Development Cycle Archive
Thread: “Oh my…sir, he says there are several creatures approaching�
Ok, I gotta say, now that I've actually SEEN the proposed skill trees, it doesn't look that bad, since you won't be nerfing the +1 active at Mgmt, my number 1 beef. I think that would have my support. Whew...
question:
does that mean at master ch you can have 2 pets out and 1 droid?
if so will the droid count against max cl?
Psyko1469 wrote:
Non-CH must stay at CL 15 or EVERYONE will be part CH. I will not give up my $hitty Rock Beetles and I will not settle for a Spat for a mount. I pay for this game to be fun (and I pay way too much for no content for crafters). The little fun I can have now as a crafter has been taken away now. I'm going to drop skills now and become a "dabbler" CH that you're sotrying to avoid, simply so I can survive long enough to go empty my harvesters on a n00b planet, less than 1000m from a city.
YouDevs just don't get it. At all.
To the contrary, I think they get it quite well. You are now going to have to train in creature handler to some degree to handle creatures strong enough to be effective in combat. The change is really quite simple and clear.
Before: you could handle extremely effective combat pets without spending a single point in creature handling. If you dabbled only partially in two lines you could handle the most effective combat tank creatures still spawning in the wild (graul maulers, with respect to PvE).
After: only creature handlers can handle such creatures. Dabbling will get you what you pay for, stronger pets, but not nearly the effectiveness of a master for a fraction of the investment.
As for your survival difficulties, before creature handler changes were ever even announced, they said they were retooling the combat system. Even now though, I find it hard to believe that anyone invested in an advanced combat class has such extreme difficulty navigating around newbie planets. Even a post nerf probot should let you do that well enough, and if not, and if you haven't invested significantly in a combat profession, well then the problem most likely has nothing to do with the system in place or how it will evolve, more likely it's an issue with you, the player.
I don't agree with most, if not all these changes.
However, instead of SOE's "Continuity be damned!" approach how about you go ahead and nerf Rancors with this as well. I don't care if you add in something which is basically a Rancor in a different shell(body), but Rancors are special in Star Wars. I also think it would be nicer if the building size pets were shrunken a tad.
Grey_Ghost
I would like to agree on the Grey's comment about the building sized pets. As most people know, large animals that areraised in captivity rarely grow to be the size of those that are raised in the wild.
Since the pets thatCHs train are found in the wild and brought to captivity as a child (a tiny datapad nonetheless!), wouldn't it make sense that they would be smaller?
Also, it would also make sense that they would not be as powerful as though found in the wild. Now, I don't mean to throw this off as a nerf, instead, I propose agalactic increase in mob creature power. This would allow the CHsto stay happy with their powerful pets, and make the adventure planets more difficult and exciting for Master Commandos and the such.
Comments?
BlindTyldak wrote:
TH: is there any reason why "follow other" and "patrol" can't stay in? They're awesome RP commands and they work well, not to mention they hurt no one. Just toss them in some level 3 or 4 boxes with the proposed changes.
~~Shabhaii, Mayor of Tombra, Naboo
www.cityoftombra.com
The REAL BT
"THe FS system only rewards the Veruca Salt's of the MMO world . . . not the Charlie's"
Follow other was never going to be removed. Patrol/Formations was readded. The only one that's missing is befriend. I admitI never really used befriend but there's at least one occasion when befriend would have saved me from deathblow...and with the upcoming decay on death I think befriend mightseriously be useful afterall.
Howeverthree things with the GuardcommandI would like to be changed/fixed:
- If we getincapped our pets should immediately attack anything walking towardusinstead of just standing there.
- Pet Incap: If pets get incapped please leave them incapped until I store/heal them. I don't know how many times my pets have lostgrievous amounts of vitality just because they get back uponly to attack the npc/creature again and get incapped in one hit and lose evenmore vitality.
- Issuing the Guard command a second time should make pets stop guarding. We have to store and recall right now. A guard status icon would benice also. (green shield?)
Thunderheart, and really all of the DEV's
I just dont get it.
If you have taken the time to read this whole thread, then there is a small chance that my comments on page 6 were seen. After thinking about it on the ride home, I have decided that I did not say enough.
We all cam to this game with certain expectaions. Some complain that it is not Starwarsy enough. Some complain that it is **edit** wars. I have a new set of complaints about why my expectaions are not being met.
The following is from the "Consumer Bill of Rights" as put forth in the Kennedy Adminstration in 1963:
The right to be heard
The right to be heard
- Businesses and government agencies recognize the need to hear complaints that are voiced by consumers.
- Departments are created to handle and respond to customer inquires and complaints
way to go, TH 
this is just the kind of communication we need.
And sneaking that bit about the probot in there at the end...pure hilarity
keep it up
By the way Thunderheart,
Please note that everyone who is agreeing with the changes you highlighted in this thread is a CH that is looking at the CH only changes.
With the exception of the skill tree, CH's are not affected in any way by the changes that have been proposed, and should not have any say in what changes are made to non-CH pets (ex:faction pets and droids).
