Taming and Animal Care (As they are now) Should be Crafting Skills

[Rhias]

Taming & animal Care make it faster & simpler for you to get stronger pets. You can get a new pet on the field, even through you might have lost your previous one 2 minutes before. So you can return faster to combat compared to having to run to the next town to get a new pet.
Or you hit your own pet and you loose it due to loyalty. The one with taming can just retame it. The one without needs to go to town and get a new one.

So yes, I think this has an effect on combat and should be in the combat/action section.
And yes, I would be stupid enough too skill it.

Another example. Mounted lost his mount but didin't die. Tames a new one and jumps back into combat. Without taming he would need to go to next town (which can be quite far in MO2 and would keep him out of the fight for a long time, or even for the complete fight).

And actually not all MO players are pure PVP players. Why should all action skills be purely PVP focused?

 

[Kaemik]

Taming & animal Care make it faster & simpler for you to get stronger pets. You can get a new pet on the field, even through you might have lost your previous one 2 minutes before. So you can return faster to combat compared to having to run to the next town to get a new pet.
Or you hit your own pet and you loose it due to loyalty. The one with taming can just retame it. The one without needs to go to town and get a new one.

So yes, I think this has an effect on combat and should be in the combat/action section.
And yes, I would be stupid enough too skill it.

If you're purely PvE focused that might work. If you're talking about PvP which is really what this game should be balanced around, when your max level optimal combat pet dies and you go tame the nearest wisent or whatever happens to be nearby, you're probably better off having spent the time to go back to the nearest stable and grab something decent.

 

[Rhias]

If you're purely PvE focused that might work. If you're talking about PvP which is really what this game should be balanced around, when your max level optimal combat pet dies and you go tame the nearest wisent or whatever happens to be nearby, you're probably better off having spent the time to go back to the nearest stable and grab something decent.

Have fun walking back 30 minutes to town.

I roam frequently solo and my pets die like fly's by MA's and other shit that aren't able to kill me. I just get the next reachable dire wolve and tame it.

 

[Kaemik]

Have fun trying losing a pet in PvP, somehow surviving, finding and taming a new pet, and expecting the nearest random pet you grab is going to somehow do better in the next fight. If that's worth 200 primary points to you I'm not sure what to say. Expect more?

 

[Rhias]

Have fun trying losing a pet in PvP, somehow surviving, finding and taming a new pet, and expecting the nearest random pet you grab is going to somehow do better in the next fight. If that's worth 200 primary points to you I'm not sure what to say. Expect more?

It's not going to do better in the next fight. Pet's are like ammunition. You use them for damage and then they're gone.

 

[Kaemik]

If thats your angle wouldn't a dominator build be stronger? Creature care is still prettymuch out. You could run to the nearest town and back multiple times before you get your pet leveled up but a dominator build can take a pet in the field AND has the advantage of being able to to take some tames that a tamer cannot. While I really doubt the nearest baulbus is going to do more than die spectacularly in any difficult fight, if I want my build to be based around machine-gunning dogs at my enemies I'd rather go with a build that can use a minotaur when one is available.

 

[Kaemik]

Ah well. System is still screwed and needs to be fixed but you've convinced me to take dominator instead of tamer and learn to live with slower pet leveling. I think creatures that can be tamed are tradeable once bred even with dominated parents. So I can get all the good parts of your build, with stronger pets, and have a full 1100 crafting points for zoologies and butchering.

And then still make some good coin selling bred horses and pets. Guess I can live with this broken system.

 

[Rhias]

Ah well. System is still screwed and needs to be fixed but you've convinced me to take dominator instead of tamer and learn to live with slower pet leveling. I think creatures that can be tamed are tradeable once bred even with dominated parents. So I can get all the good parts of your build, with stronger pets, and have a full 1100 crafting points for zoologies and butchering.

And then still make some good coin selling bred horses and pets. Guess I can live with this broken system.

