Regarding Necropets in War:
--------------------------


   One of the main issues with pets being used in Wars are simply based on a few things. When taking into
account a player who enters war that may know absolutely nothing of how pet objects work in such a scenario (in this
case, this may be the reader who has either played in many wars or none at all), we can say there are some definite
situations that are up to debate with the overall scope of present War winners and losers to see if this is a case
that is viable and justifiable.)

*Side-note: I have personally fought in many wars, learned many strategies on how to survive and beat out opponents
and usually only found myself in a losing situation if and when time elapsed to finish was diminishing where an
opposing player was using special case scenarios to avoid combat (in this case, hiding behind an undead and creating
shelter traps. Albeit creative, does have an equal and opposite effect of causing grievances since things do not
necessarily look within "scope"). Granted, I have fought many wars during the years I played as a mortal and have
lost, but learned to turn those losses into victories.

  Issues: Undead as 'ablative shielding' in Mage War
--------------------------------------------
#1.) First and foremost, necromancers have an advantage over "mages" to begin with because of the Arena's current
setup being TP2. This means this eliminates the ability for a mage to summon a complementary elemental to assist them
to begin with (which of course, provides an initial disadvantage for mages in a typical 'War' or 'Grand Melee'
setting if they're with/without melee abilities.) So it can be said there are already some segregative issues here.

#2.) Because of what has been previously stated, the way that summoned pets work as objects sets them as an object that
will follow a player once summoned. Meaning that if player A summons pet A before a combat engagement with player B,
then player B engages combat with pet A; however, if player A is in combat engagement with player B, then summons pet
A, then player B will continue in melee with player A until combat engagement breaks. So one can begin to see how
these can create buggy scenarios where in War, player A will summon pet B and will have to force player B into a
situation to "use melee targeting at player A" in order to properly damage player A since player B will remain in
initial combat engagement with pet A due to the current rules of combat. This is also applied with the standard
auto-targetting with mage spells, assuming that the standard blast, E.G. "cast ball lightning" vs. "cast ball
lightning at player A" will cause "cast ball lightning" to target pet A regardless. Of course, in a mage war setting,
the easy work around is to just "cast ball lightning at player A", but then this brings up another topical issue.

#3.) The way that necro blaster pets work has a completely separate function that works entirely different from a
player's ability to "concentrate on a spell". Necropets (both heal/blast) are based on a round-by-round charge
function (which you can see similarly in an item Ruckus coded called "undulating halberd"). Meaning if player A has pet A (blasterpet) out and engages with player B while pet A begins its blaster function targetting player B, pet A can *save* round undead pet charges to complete the blast if and when the player returns. So potentially, player B could flee for 15 rounds, BUT, if pet A has only one round charge left before its blast completion, it can HOLD that charge within memory, and then increment it properly once combat engages and allows pet A to finish its blast on round 16. Example of player vs. pet charge on spellcasting:

Conditions: Bard with playing/singing/speedsong at 100%

Player_B starts concentrating on an offensive spell.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Sonic Blast: ##
*** NEW ROUND ***
<success>
or if speedsong fails to check:
*** NEW ROUND ***
Sonic Blast: ###
*** NEW ROUND ***
Sonic Blast: #
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player_B cast: <success>

A paraphrased POV of pet charge based on tier 3(from player A as a necro, and is NOT explicity declared in terms of
its blasting). Now let's just create some conditions to see what it looks like, afaik, 2-3 is about the standard for
in which it takes for a blaster pet to have blast completion while the necro casts.

Conditions: Tier 3 Blaster Pet
	    Full prime necro casting phantom destruction with 100% Quick Chant
	    static int Pet_A_Charge = 0;
	    if (Pet_A_Charge == 3) { Pet_A_blast(); )

*** NEW ROUND ***
Undead Pet_A concentrates on an offensive spell. (Pet_A_Charge++;)
Player A starts concentrating on an offensive spell.
Phantom Destruction: ###
// (incrementation of charge) (Pet_A_Charge = 1; Pet_A_Charge++;)
*** NEW ROUND ***
Phantom Destruction: #
(Pet_A_Charge++)
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player_A cast: <success>
/* since now Pet_A_Charge meets the condition "Pet_A_Charge == 3", function is called that calls a successful undead blast */
Undead Pet A casts an offensive spell. <success>

*Now, let's consider a scenario where player B (mage) leaves mid-combat while pet A is charging and necro is casting
phantom destruction under the same conditions:

