Curse

kirch1jt · Oct 17, 2006, 02:52 PM // 14:52

some ideas for new pets:

Condition Pets:

for example: a spitting snake or something can radomly cause blindness/poison/disease/cripple/etc. So after a long enough attack on 1 foe he would have at least 1(hopefully more) condition on him just from the pets normal melee attacks. Their melee attacks deal less damge (or not) but they can regularly inflict conditions. I dont know about you but after i get hit my a bear i will certainly be bleeding, lol.

Mountable Pets:

pets that once they hit lvl 20 you can mount them for additional boosts. Extra tanking ability/speed/dmg/range. Im not saying give all these to mountable pets (maybe 1 or 2).

i did a quick search for something similar and didnt find anything, but sorry if this has been said b4.

Knightsaber Sith · Oct 17, 2006, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Mounts have been suggested. The traditional way that Anet sets up the map, mounts wouldn't be needed. But in light of that wurm thing in Nightfall, they might actually be moving toward adding mounts in the future. I think mounts should be seperate from ranger pets, I can't even imagine trying to hop on my blue crabs back. I'd probablly have to stand.

lyra_song · Oct 17, 2006, 03:49 PM // 15:49

I think...if GW ever implemented mounts, it would be a mount-specific class that required its own attribute.

The mounts would be available on a secondary...but not as effective, since the primary attribute should hold all the skills associated with the mount.

but mounted pets.... /no
condition pets /no

conditions should be caused by skills, since theres no "randomly removing conditions" for no cost.

Mammoth · Oct 17, 2006, 03:52 PM // 15:52

An interesting concept, i would love to have my ritualist ride on the black moa

But in the long run i just dont see people ever able to hop on their pets for a ride... (I dont think my monk would be able to ride on her big phoenix very well... but the thought of it is pretty cool)

Emik · Oct 17, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Please not the mount thing again...
Ok good idea but already used in too many games
WoW, the new 'Archlord' and so on and so on...
It's idd the case that atm GW does not need pets in the game and i'm pretty sure it's going to stay that way.
I'd say more and ask them NOT to implement mounts.

As for conditioning pets...
A party of 8 with each a conditioning pet is overpowered sorry.
Can't see it happen

Domino · Oct 17, 2006, 05:01 PM // 17:01

It would allow for interesting mini-games (races anyone?) but the use of mounts would have to be limited to certain areas.

Stemnin · Oct 17, 2006, 05:14 PM // 17:14

I don't see any usefulness in mounts in this game, it's not like Oblivion, omg I got a horse! Then you go back to fast travel (which GW has as well) after 10 min on the horse lol.

And for conditions caused by pets.. poisonous bite.. yadda yadda yadda.

actionjack · Oct 17, 2006, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Pet abuse is not funny. Imagin a full-grown man in suit of armor trying to ride on a Moa bird, or the lizzard, or a Flamingo.

Mount I see is more for a new class.. with more offensive/deffensive support than as a fast transportation. Or in-mission situational use.

Franco · Oct 17, 2006, 06:21 PM // 18:21

what Stemnin said, Poisonous bite etc

kirch1jt · Oct 17, 2006, 07:05 PM // 19:05

by mountable pets i meant new pets, a horse or something. And not all pets would be mountable.

Also, not all pets could inflict a condition. I also didnt mean that the pets able to inflict conditions would inflict all conditions. i meant 1 pet would attack and inflict bleeding (for example) once every X number of hits.

sorry, i guess i wasnt clear.