Roxanne Flowers

Side switching (blue to red like you're advocating for) simply IS NOT DONE. It's an apples to oranges kind of thing. Square peg, round hole ... and all that. The way to increase Horde population on Darrowshire is not to "pirate" characters from the Alliance and "switch" them over to the Horde. The way to do that is to roll new Horde characters on Darrowshire. When I eventually get my current crop of 8 Alliance characters to Level 60, that's what I fully intend to do. I'll just create a second account and roll up 8 Horde characters and play the other side of the game on Darrowshire. Some people think that the endgame is to go raiding ... while others think the "endgame" is to role alts and experience The Rest Of The Game.

Hit ESC Select Video Options at the top Check on Use UI Scale Move UI Scale slider to wherever makes you happy. Play profitably.

/top kek

Shortest possible answer is ... it's not a high enough priority. If it was a higher priority (or even merely a high enough priority) there would have been some action taken by now besides the perpetual Whack-a-Mole approach of asking Players to stop playing the game, take a screenshot, upload that screenshot to an image hosting site, file a report in-game that includes a link to image being used as evidence for the report, WAIT for a GM to have the time to address the ticket to FINALLY take action ... usually hours (if not days) after the offense of gold spamming has taken place. While this system of reporting ... works ... in the sense that it doesn't crash the game when used ... it is a tremendous hassle and waste of time for Players to jump through all those hoops to report obnoxious gold spammer behavior. It's practically a Rube Goldberg way of doing what ought to be a much more simplified and streamlined action. It's "functional" but outrageously cumbersome, with the "burden" of execution placed on the Players doing the reporting AND on the GMs who have to handle/respond to the tickets that get generated. Here's GM Spionida's response to this circumstance. https://forum.elysium-project.org/topic/53170-i-get-too-much- gold-spam/ If it was a higher priority of the project to combat gold spam trolling, better TOOLS for combating it would have been developed and deployed in the last 9 months. The simple and immediately observable FACT that nothing has been done besides the .wr on/off command implementation demonstrates just how high a priority combating unending gold spam is for the project (ie. "not high enough" to do something about it that's better than what we have now). The most obvious functionality would be to implement an anti-spammer feature that nearly all games use now of actually Reporting the offending message via automated tool to GMs for review. Basically Right-Click on the Character name to Report a message to a GM (as spam) and that then pulls the necessary record of the offense, complete with attribution and action buttons, for a GM to view and either quickly take action or take a pass on taking action on the report. Instead of forcing Players to use a Rube Goldberg Device to report the offenses of spammers (4 steps that involve STOPPING PLAY to do), it becomes an easy/painless/simple way for Players to report offenses in a single click that isn't even a speed bump for continuing to play the game. On the GM end, all of those reports go into a bucket and each report record has already recorded the offending text message complete with time stamp/realm info, sender and receiver data and the exact content of the offending message automatically included in the report. Simply add sanction/action buttons on the GM side of things as well as cross-referencing access to their database of offenders who have already been sanctioned (so as to make the GM's lives and jobs easier to do!) and you streamline the whole process to the point where it can actually become EFFECTIVE as a way to weed out spammers nearly as fast as they can automate the creation of new offending accounts/logins. In other words ... lower the "costs" of taking action on the Players who file the reports AND on the GMs who need to process those reports ... so as to "raise the costs" on the Spammers who have been able to act with virtual impunity practically all this time. The fact that automated tools that provide these services to Players and to GMs have not been developed and implemented displays just how high a priority combatting gold spam is on these realms ... which is to say, it isn't a HIGH ENOUGH priority to actually DO something about in terms of better tools and processes than the clearly inadequate ones that we've been using since December 2016.

I know. Not advocating for you to follow in my footsteps here.

Paladins are Alliance Only in vanilla ...? Alliance is Blue Side. Horde is Red Side.

Offer not valid on Red Side.

