Creature Handler Archive

Try using your pets in a PvP battle.. last time i used my pet it went from 100/100 to 45/100 after 1 battle.

Because pets get up after a while and someone one shots it again and again and again... well you get the point.. thats alot of DB's.

The decay is noticed alot more in PvP.. but then our pets are not really pvp effective regardless.

One thing i would love to see is creatures tamed in the wild accually growing beyond the wild version.

I always thought that BE'ed pets should lose vitality twice as fast as tamed pets. Think about it:

I know it doesn't apply here, but with current cloning technology, there's some debate as to whether or not cloned animals age faster than they should. Dolly, the famous sheep, died quite young after exhibiting symptoms of old age like arthritis.

BE's are pushing the creatures they make past the physical limits of nature, which is how they can get creatures with lots of health, strong attacks, and specials they were never intended to have. It could be that this stress on their physiology makes them age (lose vitality) faster, whichrequires more maintenance and, eventually, death.

This would be a great way for MCHs to compete on some level with BEs. BE'ed pets are stronger and faster, but don't last (lose a lot of vitality very quickly). Tamed pets are not as strong, obviously, but they live much longer (lose vitality at a rate comparable to now).

This would solve the problem with the fact that there is currently no reason at all for MCHs to try and tame creatures because a BE can one-up you every time with something better.

Yes all pets in my opinion should last forever..unless you delete them the Vitality thing is dumb!

"your shady hat $30
your ecko jeans $65
your g-unit shirt $43
your sean john sweatshirt 75$
your rocawear socks 21$
your nexi $100
your bling bling $250
your gucci do-rag $25
your air force 1's $75
realizing that ur white..
Priceless"

---

Kharrissa wrote:

"No it would only be beneficial to BE's not me, it would just make me poor, and have you been living under a rock lol the only pets in great demand are good BE pets not wild tamed ones, so how would my 200k kimo beneficial me by wearing out eh.... so i can have the joy of spending another 200k on another from a BE, that really doesa lot for me there........ The only thing it would do is become another cash sink !!!! and er from the amount of cash I've made from training pets for ppl would cover about and 1/8th of that above mendtioned Kimo, as i hunt for cash and resources...this of course is just from my chars point of view but I don't know many ppl who make a living training pets or ppl "

This one is very good. It has a sort of "teen angst" thing going for it. My first reaction was that I wanted to give this person a hug.

Let me try to paraphrase this one to sort of cook it down to its core elements.

"I am opposed to permadeath because it will inconvenience me personally. It will inconvenience me personally because I play a style where my pets die all the time. I see my pets as very valuable in terms of what they cost, but not valuable enoughto justifyplaying a style that would ensure their longevity. I want to play a game where I am insulated from the consequences of my own decisions."

How was that? Close? Not even close?

I am sure that my detractors will accuse me of putting words in this person's mouth. So, take your best shot at paraphrasing it yourself. Reduce it to its most basic form.

One thing I will say for this message. Whether intentional or not, it addresses the core issues of the argument.

---

Teen angst Oh thats good you couldn't be so wrong there, thats a load of the proverbial, try reading the post a little closer and condsider whats been written and whats been left out, you make far to may assumptions.

For your info I usually perfer to die myself than my pet as wierd as that sounds I am very protective of them and in 5 months of being a CH out of about 50 pets i have had only 2 have died (a Graul twice and a gurreck once) I have either gave them to friends or sold them reluctantly.

And I would be please if you would not put words in my mouth because you have basically twisted what i said to suit what u think, and my pets are vauable to me both Financially and to be honest Emotionally I get attatched to them, and as I earn ALL my money with them of course they matter financially, for what they earn and what they cost to buy.

Insulated from my own decisions far from a method of pet decay is already in place, the fact my pets don't die very often is down to me looking after them

and there is no need to paraphrase my post at all unless your just trying to look intelligent, try to find hidden meanings and hints that are wrong in this case and in many others probably, perhaps you should stop paraphrasing ppl's post and just reply directly to whats been said posted, then maybe you'd make valid points and wouldn't have so "many" detractors as you say..... you should try it!

I would like to add 2 comments to this discussion:

1 - First, Most people here recognize that this is "an economy issue"... Pet vitality is one way to transfer money from the CH's to the BE's (through the sale of vitality packs and replacement pets) in addition to tissues and pet stims that the BE also has to sell.

Money comes into the economy through missions and then gets moved around through sales and transfers. As a rule, the CH's do the missions, and then spend their money buying BE wares. The flow of cash is every "one-way" (from CH to BE) so naturally, the BE's would like to see more ways to increase the cash flow, and CH's would like to stem the flow as much as possible.

That's why a BE/CH comes these boards and starts a thread suggesting that pets die even faster, then all of a sudden you have every BE/ch and every Non-BE/ch on opposite sides of the issue.

2 - Second, Am I the only one who remembers the way it was before we fixed the vitality system in the first place? Am I the only one who's been playing this profession for 8 months? Don't you guys remember?

If pets die too fast, then some people become afraid to "use" any "good" pets.

Instead, the CH's will go out and fill up their datapad with 22 readily available merek assassins that they can tame for the cost of travel/cloning expenses.

