Ranger Archive
Thread: Ungrouped Pets Now Eat 40% Of Harvests
Cross-posted to Scout and CH forums.
Needless to say...NOT amused.
Edit: more data -- it seems this only happens if you have grouped with the pet(s) at all. Once you disband the system thinks you're still grouped. Since most of us group with our pets to improve mission quality this is still an issue. Workaround for now is to get your missions, store the pets and recall without grouping.
Message Edited by DFH on 02-12-2004 11:03 PM
Sounds fair to me. I have said all along, solo means you and a weapon, not you, a weapon and a pet.
You want the extra help, you gotta pay for it somehow.
Just my opinion, not a flame.
JB
Not to mention, I have a mount I use all the time. While hunting, he is set on guard. Although, I don't group as I don't need to track HP that closely on my pet. I say that is still hunting solo. A single Cowboy on horseback hunting for grub for the night is not a "posse" ether.
Sounds like a bug to me, the flag that sets the group harvest is not reset after disbanding.
/agree 100%
sherriffjustice wrote:
JB, a CH's pet is his weapon, plain and simple. It should not count against harvests.
OOM wrote:/agree 100%
sherriffjustice wrote:
JB, a CH's pet is his weapon, plain and simple. It should not count against harvests.
its a pretty poor weapon heh.
think of pets like using dogs to hunt jaguar or lions or bears etc. the dogs arent doing the killing they arent weapons. they are tools used to distract the animal your hunting. a pet gnawing on an animal ruins its hides breaks its bones and ruins its meat. a hunter putting a single shot thru the creature preserves the resources more than letting a pet gnaw on it.
thats just how i think of it and a penalty for using a pet to hunt with should stay.
In fact, anyone at all who uses more than one shot to bring down a creature should have his harvest reduced.
This might have been an interesting idea to include at the initial design stage. It is not appropriate now to penalise people for their choice of weapon.
Barb-Wire wrote:
OOM wrote:/agree 100%
sherriffjustice wrote:
JB, a CH's pet is his weapon, plain and simple. It should not count against harvests.
its a pretty poor weapon heh.
think of pets like using dogs to hunt jaguar or lions or bears etc. the dogs arent doing the killing they arent weapons. they are tools used to distract the animal your hunting. a pet gnawing on an animal ruins its hides breaks its bones and ruins its meat. a hunter putting a single shot thru the creature preserves the resources more than letting a pet gnaw on it.
thats just how i think of it and a penalty for using a pet to hunt with should stay.
What happens if you gut-shot it? The meat is spoiled. Also, how many animals have you "One Shot" lately?
Pets are not weapons, per se, they are additional members of your party that you have taken time and skill points to learn to control.
If a CH is so silly as to have no combat profession skills and relies soley on pets, well.... sorry bout that. That is one dead CH.
A pet, be it factional or animal, be it a pet or a mount, is an additional "fighter" for you. Yes, in essense it's a weapon, but not totally. My blaster does not shoot at targets indiscriminately, it does not run away, it can't duck and dodge, it does not deliver special attacks (I do, using it), it does not have it's own HAM bar. I can tell my pet to attack target #1 while I deal with target #2, can't do that with a weapon.
Yes, pets are smart weapons, but as they have their own HAM bars, can be healed during combat, and have a somewhat limited intelligence, I have to contend they are members of your group. Think of them as little smart bombs, you can fire and forget them, and then re-use them.
I made this arguement even when I was using my CH as a tank. I was grouped with him and took the reduction in harvest as the cost for using a tank.
With the next publish and no camps being needed to call pets, there has to be some cost to using pets in hunting. The 40% reduction in harvestis that cost. Nothing is free.
JB