Still noodling around with this extremely oddball notion of using Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles as a standard rotation for a build, and as always I'm wondering if I've overlooked something (it's been known to happen from time to time). In this case, I'm wondering what would happen if a short casting time spell like Scorch were inserted into the middle of the rotation, creating a Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation. This would lengthen the overall (minimum) casting time for the entire spell rotation from 11 seconds to 12.5 seconds, which would then prevent the clipping of the very last DoT tick from Pyroblast being overwritten on the 11 second rotation cycle. Switching to a Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation, in that specific order of casting, would result in ~6.5 seconds of mana recovery while casting (at 45%) and 6 seconds of mana recovery while casting (at 100%) during the Pyroblast portion of the rotation, for an overall mana recovery from Spirit rate of ~71.4% (barring Arcane Concentration procs which would bump this rate of recovery upward either not at all or only very very slightly). Now, what I find interesting about using this Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation in comparison to the earlier Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles rotation is how the change interacts with talents and DoT ticks. By slowing the overall spell rotation from 11 seconds to 12.5 seconds, Pyroblast's 12 second DoT is allowed to run its full course and not have the last damage tick get clipped/overwritten by reapplying Pyroblast "too soon" to the target. At the same time, an interesting inter(re)action with the Incinerate and Improved Scorch talents becomes an interesting possibility, where for long duration fights including Scorch in the rotation then makes the application of the Fire damage vulnerability debuff something easy to keep stacked on the target. Introducing Scorch into the rotation also dramatically improves the return on investment in the Impact and Ignite talents (to get deeper into the Fire tree) with added chances to stun per rotation and added chances for additional fast DoT fire damage (which is Fire's response to Ice Shards). Interestingly enough, doing this results in increasing damage throughput per unit of time duration, while costing very little in the loss of mana recovery from Spirit over the course of the entire rotation. Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles yields a 75% mana recovery while continuously casting rate of return at the expense of dropping the last DoT tick of damage from Pyroblast ... while Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles yields a 71.4% mana recovery while continuously casting rate of return, which is a loss of only -3.6% mana recovery rate (theoretically), while at the same time enabling vulnerability to Fire damage stacking. This would seem to me to be an acceptable tradeoff in performance, provided you can afford the talent points for Improved Scorch, since it adds a bit of generosity to other Fire damage using Players, rather than being a purely selfish endeavor. Because of this, I'm thinking that a Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles spell rotation would essentially "demand" something like a (decidedly oddball) 31/18/2 spec if the Player is still interested in investing in Arcane all the way to Arcane Power (which I obviously am). Definitely a "you're doing everything wrong" sort of build as far as the Conventional Wisdom is concerned, by relying on Pyroblast and Arcane Missiles as the route to achieve efficient production of damage from mana while leveling in PvE ... but I'm also wondering if the high rate of mana recovery from Spirit that a Pyroblast/Scorch/Arcane Missiles would be able to substantially offset the increased mana cost of using Arcane Power to provide "nuking" ability once every 3 minutes such that Arcane Power isn't as much of a double edged sword of OoM liability as it is in most builds.

If it worked on a Per Hit basis rather than a Per Cast basis, Arcane Missiles would get up to 5 chances to proc per casting when used against a single target. And since we can't have that ... {knowing look}

Frostbolt or Arcane Missiles ... or ... Wand?

http://vanillaradar.com/elysium-stats/elysium/ Why don't you tell us?

Today ... on Darrowshire. Needless to say, although billing for the skill occurred, no corresponding Engineering recipe appeared on my list of items that I could now craft (because, duh, Deprecated). Request that someone on staff remove this entry from the Engineering Skills that can be learned/bought from the Trainer, because ... Money For Nothing.

