GC on stable space for 5.1[warning; can cause sadness]

[pop]

I have a great idea, I mean, why not just call it stable instead of zoo? And that way, you can also see your mounts when they are not mounted, so other classes can feed their mounts and for hunter's we can have our pets as stabled animals as well!

oh and Dk and warlocks would have stable hands in form of their minions!

[Ziarre]

The increment of stable slots doesn't mean we are less attached to our pets. Heck, the main reason most of my hunters' stables are full because I can't let go a lot of my pets.

That's what makes it a choice.

I didn't say it was an easy choice, and in fact I prefer hard choices as it means those that make the cut when I do a cleanout are those I'm actually still attached to. It also means that I own the fact that having over half a dozen spirit beasts & cats means I have to miss bringing a few buffs. I made that choice, because I'm attached to those pets, and that's fine. Balancing want vs. need is a good thing to do, I think.

[Sesamee]

I agree with GC and don't like the idea of a zoo. IMO it cheapens the bond that is supposed to exist between hunter and pet. Like GC said, our pets are our close companions not achievements or collector's items. Sure the exotics and challenge tames are fun but we don't have to keep every single thing we tame. Do it for fun but keep a pet you actually like and bond with.

There are some pets I've released that I still feel a bond too and I swap them in and out of my stables. My gorilla, rhino, and hyena esp. I still think of all the pets I've tamed and released by their names and nothing is stopping me from retaming them if the urge strikes. But I would hate the idea of corralling them all up in a zoo. It just doesn't feel right.

The text when you "abandon" a hunter pet vs "release" a companion pet says it all. Abandon is an emotionally loaded word and is meant to convey that letting go of a hunter pet is a much more serious thing than letting go of a companion pet. I prefer to think of them as "released" rather than abandoned as I'm still fond of each and every pet I've ever had but a lot of thought, hand wringing, cringing, and care goes into it. I'm pretty sure that's working as intended.

[Sesamee]

people who have 25 slots filled likely have at least a couple collecting dust despite how much they might claim otherwise.

I think we have enough stable slots but I can understand people wanting a few more. The problem is where does it end? 30? 35? 40?

25 is good for me and I actually do use all of my pets. Of course there are those that get more use than others but dailies are a perfect opportunity to rotate through my pets so I get to spend some time with each of them. Even 5 player dungeons are so face roll easy you can use what you want regardless of buffs. So yeah, I do actually use all of my pets regularly. Swapping them out during dailies and getting to use a pet who hasn't gotten out in a few days makes dailies more fun and interesting.

[Sasrei]

I still dont get why adding 5 more slots for people who need it will make the other 25 pets no longer desired or what not..

[Ziarre]

Because 5 more won't be enough. 10 more won't be enough. 25 more won't be enough.

Those slots will just be filled, and then people will be clamoring for more slots. They have to draw the line somewhere, the same as with whether to make bigger bags. At some point it stops solving the problem and simply band-aids it for a span of time that is far too short to be worth it.

[Vephriel]

Because 5 more won't be enough. 10 more won't be enough. 25 more won't be enough.

Those slots will just be filled, and then people will be clamoring for more slots. They have to draw the line somewhere, the same as with whether to make bigger bags. At some point it stops solving the problem and simply band-aids it for a span of time that is far too short to be worth it.

Very well stated, agreed with this. We're at, what, 600+ individual pet models now? Something close to that number. We will always have to make choices, we'll never be able to tame one of everything. And to me that is perfect. I know people are going to disagree, and that's fine, but I'm solid in my opinion that we do not need more stable slots. If they keep adding more it will be endless, there will always come a time where people will ask "Well, just 5 more?". 25 is extremely generous compared to what we used to have, and compared to any other class in game that has pets.

[Wain]

I don't even have a full stable, so I have no vested interest in this, but... I tend to lean towards the argument for more stable slots.

I can understand both sides. But I think GC's "special bond" argument may be misplaced, for two reasons. Firstly, we already have 25 slots, yet hunters still tend to treat one or two of their pets as special. Adding another 5 slots or 500 slots isn't going to have an impact on that. Secondly, the family ability changes introduced back in Cata sent a contradictory message: that we need to diversify our pets, not stick to one or two.

It's true that no matter how many slots we have, players will fill them up. It's natural. I'd prefer to see maybe 5 new slots added per expansion so hunters can try out or keep a select number of new things without having to throw away the old.

And while I get the argument that this isn't a good method for dealing with the problem indefinitely, my belief is that we won't have to. WoW is a product that has expansions only once every few years, and there are a finite number of them left. Maybe less than we can count on one hand. So I think it's a case where efficient methods may be overkill.

[Lisaara]

I don't even have a full stable, so I have no vested interest in this, but... I tend to lean towards the argument for more stable slots.

I can understand both sides. But I think GC's "special bond" argument may be misplaced, for two reasons. Firstly, we already have 25 slots, yet hunters still tend to treat one or two of their pets as special. Adding another 5 slots or 500 slots isn't going to have an impact on that. Secondly, the family ability changes introduced back in Cata sent a contradictory message: that we need to diversify our pets, not stick to one or two.

It's true that no matter how many slots we have, players will fill them up. It's natural. I'd prefer to see maybe 5 new slots added per expansion so hunters can try out or keep a select number of new things without having to throw away the old.

And while I get the argument that this isn't a good method for dealing with the problem indefinitely, my belief is that we won't have to. WoW is a product that has expansions only once every few years, and there are a finite number of them left. Maybe less than we can count on one hand. So I think it's a case where efficient methods may be overkill.

Very well said. 5 every expansion wouldn't hurt. They introduced A LOT of new skins this expansion, which forced many of us to abandon pets we did use but needed room for the new ones.