3 allied fighters on the field. All without a mount. Far distance to town. Character with taming tames 3 horses and trades one to each. All ride back to town. The happy end.

 

[Kaemik]

Fair enough. You can focus on those 1% of scenarios where you get roughed up in combat enough to lose your pets and mounts, live, are too far to make it to a stable (Because let's be honest 90% of fights will take place with 5 minutes of a town or keep) and you get just the right tame to actually make a difference for you.

I'll focus on those 99% of fights where my minotaur or whatever other "dominators only" nasty I'm running will 1 shot anyone who comes at a Baulbus and then we'll play the game of "See if you live long enough to get another tame." May the odds be ever in your favor.

Good day.

 

[Rhias]

I don't think it's about different scenarios, but about different play-styles.
I enjoy being around in the wild and exploring.
You seem to enjoy staying at your town/village and waiting for PVP coming to you.

 

[Kaemik]

Thats sounds very romantic but I think I don't think much of anybody enjoys gathering resources 30 minutes from the places those resources are intended to be used as a regular thing. This map is big but not so big that anyone whose unencumbered with a halfway decent sense of direction will frequently be doing anything more than 30 minutes from the nearest town even on foot. I'm actually curious to time it but I don't think even GK and Fabernuum are more than an hour apart (meaning in the center you're 30 min from both towns) and I believe in between them (where cavecamp is supposed to be) is the farthest you could ever possibly be from the nearest town.

If you aren't factoring time efficiency into how you'll be using your in-game time, then you're basically roleplaying. Which is fine, I'm a big proponent of that, but it shouldn't factor into balance decisions because nobody is concerned about roleplayers being OP.

Your argument comes across to me as "I'm willing to cut my own nose off so you should be too." And that's not a good mentality to balance a game around. I remember people making the same kinds of arguments about why Tindremenes didn't need a buff (And Thursar-Khurite wasn't at ALL overpowered) in early MO1. Eventually, it became apparent that listening to that did a huge amount of damage to the game and the devs were forced to address the problem. When nobody takes taming except a few RPers or dedicated carebears that will probably happen here too.

Hopefully the developers have learned enough it doesn't take them 5 year to address problems like this in MO2 or they'll bleed out their playerbase pretty fast this time too. People don't enjoy their desired playstyle being non-viable for years because a few roleplayers can UWU just as efficiently on an objectively inferior build. It's fine that you want to do that, but pretty irrelevant to properly balancing the game.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to cry "TAMING AS PROFESSION OP!" when you happen to run across some roaming donkeys and tame a couple for your friends. Guessing everyone arguing here will be like "meh" and move on with their lives if they wake up and see taming in the professions list tomorrow. Might really chafe someone who doesn't like combat and wanted extra crafting skills from their combat line I guess. But every serious PvPer is going to balk at taking two entire primary combat lines that produce something they can just buy. Those are the no-brainer level decisions when you're making choices about what does and doesn't get into an optimized build.

 

[Putzin]

3 allied fighters on the field. All without a mount. Far distance to town. Character with taming tames 3 horses and trades one to each. All ride back to town. The happy end.

I love how you posted this scenario that had absolutely nothing to do with combat at all, not even PvE and you felt it totally needed to be in here. This conversation is why Taming shouldn't be under, what is essentially, a list of skills that help you IN combat. In case you forgot somewhere along the line.

In before, They're not combat skills, they're action skills! Argument.

 

[Kaemik]

In before, They're not combat skills, they're action skills! Argument.

Right? Every single primary on the "action" skill list is applicable to combat except for three of them and there isn't a single skill under professions relevant to combat. But let's get hung up on the name as a reason we shouldn't fix those 3 skills. We're here to police people's English and not discuss what would make the game better right?

Obviously, the fact they felt "action skills" better encompasses a list that includes some combat relevant things like athletics and riding that aren't inherently aggressive is a justification for why we should make weaponsmithing and cooking action skills right? Is not smithing a sword or making a stew an "action"?