Right now, DEFINITELY not raiding. Raiding is its own "environment" with a very specialized set of pressures and preferences (first and foremost being fast kills by DPSers without drawing aggro onto themselves). This is more of a thought/theory experiment than anything else, and the application I'm testing it in is Level ~30ish PvE content on Darrowshire at the present time. Even if the spec itself is "non-viable" in a raiding environment, I'm thinking that the exploration of the game mechanics surrounding use of Spirit rather than Mp5 might have some interesting implications/applications when playing Mages ... hence why I'm bothering with any of this at all (in part because it seems that no one else has and/or no one else even wants to). So even more specifically in answer to your question, leveling towards 60 quest progression PvE. All of that said, in the past day (or so), I think I've come across the ultimate expression of the "stupidly long cast+channel" casting rotation that would maximize mana recovery from Spirit (5 Second Rule of casting) at the expense of just being stupidly long ... at least 11 seconds per rotation cycle. That's right ... a Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles/repeat rotation ... which on the face of it just seems ... DUMB ... right? I mean, it would basically be this ... Incredibly stupid, right? Lousy DPS. Rock bottom. Absolutely terrible! Takes too long to deliver too little! Corpse blasting at its finest! Well ... yeah ... if the metric you're going by is Damage Per SECOND and not putting any value on the amount of Mana you're consuming or how fast you can recovery it. But if you're not judging on Damage Per Second, but rather on Damage Per Mana ... things start changing, especially once you begin factoring in Net Mana Over Time costs in which mana recovery from Spirit gets factored in. Why do I say that? Well, consider that the typical One Button Spam rotations for Mages look like one of these options: Frostbolt, Frostbolt, Frostbolt, Frostbolt, Frostbolt, Frostbolt Frost Nova, Blizzard, Blizzard, Frost Nova, Blizzard, Blizzard (Pyroblast), Fireball, Fireball, Fireball, Fireball, Fireball (Pyroblast), Scorch, Scorch, Scorch, Scorch, Scorch Arcane Missiles, Arcane Missiles, Arcane Missiles, Arcane Missiles, Arcane Missiles There are other intermediate variations and mixtures, but you get the idea. What do all of these rotations share in common? Well, with the exception of the Blizzard rotation, none of them escape from being under the 5 Second Rule. That means that between Mage Armor and 3/3 Arcane Meditation, very nearly all of these spell rotations spend 100% of their time recovering mana while casting at a 45% rate from Spirit ... and people have built their specs and geared accordingly. But a Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles spell rotation would basically spend ~5 seconds (with Mage Armor and 3/3 Arcane Meditation) at 45% mana recovery while casting (during the channeling of Arcane Missiles) ... and spend 6 seconds at 100% mana recovery (while casting Pyroblast) ... during every rotation. 0.45 * 11 = 4.95 over 11 seconds (0.45 * 5) + (1 * 6) = 8.25 over 11 seconds 8.25/4.95 = 1.6667 * 45% = ~75% mana recovery from Spirit (equivalent) per 11 second spell rotation Think about that. 45% mana recovery from Spirit with "constant" casting of spells with a casting time of 5 seconds or less ... or the equivalent of ~75% mana recovery from Spirit with "constant" casting of spells (specifically Pyroblast and Arcane Missiles) where the mana costs get charged "back to back" so as to be extremely "friendly" to the 5 Second Rule of spellcasting, when looking at the same 11 second cycle time of spellcasting. This means that the NET mana cost for casting a Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles rotation is substantially offset by the amount of mana recovered from Spirit during their LONG casting cycle. Here ... look ... Now, because mana recovery ticks actually occur every 2 seconds, there's going to be a little bit a "weaving" of the actual numbers that occur in-game, but you get the idea. What amounts to "slow" casting winds up creating the opportunity to recover a LOT more mana from Spirit than would otherwise be possible with a faster/more rapid spell rotation because of the 5 Second Rule. So even if your casting of Pyroblast and Arcane Missiles "costs" a lot of mana every 11 seconds (or so), you'll also be recovering a LOT of mana during the course of those 11 seconds. If you factor the totality of those factors together, you shouldn't need to downrank either Pyroblast or Arcane Missiles that far (if at all?) in order to reach a sort of break even point where it is costing you very little mana to sustainably cast your spells. The downside? DUH! Nobody wants to wait that long (11 seconds!) to produce a (full) damage cycle, even if doing so is incredibly mana efficient! The only reason this sort of thing would work at all is because "cast" spells will charge their mana cost at the END of their casting time, while channeled spells charge their mana cost at the BEGINNING of their channel time. That means that when alternating cast and channeled spells back to to back, the mana costs happen "together" in the middle of the cycle, and the longer the overall spell rotation, the more mana ticks you'll get outside the 5 Second Rule from Spirit ... which is then why a Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles rotation would be the most mana recovery efficient "perma" spell rotation you can achieve. Okay ... but so what? Well, the same logic applies to a Fireball/Arcane Missiles rotation ... to a Frostbolt/Arcane Missiles rotation ... and a Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation. Each of these rotations, when repeated, creates an opportunity to recover mana at 100% rate while continuing to spellcast ... although the longer the casting time of the elemental spell the more "efficient" the mana recovery from Spirit becomes, with Fireball/Arcane Missiles offering more mana ticks of recovery than the Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation, and Frostbolt/Arcane Missiles lying in the middle. Okay ... but so what?! Well ... One of the reasons why Frost is so widely viewed as being superior to Fire and Arcane specs is because of Frost Channeling, which can reduce the cost of Frost spells by up to -15%. Combined with Shatter and 3/3 Master of Elements from the Fire tree and you can wind up with Frostbolt crits (retroactively) costing very little mana, making a 2/18/31 Frost Mage build something that is remarkably mana efficient for raiding. Except ... when you're raiding, it is very common to downrank your spells to save mana, and since both Frost Channeling and Master of Elements work on a percentage basis, when you downrank the spells you're using you also reduce the amount of mana saved by your talents in absolute terms, reducing their value as ways to keep your mana pool full while continuously casting. A spell rotation like Pyroblast/Arcane Missiles, with approximately HALF of its mana recovery ticks being outside the 5 Second Rule would not suffer this problem of downranking reducing the amount of mana saved from talents ... and would very likely be capable of sustaining much higher ranks of spells cast for the same amount of net mana loss over time as a downranked Frost spec. Similarly, it would value Spirit a lot higher than is typical in comparison to Mp5, thanks to the 75% vs 45% mana recovery from Spirit efficiency (over 11 seconds of casting time) from pairing Pyroblast with Arcane Missiles as your primary go to spells for dealing damage. How much "upranking" you'd be able to consistently and reliably be able to afford would be something dependent upon how much Spirit you have on your gear, and how willing you are to drink after every fight (like normal?), but you get the idea. Anyway, I'm only blathering about this at all because it's a fun thought experiment. After experimenting with an Arcane/Frost build and being disappointed by it the weakness of its synergistic potential, I'm now casting a raised eyebrow at Arcane/Fire and liking what I'm seeing in a net Damage Per Mana sense. Yup. Totally. But we can either play the game staying within the well worn wheel ruts of where EVERYONE has gone before ... or we can experiment with trying to break new ground a make new discoveries. Right now, I've got the luxury of being able to explore my options better than I could a decade ago ... so I am. Granted, what I discover might not be for everyone, but then I'm hardly looking for a "killer build" that literally trumps everything to become the new Flavor ot the Month cookie cutter for everyone else to (blindly) follow. It's one of those "fast weapon versus slow weapon" kinds of things, where sometimes you have a situation of The Slower The Better for your build. So as far as novelties go, I'm looking at a 35/13/3 spec that looks like this as being an interesting one for PvE leveling to 60, but with a little bit of fungibility on the allocation of the last 4 talent points (doesn't have to be 4/5 Arcane Mind). Obviously, Molten Core and other Fire Resist heavy destinations would need something different, but as everyone keeps saying, Mages will switch from Frost to Fire in Naxx, so ... I'm not exactly worried about the longer term outlook over the extremely long haul.