Most non-CH's that have posted are opposed to any changes to faction pet / droid call changes until we see what we are subscribing to disclosed to us in full. Most (but not all) non-CH's are upset about losing their creature pets, but understand why that is happening. NONE of the non-CH's understand the faction pet / droid nerf, and ALL of us think the nerf is totally unreasonable and un-called-for.
We are BEGGING you to go ahead and make the creature changes to the CH skill tree and CL10 level for non-CHs, but to leave the faction pet / droid issue until something more substantive has been agreed to.
Please, please, PLEASE give non-CH's a little more time to work with you on the changes for droids and faction pets, before you nerf these things. Ourconcerns are getting drowned out by the army of CHs responding to the CH changes, and we still have gotten no response to why faction pets and droid are being nerfed, even though their combat utility is extremely limited.
Having expressed my opposition to these Ideas as "premature" previously, I understand that some people feel that something has to be done. However, what I don't feel is beneficial at all to "balancing" the profession, is to make it so ONLY Master CH can transfer pets or use more than one pet. This is especially the case with mounts being introduced.
Why should ONLY Masters be able to train mounts? Likewise why should only Masters be able to command 2 pets? This isn't the same thing as having two grauls... What about 2 Wrix? (lvl 12 I believe only 1300 HAM). As it stands It takes a very long time to get the boxes in CH. You can't get any XP from using even a regular Graul unless your are on a Krayt Hunt!!! One of the reasons why I would want a second pet, about half way through training for Master, isso that it doesn't take take me months to fill in those last 4 boxes!!
It is my opinion that ALL CH should be able to use a mount, like everyone else will be able to, and useanother pet. So either Mounts need to be considered seperatelyor..... wait a sec! I guessthis is one way for youlazy &$$ people togetaround fixing the way pets fail to path while following. Still I won't really be interested in using a mount if that means that I can't use a combat pet.
The other thing that I am opposed to is lumping faction pets into this deal. The Rebels have nothing that compares with an ATST. So if I can't use multiple faction pets then what's the point of gaining Rank? If all I can have as a Rebel is one Faction Pet, how is that balanced with an Imperial player that can have an ATST?? As it stands my Rebel Troops have a lower HAM than a Storm Trooper. I don't see how this CH issue affects the whole Faction picture. We will still need Graul Maulers to fight ATSTs. But I feel very strongly that Creature pets should be a seperate thing fromFaction Pets. Unless you REALLY want to drive away Rebel players you better think this through more thoroughly.
Thunderheart, and really all of the DEV's
I just dont get it.
If you have taken the time to read this whole thread, then there is a small chance that my comments on page 6 were seen. After thinking about it on the ride home, I have decided that I did not say enough.
We all came to this game with certain expectaions. Some complain that it is not Starwarsy enough. Some complain that it is **edit** wars. I have a new set of complaints about why my expectaions are not being met.
The following is from the "Consumer Bill of Rights" as put forth in the Kennedy Adminstration in 1963:
The right to be heard
Businesses and government agencies recognize the need to hear complaints that are voiced by consumers.
Departments are created to handle and respond to customer inquires and complaints.
I do not see these being truly followed here. Yes, there are problem in this game, as any game will have. Yes, there are needs for change, as any sytem will have. The part that continually floors me about all of this is the simple fact theat the changes being made seem to outnumber the fixes that are being made! You seem to ingnore the masses at every turn for what you all, and a minority ofthe players, think this game should be.
We have the right to a product that works. We have the right to complain and be heard, and be responded to if it does not work.
What you are proposing in lowering the non-Ch abitlity to handle pets to 10 from 15 is to take away from the SUPER MAJORITY of your players a semmingly benign aspect of this game. You have set us up to use this as you have made no efforts to repairseveral othermajor game play flaws in your game.
I know you all seem to really hate it whenever anyone threates acount closures, but think about what you are about to do. What will be the results of your actions?
1. People will be angry about the lose of functionality that you have caused. And dont bore me with saying I just need to find a BE to make another whatever. That is beside the point. Your customer service failure is what will cause that to happen. Why should I, the customer, have to take new action for a service that was taken away for absolutly no good reason?
2. Those who are angry enough will simply leave. We all know that you are about to get several new competitors for your piece of market share. Is this little anoyance, on top of so many others, really necisary? This is not meant as a direct threat by any means, but is it worth job security?
Truly, please place a post in here that lists out all the people who have stood and rallied against non-CH's use of creatures. I will gladly read all of them. I am willing to bet if you put an actuall mass email into the game saying what you are doing most people would tell you flatly no, it is a bad idea. I think the same could easily be said for your wantof the addition of item decay on death. I haven't heard a single person online say Yah, thats a great idea!
I have been in customer service. I have been a manger of a Retail Cahin store. I also now have a degree in marketing. Please, for the love of god, think about what you are doing and look at the secondary analysis of what your actions will cause.
That is it for my plea to those who I would hope would listen,
Lazurk, John Autry
A quick apology for the accidental creation of a double post.