Creature Handler Archive
Thread: Feedback Requested: Your Top 10 Questions for TH
1) Will Sony take away the artificially reduced damage and armor rating of animals during PvP encounters
2) If CH is meant to be ‘supplemental profession’ to other combat profession, as many are professing in these forums, then why doesn’t Sony declassify CH as a non-elite profession, taking less skill points to handle animals
3) Will Sony ever give Bio-Engineers the ability to incorporate a creatures natural area attacks and special attacks into their DNA samples. BE could make tamable creatures with “area attacks/force attacks/special attacks” for the CH community
4) Will Sony allow Chefs to make food and drink buffs for animals? IE: Dead-eye for animals.
5) Will Sony allow armor smiths to create armor for pets.
6) Will Sony ever allow MCH to medically buff their animals, such a doctors medically buff other player.
And don't forget to pester the hell of out him for answers. Nice list...
Sorry to be negative and all, but isn't this the umpeenth thread about the plight of CH and what needs to be changed? It seems like a regular thing Vert does, create a new thread to get the CH's salivating at the thought of their requests being heard. Ya know, I'd post my 10 questions, but I'm just too tired of these games. I've posted every possible combination of what I think needs changed on the other Vert/TH sanction threads. What happened to their relevance? How can this new thread be any different from the others? Am I the only CH that's strung out and sick of it all? Look for a new thread next week which is promised to answer all of our questions and give us the direct pipleline to the devs we've always wanted. lol How can any person not be cynical?
Freth (Wookiee / Intrepid) | Master Creature Handler | Master Scout | Pistoleer | Medic
CH as I understand it is now at the bottom of the pile for fixes is that going to change if they understand how badly they ummm 'Nerfed' it?
Snailelin wrote:
I'd remove the words "trade off" from the storage one. Yes...the trade-off you meant is that the structure would take lots and maintenance. The way it will (inevitably) be interpreted is "not only a structure that takes lots and maintenance, but also only 11 pets on your datapad, for an 11 pet storage structure" or some other such silliness that fits TH's definition of "nerf CH's to oblivion is a trade-off".
I don't mind having to spend lots and maintenance for a live pet storage area...but I do not want to lose any of the total pet storage capacity I have...I want more total pet storage capacity.
I agree with that. Don't let them think we wanna get nerfed just for a stable...
Good list overall. I would like to see the following added or changed:
Question 3 needs:
Please provide have an official list of the babies from level 50-70 and their rarity?
Question 4 needs:
Remove trade-off from the request
The questions need to be changed from yes or no answer questions to ones that require a more indepth answer? I could answer the questions as follows and have fully answered them without eleborating. If they aren't changed, we could end up with the following:
1. Yes, they are being looked into.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Being looked into
5. No
6. (This question is good and requires a meaty answer)
7. No
8. No
9. (This question is good and requires a meaty answer)
10. No
Point being yes/no questions do not give indepth answers and require little thought on the DEVs end. Your questions are good they just need to be reworded to avoid yes/no answers.
An example for question 3 would be:
3. Many players feel the current rarity of level 50-70 pets does not fall in line with their abilities and stats. Please explain the thinking behind the attributes given to each rarity level (common, rare and impossibly rare) of level 50-70 animals. In addition, please provide a list of level 50-70 pets with their rarity level.
This questions asks for a list and for an explaination of why the system is the way it is. If a yes/no answer is given or one that does not directly answer the question, then the DEVs have avoided it.
LovePudding2 wrote:
Vert...
I respect your list, but it's so PCand sugar coated, the devs will not get a hint howpissed off many of the CH communityare over imbalance creatures areinPvP.
Simply ask them: Is CH a combat class or not?
In this, many of us would know which direction to go. TheGCW is going to "heating up" and eveyone will be forced with some level of PvP.If CH is a combat class or even a small sign of a combat class, when will pets ever be on equal footing as the rest of the combat classes.
Combined questions 2/3 into one single question.
That would be a wasted question as SOE has already answered it dozens of times. They erroneously believe us to be a support class.