Curious. My Priest right now has +Arcane Damage gear on (for boosting Starshards, of all things) and when I had an Arcane damage Wand (my Priest is my Enchanter, but I'm using Gravestone Scepter at the moment, which is a Shadow damage Wand) I would see +Damage on the tooltip for Wand damage on my Character window that exactly matched my +Damage from +Arcane items equipped, and the "damage coefficient" was 100% for it (so Attack Speed with Wand apparently wasn't factoring in). Of course, it's also entirely possible that the tooltip is programmed wrong to display incorrect information ... which would be a different (bug) issue to report.

Hey Fisher, got a question for you about the details of Wand Specialization. So Wand Specialization adds (up to) +25% to Wand damage, right? What I want to know is if this is implemented in the same way that Improved Renew adds (up to) +15% to Renew, but only on the base healing of the spell itself and doesn't add (up to) +15% to the +Healing bonus you get from your gear. So basically, does Wand Specialization's damage bonus calculate in adding (up to) +25% damage from JUST the Wand itself, or does it also include adding (up to) +25% damage from the +Spell Damage you get from your gear? I figure this ought to be something relatively easy to test using the tooltip for Wand damage on the Character window to do a before/after check when doing a respec. Reason that I ask this question is that if Wand Specialization applies its multiplier before +Spell Damage, rather than after, that will make the talent scale (more) poorly when an increasingly substantial amount of your damage throughput is being generated by Spell Power. It would still make Wand Specialization a good talent for leveling before acquiring Spell Power gear.

