guard mode before making the AI changes?

Also, is there any specific reason that you can not alter the auto-defend logic to ignore enemies that have not damaged the pet rather than eliminating auto-defend from most pet behavior modes?

Finally, if turning off auto-defend is the only change you can implement for some reason could a timer be added that turns auto-defend back on after X number of seconds?

 

[imported_revenant2]

<blockquote><hr>

So issuing a kill command turns off auto-defend. With that in mind the scenarios could run something like this:

* monster 1 spawns
* tamer: all kill -&gt; monster 1 (auto-defend is now turned off)
* monster 2 spawns and kills tamer
* monster 2 now casually dines on defenseless pet

The equivalent PvP scenario would be devastating to a tamer attacked by another player:

* tamer: all kill -&gt; attacker 1 (auto-defend is now turned off)
* attacker 2 reveals and kills tamer
* attackers can now casually kill defenseless pet

There are many situations - lag, disconnect, death - where the tamer might not be able to issue additional commands to a pet.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the same situations which negatively affect a non-tamer player and potentially get them killed, too.

Regarding the PVP aspect, I'd definitely prefer for my pet to stay on target instead of auto-attacking a new attacker. If I want the pet to switch targets, it's only shift-N and click target, assuming the pet is where it can see me (or maybe I have to petball it and do it).

I kinda like the idea that the tamer had better get off a new "all kill" command to protect himself if it's an attacker that he can't deal with himself. The idea of "all kill - target" with no further consideration being viable for PVP has always been a turn-off for me.

 

[DrDolittle]

That’s a good point about how this might effect monsters. I had not thought about monsters.

That may also answer the question of why Leurocian does not want to fix auto-defend itself; pets and “monsters” probably share the same auto-defend code so changing pet behavior would also change monster behavior.

If that is the case then I still say that auto-defend should “turn off” only for a specific period of time rather than forever.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

There are many situations - lag, disconnect, death - where the tamer might not be able to issue additional commands to a pet. To create the potential that a pet will stand there like a lump of dumb meat and make no attempt whatsoever to defend itself while something kills that pet - regardless of the mode or command or whatever - is simply not an acceptable solution.

According to Leurocian’s plan, guard mode is the only command that will allow your pet to auto-defend. However, guard mode has nothing to do with the pet defending itself; it is a command that allows your pet to defend you. There are known bugs and issues with guard mode and, frankly, I have not bothered with guard mode in ages because it is unreliable; the command has been relegated to a secondary macro that is rarely used. I believe that it is reasonable expect guard mode problems to be corrected prior to having our pet’s AI changed in a manner which will make guard mode critical yet no where has there been any hint that guard mode problems might be fixed first.

In any case, neutering auto-defend is not the correct solution to the problem. The correct solution is to fix the inappropriate responses to being targeted. In fact fixing the majority of the problems situations could probably be handled by one simple check; if the entity targeting your pet has not damaged your pet then that entity will be ignored by auto-defend. That one check would eliminate all auto-defend response to something targeting your pet from beyond a wall and situations where the pet was targeted at range by something that does not have a ranged attack.

Like I said, I think it is great that Leurocian is looking at this but I believe that there is a better solution to the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need a simple system that allows us to set how pets behave based on our own requirements. Personally I'd be glad if my pets didn't autodefend at all, as I'd just like the darned things to follow me without hindrance through a dungeon. If I get killed before I issue a a kill command, it's my own stupid fault usually. I don't mind amusing my pets with the odd impromptu dirt nap. It's better than a pet that thinks for itself too much. I have enough smart-arsed RL critters as it is, without my UO ones running rings round me too

But on the other hand, others wouldn't want that. They'd like a pet that could play chess!

I don't want any more timers, unless it's obvious on my display when they'll wear off. Otherwise I can see my tamer cursing mid way through a dungeon, as her pack kittens disperse now they've gotten defensive. Pet AI will never tell my littlest that she can't handle a balron by herself

I'd much prefer commands that work logically.

That might also save us a lot of typing while we explain said commands to other confused tamer boardies lol.

Wenchy

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

That’s a good point about how this might effect monsters. I had not thought about monsters.