This is all so very confusing. I propose we go through the entire list of skills and flip a coin to see where they all end up. Who wants to do something logical like separate the combat-relevant and non-combat-relevant skills?

 

[Rhias]

I love how you posted this scenario that had absolutely nothing to do with combat at all, not even PvE and you felt it totally needed to be in here. This conversation is why Taming shouldn't be under, what is essentially, a list of skills that help you IN combat. In case you forgot somewhere along the line.

In before, They're not combat skills, they're action skills! Argument.

Taming & animal Care make it faster & simpler for you to get stronger pets. You can get a new pet on the field, even through you might have lost your previous one 2 minutes before. So you can return faster to combat compared to having to run to the next town to get a new pet.
Or you hit your own pet and you loose it due to loyalty. The one with taming can just retame it. The one without needs to go to town and get a new one.

So yes, I think this has an effect on combat and should be in the combat/action section.
And yes, I would be stupid enough too skill it.

Another example. Mounted lost his mount but didin't die. Tames a new one and jumps back into combat. Without taming he would need to go to next town (which can be quite far in MO2 and would keep him out of the fight for a long time, or even for the complete fight).

And actually not all MO players are pure PVP players. Why should all action skills be purely PVP focused?

I explained why I think it affects combat.
He says that in that case it would make no sense to pick taming instead of domination.
I explain that there are still advantages to taming. Any yes, that example was not about taming as "combat" skill, but about taming vs domination.

 

[Rhias]

Just to be clear so I don't get misunderstood:
I'm not against buffing Animal Care & Tamining in a way that non-traded pets are stronger.
I'm just against making it a "crafting" skill.

 

[Necromantic]

Dominated creatures aren't tradeable, even

Right? Every single primary on the "action" skill list is applicable to combat except for three of them and there isn't a single skill under professions relevant to combat. But let's get hung up on the name as a reason we shouldn't fix those 3 skills.

The thievery skills, the basic gathering skills, survival including swimming and fishing, Tapii Lore, Kimurite lore and to a degree the multiverse lore skills would like to disagree. On that note, why is Gathering and its subskills, which are all secondary anyway, in the Action tree?
And just because you say something needs a fix doesn't make it so.

 

[Kaemik]

Dominated creatures aren't tradeable, even

The thievery skills, the basic gathering skills, survival including swimming and fishing, Tapii Lore, Kimurite lore and to a degree the multiverse lore skills would like to disagree. On that note, why is Gathering and its subskills, which are all secondary anyway, in the Action tree?
And just because you say something needs a fix doesn't make it so.

The fact dominated creatures aren't tradeable is the reason I said it belongs in action skills. It gives pets that can't be traded that are more powerful than tamed pets. I used that point to illustrate why it deserves to be an action skill and taming does not. What point are you trying to make there? Does it give you something used DURING combat for a competitive advantage you can't have without that skill? Yes. Action skill.

Survival is combat relevant. Swimming has always been something that can affect fight outcomes in certain settings since MO1. Given the confirmed inclusion of naval combat in MO2 that is going to be more true than ever here. Are you likely to jump into the water DURING a fight if you can swim and your enemy can't? Yes. If your boat is sinking during naval combat or you're trying to sneak aboard an enemy vessel? Yes. It's combat relevant, action skill. I'm completely ok with survivals current classification. It shares action skills with athletics and the riding tree which are both top-tier skills for combatants depending on build. I'm pretty chill with all movement skills going under action.

I'm not sure why the gathering secondaries are in action but all of their primaries like ore extraction were appropriately classified under professions.

Fishing is under professions. Check your facts.

The only lore under actions is "ether lore". Check your facts.

You don't even know what you're talking about dude.

Just because someone who apparently is severely lacking in game knowledge and reading skills thinks it isn't a problem doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. You're not even making arguments for why what you want is good for the game. You're just spouting false information.