Because the first person to concede that their "opponent" has made a valid point will "lose" the argument ... and since that is not a tolerable outcome, it is far easier to just simply ignore what your "opponent" has said in the discussion and continue fighting the Straw Man.

So I've been intermittently playing the Frost version of the 31/0/20 build in the past 10 days or so and, I have to say ... it is frustrating/annoying as hell to play in ways that I wasn't anticipating. Frostbite is supposed to proc 15% of the time, but as is usual for RNGesus will only do so when it doesn't do anything useful. So I wind up Frostbolt to open, my target wanders beyond 30 yards ... and THAT is when Frostbite will proc ... to keep something beyond my 30 yard range. Or it will seem to only proc off Ice Armor but (almost) never off Frost Bolt. Making matters worse, it seems that Frostbite is extremely prone to breaking on damage. I'll throw Arcane Missiles after a Frostbolt hit that procs Frostbite and ... the very first missile hit from the volley will break the Freeze effect, meaning I only wind up getting +50% chance to crit on ONE (of 5) hits from Arcane Missiles (which, of course, doesn't crit) instead of the 3-5 hits from Arcane Missiles that I was expecting to see. So even when Frostbite DOES proc, more often than not I can't leverage it (successfully enough) to translate into a synergy with Arcane Missiles (or even Arcane in general). I was hoping to see an increased throughput of damage from Shatter increasing the crit chances for Arcane Missiles, but ... in practice it rarely happens. It's supposed to happen (roughly) 15% of the time, but it feels like it happens more like only 5% of the time (subjectively speaking). In fact, the rarity of it happening combined with the (from my perspective) "early" removal of the Frostbite Freeze effect on damage just makes a lot of the assumptions I was making about the synergistic advantages between Arcane and Frost really not gel together to the degree that I was hoping for (or need, really). Rather than the sum being greater than the parts, it's starting to play like the interaction between proc and relative positioning is turning into a "subtraction being greater than the parts" instead. I figure then that at some point here in the next couple weeks or so I'll be paying for a respec to switch from the 31/0/20 spec, where I really wanted to believe that the talents that Frost had would be things that I could leverage and take advantage of with both Frost AND Arcane spells but which looks like the synergies just aren't there (enough) for the way I like to play ... over to the 33/18/0 spec for a using Pyroblast as an opener followed by repeating Scorch/Arcane Missiles rotation to finish. I get the feeling that not requiring a debuff state on my target (like Freeze for Shatter) to take advantage of increased critical hit chance will make me happier as a Player. If nothing else, I'll get way better leverage out of the Presence of Mind+Pyroblast combo than I ever could out of Presence of Mind+Frostbolt. It'll also mean that I won't be completely reliant on Mana Shield to prevent pushback on casting (which is problematic against other casters, even in PvE).

"You can lead a man to water, but you cannot make him THINK."

I think he was trying to assert that Warriors are such good tanks that raid bosses will only swing at them once per raid. You know, basically Warrior tanks are Chuck Norris compared to Paladin tanks being ... uh ... Paksenarrion. Either that or he was trying to say that every time a Paladin Blocks a Warrior gains 6 Stamina to compensate? Ummm ... /kek?

Legacy Gaming Network

Please que in groups of 1 or less. /kek

Dunno about Shadowguard having a chance to proc Blackout on each damage tick, but since it's Shadow school it makes for a rather powerful combination for Troll Shadow Priests, since your Shadow talents augment and synergize with Shadowguard the same way they do with other Shadow spells.