That may also answer the question of why Leurocian does not want to fix auto-defend itself; pets and “monsters” probably share the same auto-defend code so changing pet behavior would also change monster behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Monsters and Pets share this same code. At this time, we'd prefer not to make adjustments to that.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

For me, right now, the 'guard' command does not result in the expected behavior when more than 1 pet is out of the stable at a time. When I say "all guard me", and a monster attacks me, only one of the pets will attack the monster back. That one pet will consistantly be the one confronting monsters that attack me, while the other one does not respond to such attacks. When I was looking into this a while back, I found that it didn't matter if I used 'all guard me' or selected 'guard' from the context menu on the problematic pet, the behavior remained the same (my pets names at the time prevented using "petname guard me" because the pets' names all contained spaces).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there were other internal things with guarding that were not working properly. I won't get into the technical details of it, but I just tested having two pets guarding me and getting attacked. Both pets immediately attacked my aggressor, so that appears to be working correctly.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

<blockquote><hr>


Yeah, there were other internal things with guarding that were not working properly. I won't get into the technical details of it, but I just tested having two pets guarding me and getting attacked. Both pets immediately attacked my aggressor, so that appears to be working correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[imported_Trokip]

While you are at it, how about fixing all the problems and nuisances related to pets and not just those related to Pets in PvP. Here are a couple more problems, nuisances.

1. Why do we have to have actual gold in the bank when we stable our pets? why can't it take it out of checks in the bank like everything else?

2. In 2D how about being able to heal your pet by using all parts of its health bar and not just the edges?

3. And again how about having pets go to stay mode immediately after being resurrected, so they don't attack immediately when they have no health to attack with?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort of the changes being made but why does it seem that lately unless PvP'ers complain nothing gets fixed and if it does it is only because it affected PvP. Again don't get me wrong, PvP is an important part of this game and I'm glad it is getting the attention that it is, but how about fixing all the problems related to a certain subject (e.g. Taming/Pets) and not just those that are related to PvP. By comming out with the changes and saying these are on test center is basically the same as saying we are fixing those problems related to PvP and pets and if it helps PvM all the better, and to H&amp;*^ with the rest of the problems. The question should have been, how can we fix pet AI and pet problems not I've already fixed the PvP pet related problems so tough luck on the rest, or then again is there a different Developer for working on PvM problems?

 

[Al Thorin]

<blockquote><hr>

Yeah, there were other internal things with guarding that were not working properly. I won't get into the technical details of it, but I just tested having two pets guarding me and getting attacked. Both pets immediately attacked my aggressor, so that appears to be working correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you -please- have flagging issues looked into in regards to guarding pets?

If I'm not mistaken, attacked pets will flag the owner as agressive, as well as a guard issue where attacking the tamer, and having the pets auto attack can result in the tamer being agressive/crim.

Best example I can think of is to tab a tamer, let the pets hit you, and the tamer gets -all- the flags. I can't rememeber the specifics right now, wether this is as simple as I state, or wether it's the result of more specific conditions. (The RESULT is as simple as it sounds)

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

If telling your dragon/pet/whatever to "all kill" instead of standing hidden in a dungeon somewhere while your pet does it all for you is too "stressful" perhaps you should stick to growing plants and crafting.
---------------------------------------------
the basic difference here is you think of this in a spatial logic mindset in which you are operating a simulation wheras at times-- I like to think of it as a fantasy game at times where my friend the dragon can take over for me. And that is not an insult, that is a capitulation of sorts. We disagree vehemently. Don't take it personal. I want my pet with an intelligence apparently 5 times greater than my characters to be able to deal with protecting me, as it apparently is not only smarter than I am it is bigger and badder than I am and it loves me. You worry about whether that is fair to you. I understand your beef. Understand mine.

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

Keep your stupid political opinions to yourself thank you.

I would never give up my personal liberties or rights for someone else's idea of security.
-----------------------
dear god you apparently have no frame of reference. I wasn't talking to you directly was I. And neither was I political. You people confuse politics with philosophy all the time. You blasted exactly what I said into the mirror image of what you said, meaning you just yelled at me for saying you should do what you just said you would do. Think first, bub. You go confusing politics with philosophy and straight out direct facts with politics you are in for a bad awakening when reality hits.

 

[Guest]

How is it you all can fix every-freaking-thing that is complained about except blatant speed-hacking, duping, and scripts to drink pots, auto attack, etc.!!

 

[Guest]

the pet ball changes are fine but are they also going to make the blue people who peace and discord blue tamed pets flag grey? And also are they to set the flag timer of the pet to be the same as its master because pets on guard turn the tamer red if they are blue to the agressor even if the agressor is grey to the tamer.

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

Correct. Monsters and Pets share this same code. At this time, we'd prefer not to make adjustments to that.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, but is that a good reason to make a change that does not really address the core problem?

