Creature Handler Archive
Thread: Sky Calls for the Death of Non-CH pets
Page 1 of 6
SkyPreacher1
Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:14 am
#1
Hi folks,
I want to try something out on you.
Over in the BE forums, of which I am a Master of, the debate rages about 10k HAM 60% kinetic resist CL 10 non ch pets.
In trying to explain that this pet is an obscenity and that it provides an unfair advantage to non ch players who have not spent the SP in order to control such a pet, I have been met with the stone wall. The basic understanding is "geez if I can make them then they should be ok for non-CH"
Personally I don't make non-ch obscene pets and as a MCH i don't train them. But the fact is they are still out there.
So I would like your input into a petition to either do away with these pets or eliminate non ch pets except for CL 5 mounts for non CH players.
Do you have any thoughts
Seiryuu
Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:25 am
#2
Giving non-handlers usable combat pets was a huge mistake. I am all for removing them.
I do not have a problem with them having CL 10 pets, however:
1) They should only be usable for decoration or as a mount
2) No combat capability. None. Cannot attack or be attacked.
3) In case (2) isn't accomplished, no non-handler pet should be better than a wild CL 10 pet.
I do not have a problem with them having CL 10 pets, however:
1) They should only be usable for decoration or as a mount
2) No combat capability. None. Cannot attack or be attacked.
3) In case (2) isn't accomplished, no non-handler pet should be better than a wild CL 10 pet.
Zelfin
Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:26 am
#3
Well Sky,
I THOROUGHLY agree. My most powerful pet is a BE Choku with ar1 and 51% kinetic, strong poison and 11k ham. How is it that light armor and a special attack added 44 levels to this creature? the difference is sohuge as to be be truly ignorant in its calculations. Non CH pets should be just that; PETS. not tanks with 10k HAMs.
For a good idea of power levels lets go to this thread.
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=creature_handler&message.id=199379&jump=true
Yes its got huge damage, and 15k HAM (so he says, I have been wrong with stats before myself)
But is 15k ham really different than 10k? and with the damage different is there really a 60 level difference in the toughness?
BE creatures as pets is just silly. I say CH should stop taming these ridiculous creatures for NON-CH. yes it may cost us money, but its those exact dabblers that got US nerfed in the first place. Now we got screwed and they are STILL getting there toy creatures.
I myself dont sell any creature to a NON-CH unless its a wild mount of CL10 or under. If they want huge pets, become a CH like us.
Zelfin
Master CH/Master Rifleman
Bynder
Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:35 am
#4
Seems pretty easy to me, non-CH pets should be balanced to be equivalent in all ways to droids. If AR1 3500 HAM probots were so overpowered that SOE had to make them the first major nerf of SWG then 10k HAM pets should be a no-brainer.
As long as they are balanced I have no problem with non-CH pets, the current CL10 limits are unbalanced.
As long as they are balanced I have no problem with non-CH pets, the current CL10 limits are unbalanced.
Aakhperkare
Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:53 am
#5
I was screaming this the second I saw one of these overpowered, under-CLed non-ch pets, and got nothing but flames and hatred from the BE community. Whatever.
I am all for combat pets being taken out of the hands of non-ch's. It would give DE's the necessary business they need, and open up a different area for CH's to provide non-CH's with pets, if we ever get non-combat uses implimented.
Let BE's make whimpy non-CH pets if need be. But they would need to be very whimpy. I AM SICK SICK SICK SICK of seeing a non-ch with a 6-9kHAM, with high resists and/or armor. With non-ch pets like that running around, all that crap we were fed about balance doesn't mean a damn thing, and it further isolates and trivializes our profession...
jopenack
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:10 pm
#6
many natural pets which are mountable would suffer unless the devs made lesser bols, spats, dews ... lvl 5
if they can do this im for it but since mt knowledge of the be lvl 10 exploits is limited what would stop the ones out therenow?and would be's still be able to make a lvl 5 with 5k ham?
I do know the devs have said they would get around to fixing this exploit someday lol like evrything else lol
maybe this is something that should be brought up with the new rep tiggs
fixing the exploit is probably better than lowering all lvl 10 pets. a restriction of pet ham for non ch something like the pet trade in when pets were reduced to from lvl 15 for non ch to lvl 10, but a restriction on ham not lvl that actually works this time around.
since the exploits would still be around this might fix it for those using them now
Vertexon
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:13 pm
#7
I don't know that I would lower the non-CH limit to CL 5... but I think what we're seeing in wild non-CH petsis definitely more appropriate than some of the insanely powerful BE creations that undermine the value of earning CH skills. Even the low end CH pets are out of control (light armor and 40%+ Kinetic resists shouldn't exist on something lower than CL 40. No tradeoff can possibly balance that).
tex77
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:14 pm
#8
I have no problem with non ch having a wild cl 10 pet and all that that means. The low HAM, even lower attack ability, lack of resists,etc. HoweverI am against the use of the type of pets alreadymentioned in this thread. There should be no way the CL and HAM/reisists should be that out of balance. If you want a 10K HAM pet with high resist ability then get the CH skills needed to handle a pet of that size.
Rurry
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:20 pm
#9
I would not be a CH if a BE friend of mine hadn't given me a Gulf Drolg when I was a n00b. So there is something to be said about small pets. Maybe no BE pets to non-CH.
Aakhperkare
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:37 pm
#10
Well, How long have BE's been able to make these non-ch monstrosities that undermine our profession? I hate to sound all negative, but if this same type of issue was applied to Merchants or Armorsmiths or Jedi, it would have been fixed a LONG LONG time ago. Yet, we are forced to deal with it for months and months on end.
There is a slight double standard there...
Aakhperkare
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:40 pm
#11
But a good part of a BE's business are non-ch pets. There just needs to be a very very low hard-cap on non-ch BE pets.
And on a related note...
Am I the only one that thinks there should be maximum CL's on certain body types? Isn't it a little ridiculous to see a CL60+ Gnort that can kill Rancors?...
Wallach1
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:43 pm
#12
Seiryuu wrote:
Giving non-handlers usable combat pets was a huge mistake. I am all for removing them.
I do not have a problem with them having CL 10 pets, however:
1) They should only be usable for decoration or as a mount
2) No combat capability. None. Cannot attack or be attacked.
3) In case (2) isn't accomplished, no non-handler pet should be better than a wild CL 10 pet.
I agree with number 3 on this. Because if we allow the mounts, we already know they will still leave in the other pets. I honestly believe anything level 10 or less should not have very good resistance, nothing over maybe 10% if that, and by NO RIGHT have armor of any sort. I mean, I've busted my butt to get to Master CH to use those pets that naturally come with armor. Why shoulda non CH toon get to use one at level 10? No clue.
Aakhperkare
Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:46 pm
#13
That's one of the big things about our revamp that irritated me the most. Instead of overpowered dabblers, you now don't even need novice CH to have a light armor decent kinetic resist pet. It's a big slap in the face...
Page 1 of 6