Yeah well ... I've been ... busy today with updating the macros on my Hunter. You can see the fruits of my labors over in my Beast o' Melee Hunter thread which puts the macros I'm using for my decidedly off-meta build into their proper context, and the structural reasons for (re)writing them the way I did. Feel free to swipe any that strike your fancy for your thread here, since I know you're good on providing credit for creations. I even managed to not only make my Disengage macro use better conditionals than what I'd been first attempting, but also found a way to cram ALL of the functionality I was looking for into a mere 245/255 characters. It casts Disengage under the right conditions, rather than just asking if you've got a target selected. It toggles Cower and Growl so they "flip" against each other properly for easy aggro trading between Hunter and Pet, allowing for Tandem Tanking to be easier to realize and execute successfully. It even has a properly coded conditional test for invoking either Dash or Dive only against hostile targets and not against friendlies or when no target is selected, preventing the "wasting" of Dash or Dive cooldowns and Focus (even though Focus recovery is total non-issue with my Pet's skills). Likewise I tested to see if the CheckInteractDistance function could be use in an IF NOT THEN statement as a conditional for making my Pet only cast Dash or Dive when my selected target is 10+ yards away from my Hunter (no way to check how far away a Pet is from my target, unfortunately) and got it to work. Again, this preserves Dash/Dive for only those situations and circumstances where it ought to be used in a context where the Pet is expected to be located alongside the Hunter to support in melee, rather than at range tanking for the Hunter. This allows CheckInteractDistance between Hunter and target to serve as a workable stand-in proxy for determining distance between Pet and target so long as the Pet is Following the Hunter. No more leaving Dash/Dive on autocast. Might be worth your while to have a look and see if there's anything useful to you in the update I posted. ^_~ One thing I will say is that updating all my Hunter macros today more than once felt like this while I was working on perfecting them. Now that I'm essentially done with rewriting them, the experience of working on them feels like this in retrospect. Looking forward at leveling the rest of the way from 33 to 60 feels like this in terms of anticipation.

