OMG! Cap ANY PVE creature as your pet! [petition]...

This is a long shot probably but:

Cap ANY PVE creature / monster as the look of your pet! Of course the sizes of some creatures will need to be adjusted. Anyone else like? Wouldn't it be cool have to have a pet kirin, ettin, vampire, etc?

(Edited by a moderator for emphasis)

OMG, unbalanced.

please don't sign this.

Um...
Temple Guardians?
no thanks.
/unsign

How would it be unbalanced if pets were still not allowed to have any skills, and it was only skins?

Imagine some one getting ran to droks capping a troll and pwning in ascalon arena...

hmm... I think i'll go cap Shiro as my pet. He's technically a creature. Or maybe the lich?

/unsign

Is everyone completely illiterate? Re-read my suggestion. It would obviously have to have no skills, and have an appropriate amount of hp and armor according to what level it was, and if you capped one over level 20, it would drop to be level 20. Not saying it's a good idea, just use a bit of common sense.

I don't really see how rangers would be able to have some kind of mind control over every living (and undead?) being there is. Befriending the animals, like it is now, seems more suitable.

"I'm using Charm Animale on The Undead Lich"

NO

Pokeball go!

/undecided

I like it, but only on creatures, not humanoids (trolls, ettins, tengu, dwarves, etc). Undead is ok, if it's a creature (a bone dog, or one of those little nibbler guys).

/unsigned

Just the sheer amount of craziness it would cause for everyone to have the coolest looking pet, no skills or anything even. But they would have to go back and change a heck load of code too, and I dont know about you but i don't wanna go through that load

Everyone, I've bolded the critical word here.

This isn't a suggestion to actually command an Undead Lich. It's merely a suggestion to have ultimate power over the skin of your pet, essentially. At least, that's how I read it.

And with that in mind, I'm kind of half and half. It's an interesting suggestion, definitely, and could have some hilarious results if implemented, but something seems odd...not sure what that is, though. =/

/undecided

/notsigned
I can see the griefing now. A ranger with not pet goes into Hell's Precipice with a group to do the mission. They get to the lich and the ranger casts charm animal on lich and then maps out. Mission failed (because you couldn't technicially kill the lich).

It would be kinda cool (I can just see IWAY with all White Mantle Zealots as pets *shutter*), but pretty ridiculous. Plus it would create a whole bunch of stuff like that. Worried about the mursatt monk THK boss? Just bring a ranger with no pet and charm animal to take it out.

Also, it would change the way EoE worked. EoE clumps all pets as being the same type of creature. That would get pretty confusing/wierd if your pet wasn't affected for killing a PvE creature with the exact same skin by EoE.

Sage Wurm? :S:S:S:S

/unsigned

ummm lol?

/unsigned

lol.

Firstly he did say creature I believe, Mursaat, White Mantle, Shiro, Rurik, Undead, and presumably Dwarves don't count.

/unsigned

Because honestly I don't like the idea.

/unsign would be waaaay to much work for aranet and i want to play GW nightfall somewhere in 2007 not 2010

gne... I want Maw
anyhow i think i'd be a bit over the top

Trolls small as mini turtles,
Tundra GIANTS small as stalkers.
Wurms small like black widow.
That would look wierdo.
Tiny tiny minotour, so cute so small
You make me want to get a grawl
Idea so bad
This makes me sad..

no no no no no Not signed.. (Think before you post these ideas. Think of all the work)

/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)

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?

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.

/unsign

/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!!

not sure i really like the idea either.. and it could get confusing in a battle having a troll or a wurm running about

maybe one of the new egyptian profession in the next expansion can have a mind control skill to charm these unnatural creatures...

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)

/not signed

I think the others said enough

By your logic, a Necromancer shouldn't be able to have a Monk secondary or vice-versa. Touch rangers (or just R/N) shouldn't exist either as they are also an abomination in nature. In fact, killing anything is against nature. Let's remove the vampiric bowstring to, as this is also...

You see how ridiculous this sounds? Yeah...

This is a game. Game. Get over it already...

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.

now there's someone who knows how to state the obvious... And yes, your post WAS overly rediculous :P

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^^

Gee, thanks. I always wanted a lvl 34 Titan as a pet. Ooh, maybe I could grab one of the Oni or the Leviathan Claws? Thanks but no thanks. Bad idea.

... Eh?

You defeat yourself completely.
Why would a 'true' ward of nature then go against their very ideals and defile the blood and body of another living creature? Well perhaps because there's a job to be done, and there are tools to do the job. Like you say, this is what makes the game great.
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?

To mend the problem perhaps? Is death the only solution? I would trust that Melandru treasure's all life. Even those that have turned from her.

As trust worthy as any creature who has been 'charmed' by you perhaps? There is meaning to the term charmed. Plus the hostility shown by the wild, feral creatures we can already charm, doesn't exactly make them saint's doe's it?

Oh and...
We already have a Beastmaster class (Rangers can be beastmasters). Why make a new one? Not really necesarry is it? It might be interesting I suppose, but that's about it.

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.

What's MPC stand for? 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

I want glint as my pet.....

.... no, i dont

I like the way it is now

/not signed

Yes, does anyone know what an MPC is?

NPC = Non-Player Character. Meaning AI (not the player) controls these characters.

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

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?

hahahahahaha!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

/notsigned