[Miacoda]

I don't even have a full stable, so I have no vested interest in this, but... I tend to lean towards the argument for more stable slots.

I can understand both sides. But I think GC's "special bond" argument may be misplaced, for two reasons. Firstly, we already have 25 slots, yet hunters still tend to treat one or two of their pets as special. Adding another 5 slots or 500 slots isn't going to have an impact on that. Secondly, the family ability changes introduced back in Cata sent a contradictory message: that we need to diversify our pets, not stick to one or two.

It's true that no matter how many slots we have, players will fill them up. It's natural. I'd prefer to see maybe 5 new slots added per expansion so hunters can try out or keep a select number of new things without having to throw away the old.

And while I get the argument that this isn't a good method for dealing with the problem indefinitely, my belief is that we won't have to. WoW is a product that has expansions only once every few years, and there are a finite number of them left. Maybe less than we can count on one hand. So I think it's a case where efficient methods may be overkill.

Just... This^
Also, gah don't scare me with that last part! XD

[Danielfboone]

Hey, I want stampede to include every pet in our stable, not just the 5 active ones.

On a serious note though, I can see the "boon companion" thing since I still have the Moonstalker I tamed over 6 years ago in Duskwood when I was like lvl 14 or 15. Even though I don't bring him out very often, I could never release good old Moonfire. Having said that though, we do need more stable slots or some way to store additional tames.

[Ziarre]

We may see WoW as having finite expansions left, but we've already seen that they try to plan for the long haul, so that's the mindset I'm tackling this with.

[zedxrgal]

He already stated this awhile ago
CONFIRMATION - NO STABLE SLOTS BEING ADDED

[Ana]

Because 5 more won't be enough. 10 more won't be enough. 25 more won't be enough.

Those slots will just be filled, and then people will be clamoring for more slots. They have to draw the line somewhere, the same as with whether to make bigger bags. At some point it stops solving the problem and simply band-aids it for a span of time that is far too short to be worth it.

Very well stated, agreed with this. We're at, what, 600+ individual pet models now? Something close to that number. We will always have to make choices, we'll never be able to tame one of everything. And to me that is perfect. I know people are going to disagree, and that's fine, but I'm solid in my opinion that we do not need more stable slots. If they keep adding more it will be endless, there will always come a time where people will ask "Well, just 5 more?". 25 is extremely generous compared to what we used to have, and compared to any other class in game that has pets.

Agree

And if we have indifenite numbers.. then i would have no reason to make 5 hunters

I like having different pet stables and i agree that 25 is a HUGE gift compared to what we had

[guntitan]

How do we break "Gotta catch them all!" mentality?

[Kalliope]

How do we break "Gotta catch them all!" mentality?

We don't.

Some players like playing that way, others don't. Neither way is right or wrong, though it seems as though Blizzard would prefer it if that mentality was restricted to minipets, not full pets.

[Sesamee]

How do we break "Gotta catch them all!" mentality?

I don't see anything wrong with this mentality. It's just a different play style and perspective. I'm good with 25 slots and I prefer my hunter pets to be much more than trophies or objects in a collection. That's me though and may or may not apply to others. I don't think we need more stable slots but if others want to petition Blizz for them then they have every right to do so. Now for companion pets, I have absolutely been bitten by the "gotta catch em all" bug. Hopelessly and utterly addicted!

[Albain]

Ahhh. This is why I have six hunters on two servers. Plenty of room to get every pet I want. It's an addiction!

[SylviaDragon]

Bleh sometimes I wish I didn’t love my main so much. I really need to level my other hunter so I can cover all the pets I love. I do a reasonably good job of using all the pets I tame. I use 15 on a regular basis and keep a few others around incase I switch specs and need a certain ability that I usually use an exotic for. to be honest I would use all of them if I could just bring more with me but when it comes down to making the most efficient combo for the situation some are always going to be better then others. In the end I would simply LOVE more stable slots. I really do get attached to my pets and have trouble letting them go. If I do abandon them its because I need to make room for a must have raid/pvp/soloing pet. I have also noticed that many of the hunters that only tame three or four pets don’t really care about them and don’t even bother to give them a name. On the other hand I have often seen the dedicated campers and rare hunters proudly showing off their pets and talking about how much they enjoy <insert long list of pet names here.>
I doubt the whole hunter/pet bond would be I question since the people who want more slots want them because they are attached to a whole heard of creatures. But I certainly understand that we have been spoiled with slots and asking for more is probably asking too much so I can agree with that viewpoint. I will be happy with whatever outcome we see. I am grateful for what I have.

[punctuation]

Those people who are arguing against more stable slots are using the same logic that opponents of gay marriage use: offering people who are different than you the choice to live how they want in no way affects the way you live your life.

If I want to have thirty pets instead of twenty-five, let me. My having thirty will in no way change the way you play. If you want to form a tight bond with twenty-five beasts, go for it; just ignore those extra few slots. If you think having an extra few pets cheapens your experience, then by all means, don't use those extra few slots! But do not, simply because you have a way you prefer to play in mind, try to tell me how to live my (virtual) life.

And before all you naysayers start screeching about having to give us infinite slots because where do we stop, that's a slippery slope fallacy. There are many ways to limit the number of pets and still give us more slots. Here's one, for instance: Choose a percentage -- arbitrary, of course -- of tameable skins to offer as slots. So if the developers think we should be able to tame 25% of the available skins, and there are 100 skins available at the moment, give us 25 slots. But in the next patch, when you add in another twenty pets, give us another 5 slots to keep the percentage the same. (25% of 100 + 20 = 30)

That, of course, is just one possible solution. My point, though, is this: If you're against the addition of more pet slots -- or gay marriage, for that matter -- you're entitled to that opinion. But when you try to support it, please don't argue that giving me a choice takes anything away from the choices you've made.