There are differences between monster and pet behavior - path finding for example - so there must be some differences in the existing code. Further, the code knows if a particular entity is wild or tame and logic exists that can check things like the range and path to a target so it should be possible to modify the existing auto-defend code to take advantage of that logic for pets only. Failing that, clone the auto-defend code to a new pets-only routine that can be modified as needed. Then have wild creatures use the old code and tame/bonded creatures use the new , pets-only, code.

Just last night I was hunting with one of the new dragons, had issued a kill command and then managed to get myself whacked. With the existing logic my pet continued to defend itself until I could get myself rezzed. With your new logic my pet would have stood there and died to the next monster that spawned. That would not be very bright behavior for a creature that, by it’s intelligence stat, is about five times smarter than it it’s master.

The existing monster/pet AI has been in UO for as long as I have been playing. Yes, auto-defend has problems and it is great that you are trying to address those problems. But wouldn’t it be better to address these auto-defend problems in a manner that does not create new problems?

I program for a living too. I know there are times when you come up with a clever quick fix that looks like it will solve 80% of some problem. Then you discover that the remaining 20% was really the core issue for your customer or that your fix causes other, unanticipated, problems. Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet, let that clever fix go and address the real problem. Usually, in the end, you feel better for having fixed the problem right anyway.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Just last night I was hunting with one of the new dragons, had issued a kill command and then managed to get myself whacked. With the existing logic my pet continued to defend itself until I could get myself rezzed. With your new logic my pet would have stood there and died to the next monster that spawned. That would not be very bright behavior for a creature that, by it’s intelligence stat, is about five times smarter than it it’s master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted from my original post:

Note: The pet will revert out of passive mode if the pet's owner dies, if the pet is stabled, traded, player character transfers, player and pet log off, etc.

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

Quoted from my original post:

Note: The pet will revert out of passive mode if the pet's owner dies, if the pet is stabled, traded, player character transfers, player and pet log off, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, I stand corrected. Sorry. I guess that I had forgotten that point in all the back and forth of the thread.

However, there have been times when, after issuing a kill command, I was attacked but did not die. Often that is the case. As I think I mentioned in another post, I am sometimes forced to beat a hasty retreat to avoid that dirt nap and some amount of time might pass before I can work my way back to my pet. In that situation wouldn’t the pet drop out of guard mode so that it can not defend itself?

You have, clearly, thought about this a lot and covered many possibilities, but the possibility that a pet would ever stand passive and take no defensive action while it is killed is the one possibility that I have trouble accepting.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

However, there have been times when, after issuing a kill command, I was attacked but did not die. Often that is the case. As I think I mentioned in another post, I am sometimes forced to beat a hasty retreat to avoid that dirt nap and some amount of time might pass before I can work my way back to my pet. In that situation wouldn’t the pet drop out of guard mode so that it can not defend itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. In your example, you told the pet to kill something. In that case, it would function as normal, auto defend, etc. It will not become passive unless you tell your pet to follow you, stay, stop, or come. If you want it to auto defend while following you, simply tell it to guard in the same macro.

Btw. There is absolutely nothing to be sorry about. I really appreciate you all hammering this stuff out. Once these changes go on public test center (no promises, yes I have to state that), then we will further evaluate them. I can't stress enough how important your feedback is.

Thanks!

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

Ok. In your example, you told the pet to kill something. In that case, it would function as normal, auto defend, etc. It will not become passive unless you tell your pet to follow you, stay, stop, or come. If you want it to auto defend while following you, simply tell it to guard in the same macro.

[/ QUOTE ]Hmmm… In your original post you had stated; “To turn off guarding, tell your pet to stop or kill/attack”. I took that to mean that if you issued a kill/attack command that command would cancel guard mode. If I understand the rest of your command structure correctly, the only mode that the pet would auto-defend in is guard mode.

So, putting those two points together, it seems that, after issuing a kill/attack command, your pet would no longer be in guard mode and would, therefore, no longer auto-defend. Am I missing something here or misinterpreting the actual functionality that you are proposing?

<blockquote><hr>

Btw. There is absolutely nothing to be sorry about. I really appreciate you all hammering this stuff out. Once these changes go on public test center (no promises, yes I have to state that), then we will further evaluate them. I can't stress enough how important your feedback is.

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]Well, I’m glad of that.

Like I said, I, too, appreciate that you are looking at the auto-defend wrinkles that people have had to deal with for years. I have no doubts concerning your sincerity or desire to address the problems. Considering how long these issues have been around and how unlikely that makes future scrutiny seem, I want to be sure that we get the best possible solution. With your effort I am sure we will get there.

