WoW Petopia Community

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.

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'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.

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

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

Redith wrote:
Pets that make no sense

Worms

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.