Okay, since I've been messing with my Hunter macros since yesterday, and there's enough of a modification to them to be worthy of an update, I figured it would be easiest to just consolidate everything here for easy reference (and to time capsule them). At the present time, I'm using 9 macros specifically on my Hunter, while most of my other 7 Alliance characters have either one or none. Hunters are VERY macro hungry as a class for effective character management. For ease of reference for everything that follows in the macro scripting below, this is NOW (as a result of writing up this posting which resulted in a lot of general housekeeping on top of everything else) what my Pet Skills Bar looks like in-game by default when using my Screech Pet. For anyone new to playing a Hunter, these slots from left to right are: Attack Follow Stay Cower (toggled ON while Growl is OFF) Screech (toggled on) Dive (toggled off) Growl (toggled OFF while Cower is ON) Aggressive Defensive Passive Screech is toggled on at all times because if my Pet is attacking I want it to be Screeching. Dive is toggled off because I really only want Dive to be invoked when there is distance to target for my Pet to travel. No point in using Dive while in melee range of a target. Cower and Growl "oppose" each other in their toggle states, such that when one is on the other is off (until they both switch). Because of this, and to avoid "Mode Confusion" I've moved Cower and Growl to be as far apart from each other as is possible within slots 4 to 7, thereby placing Cower in slot 4 and Growl in slot 7. This then makes it very easy to tell at a glance which "mode" my Pet is in with respect to either autocasting Cower or autocasting Growl. First up, the melee attack macros. All three of these, coincidentally enough, use 163/255 characters each for casting Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite and Counterattack respectively. All three of these macros are designed to make use of Raziya's formulation of Pet Attack macros for lines 2-4, although I'm using /run instead of /script in order to save on character counts just in case I ever want to add even more functions to these macros later on. Beyond that, I'm simply pairing those functions (Pet Follow in line 2, Pet Passive in line 3, attack my target in line 4) with using either Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite or Counterattack in line 1. The last of code determines if the target is 10+ yards away from my Hunter, and if the target is 10+ yards away to have my Pet use their slot 6 Skill, which I've standardized on being either Dash or Dive ... but if the target is less than 10 yards away from my Hunter then Dash/Dive does not need to be cast by my Pet, which will often be the case when my Pet is fighting beside me while my Hunter melee tanks. This makes these macros functionally "Pet agnostic" with respect to use of Dash or Dive so long as I reserve slot 6 for either of those Skills, which I was planning to do anyway. Note also that this particular formulation automatically gives me the proper tooltips and cooldown graphics for Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite and Counterattack icon on my action hotbar. Technically, my Disengage macro is part of the melee group of macros, since all of the skills it references are melee range skills (both for my Hunter and my Pet) but it can also be used at range and without a target selected simply to flip the toggles on Cower and Growl. This macro weighs in at a hefty 245/255 characters used, so not much leeway to do much more with this one. At first I was using UnitIsUnit for this one, but then I noticed in the Vanilla APIs that Raziya was so kind to link to that there is a UnitIsEnemy function, which when parsed right with "target" as the second parameter will return a nil value if there is no target selected. For my purposes, this basically does the job of UnitIsUnit for checking to determine targeting matches AND limiting the valid matches to enemies only. This means that if I have an ally or nothing targeted then the dependency prevents spells/skills from being cast. This then guards against an edge case of two allied Players targeting each other (for whatever reason) and getting a complaint that I can't use Disengage on that target, or using the macro while targeting an allied NPC and getting a complaint that I can't attack that target (even though it would be the Pet attacking). I can do this because both Disengage and PetAttack are fundamentally "enemy only" uses of abilities that are not germane to use on allies. So line 1 determines both if my target is targeting me AND if my target is hostile or friendly ... and if my target is targeting me and hostile will cast Disengage (if my Hunter is in melee range of my target, otherwise Disengage will fail to cast due to range) ... else nothing happens. Because line 1 contains Disengage in it, that then determines the tooltip and cooldown appearance of the hotbar icon. Line 2 puts my Pet into Passive stance. Lines 3 and 4 toggle switch Cower and Growl on my Pet. Line 5 is a "sanity check" for whether or not my Hunter has an enemy target selected, and if so send my Pet to attack that enemy using Dash or Dive regardless of tactical positioning or distance. If I'm switching aggro between my Hunter and my Pet, I want my Pet getting into melee range with my target to potentially Growl as fast as possible. Incidentally, I was mildly surprised that the PetAttack(target) CastPetAction(6) combination appears to work just fine, and I suspect that there are no issues simply because commanding your Pet to attack your target does not invoke any global cooldowns, making it possible to "fall through" directly to the next call for an executable (in this case, slot 6 holding either Dash or Dive). I tested this macro on a hostile Ashenvale Wolf at beyond Bow range to see if my Pet would attack and use Dive correctly, which they did, so this functionality is tested and working at this point. The purpose of the Disengage macro is to "change postures" on my Pet between Cower and Growl, with use of Disengage thrown in conditionally to help facilitate transfer of aggro from my Hunter to my Pet (when my Hunter would be the target of my target) but to NOT use Disengage when trying to transfer aggro from my Pet to my Hunter. The utility of this macro is that it allows my Hunter to switch from melee tanking to ranged spanking (and back again) whenever circumstances warrant it. This should make my melee tanking (Cower ON/Growl OFF) much more successful and versatile, since I'll be able to shed aggro onto my Pet (Disengage+Cower OFF/Growl ON), Bandage and then after I'm done bandaging, switch back into melee tanking (Cower ON/Growl OFF) using a single macro. Additionally, this macro can even be