Creature Handler Archive

I was thinking, while riding around looking for a Thune Grassland Guardian, about the our issue concerning level 70 and below tamables and TH's statement about it ages ago. I decided to do some quick checks on SWGcreatures and that got me even more excited. Under level 70, here's how the creature distribution breaks down.

Under level 70 with tamable baby: 394
Under level 70 without tamable baby: 370

Sounds like a massive "exception" and it excited me greatly, prepping the post I went to grab the TH reference and oops that changes everything. Here's TH's exact quote from 10-29-2003 at 10:49 AM , you can still find it on the dev archive or in THs message history, thread is named “Oh my…sir, he says there are several creatures approaching"

---

Some previously tamable creatures will be made tamable again, some will be rare. Some never-before-tamable creatures will be made tamable, and some of those will be rare. How’s that for vague? (No specific examples..that’s half the fun )



Below level 50, creatures which are never tamable will be the exception rather than the rule. Creatures 60+ will be very, very rare.



It will not involve camping specific locations, although it might be useful to hunt in regions where the particular creature that you're looking for is more common.

---

Uh oh. TH never said level 70. He said level 50. Here's how that breaks down...

Under level 50 tamable/untamable: 382 tamable/343 untamable
level 50-level 59 tamable/untamable: 11 tamable/22 untamable
level 60-level 70 tamable/untamable: 1 tamable/6 untamable
level 71+ tamable/untamable: 0 tamable/32 untamable (just for completeness)

Given his statment I'd say we have a reasonable arguement that all creatures level 50 and under should be made tamable with a few exceptions, but not 343 exceptions. For the level 51-60 range there was no statement so it's hard to argue for those to be added and the rate for those is basically the same as under 50. Best case we fight to get them included in a level 50 and under "baby boom". For level 60-70 we're only talking about 6 creatures...foul desecrator, bark mite burrower queen, arachne queen, bull rancor, gronda juggernaut, reclusive cavern spider queen (one of the 7 is the nightsister rancor, that's a legitimate exception). TH has already said 60-70 babies will be "very very rare", it's hard to read if that means "very rare to find babies, but tamable" or "very rare to produce babies". If it's the second then 1 of 6 would be in line with his quote.

Anyway, I don't think this should change our request, since the creature balance, there's very few things under level 70 that would be more than a speed bump to the average player in PvP and none will tank as well as a player in PvE. I do think it's important that we do not try to claim all level 70 and under tamables because "TH promised them" or similar arguement.

There TH isn't as evil as we thought, only a little evil

EDIT: realized after the fact that my two sets of numbers don't add up. The second set is correct, fixed a dumb error and forgot to change the 394/370 number.

Message Edited by Bynder on 09-03-2004 11:25 PM

---

Bynder wrote:

There TH isn't as evil as we thought, only a little evil

---

---

digiwrath wrote:

does it really make a difference? i haven't seen this particular argument come up in months. at this point you're just beating a dead horse.

people want every animal < = clvl 70 to have a (realistic)chance of spawning a baby, and that's all there is to it. end of story, it's simple as that. there isno conceivable reason whyany given animalcannot.

andnoone better put up somecrap about "mature/ancient/ol'timer" and "pup/youth/young'n" animals having babies not making any sense. any semblance to real life this game may have goes out the door the first time you shoot a gnort with alaser gun, so there's no reason why it should be a limiting factor in what we can or cannot get in this game.

---

But see, if we're able to tame all pets under CL 70, we'll become too powerful and get nerfed. (Yes, that's supposed to behumor )

Really, really agree about "mature/ancient, etc. etc." That has always bugged the hell out of me that people would use that as an argument. Ancient Reptilian Flyer - maybe it's just a name! a title for pete's sake! (And who is pete anyway? I've always wondered). It doesn't have to literally be ancient. Are Grizzly Bears really grizzly or is that just a name for a type of bear? Could a blurgg pupbe just a different kind of blurgg? So, yeah, no nonsense about those creatures not having babies.

In a perfect SWG, digi...