 |
|
Jun 16, 2006, 11:03 AM // 11:03
|
#21 |
|
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Guild: Djisora No Mon [DjiM]
Profession: W/E
|
/truly and utterly unsigned
- Takes forever to program. - It's lame if they can't use their original skills (if they can it causes major imbalance) - Probably nobody would want the original pets anymore - Some creatures use ranged attacks, while pet skills are based on melee attacks - (and 1000 other isssues that make this idea impossible) Last edited by Embodiment Of Gaia; Jun 16, 2006 at 11:05 AM // 11:05.. |
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 11:14 AM // 11:14
|
#22 |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, UK
Guild: Rite Of Passage [RP]
Profession: E/Mo
|
Oh come on. Have some sense people. Obviously not 'every' creature will be charmable. Just from the point of view of logic. Shiro and the Lich would never be charmable. To use that as an argument is asinine. Like the OP pointed out, it is just for the look. It is effectively just a skin.
Also, only melee creatures would be available. Making all the humanoid creatures non-charmable isn't too hard to do either. This is a nice idea. The size could be mitigated. The levels could be dropped down to 5 so that you have to 'raise' them yourself. It would be fun looking for creatures that can and cannot be charmed. Having a mini-minotaur/Bladed Aatxe at your side would just be too cool. (within reason) Signed/ Scarab Devourer Shard Wolf (!) Smiter Minotaur Drake Fungal Wallow Stone horse-things These creatures already seem like pet's. No big deal aesthetically. Charming a Bladed Aatxe without being completely annihilated might take a few attempts though  .By the way, what do any of you actually know about programming? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 11:39 AM // 11:39
|
#23 |
|
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: May 2006
Profession: Mo/Me
|
Stop bashing the poor guy. It's impressive how after several explanations some people still cry about imbalance. It's only skin !
I find the idea fun, but it's probably too much work too implement for what it's worth. Anet did give us new pets in Cantha, you can't honestly expect much more than this. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 11:51 AM // 11:51
|
#24 |
|
Forge Runner
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Australia.
Guild: Crystal Mountain [CM]
Profession: W/
|
/unsign
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 12:01 PM // 12:01
|
#25 |
|
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Profession: Me/R
|
/notsigned
You are welcome to come up with an idea to charm "NEW" "WILD" "ANIMALS", but don't come and ask to charm monsters. Rangers dont try to charm their enemies, they try to charm those who are close to nature and that of Melandru. That, of course, makes the better companion. Why charm a monster knowing what chaos it had been causing... how trustworthy would you consider your monster to be? Get with the program people!! |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 12:06 PM // 12:06
|
#26 |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
not sure i really like the idea either.. and it could get confusing in a battle having a troll or a wurm running about
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 12:54 PM // 12:54
|
#27 |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
maybe one of the new egyptian profession in the next expansion can have a mind control skill to charm these unnatural creatures...
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 01:17 PM // 13:17
|
#28 |
|
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
This doesn't make sense at all. Charm anything? A monster is an MPC, not an NPC. A monster has its own skill set and class.
Most animals are NPC's. They are basic attacking type creatures.. that are basically a necro minion that doesn't degen. I like the concept of beast mastery but dislike how its executed. ( the only real usage of a pet is to sadly make necro feedings ) I can say one thing though. Every creature you can charm should be given its own unique ability. Have monster only skills like grasping ghouls or kappas have. Pets are horribly horribly underrated- if this concept was more ratified then I'd not of put my points all into wilderness survival. I wish I could make a skill set that was mostly all pet skills and let my pet do the major attacking well I am the backup/cover instead of the otherway around. The way it is now, the pet attack skills mostly just clutter up the space of skills and spells that can be more useful to keep YOU alive. If your worried about something like astetics- I'd think of taking another class up. ... Oh one more slice of pie. There are some creatures that I consider but GW has them as MPC's. How I see it in a general way of speaking. If it doesn't walk upright- you should be able to charm it. But NOT without a fight. This would only apply to more brawny creatures( no charming casters allowed ). Like minotuars and river skales( you know in pre-searing ) and that kin. Or the bull from pre-searing. I'm sure there are alot of people that wanted to charm bill the bull but then it said "target is not an animal".. oh come on its a BULL! It'd be nice for a change to have a pet and make it able to solo with it instead of this bogus illusion of what beast mastery is. I won't sign this though. Charming anything would be dumb. /nosign (edit: I thought of even something more interesting just of now. I'd even go further to say pets could have skill sets but only 4 skills. 1 being an inherhent skill and you could choose the other 3, thats right YOU choose. No elite skills or signets allowed because were going on the basic a pet is brawny not brainy. Since pets don't use hammers, or axes. There isn't much to unbalance) Last edited by Boomer the Gnome; Jun 16, 2006 at 01:24 PM // 13:24.. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 01:41 PM // 13:41
|
#29 |
|
Forge Runner
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Among dead bodies.
Guild: The Republic of Sky Pirates
Profession: E/
|
/not signed
I think the others said enough |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 01:41 PM // 13:41
|
#30 | |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, UK
Guild: Rite Of Passage [RP]
Profession: E/Mo
|
Quote:
You see how ridiculous this sounds? Yeah... This is a game. Game. Get over it already... |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 03:00 PM // 15:00
|
#31 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Far from you.