 

[Gildar]

<blockquote><hr>

So this will make it easier to train resisting spells on a pet, so now I can tell it to stay and just cast weaken on it over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]Another reason why pets should always be swinging at opponents within range instead of failing to defend themselves at all (but NOT chasing after opponents that attack them when they are supposed to stay/follow their owner).

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

If I understand the rest of your command structure correctly, the only mode that the pet would auto-defend in is guard mode.

So, putting those two points together, it seems that, after issuing a kill/attack command, your pet would no longer be in guard mode and would, therefore, no longer auto-defend. Am I missing something here or misinterpreting the actual functionality that you are proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

The kill/attack command removes the pet guarding like it always has. It also removes the new passive behavior functionality for the pet as well.

 

[Gildar]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

That’s a good point about how this might effect monsters. I had not thought about monsters.

That may also answer the question of why Leurocian does not want to fix auto-defend itself; pets and “monsters” probably share the same auto-defend code so changing pet behavior would also change monster behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Monsters and Pets share this same code. At this time, we'd prefer not to make adjustments to that.

[/ QUOTE ]Hopefully it can be added to the list of changes sitting on one of the back-burners, though?

 

[Guest]

Whenever you tell your pet "all kill" and target a monster it changes the command from "guard" to "kill" This is what Leurocian meant by "to turn off guarding" in response to another posters question.
The only time your pet wont defend itself from being killed is basically if you tell it to by saying "stay" "follow" or "stop"
I am still not following where you're taking issue with all of this Dolittle.

 

[Guest]

Is it the fact that you have to command your pet to "turn it back on" per se(by commanding attack/guard/kill)? I don't think there's anything they can do about that.

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

Since you are so obviously reading these Mr. Leurocian, you guys are going all out right now. Good job. Now tell Tim to blow some more crap up.

 

[BadManiac]

Since we still haven't had a straight answer to this, I'm going to ask in a very clear manner, for Leurocian to answer.

* I order my pet to guard and follow me, it will now autodefend itself.
* I tell my pet to attack monster A, pet now in attack mode, autodefend mode is off.
* Pet kills Monster A, Monster B spawns and attacks pet, I DON'T give my pet any commands.
* What does pet do? Will it just stand there ignoring Monster B chewing it to death?

 

[Gildar]

<blockquote><hr>

Since we still haven't had a straight answer to this, I'm going to ask in a very clear manner, for Leurocian to answer.

* I order my pet to guard and follow me, it will now autodefend itself.
* I tell my pet to attack monster A, pet now in attack mode, autodefend mode is off.
* Pet kills Monster A, Monster B spawns and attacks pet, I DON'T give my pet any commands.
* What does pet do? Will it just stand there ignoring Monster B chewing it to death?

[/ QUOTE ]Leurocian said these...
<blockquote><hr>

In the previous example [Gildar: Previous example is referring to a command to kill, followed by monster death, followed by monster attacking the pet], after it killed something, and if it wasnt commanded, and the pet gets attacked, it would act normally and attack the aggressor.

[/ QUOTE ]
<blockquote><hr>

The kill/attack command removes the pet guarding like it always has. It also removes the new passive behavior functionality for the pet as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
<blockquote><hr>

Ok. In your example, you told the pet to kill something. In that case, it would function as normal, auto defend, etc. It will not become passive unless you tell your pet to follow you, stay, stop, or come.

[/ QUOTE ]

That says in a way that is very clear to me that in your example, the pet would be in non-passive mode, therefore fighting Monster B.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Since we still haven't had a straight answer to this, I'm going to ask in a very clear manner, for Leurocian to answer.

* I order my pet to guard and follow me, it will now autodefend itself.
* I tell my pet to attack monster A, pet now in attack mode, autodefend mode is off.
* Pet kills Monster A, Monster B spawns and attacks pet, I DON'T give my pet any commands.
* What does pet do? Will it just stand there ignoring Monster B chewing it to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The pet will attack monster B.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

That says in a way that is very clear to me that in your example, the pet would be in non-passive mode, therefore fighting Monster B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

 

[BadManiac]

<blockquote><hr>

No. The pet will attack monster B.

[/ QUOTE ]Good, thank you.

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

The kill/attack command removes the pet guarding like it always has. It also removes the new passive behavior functionality for the pet as well.

[/ QUOTE ]Thank you for clarifying that point.

