Attacking pets EAT the exp

[Kelta]

So, apparently, pets that attack will consume the exp gained from the monster killed based on the amount of damage it did. (ie: if it does 100% of the damage, you will gain 0% of the exp.)

Now why is this unfair? Well, put it this way. Lets say you were in a party. You would get half of the exp,e ven if you did none of the work.

Although, you probably want to argue that, "but if you are out of share range, you still don't get exp!" And while i agree with that, i also have to remind you (the people making the decision) that WE built that pet up. WE obtained the tame for the pet, WE risked our life to get that pet to not hate us, and WE established a strong friendship with that pet. And finally WE got the equipable item that allows the pet to attack in the first place. We did all the work, and spent all the money to bring the pet to a stage that it can attack for us. So all that we ask is that we get at least -some- of the pet's exp.


Now how much of a percentage, i'll leave up to you. I personally think 50% is fair game. Because in a party you are gaining 50% of the exp -anyways-


If you are completely against this, please state a reason why.

[Motenai_Ronin]

uhm well how it works is if you are solo with your pet, you get the exp for the damage you cause the monster, the pets damage does not get exp for you (homuncs work this way too I believe)

Soo that's the downside to having a pet to aid you is it means less exp for you, that's just the way its always been. So if you are exp-hogging egg your pet.

If you party with someone and have the share set to each take it works the same way, you get the exp you get out of your share.

(Note in a party exp of an enemy gets jacked up a little bit due to party boost, so its not as less, but still less when split up)

[BlueAlchemy]

Homunculus works the exact same way, except they eat job exp instead of base.

still I agree with Motenai, if people had pets that didn't eat exp, people would basicly become dependant on them for experiance.

[GM-Ayu]

What the others said. They aren't meant to be tools to level with as a attacking partner, thus they sap your exp. Trading extra power with decreased exp gain, you just have to make the call then.

[Rei Ayanami]

pets if i am not mistaken was originally introduced more for a decoration and therefore never mentioned to be used to act as a supporter to the player. thats why it never been coded to share exp with its owner.

aside from that, unlike homonculus pets cannot be targeted by a monster let alone be killed. to rephrase that: the monster locks on to the player, not the pet.

granted that yes they are costly, i disagree strongly on the exagerated difficulty on obtaining and gaining high intimacy. intimacy is just time and money consuming. difficult? not at all. the only danger you have is if you play ro like the korean guy who died from playing starcraft too much or jumping off a building from frustration.

obtaining the pet and equip, well there are so many taming packs around now i could hardly say its difficult getting a hand on a tamer and equip. not like the old days when getting a pet like a sohee, or an alice means calling the guild together to kill moonlight flower and golden thiefbug or evil snake lord several times. oh god i hate snake lord, irritating slimy thing.

[Wallee]

Lets give unkillable homu...I mean pets to everyclass !!!!

[Firenotes]

It stops rediculous leveling techs with your pet. Have you ever seen a novice attack somthing until there pets starts attacking and then trick dead? The monster stands there and gets killed by the pet while the novice (or any character with hide) does nothing but wait for certain death to the mob. If pets were able to be attacked and had hit points then id say yes turn on some exp share. Otherwise it would be broken.