 

[Skydancer]

Kaemik is right - Action skills common factor is that they provide more tactical options or advantage in combat with the exception of a very few right now (thievery and these) Unless they added some actions or properties in these two skills that translated to combat advantage, I fully support changing them to Profession skills. If animal care made your pet more obedient, improved its health regeneration etc and if taming allowed you to actively reduce someone elses pets loyalty (kind of like stealing via re-taming) or something I could see the reasoning.

The only difference I see in other profession skills versus taming and animal care is that if you are disarmed (pet dead), you can actively tame one in the wild without having to leave the area and re-gear, and even if you can gather resources, you need workbenches to create gear from them also requiring a trip to town.

Because it's not possible to be disarmed right now, but it is possible for your pet to be killed, being able to tame a new pet without re-gearing doesn't sound too bad.
____
The argument for thievery remaining an action skill is combat-stealing like bandages, arrows, reagents and potions which would clearly press a combat advantage, even though it is extremely difficult (I still think it should be a profession, force you to choose whether to dedicate profession points to create wealth or re-distribute wealth)

 

[Kaemik]

Yeah, thieving is somewhat debatable and probably deserves it's own topic when it comes to things like pickpocketing. But unless there is a fairly good option to rip a weapon out of enemy hands or something I think it makes the most sense to put every thieving skill under professions. While sneaking up on someone and looting all their bandages and potions could decide a fight I don't think we'll see that play out often enough to justify thieves as a combat profession.

What we WILL see though is that the people who choose to play thieves will just hang around in towns pickpocketing newbs all day if it goes into combat as that will mean being a fully trained thief automatically means you're a chump in the field. We'll see that either way but putting thieves as a combat profession is a great way to ensure 99% of thieves are alts.

Otherwise, we'll see concepts like what a friend of mine wants to play. A hybrid (dagger mage) combatant that has thievery as a profession. They'll be out in the field PvPing with the rest of us, lockpicking chests, and snagging a purse or two when we stop through town. It's their way of making money and really shouldn't have much effect on combat.

 

[Necromantic]

The fact dominated creatures aren't tradeable is the reason I said it belongs in action skills. It gives pets that can't be traded that are more powerful than tamed pets. I used that point to illustrate why it deserves to be an action skill and taming does not. What point are you trying to make there? Does it give you something used DURING combat for a competitive advantage you can't have without that skill? Yes. Action skill.

So it's Action if it gives you something that's not tradeable that gives you a combat advantage by your definition?

Survival is combat relevant. Swimming has always been something that can affect fight outcomes in certain settings since MO1. Given the confirmed inclusion of naval combat in MO2 that is going to be more true than ever here. Are you likely to jump into the water DURING a fight if you can swim and your enemy can't? Yes. If your boat is sinking during naval combat or you're trying to sneak aboard an enemy vessel? Yes. It's combat relevant, action skill. I'm completely ok with survivals current classification. It shares action skills with athletics and the riding tree which are both top-tier skills for combatants depending on build. I'm pretty chill with all movement skills going under action.

I'm not sure why the gathering secondaries are in action but all of their primaries like ore extraction were appropriately classified under professions.

Fishing is under professions. Check your facts.

The only lore under actions is "ether lore". Check your facts.

You don't even know what you're talking about dude.

Wow, they must have moved some around at some point because last I wrote the skills down they were that way. Guess I will have to log in and double check every time now, just couldn't do that from work. I guess that does make me look stupid. Well, happens sometimes.

It's funny how you are constantly calling it semantics and then you are mixing things up that prove that it's not just semantics.
Actions != Combat
Professions != Crafting

Just because someone who apparently is severely lacking in game knowledge and reading skills thinks it isn't a problem doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. You're not even making arguments for why what you want is good for the game. You're just spouting false information.

Well, yes. My whole point was that anyone's personal opinions or wants don't really matter.
I never even mentioned anything of what I want or don't want. I even explicitly mentioned that what I am saying is actually worse for my setup. I mentioned multiple examples of why either option is bad but the other is probably worse. But you've convinced me more than ever that it should stay as it is.