Then they will treat their pets like they are "disposable." When they start running low, they'll go back to endor and fill up again.

In other words, they'll stop spending money on clones. They'll "make do" with what they can get.

Conclusion:

The two points above are linked together.

If you're a BE and you wish for faster pet decay, then be careful what you wish for - your wish may become your curse.

CH's wont come back to your vendor over and over again for pets that die too soon.

Instead, they will satisfy themselves with "lesser" pets that can be readily obtained at lower costs.

The fact that I can reasonably expect my pets to last a while is exactly why I'm willing to spend the money on descent clones.

"One thing i would love to see is creatures tamed in the wild accually growing beyond the wild version."

"and there is no need to paraphrase my post at all unless your just trying to look intelligent, try to find hidden meanings and hints that are wrong in this case and in many others probably, perhaps you should stop paraphrasing ppl's post and just reply directly to whats been said posted, then maybe you'd make valid points and wouldn't have so "many" detractors as you say..... you should try it!"

"First, Most people here recognize that this is "an economy issue"...

That's why a BE/CH comes these boards and starts a thread suggesting that pets die even faster, then all of a sudden you have every BE/ch and every Non-BE/ch on opposite sides of the issue."

I have a couple of questions about this. Maybe you can help me out.

Is it really an economy issue for most people? For me personally, it is not, but I could just be in the minority. I can sort of see it being an economics-related issue for the person that buys a lot of pets that die all the time. Would you say that would describe most people? Maybe it does.

I am a non-BE/CH and I am pro-permadeath. I guess that just makes me the exception to the rule? Or did I misunderstand the division on the issue? You did use the word "every" right?

"and there is no need to paraphrase my post at all unless your [sic] just trying to look intelligent"

Actually, I defer to the expertise of Willowbend on all things pedantic.

Willowbend is someone who has meditated long and hard on the nature of what it is to be pedantic.

It would be grossly unfair of me toeven attemptto usurp Willowbend's title as Mr. (or Ms.) Pedantic.

On a more serious note, one of my favorite pieces of jewelry in the game is an emerald pedantic.

Ok, that might be an emerald pendant. I will have to check on that and get back to you.

---

Muzz wrote:

"Just what this profession needs another FREAKING nerf. This one asked for by the profession itself. I can not believe you guys. Sometimes I wonder why I bother staying with this profession."

Talk about an over-reaction. Let's take a look at a couple of points. Once a CH hits Master, he then goes about filling his datapad with the best pets for his/her style of play. Usually over a short period of time this will be 22 BE pets as tamed are basically useless and worthless.

They are only rarely replaced with similar BE pets that may have better res, slightly higher HAM etc....

When you hit Master CH when do you EVER use your taming skills?? I know I haven't used mine for ages. Selling pets, even mounts to non-CHs is now a non-existent market, and tamed creatures are useless in any form of combat.

There have also been comments made that basically we are worthless in PvP, and now average in PvE, and we want more combat power back. Well, other combat classes that are worth their salt have weapons that deteriorate at a much faster rate than our 'weapons', I think the post originator was raising a valid point.

Screaming NERF NERF at this subject is a little over the top, you can't have it all ways. Even if the deterioration rate for pets was upped a bit would it really affect the CHs that much?? With 22 pets in datapad I don't see a problem.

---

This thread and your post are calling for a NERF because your grouping apples and oranges, the reason for the decay rate of weapons is to give ARTISANS vis-a-vis Weaponsmiths a constant source of income because, as easily known by reading ANY guide here, in the manual, on the web; ARTISAN is the money making profession. Making CH pets die easier can only hurt us. After the BE Revamps BEs make PLENTY of money, as you said tamed pets are worthless, buy from BE - BE makes money, Pets lose Vitality - BEs make money, Tame Cloths - BE makes money, Pets regen incredibly slow so we need pet stims - BEs make money, Non-CH need low CL pets that are strong which CH can not provide - BEs make money. There is absolutely no reason to make pets die quicker except to fuel the BE economy which is unfounded at this point. As you stated CH don't make money from ANYTHING, so killing off our pets quicker will only make CH have to go and give more money to BEs. Plus vitality loss reduces pet HAM reducing our ability to be affective reducing our ability to make income, which we are not making of of being a CH anyway, which is effectively a NERF by any means. Also, which so many people tend to forget, you go on about "Once a CH hits Master" or "22 pets in your pad", so are you saying only make this NERF for Masters? No your not, and you know if it's done it will be unilateral and all the CHs who aren't masters yet are screwed. Everyone likes to point out what is best for THEM, try to keep in mind what is best for the profession as a whole, masters as well as those trying to get there. The BE Market is in no fear of collapsing, there will ALWAYS be current players switching professions, there well ALWAYS be new CH entering the game. I'm sure you realize that this is a GAME and the turn-over rate for people leaving and entering the game is ENORMOUS and always will be. Making a non-issue into and issue with no foundation is why we run into NERF problems. I could understand if there was a true issue here but starting of with a "This MIGHT happen, so lets change it now" is ridiculous, especially when the might will never happen and BEs are no where close to dire straights.