Guild: House of Vahn
Profession: W/Mo
|
Scarab
Devourer Shard Wolf (this is still gw... NO!) Smiter (Not even a creature, its a ghost.....) Minotaur (??!?!? why resize that) Drake (??!?!? why resize that) Fungal Wallow (??!?!? why resize that) Stone horse-things (??!?!? why resize that) And to the comment above: This is a game. Game. Get over it already... Some people care about it, its a game, why do we want this kind of ideas to ruin the whole #&&"/"# game?! Better stop playing it if you arent happy about what PETS you can have. Shat... Get a bit serious! And YES it would take time, and the time would be wasted 10000000000000% EXAMPLE Game updates: "Resized some creature in order to make our younger players more happy. Now you can charm any unreal creature in the game. Now the meaning of the rangers love for animals is not what the ranger is about. Beouse now you can have a smiter as pet.." I mean come on! Stop it already.. enough jokes in one day. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 03:42 PM // 15:42
|
#32 | |
|
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Profession: Me/R
|
Quote:
Your own logic is flawed... or more like exagerrated. If you think I sound rediculous, look at all the people doing the 'ol /unsigned in this thread... they must all be crazy... Flawed logic because you made a bad comparison between secondary professions, and monster taming... The reason being is that an N/Mo and an R/N is comprised of two different classes with different ideals. A N/Mo uses healing to a deathly advantage, and an R/N took the path of the dead, and uses vile skills coupled with trained expertise. And you are absolutely correct, killing anything is against nature (...well, not really, Rangers have to protect all that is natural... being a ranger and all...) and if we didn't have second professions, this would be true, but its entirely dependant on what the character decides, which is what makes this game so great. I'm not saying a N cant be a N/Mo, that is a right of path. But giving rangers the automatic ability to tame monsters is not a right of path, it is a separate ability that rangers shouldnt naturally have. A ranger is in touch with nature, monster taming is NOT an art of a ranger, if you want to tame monsters, then develop an entirely new class devoted to such a profession this way, monster taming wont just benefit the ranger only. Gosh, they have enough already, dont be soo stingy... This way, you can wait until chapter 3, you know, i hear something similar is in the works... Yes it is a game, and I love it. You should read some of the concepts they have for each class, they show alot^^ Last edited by Terra Xin; Jun 16, 2006 at 04:07 PM // 16:07.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 04:09 PM // 16:09
|
#33 | |
|
Academy Page
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 04:31 PM // 16:31
|
#34 | ||||||
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, UK
Guild: Rite Of Passage [RP]
Profession: E/Mo
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If Melandru doesn't mind ranger's sucking the very life out of other beings, I'm sure she'll forgive you for turning a one-time 'enemy' into a loyal ally. Call it born again faith. A lifting of the fog. Divine realisation. Whatever. It works for me. Your previous point about "...those who are close to nature and that of Melandru..." as an argument against having certain 'monsters' as pet's is what I was refering to. Let's take a look shall we? Quote:
Quote:
Oh and... Quote:
The simple fact is, it's a nice idea. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's rubbish. For those who just can not seem to grasp the concept of more variety for pet users. My appologies. There's not much I can do for you. Yes. This is a game. One I enjoy immensly. It doesn't belong to you or I. It belongs to everyone (well technically, it belong's to NCSoft, but you get my point). We all have to get along. Even if we all have different tastes. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 04:42 PM // 16:42
|
#35 | |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: European Union
Guild: The Amazon Basin
|
Quote:
 Monsters are referred to as 'Mobs', but I don't know if that stands for anything or where that name came from  Does anyone know? Pop quiz!  I wouldn't mind charming something a bit more monstrous for the look, but it would have to work like a standard L20 pet of course
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 04:46 PM // 16:46
|
#36 |
|
Academy Page
Join Date: Oct 2005
Profession: W/Mo
|
I want glint as my pet.....
.... no, i dont I like the way it is now /not signed |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 07:14 PM // 19:14
|
#37 | |
|
Forge Runner
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Guild: Glengarry Fencibles
Profession: R/
|
Quote:
NPC = Non-Player Character. Meaning AI (not the player) controls these characters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 08:18 PM // 20:18
|
#38 |
|
Desert Nomad
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belgium
|
for the jesus of crackers are you people to dumb to realise its only going to be looks its still only going to be al lv20 ankle nibbling pet wich yust happens to look a little different sometimes i wonder if some people even read the threads
i would be fine with this as yust for looks and the monsters need to reasonable like... grasping ghoul (no skills from the monster version whatsoever) hellhound (no skills from the monster version whatsoever) devourers (same as above) and so on... only melee reasonable sized monsters wich would be reffered to as having a kill or be killed brain /signed |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 09:07 PM // 21:07
|
#39 |
|
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
I do not agree on charming anything, but maybe adding a "few" new animals to charm. Like any basic animal in our everyday world.
Maybe...maybe not? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2006, 09:09 PM // 21:09
|
#40 |
|
Wilds Pathfinder
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
hahahahahaha!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! /notsigned |
|
|
|
 |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30 PM // 16:30.
jQuery(document).ready(checkAds()); function checkAds(){if (document.getElementById('adsense')!=undefined){document.write("_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Adblock', 'Unblocked', 'false',,true]);");}else{document.write("