Creature Handler Archive

1) Agree. Every creature under CL 70 should be tamable, even if extremely rare, because they were supposedly "balanced" in the big rebalance and thus should not be overpowered for a creature handler to have.

2) Agree. Although these of course would be uber-rares, again, if the CL is under 70, it should be tamable in some fashion.

3) Somewhat agree. Maybe if you had high faction with the appropriate group, you could get a baby as a mission reward (CH content?!). But a "Tusken" bantha is just that because the Tuskens tamed it. And Nym's Kusak is one Nym owns. So to just find wild babies of these seems somewhat silly. Add it in as content reward and it'd be great.

4) Agree. Again, I call on the "great rebalance" and state that all creatures under CL 70 should fall within the usable range of a master CH. If it is too strong for us to control, then it should be above CL 70. Period.

5) Somewhat agree. However, several of these "rares" are almost too rare. They are significantly weaker in most cases compared to comparable BE pets, the main draw being the rarity/collector value or a particular special attack since BE pets cannot have the area specials. I have my mantigrue screechers for plague strike, but quite frankly don't see the point of the great plains stalker except for the rare factor, since it's fairly weak and without a particular role. Adding things like the Merek Harvester into the mix as a rare would change this, as the MH is such a better pet than a BE can make the demand for them would skyrocket, and truly make the rare worth hunting. This is just one example, but it's the most obvious to me.

Also, regarding #5, if the Frenzied Graul is currently tamable on Live and not just on TestCenter with the forthcoming publish 7 (since it is listed as Tamable: Yes), then it is TOO rare as nobody has verified a baby tame since the great extinction way back when. We need to know if it is live or if it's an undocumented addition with Publish 7 before we can assess if its rarity is balanced.

Good feedback and responses... I'm glad I asked.

I pulled the "under CL 50" thing from TH's "Creatures Approaching" threads last year, since it was the stated goal at the time. I can certainly push for everything under CL 70 to be tameable, but I thought at the least it would be good to realize that original goal.

I have to admit to being caught off-guard by the mixed reaction to the NPC faction creature deal. Months ago, I remember reading posts every day asking if domesticated tusk cats or Nym's kusak guardians were tameable. Not so much by the people looking for something uber, but more for the roleplay and collectibility value. There are many segments to the CH community, so perhaps this is one of the smaller ones here on the forums. I'll definitely re-evaluate the importance of this item (though I really like Ko-aIri's idea about receiving unique baby animals as CH-specific quest rewards from the various factional NPCs).

Again, naturally we need Developer attention for other things, too. Bugfixes for our ongoing problems, a resolution between wild pet value vs. clone pet value, mounts vs. vehicles, and attention as part of the Big Combat Revamp. I'm just putting everything on the table for the Devs at once (with appropriate priorities drawn from the community) so they can fitindividual itemsin where possible.

1) We want more of the powerful creatures like king merek, barkmite burrower queen, kliknik queen, etc to be tameable as rares

I have to agree with the others: there is really no good reason for any mob CL 70 or lower to not have babies. If there is I would love to hear it. Given there is no reason to withold babies, why not give them to us?

OK, now that my rant is out of the way, Vert. I'm in green (please note irony here):

---

Vertexon wrote:

(1) We want more of the powerful creatures like king merek, barkmite burrower queen, kliknik queen, etc to be tameable as rares

Everything below CL 70 should be be tamable, albeit some of them quite rare. Exception below.

(2) We want Boss creatures (wonderous cu pa, diseased vrelt matriarch, gronda juggernaut, vehement warrior, etc) to be tameable as rares. Some are powerful, some are not so powerful.

Nah, let these guys remain bosses and bosses only, with no babies. However, would it be possible for normal babies to "evolve" once and a while into boss critters after taming?

(3)We want creatures associated with NPC factions (Gungan kaadu, domesticated tusk cat, Nym's kusak guardian, Tusken bantha, etc) to be tameable as rares.

The only ones I'd really like to see here are the domesticated tusk cats, the Nym kusak guardians, and the Tusken banthas. As for the Gungan stuff, no one who is sane wants to RP a gungan for fear of being ruthlessly ganked in PvP.

(4)Ideally we want every creature under CL 50 to be tameable with varying degrees of rarity. At the least, however, we'd like creatures under CL 50 that are never tameable to be the exception rather than the rule (currently not the case).

YES, YES, A MILLION TIMES YES.

(5) We are relatively happy with the current frequency of baby spawnsfor creatures that are rares (mantigrue screecher, great plains stalker, bull rancor, etc). While hunting for a baby rare can be frustrating, the sense of reward from achieving success outweighs the frustration.

The rares should be rare, but I've never seen a great plains stalker, ever let alone a baby, and I spend most of my time on Corellia.

---

Vertexon,


As an honorary Gungan (gives a LOUD raspberry to SioBabble), Allura has a kaadu mount which Boss Nass insisted she possess for reasons of tradition. I don't see the need to have a "Gungan Kaadu (baby)" in the game at all. Or any other factioned pet. If you're going to RP being a member of a faction, then you can do it for your pet as well.

What I would suggest is replacing the third item in your list with "We want a structure usable only by Master Creature Handlers, that takes up a lot/lots and requires maintenance, where we can drop and/or display pets." I have to agree with the others who have supported this: I really only use a few pets to fight with. The rest are eye candy (assures Ariel, the giant peko that "eye candy" is a very very very good thing and please stop looking at me like that!). I'd like to be able to put "retired" or "show" pets some place where myself and friends can see them and where they will not take up space in my datapad that can be used for more powerful pets. I'd LIKE to have a more interesting variety of pets to fight with, but I just can't bring myself to dump long-time pets to make room for more fighters just because they're not strong enough to battle anything serious or too rare to risk (see above giant peko example).

(Instructs Ayumi the kaadu to tinkle on SioBabble's leg, then rides off for the Gungan Sacred Place)

Good point on the roleplay note there, KieSharku. The ability to drop pets in houses (or some sort of "stable" structure where pets can be dropped off safety deposit style) is definitely a much requested item, and is right up there on the wish list. Itseems likekind of a separate item from the baby rarity/variety issue, though, since it would require substantially more development effort than tweaking the "tameable/untameable" fields in the database. Still on the list, though.

And kudos for liking Gungans and not being afraid to admit it. I do a rather impressiveBoss Nass impression myself, though I'll spare you folks here.