*** NEW ROUND ***
Undead Pet_A concentrates on an offensive spell. (Pet_A_Charge++;)
Player A starts concentrating on an offensive spell.
Phantom Destruction: ###
// (incrementation of charge) (Pet_A_Charge is now = 1; Pet_A_Charge++;)
*** NEW ROUND ***
Phantom Destruction: #
Pet_A_Charge++ // Pet_A_Charge is now == 2)
Player B leaves south.
Player_A cast: <miss> // Miss due to player B object not being in the same room

/* since now Pet_A_Charge is now == 2, imagine player B leaves for 10 rounds, approximately 20 seconds because player B needs to heal. Player B returns to player A's room and gets hit by pet A's blast immediately as the round starts, and players engage in combat again.

Player B arrives from the south.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Phantom Destruction: ###
(Pet_A_Charge++ // and is now == 3 due to static value)
Undead Pet A casts an offensive spell. <success> (Pet_A_Charge is completed and now reverts back to 0)
*** NEW ROUND ***
Phantom Destruction: #
Pet_A_Charge++; (Pet_A_Charge is now == 1 again)
// charges increment again for the undead, etc.


*Now, the final scenario to consider is in 'War' and 'Grand Melee' where there has already been case-scenarios ruled
by wizards in the past that they should not be used in war due to its buggy nature to cause melee combat to directly target the pet.

Conditions: Player A as a fighter/necro combo vs.
	    Player B paladin
	    Pet A Undead tier 3 healpet attached and summonable to Player A
	    Player A has summoned undead before combat engagement

Player A arrives from the north.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player B is in melee with Undead Pet A.
Player B starts concentrating on melee_targetting.
//(Player B is now using melee targeting at player A to shift from attacking the undead to the player)
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player B is in melee with Undead Pet A.
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
// Player B successfully switches targets from Pet -> Player A
Player B is in melee with Player A.
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player A leaves to the south.

//one round of no combat

Player A arrives from the south.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player B is in melee with Undead Pet A.
Player B starts concentrating on melee_targetting.
//(Player B has to retarget immediately in order to fight player A again)
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player B is in melee with Undead Pet A.
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
// Player B successfully switches targets from Pet -> Player A
Player B is in melee with Player A.
Player A is in melee with Player B.
*** NEW ROUND ***
Player A kills Player B for 7700 points!


So on and so forth-- so you see my point here is this is easily exploitable for players to hide behind their pets for
damage while they can heal and blast for their masters while their masters can implore other options. Creative, yes-- balanced, well, I leave this up to debate between admin/staff and players to judge accordingly of the matter.

~Ragnarok the Sanguine





*Player answers in regards to several questions regarding necropets and/or other pets:

*Question posed for Spoon (Fumbles alt) and winner of various war titles:
*"Do you know of at all if elementals can be summoned during war because of TP2?"
  Spoon telepathically contacts you with 'I have not access to all of them i know that the fire one cannot, the
  entity from ring of elemental control cannot and the chaos beast cannot'

*Question posed for previous war winner Zeratuel/Enits:
*"What are your thoughts: if you were fighting a necro in war where you could not fight the necro himself because
  you're forced to fight the pet first?"
  Zeratuel telepathically contacts you with 'If your unable to fight the necro
      before pet dies, it would be wrong imho'
  Zeratuel telepathically contacts you with 'Sure he can use it, but it should
      be on par with mage, druid, culty pets. Where you can pew the master
      directly iirc'
  Myself: right, but the thing is a mage/druid and the sort can't summon pets into war
  Zeratuel telepathically contacts you with 'That would be the fix i would go
      for'
  Zeratuel telepathically contacts you with 'War should be 1 vs 1, not 1 vs
      1+pets'
  Zeratuel telepathically contacts you with 'This is retro, we're not pvp
      balanced'
  Dinadan telepathically contacts you with 'I'm not sure. It would definitely make the game less fun.'
  Dinadan telepathically contacts you with 'My other thought, though, is that
  war is a shitty way to weigh balance issues for a party mud. My focus would
  be on "what makes war fun for the participants involved?" If necro undead's
  blocking ability makes it so much harder for them to be defeated, they
  either need to not block in war or not be allowed in war. For me, though,
  war is a fairly insignificant portion of the game. It's not like WoW where
  PvP is a Big Deal and classes have to be balanced in that light. I'm cool
  with many builds being less viable in war than they are in parties.'