You shouldn't need it: [hover] reports the scripting name as well, so you can use [select] to change specific objects, because no two objects can have the same scripting name. You can have multiple [hover] objects, but that won't help you---they'll all behave the same way.

In general, for button controllers with hovering states, you can probably use [ubutton] instead, on a per-object basis, and swap the images manually. But [hover] could keep things cleaner and in a central location.

Thanks for the quick response. What you said makes sense. Now what I was thinking about doing was setting up a single [patcher] where I would pass the [pict] objects through to execute appropriate functionality (track states, swap images, etc). But within each [patcher] instance, there would would be a [hover] object.

I guess I am really trying to create an abstraction that I can use for each button of my tool (Which are images). An issue I am having in my [patcher] object is hover it only triggering locally in the [patcher] and not sending the hover message through the outlet.

I will try your ubutton suggestion, but I am curious if this can be recreated in the manner above.

Note: I am also not seeing a way to pass [pict] objects to my [patcher], as it only wants to connect to my outlet.

Just do something like this each time you want to have a button with a hover state.