I completely agree! If a player wants to take the advantages from taming the kick a fighting skill.
Taming and Animal Care (As they are now) Should be Crafting Skills
- Thread starter Kaemik
- Start date
I completely agree! If a player wants to take the advantages from taming the kick a fighting skill.
Let me give you a run down:
taming + animal care = 2 primaries
domestication: 7 primaries
There is not reason not to break up those 7 primaries into economical and combat related skills. There is already a cross-over with zoology lore skills, which are on the profession tree. Aquiring resources (taming) and especially improving them (animal care) do not strike me as action skills, and if so they are like gathering/mining/woodcutting which are all secondaries. If you worry is taming mid-combat you could simply put a minimum loyalty or similar as a requirement for combat actions from the pet.
You are also just ignoring the fact that I can simulate this by simply having 2 accounts or buying pets. Then I don´t have to spend those 200 points and still get max. level tamed pets with 200 points spend elsewhere. Why is can a fighter craft his own sword without any penalty to this fighting ability?
Balancing a potential PvP imbalance by ignoring basic logic and bloating character builds is a bad idea in the long run. The game turns in Pokemon Online when pets are too powerful for the cost they require. Both are currently in an open design process.
I agree that it's bad to have skills in the actions skills, when they don't have a direct impact on "actions", such as animal care. However, I disagree that they should be moved to the proffession. The should have an direct impact.
A self tamed pet should be stronger than a bought one, and a self leveled pet with animal care should be stronger than a bought one.
Your arguments are all over the place, and it's pretty obvious you just want to get your own pets on a fully-skilled foot fighter.
Thats an incredibly simple minded POV.. Well you see its parent skill is an action skill so screw all logic all the following skills have to be as well.. Balance? Nah it looks cleaner so I'll stick with that.
I can think of 3 ways off the top of my head of how to implement the other skills on the opposing skill list, people like you just like crying about other people having an opinion that isn't your own.
PS - Pokemon was incredibly successful unlike MO1, MO could learn a thing or two.
D
Dracu
Guest
People will anyway. Like if it goes in as it is now, and I really cared enough, I'd make an alt to do the taming and a main to command the pets. No skill lost for taming, no skill lost for animal training, fully viable pet user as long as I take creature control and the other skills actually related to commanding the pets.
I'm past it at this point though. If taming stays as it is, I will take domination and just deal with the slower leveling pets. As will everyone else whose serious about optimizing their combat build and still wants some form of taming. Taming is a skill exclusively for carebears and roleplayers if it stays where it is without at least be being buffed to give combat relevant bonuses. But "You want a fully skilled..." dies as an argument for something being a combat/active when I can just get it done on an alternate account. If we think creature control takes too few actives. Add more points to creature control. Not some points to taming and training pets I can entirely bypass on an optimized combat account.
Last edited:
My arguments are straight forward. Which one do you need more explaination for?
You can have a fully skilled fighter (minus CC, adv. CC and beast mastery) with a fully leveled pet with the current system. It just requires you to trade or have a second account. Both easily done. Having taming and animal care on the action tree will actually make it worse, because it´s easy to argue that pets should be extremely powerful considering all the points you have to spend on them. It was a frequent counter argument when I argued for pets and mounts to be balanced in Mortal Online 1.
If something is inconvienient but powerful players will go through trouble (trading, second account) to have it.
---
@Rhias Of course SV can scrap how the system worked. Personally I don´t have much love for the set-up as it was. I still think that skills that aquire and refine a resource - rather than use it in combat - should fall under professions. I actually think mining and woodcutting should move over as well.
If I can use taming in combat to steal someones pet or perform a special action that gives me an advantage that would be different story. Some goes for animal care.
I am arguing that taming and animal care as they worked in MO1 should be under the profession tree. Changing their function obviously would change the discussion. Taming and animal care do not give you an advantage in combat as it stands in MO1.
Not to mention that nearly all broken pets in MO1 history where not tamed but dominated or came from necromancy.
Last edited:
Absolutely. If having a pet requires 300 points of primary, I want a pet worth 300 points. If it's worth 700 points of primary, I want a pet worth 700 points.
If it's worth 1200 points of primary, I want my pet to be as powerful as a player of similar spec.
So if we ARE arguing that taming belongs on the combat tree, then pets should be balanced around a 600 point investment. (At which point I will invest up to 400 points in the actual combat relevant skills, take my 600 points worth of pets, and laugh maniacally)
If we're moving taming and animal care over to professions where I feel they belong, then pets should be balanced around 400 or however many primary points are actually feeding into their strength.
The suggestion is not to move pets. Creature control, advanced creature control, herding, beast influence, and beast mastery all should stay where they are.
These all govern aspects of your abilities to control pets and use them in combat.
If you are fully leveled into each of those skills, you go and buy some pets from a broker or a guildy, and then get into combat, you will have the exact same effectiveness for controlling those purchased pets as someone with taming and animal care.
Taming is the ability to tame the pet.
Animal care is the ability to level it faster.