used while at range as a sort of (poor man's) "Kill Command" for my Pet to go into fast pursuit of a runner, or to attack from either a preset Stay position away from my Hunter or from Following at my side, regardless of range to target (due to the distance conditionals I've implemented on my Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite and Counterattack macros to prevent use of Dash or Dive while within 10 yards of my target) with the intent of keeping the aggro on my Pet through use of Growl, instead of on my Hunter through use of Cower. This then lets me One Button Switch from being a Melee Hunter to being a (in my case) Bow Hunter with ease in situations where I don't necessarily want to Face Pull hostiles myself or need to keep distance between myself and my Pet. I use Raziya's Follow and Stay macros for what amounts to secondary Pet controls, usually to prevent my Pet from "going rogue" to attack something I wasn't intending for them to attack. In both cases I substitute /run for /script again to keep the character count down, saving 3 characters per line and simply reserve slot 6 on the Pet Skills Bar for either Dash or Dive. These two macros are 107/255 and 207/255 characters respectively. Line 1 commands my Pet to go into Passive mode, so stop whatever you're doing Pet. Line 2 commands my Pet to Follow my Hunter without needing to edit in my Hunter's name. Lines 3 tests to see if my Pet is in Combat or not, and if so, to have my Pet cast Dash or Dive (in slot 6 of the Pet Skills Bar) to return to my Hunter at best possible speed. This is basically Raziya's Stay macro for Pets, which will tell them to Stay. If your Pet is not in combat, it tells your Pet to Stay where they are. If your Hunter is targeting your Pet, it tells them to Stay where they are also, allowing you to "park" your Pet in a particular spot, even in combat. But if you're NOT targeting your Pet and your Pet is in combat, then it will have them Dash/Dive in Passive mode back to the point you originally had them Stay at as a sort of Retreat From Combat to a preset location. The only meaningful change from Raziya's macro is that I'm assigning a specific Pet Skills slot to either Dash or Dive, in this case slot 6, so that I can tighten up the macro scripting by calling for a Skill slot instead of calling for a specific named pair of abilities from the Pet Spellbook. Additionally, this also means that my Pet(s) have 3 of their 4 Skill slots taken up with Cower (4), Dash/Dive (6) and Growl (7) ... leaving only a single Skill slot open (5) for that particular Pet type's "signature" Skill. Since the vanilla Stable is extremely small, where you're never going have more than 2-3 Pets under any circumstances, this isn't really a problem, since a broad diversity of Pets isn't much of an issue. At the present time, I've still got my original Owl from atop Teldrassil, gained at Level 10, which is my mainline "all around" combat Pet for leveling ... but I also managed to find and Tame none other than Lupos in the past week, who I've now got at Loyalty 5. Both Owls and Wolves can Dash/Dive, so "reserving" a slot for these skills on "all" of the Pets I have isn't exactly an issue. I'm sure that once I reach Level 60 and have learned all of the Pet Skills and don't need to Tame anything else in vanilla, I'll almost certainly pick up a 3rd Pet which can also Dash or Dive, so again ... non-issue for me to reserve a Skill slot for this particular class of skill on all Pets. You can see all of this on the image of my Pet Skill Bar posted above. I use this macro for Scare Beast, and it weighs in at 63/255 characters, which by the standards of what I've been writing about until now is positively petite. Pretty straightforward here action here really. Line 1 puts my Pet into Passive mode. Line 2 commands my Pet to Follow my Hunter. Line 3 has my Hunter cast Scare Beast. This then coordinates my Pet such that they don't keep attacking any Beasts that I've Scared so as to protect against edge cases of having my Pet "accidentally" do damage to my target and break the Fear effect of Scare Beast prematurely. Last but certainly not least is everyone's favorites ... Feign Death and Ice Trap, which really pair together in too many ways. Rather than combine these two into a single macro, I've simply made separate macros for each and then cleverly put them "functionally adjacent" to each other in terms of keybind locations on my hotbars so that I can easily invoke one or the other or both very simply/reliably. This Feign Death macro uses 77/255 characters. Line 1 determines if my Hunter is in Combat, and only if I'm in combat will Feign Death be used. This helps prevent "accidental" use of Feign Death out of combat when it shouldn't have been used, wasting the cooldown (and generally being a DERP move). If I really need to Feign Death while out of combat (for like a roleplay or something?) I'll just open my spellbook and cast it from the spellbook "manually" and very deliberately. This is the macro I'll be using for Freezing Trap, modified from Raziya's Freezing Trap macro to remove the proximity distance conditional, and it costs 116/255 characters. Line 1 checks to determine if my Pet has a target at all, and if my Pet and my Hunter are sharing the same target. If my Pet and my Hunter share the same target then my Pet is put into Passive mode. Line 2 casts Freezing Trap after making sure that my Pet won't (keep) attack(ing) the target my Hunter has selected and break the Freezing Trap effect prematurely on the target I've got selected. This formulation then allows for a "directing traffic" situation where if my Pet is attacking something other than what I'm intending to Freeze, my Pet can keep right on attacking that target. This means that I need to have selected the target that I do want to Freeze in order to keep my Pet from attacking THAT target specifically. I agree with Raziya that it's by no means a perfect solution, but it's certainly better than nothing. As you can see, an awful lot of the character count "crushing" on these macros has come from "standardizing" what Pet Skills I want to have on any (and every?) Pet that I Tame for use in combat, and where those skills will appear on the Pet Skills Bar. That then allows me to, in effect, be more flexible on casting spells by name at the expense of needing to cast spells by skill bar slot. Still, when you've got macros running over 200+ characters long, staying under 255/255 while being able to shoehorn in as much functionality as you need in a single macro can sometimes push you to make compromises outside the macro text itself. In this case I've opted for a "structural" response to the challenge of not having enough room to "name (spell) names" in my macros to fit them under the 255 character limit otherwise.