Bloodspeaker

Thoughts? Coincidence? Again, entirely irrelevant. I don't form uninformed opinions about such things, much of the time. But perhaps I was trying too hard to explain via implication. Let me try a different tack.

I see absolutely no need to ascribe ridiculous motives to the decision. No, it's not just your opinion. It's apparently fanatically cherished by a great many people. But it's an OPINION. Yes, you're entitled to it... but it's never going to be gospel, until such time as some disgruntled ex-employee writes a tell-all book claiming this was the case, at which point all of you can pat yourselves on your collective backs for being "right all along". You can even form a "drum circle", if that'll help.

At the end of the day, they're still dead. Move on.

To you.

In your opinion. Which is likely to have little or nothing to do with someone ELSE'S reasons for making the decision.

An honest point that still has absolutely nothing beyond a coincidental relationship with the actual reason for the decision.

All of whom would have upset just as many people, for various and sundry reasons.

Irrelevant, if their intent was to maintain the same "balance" the team had previously.

The top? I didn't really get that from their prior comments. More relevant in the overall scheme of things? That remains to be seen. And... you don't? Well, that's you. When you're empowered to speak for everyone else that plays the game, please let us know.

Your peers. And how is this "new" in the game? I saved Statesman from Tyrant ages ago... just like "everyone else".

Funny, I got that feeling around level 40, for the most part.

Lastly, in my opinion, the people who are kvetching about Paragon getting rid of Statesman and assuming it was for purely petty, vindictive motives are the people who can't accept the notion that there was any other reason involved. This is typical in people who make such decisions themselves for the same reasons.

Think on it.

"He slimed me..."

"Great! Save some for me!"

Personally, I'm wondering if the "Stay" command can be reworked to disable pet movement, or "immobilize" them, somehow...

Yeah, I can see how it could be a huge bit of emotional baggage to overcome for some people.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Getting someone to understand the difference between causal and coincidental relationships? That way lies madness.

Or people could, y'know, just get over it.

Actually, as an avid MM player (by far, my favorite AT), I had a bit of a revelation when I first read how the TPN was supposed to work. I wasn't initially sure how well it would function, but thus far it seems to operate "as expected" (from my own perspective, of course).

In short, I started using an "Attack / Passive" macro for my pets. Having read the issues associated with killing camera crews and civilians, I did a bit of "out of the box" thinking, but was still surprised that this actually works. My pets attack my chosen target and nothing else. They never waver, never deviate, never change targets, never give up... until the target is down. Then they come back to me and await further instruction, ignoring any and all other potential targets.

I had finally gotten the behavior I had always expected from my minions: absolute obedience.

Granted, there are drawbacks, the primary of which is no Bodyguard mode. On a melee-heavy primary, such as my necromantic main, this means I'm in the thick of it lacking a key defense. Since I'd learned ways around this a long time ago (many of which depend on the specific secondary and epic pool choices), this wasn't a huge problem.

To be fair, I have not tested this extensively on a Beast Master yet, and I've noted some erratic behavior in the tier 1 pets (wolves) that may make this stance a bit more problematic. Mainly their tendency to charge and attack my desired target, and then run over and... bark at?.. another nearby enemy, thus aggroing it by proximity, before returning to attack the initial, intended, target. They aren't actually attacking/damaging these secondary targets, just... taunting them, apparently.

I'll presumably know more when I've seen if the later pets (mis)behave the same way, even under the attack / passive command. Other folks here who've pregressed farther than I with the set may already be able to experiment with this.

I'd ask who you were playing, but I was a bit out of it for much of the TF; was still shaking the last of the laryngitis I picked up the week before. The only other specific player I knew was on the team was my wife... and I don't even remember which toon SHE was playing.

Because.

Surely you understand this by now...

That will "flush" their aggro list, but if there's a persistent affect hanging around, they'll aggro again as soon as they're put back on either Defensive or Agressive.

As for this starting with the advent of i22, I can guarantee I haven't done a Lambda (or any other itrials, for that matter) since then, so any comments on my part would be speculation.

Insufficient Coping Mechanism detected. Please update/re-install drivers and reboot... really hard.