Yeah i never get the mentality of Hunter having a pet.There is only one pet a Hunter ever has in real and that is a DOG lol.
To me FFXI made much more sense,they called the class a Beastmaster,your taming beasts in the wild.
I was ok with the Necromancer type pets,that made sense or any taming or conjuring of the Undead that makes sense as well,but not Hunters with pet lions and tigers etc.
My only concern is weather or not the animations are realistic,actually uses ammo and fires the bow like say Aragon does not like GW2 archer does.Then i like to see CHOICE in ammo,choice in type of bow and i like there to be noticeable meaning in those choices not shallow might as well use anything type of choice.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Whatever KIDS they have working on GW2 know absolutely nothing about game design. No ammo,bows that shoot like repeating guns,even the bow sounds are NOTHING like a bow would sound.
You like to say that a lot Wizardry, I can only assume you know so much about game design because you are a professional game designer? Well done!
As far as "no ammo bows" that's a choice not a mistake. I agree that bows should use ammo but I get why some games don't use ammo. Additionally, have you ever considered that a quiver holds only "so many" arrows? If you want to go for "realism" then any archer in game is not going to be carrying thousands of arrows.
The bow sounds are a nit picky thing and probably done for "style".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Additionally, have you ever considered that a quiver holds only "so many" arrows? I
Am I the only person who counts the shots a pistol fires in a movie or television show, and who looks at quivers from scene to scene to see how the arrows are holding up? I hate when I catch myself doing that.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Vanguard is definitely the gold standard for Rangers design and should be the baseline for the Pantheon Ranger. What I absolutely don't want to see (in this regard) is the pre-PoP EQ1 Ranger as the baseline.
I agree, give me no pets and in trade give me more DPS
*Also going to throw this in: If Pantheon is going the route of Rangers having pets I really hope its an option to not have a pet and trade off the pet tank abilities for better bow abilities.
If there's an AA tree or whatever I really hope the options are in place to be more of a DPS bow ranger and avoid taking a pet.
Well it seems thats not the outlook some of the developers are having despite the description. No guarantees but here is a quote from Kilsin:
"While it is not mandatory for a Ranger to have a pet, in most fantasy MMORPGs they are considered to be at one with nature and usually tie in with wood elf races for bonus racial stats etc. (and in most lore stories) so they usually have an ability to "charm" animals as a pet for a certain length of time as a small CC ability like they had in VG. I think it was a 30-60 second tame/charm that couldn't be broken that would allow them to control the charmed/tamed mob for the duration of the charm/tame then once it broke, the mob would turn and attack them.
The Ranger class should not - in my opinion - be a full time pet class at all. That should be reserved for classes like Necros, Shaman, Druids etc."
I always thought it'd be great to have a pet class that would have to capture their pets in the wild and train them to get stronger. Players would have a huge selection to choose from for any given situation, and they could have their pets fight each other for some friendly competition...
I think this would be a great mechanic for a Beastmaster, but not a Ranger.
Additionally, have you ever considered that a quiver holds only "so many" arrows? I
Am I the only person who counts the shots a pistol fires in a movie or television show, and who looks at quivers from scene to scene to see how the arrows are holding up? I hate when I catch myself doing that.
No, it drives me nuts. However, I am a firearm enthusiast, so its kind of hard not to pay attention. I'm not super anal retentive, hell they can shoot 25 or 30 rounds between reloads of a pistol and i'll let it slide, because they're at least trying to be somewhat realistic.
Probably the thing that still annoys me more than anything with guns in TV and movies is the COMPLETE lack of recoil.
One of the reasons I love love LOVE the show "The Last Ship" is that they get a lot of the gun and soldier stuff correct. I remember what hooked me was in an early episode they were clearing a building, and they had their rifles in semi-auto. Which if you talk to anyone who actually does this for a living, they will tell you that automatic fire is for suppression, and if you're actually trying to eliminate an enemy and fire accurately, you do so in semi auto.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
To me FFXI made much more sense,they called the class a Beastmaster,your taming beasts in the wild.
I was ok with the Necromancer type pets,that made sense or any taming or conjuring of the Undead that makes sense as well,but not Hunters with pet lions and tigers etc.
My only concern is weather or not the animations are realistic,actually uses ammo and fires the bow like say Aragon does not like GW2 archer does.Then i like to see CHOICE in ammo,choice in type of bow and i like there to be noticeable meaning in those choices not shallow might as well use anything type of choice.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
As far as "no ammo bows" that's a choice not a mistake. I agree that bows should use ammo but I get why some games don't use ammo. Additionally, have you ever considered that a quiver holds only "so many" arrows? If you want to go for "realism" then any archer in game is not going to be carrying thousands of arrows.
The bow sounds are a nit picky thing and probably done for "style".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
"While it is not mandatory for a Ranger to have a pet, in most fantasy MMORPGs they are considered to be at one with nature and usually tie in with wood elf races for bonus racial stats etc. (and in most lore stories) so they usually have an ability to "charm" animals as a pet for a certain length of time as a small CC ability like they had in VG. I think it was a 30-60 second tame/charm that couldn't be broken that would allow them to control the charmed/tamed mob for the duration of the charm/tame then once it broke, the mob would turn and attack them.
The Ranger class should not - in my opinion - be a full time pet class at all. That should be reserved for classes like Necros, Shaman, Druids etc."
So good news? Maybe...
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I think this would be a great mechanic for a Beastmaster, but not a Ranger.
No, it drives me nuts. However, I am a firearm enthusiast, so its kind of hard not to pay attention. I'm not super anal retentive, hell they can shoot 25 or 30 rounds between reloads of a pistol and i'll let it slide, because they're at least trying to be somewhat realistic.
Probably the thing that still annoys me more than anything with guns in TV and movies is the COMPLETE lack of recoil.
One of the reasons I love love LOVE the show "The Last Ship" is that they get a lot of the gun and soldier stuff correct. I remember what hooked me was in an early episode they were clearing a building, and they had their rifles in semi-auto. Which if you talk to anyone who actually does this for a living, they will tell you that automatic fire is for suppression, and if you're actually trying to eliminate an enemy and fire accurately, you do so in semi auto.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche