Tamable beasts that make no sense

zedxrgal · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:11 pm

First off. THIS IS NOT TO START A FLAME WAR OR A BICKERING MATCH. I will request it be immediately locked if the conversation starts to become even the slightest bit heated or pissy.
That said.
I feel what Blizzard is offering as tamable pets in this expansion doesn't make any sense. I think part of it is creatures that make perfect sense seem to have zero hopes of ever becoming tamable.
Goats, cranes (sort of), porcupines (as cute as they are), quilen and water striders make zero sense to me as a hunter pet. The silkworms I'm very on the fence about because they only sort of make sense as a hunter pet.
MoP isn't really my sole target, for lack of a better word, regarding tamable beasts that make no sense. Shale spiders are another one that seemed to make no real sense as to why they were listed as a "beast". They're rocks. They should have been elementals just like the gyreworms. The gem cats and crabs are another that make no real sense to me.

While beasts that DO make sense like hyrdas, stegodons, pterrordax, thunder lizards, seem to have zero hope of ever becoming tamable. Stags, talbucks, rams. The lists can go on and on.

Why not just do an all or nothing???? :lol:

If you're going to make a goat tamable why not stags?
If porcupines are tamable why not skunks or armadillos?
If you're going to make devilsaurs tamable why not a pterrordax or thunder lizard?
If you're going to make basilisks tamable why not hydras?

Again. Makes no sense that certain beasts /creatures have become tamable while others that make perfect sense as a hunter pet are left as not tamable.
One thing I must mention, and I've always said, is I'd much rather see old models like cats get a model update, become modern, not spiky or boxy then to get a whole now horde of tamable beasts.

I'm sure people are going to be miffed that I don't feel porcupines etc are tamable. They're completely adorable don't get me wrong but do not see them as a hunter pet regardless of how cute they are.

Please feel free to POLITELY discuss. No flaming etc.

Vephriel · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:25 pm

I'm really pleased by the goats, they make me optimistic towards future pet additions like stags and talbuks perhaps. Just having the one hoofed family added opens up possibilities for more down the road.

Cranes seem perfectly logical to me. I was surprised they weren't mixed in with the tallstrider family, but either way I'm glad we got them. They seem like a shoe in for a tameable pet that has the aesthetics of the new continent.

Quilen as well, even if I've been back and forth on their skeleton, I definitely feel that they encompass the type of exotic new creature found in Pandaria. They're quite unlike anything else we've had, and I like the cultural appearance they have that ties in with the content.

The water striders are quirky, but I rather like them myself. I really like having more insect models, and even if they two types of strider are quite different, I'm happy for people that have wanted the fen striders in Zangarmarsh. I'm unsure on them myself yet, but I do really like the black one I tamed in beta.

I'm really, really happy about basilisks, and I feel that getting them at least is a nice consolation even if we aren't getting hydras yet in this expansion. They were up there alongside hydra enthusiasts as an old world species that many wanted tameable. I think they fit in perfectly for us.

I'm sort of with you on the porcupines. I like their models, and I don't mind that they're available as an option, but they don't do anything for me personally and they don't really seem all that suited as a pet in my eyes.

The silkworms are, if you'll excuse my bluntness, rather ridiculous. I'm surprised they were kept, but they don't bother me inherently because they're just lumped in with other worms. More variety to a family isn't a bad thing, and if people like them then they can tame them! I just can't see that model as a pet myself, I'm not a fan of the low resolution texture or how they look blown up to tamed size.

Mostly I'm dejected that Mushan didn't get a chance, I even would have liked the chance to try yaks. Hydras are of course a disappointment, but I'm still keeping faith that we'll see them one day. We can't get everything at once, and we want to save some surprises and options for future expansions. Overall I'm fairly pleased by what we're getting. I'm ecstatic about a few of the new species, and even if I'm only lukewarm about others, I feel like we got a really nice variety as a whole.

Equeon · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:31 pm

zedxrgal wrote:

Goats, cranes (sort of), porcupines (as cute as they are), quilen and water striders make zero sense to me as a hunter pet. The silkworms I'm very on the fence about because they only sort of make sense as a hunter pet.

Goats: Strong, sturdy, and reliable. The dwarfs use them for mounts because they're tough and loyal, and their sharp horns are nasty in a fight.
Cranes: See Tallstriders, a pet that's been in there since Vanilla.
Porcupines: They are kinda cute, but are full of sharp and sometimes venomous quills.
Quilen: They're basically wolves, except stone. A vicious, hardy beast made of stone: what's not to like?
Water striders: No matter which kind you're referring to, they are fierce and alien predators. The Outland ones are basically giant tentacle aliens, and the Pandaria ones are nifty not-so-little insects with some vicious mandibles.

Silkworms: make no sense to me.

GormanGhaste · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:01 pm

I'm surprised no one's mentioned one of my favorite families yet--moths. Everything seems sensible compared to moths

I don't need for my pets to be fierce...I guess that's from RP reasons and my overall play-style.

My personal 'pet' peeve is hunter pets that aren't animals: the elemental core hounds and shale spiders, and the other-worldly spirit beasts. It doesn't bother me enough not to tame them, but if I had a different family choice for their abilities I would take it.

Shalyth · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:15 pm

Equeon wrote:

zedxrgal wrote:

Goats, cranes (sort of), porcupines (as cute as they are), quilen and water striders make zero sense to me as a hunter pet. The silkworms I'm very on the fence about because they only sort of make sense as a hunter pet.

Goats: Strong, sturdy, and reliable. The dwarfs use them for mounts because they're tough and loyal, and their sharp horns are nasty in a fight.
Cranes: See Tallstriders, a pet that's been in there since Vanilla.
Porcupines: They are kinda cute, but are full of sharp and sometimes venomous quills.
Quilen: They're basically wolves, except stone. A vicious, hardy beast made of stone: what's not to like?
Water striders: No matter which kind you're referring to, they are fierce and alien predators. The Outland ones are basically giant tentacle aliens, and the Pandaria ones are nifty not-so-little insects with some vicious mandibles.

Silkworms: make no sense to me.

^ I agree with all of that except for the venomous quill part, porcupines are not venomous by nature unless blizzard sated their versions are venomous. But as for reasoning as to why they belong as hunter pets, i do agree with what's been stated. Cranes are also fairly dangerous, though usually to eachother unless you were to corner one, since they are quite vicious during their battles over mates. To add, tallstriders are based off the ancestors of cassowary's, emu's, and ostriches which were extremely violently dangerous and massive. Blizz made em look floppy funny but i consider them as dangerous, if not more, as a raptor any day xD

Redith · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:55 pm

I know I am going to draw allot of ire from some people but in my opinion allot of pets make no sense, and some make very little sense.

Pets that make no sense

Porcupines
Wasps
Moths
Seagulls
Beetles
Worms
Shale spiders

Pets that make some, but allot less sense
Cranes
Goats
Monkeys

Shalyth · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:58 pm

Redith wrote:

Pets that make no sense

Worms

But.. but... have you seen the TEETH on dem Jormungar!?!??!?! :lol:

Equeon · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:01 pm

Redith wrote:

I know I am going to draw allot of ire from some people but in my opinion allot of pets make no sense, and some make very little sense.

Pets that make no sense
Wasps
Moths
Beetles
Worms
Shale spiders

You're forgetting that this is a fantasy world, where many things are gigantic. Just because most of those creatures are small in real life does not mean they are in the game... wasps? hell-O?! Princess Huhuran? A RAID BOSS? That's a pretty massive and powerful wasp if you ask me. Why you would not want a creature that large and powerful at your side, I don't know. Same applies to beetles, worms, and shale spiders: they're large and powerful and have big teeth. Moths... I'm not really sure how that works.

Redith · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:05 pm

Equeon wrote:

Redith wrote:

I know I am going to draw allot of ire from some people but in my opinion allot of pets make no sense, and some make very little sense.

Pets that make no sense
Wasps
Moths
Beetles
Worms
Shale spiders

You're forgetting that this is a fantasy world, where many things are gigantic. Just because most of those creatures are small in real life does not mean they are in the game... wasps? hell-O?! Princess Huhuran? A RAID BOSS? That's a pretty massive and powerful wasp if you ask me. Why you would not want a creature that large and powerful at your side, I don't know. Same applies to beetles, worms, and shale spiders: they're large and powerful and have big teeth. Moths... I'm not really sure how that works.

Im sorry even in a fantasy world big bugs just..Idk lol

Jangalian · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:16 pm

Pets that makes the least sense.