It would seem that there was some confusion on what situations actually trigger the “passive behavior” (i.e. auto-defend = OFF). In your original post it appears that auto-defend = ON is tied to guard mode. If a kill/attack command turns off guard mode that would seem to imply that kill/attack would also turn off auto-defend.

I had also made note your reply to JC’s question of… <blockquote><hr>

Also, what happens if a pet kills a target. Currently it will revert to following you. So does this mean if you tell it to attack something, it will kill it and then just follow you again, ignoring anything else that is hitting it?

[/ QUOTE ]Your reply was…<blockquote><hr>

Once the kill/attack command is initiated, it should behave how it does currently.

[/ QUOTE ]As JC specifically mentioned that current behavior was that after the kill/attack the pet would revert to follow mode, and follow mode was listed as a mode where the pet would not auto-defend, that reinforced the impression that a kill/attack command left your pet passive.

So my understanding was that kill/attack would leave your pet in a passive state and I specifically stated that understanding that in my posts and my primary objections were based on that understanding. Judging from some other posts, I was neither alone nor the first in reaching that conclusion.

Anyway, a clear and unequivocal statement that issuing a kill/attack command will NOT leave your pet in passive mode after the battle completed is - in a way - important new information and it would be helpful to have that added to your original post so that it could present a clearer picture of that aspect of your plan.

Thanks again for clearing that point.

 

[Frarc]

Will this fix the problem too that your pet runs away when its near dead? In this case the pet will always die cause it steps away from the tamer who was trying to heal him with bandages.

 

[imported_Drowy]

When you are improving Pet AI, is there a chance to change how pets and summons act to provocation?
Its anoying when you for example provoke Monters at the Dark Father and all summons and pets stop attacking him until you give the attack command again.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

When you are improving Pet AI, is there a chance to change how pets and summons act to provocation?
Its anoying when you for example provoke Monters at the Dark Father and all summons and pets stop attacking him until you give the attack command again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Today on my sandbox, I tested a fix for this. I'm going to submit my fix so QA can verify it. We'll keep you posted.

 

[imported_Sarphus]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

When you are improving Pet AI, is there a chance to change how pets and summons act to provocation?
Its anoying when you for example provoke Monters at the Dark Father and all summons and pets stop attacking him until you give the attack command again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Today on my sandbox, I tested a fix for this. I'm going to submit my fix so QA can verify it. We'll keep you posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWESOME!

You just hit another major pain point for tamers.

GJ Sir!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you are improving Pet AI, is there a chance to change how pets and summons act to provocation?
Its anoying when you for example provoke Monters at the Dark Father and all summons and pets stop attacking him until you give the attack command again.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Today on my sandbox, I tested a fix for this. I'm going to submit my fix so QA can verify it. We'll keep you posted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AWESOME!

You just hit another major pain point for tamers.

GJ Sir!

[/ QUOTE ]

And my archer...

 

[John Galt]

On a guilded character in felluca if you tell your pet to kill something and it does then you wait two mins your pet will turn from green to blue and get hit by your guildmates withers eqs ect...

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

On a guilded character in felluca if you tell your pet to kill something and it does then you wait two mins your pet will turn from green to blue and get hit by your guildmates withers eqs ect...

[/ QUOTE ]

Only red guildies or blues too?

the Guard command forces the green tag. (another available Option)

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Since we still haven't had a straight answer to this, I'm going to ask in a very clear manner, for Leurocian to answer.

* I order my pet to guard and follow me, it will now autodefend itself.
* I tell my pet to attack monster A, pet now in attack mode, autodefend mode is off.
* Pet kills Monster A, Monster B spawns and attacks pet, I DON'T give my pet any commands.
* What does pet do? Will it just stand there ignoring Monster B chewing it to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this particular question was answered but this might be an easy way to remember whether auto defend is on or off. I believe that trigger all depends on the last 'on/off' command the pet was given.

e.g. telling a pet to follow then to guard you, the last 'on/off' auto defend command that was given, guard/on, will be the active value. The pet would still follow you, but will still auto defend.

+1 e.g. telling a pet to follow then to kill, the last 'on/off' auto defend command that was given, kill/on, will be the active value. I believe the pet would return to following you after the kill, but the auto defend would be on(from the kill command).

 

[Uthar Pendragon]

What are the chances of getting Current skill/max skill added to the animal lore gump? i.e. the Greater dragons have variable caps once tamed and well not everyone tames their own pet or in my case did not track my pets pre tame stats to know what his after tame caps are. Now I will never know his caps until he hasnt gained in forever and assume he has reached his max training potential. plus it would help with bragging and selling pets that are at higher skill levals.