However, a tamed/leveled pet is tradable. The fact the benefit of those two skills can be traded to other players is why it belongs under profession.
Any argument to the contrary, is arguing pets should be balanced around a 700 primary point investment despite the fact I can effectively drop 200 points of those skills without harming combat effectiveness.
There's a bit of a difference between Taming and crafting (and even resource gathering). A tamed pet is gathered and usable on the spot. I don't have to gather materials to build a pet, nor go to a crafting station to make it usable. To me it seems more like a utility whos outcome can be sold, like lock picking.
I do agree any skills that have to do with refining a tamed creature (Leveling, breeding and whatnot) should be put into Profession.
Not all action skills are made equal. If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table.
I do agree any skills that have to do with refining a tamed creature (Leveling, breeding and whatnot) should be put into Profession.
Not all action skills are made equal. If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table.
Then let's go back to the system where we could have a bazillion characters on one sub instead of some pay-to-win system where you need two subs to have the crafting profession you prefer without gutting your combat main.
That would take away some from the economic parts of the design as the users of the profession would have less customers due to more people using an alt for it rather than buying.
I'd rather that than some pay-to-win bullshit. They're selling copies of this game under the premise they divided professions and combat skills into two separate categories. Not some shit about "If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table." That is not what we were told, and if that's the direction they're taking things they need to probably start issuing refunds.
I'd consider them reversing stances on that a major enough issue that I'd want my money back, primary because it will demonstrate they didn't actually learn anything from the failures of MO1 and that they don't keep their promises. To be clear, I don't think they're fully reversing stances. I think taming and potentially thieving are the only skills they have misclassified. But if SV agrees with the statement "If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table" then I would like my money back please because that isn't what they're saying on their website, and it's not what they were saying when I paid them.
An alt should not be a requirement to have a fully viable combat build as well as being fully viable in at least one profession of your choice. That's what they told me my account would be able to do when I paid for it. That is what I expect them to deliver on.
I'd consider them reversing stances on that a major enough issue that I'd want my money back, primary because it will demonstrate they didn't actually learn anything from the failures of MO1 and that they don't keep their promises. To be clear, I don't think they're fully reversing stances. I think taming and potentially thieving are the only skills they have misclassified. But if SV agrees with the statement "If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table" then I would like my money back please because that isn't what they're saying on their website, and it's not what they were saying when I paid them.
An alt should not be a requirement to have a fully viable combat build as well as being fully viable in at least one profession of your choice. That's what they told me my account would be able to do when I paid for it. That is what I expect them to deliver on.
Last edited:
Oh no, you might have to deal one less damage a hit to gain the ability to tame your own stupid animals. What build are you even trying to make?
I would only want a refund if they were dumb enough to go back on their word. I don't think this is a large enough issue to call that yet but the line "Not all action skills are made equal. If you're going to want to focus on combat, you'll be leaving utilities on the table." is absolutely against the premise this game was marketed under. It would be as large of a backtrack as allowing third person or having your armorslots be protected from lootdrop to go along with what Sirgrace is saying what he thinks this game should be. We aren't supposed to have professions locked from us because we choose to play effective combat builds. That's the whole point of splitting the skills in the first place.
If you can't find something better to do than 1 damage a hit with 200 primary points you are absolutely unqualified to be making builds and should just get a cookie-cutter made for you or something. There is literally no build in the game that isn't notably better at combat without 200 points wasted on crafting skills under their combat line if you invest them even semi-wisely.
And I'm going dominator based on how things are shaping up currently because of idiots on cheering on straight bad game design. At least dominator points aren't wasted as the pets aren't tradable.
If you can't find something better to do than 1 damage a hit with 200 primary points you are absolutely unqualified to be making builds and should just get a cookie-cutter made for you or something. There is literally no build in the game that isn't notably better at combat without 200 points wasted on crafting skills under their combat line if you invest them even semi-wisely.
And I'm going dominator based on how things are shaping up currently because of idiots on cheering on straight bad game design. At least dominator points aren't wasted as the pets aren't tradable.
Last edited:
how about. In order to give your pet the option to attack you need 200 action primaries.
and taming and all other can enjoy thier pve style of taming and breeding and stuff. in profeesions skill tree.
and @Kaemik hows that sound to you?
If combat pets actually required a certain taming skill to be given attack commands, I'd find that acceptable. Though at that point taming would need to be more balanced with domination. The main downside of domination is you have to take it to get domination pets and its pets cannot be traded. It was given dramatically stronger pets as a result.
That's why I will be taking domination probably either way if that dynamic doesn't change. Funnily enough, I mainly want taming purely for the profession aspect. Having domination would render it entirely redundant in terms of my own combat strength. Not that it isn't so already if you're willing to buy pets.
That's why I will be taking domination probably either way if that dynamic doesn't change. Funnily enough, I mainly want taming purely for the profession aspect. Having domination would render it entirely redundant in terms of my own combat strength. Not that it isn't so already if you're willing to buy pets.