Moths
Sporebats

I mean, every other pet has some serious offensive weapon! Even tripods can hit you with their..spiky legs things. But moths? WHat are they going to do, fan me to death? Roll out their curly little tongue and threaten me with their feelers? And sporebats. What...what...what are they hitting me with? What is that...glowly round ball thing? What, I don't even

But seriously, I adore quilin, mostly because I keep longing for a new dog model that seems like it will never appear. Yep, I'm a dog fan, and seriously tired of all the tigers in the game, sabertoothed or otherwise. Oh mastiffs, I had such high hopes for you. Why doesn't your shoulder moove when you run? T^T

Wain · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:09 pm

It seems to me that there are a few assumptions here:
- that if something makes sense as a tameable beast then it would have been, therefore Blizzard isn't making any sense in what they choose
- that there's an overall plan to what is being made tameable and it makes no sense
- that certain beasts in Azeroth are like their passive real-world analogs and therefore seem silly choices as attack beasts

To be honest, I'm pretty sure there is no plan. The developers don't say "well these beasts make as much sense as all these other tameables so therefore we should add them". They add a few things each expansion for different reasons. Maybe some because they think they're cool, maybe some because they're a bit different, some because they showcase the art of the expansion. They may omit certain others because they'd require too much work to get right, or simply because they want to leave stuff for later. Other things may become tameable simply because of accident and then being left that way as a fun gesture. We know that porcupines and silkworms fall into that latter category, so it would be fruitless to use them in any logical argument on what should be tameable..

It can be frustrating if your favourites aren't chosen. And just like the origins of many real-world religions it's tempting to try to find patterns in the will of the gods. But I think there aren't any. The gods are capricious.

Oh and as for moths... the in-game ones have an enormous, sharp horn on their snouts, and proved to be extremely savage beasts in Outland. They're not much like their real world counterparts

pop · **Joined:** Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:25 am **Posts:** 912

I agree and my blue squid-faced space russian arabic holy demonic bipedal goat that flings out thunderbolt and receive dragons in his mail agrees as well.

Alex · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:47 am

pop wrote:

I agree and my blue squid-faced space russian arabic holy demonic bipedal goat that flings out thunderbolt and receive dragons in his mail agrees as well.

Snorted faaarrrr harder than I should've at this.

I think, really, the only tameable beast that we have right now that makes no sense would have to be the seagull. I mean, yeah, seagulls in real life are damn vicious, but on the other hand, they're so fragile that even a mace/sword/spell would tear through them...

Equeon · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:23 pm

Harpier wrote:

I think, really, the only tameable beast that we have right now that makes no sense would have to be the seagull. I mean, yeah, seagulls in real life are damn vicious, but on the other hand, they're so fragile that even a mace/sword/spell would tear through them...

Which is exactly why I'm respeccing a seagull as tenacity in MoP. Thunderstomping seagull that tanks 5+ mobs? Yes please.

Wassa · **Joined:** Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:37 am **Posts:** 1420

The only tameable family that makes no sense to me is shale spiders. They are just rocks and should be elementals. Gyreworms which used to be beasts where all switched to elemental classification, but shale spiders where already tameable so was it just too late to change them? Simply, to me, they aren't beasts. I have a hard time seeing a hunter that thought it was a good idea to tame rocks.

GormanGhaste · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:21 pm

Equeon wrote:

I'm respeccing a seagull as tenacity in MoP. Thunderstomping seagull that tanks 5+ mobs? Yes please.

I'll be doing the same with a raven!

peanutbuttercup · **Joined:** Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:52 am **Posts:** 461

Vephriel wrote:

I'm really pleased by the goats, they make me optimistic towards future pet additions like stags and talbuks perhaps. Just having the one hoofed family added opens up possibilities for more down the road.

^ This, very much. I want stags to be tameable badly (along with zhevras and giraffes) and I think having goats at least makes them a future possibility. Plus the goats are cute. Out of all the new pets they're the only ones I'm considering taming.

Azunara · **Posted:** Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:04 pm

As a note, pretty sure moths have these giant spike-horns on their nose. Looks like they could open up someone real nice with one of those. Been a while since I saw a moth, but I could've sworn they had that horn at least.

Vephriel · **Posted:** Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:08 pm

Haha, very true, Azerothian mothicorns could stab you pretty good with that spike. Those mandibles don't look too soft either.

The concept of a moth as a ferocity attack pet still makes me giggle a bit, but then I have to remember that these species have a bit more equipment than a generic 1 inch house moth.

Wykea · **Posted:** Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:27 pm

And here I thought I was the only one who saw the MOP pet list and thought "Uh... is that the best you've got?"

Still waiting on Hydras, BTW.

WoW Petopia Community

Tamable beasts that make no sense

Who is online