Great Tamed Lion - Stats, comparison, and some suggestions

Initially added in the update thread, I thought more people might be interested in this and the details of the wildcat comparison I done so I thought I open a thread for it here too.

Ok, done some extensive testing to see what tamed lions do in Solo/Co-Op using admin tools.

Spawning them through the npc option (not the resource spawn tool to the right, the middle button at the top) allows you to also see all their attacks in a from of inventory objects.

Gotta make sure to spawn the pet versions ofc.

Tested out White Tiger, Greater Sabretooth, and Greater Lion (then Panther and Jaguar too, but I kinda flew over those)

White Tiger-
Damage = 78 with 9% penetration
Leap does sunder, other attacks apply bleed (making it probably one of the best options for PvE?)

Greater Sabretooth-
Damage = 83 with 12% penetration
Has no sunder, just bleeding attacks.

Greater Lion-
Damage = 76 with 9% penetration
Has no sunder…
Making it the worst option of all 3.

The way it is atm, there is no reason to go for a lion over the other 2.

Speed wise they all seem more or less the same, at times the lion a little faster like Panthers? Could be just placebo effect when I looked at it.

Furthermore, ALL attacks on he lion are the Greater Panther attacks. Even checked the Greater Panther pet and they indeed have the same “attack items” with the same damage/penetration outputs.
Which means that they probably havent even done the lion yet with its own statistics/attacks.

Now, I understand Sabretooh being stronger, but a Tiger being stronger than a Lion? There is a reason its called the king of the jungle.

If the intent is to overhaul it and add new attacks on some future update then I guess its ok. Still curious why it took so long for the lion to be added and when it did get added it is just a reskin of a panther.

If the intent on the other hand is to keep it like a panther… Please guys, don’t. It makes it again, useless as an option vs the others and just a skin at this point.

I would personally place it at 80dmg with 10% penetration, AND sunder. It will make sense since the Sabretooth is much harder to get and well, its pretty much a dino-cat so its ok to be the strongest of the bunch.

Having the scale go 76, 78, 80 and 83 for Panther, Tiger, Lion and Sabretooth respectively. The Sabretooth having no sunder could excuse the slightly higher difference (3 attack points compared to 2 per interval before it) and more penetration.

The lion, slightly more penetration, and more damage with sunder. Making it the best option from all the “normal” cats and not dinos, lol, and more useful as an option, but balanced enough and clearly not be the strongest. The Sabretooth can keep that title.

Anyone else agree with all this?

I would further add, that health differences would be nice to also add. All greater pets have the same health. I guess to some extent it is easier for balancing. But balancing should really be done with regards to the pet type.

I would make the STooth have the largest health pool. Then the lion. Followed by the Tiger and lastly Panther.

Lastly, animation/attack speeds could also be different, making more sense as well. Tigers and Panthers can be slightly faster at this point, lighter and less health, the other two thus being tankier and slightly slower (keep speed as is now, just make the other 2 faster).

Jaguar from what I saw is pretty much the same with Panther? Although, it has its own attack-items :thinking: Think it has sunder too? Can’t remember, couldnt be bothered going back and testing that 5th one out again.

Again, interested in peoples opinions on these.

1 Like

Tigers are bigger than lions irl I think. And the Siberian Tiger, or white tiger, is the biggest tiger. If they aren’t extinct by now.


A Tiger is larger and stronger than a Lion. Lions are only called king of the jungle because of their roar and them sticking together in a pride, whereas tigers are mostly loners.


Yeah a tiger can weigh up to about 300kg, while a lion can weigh up to about 200kg

1 Like

Nooo, I didnt start a “lion vs tigers” debate did I? Those are 15yrs too late too old xD

I still dont know how true all this is. Ive seen this debate for over a decade. And I noticed that each documentary in the end had some bias towards one or the other. Some would for example compare only strength and deem the Tiger the winner, others would compare other characteristics like hunting if that even makes any sense and say things like “oh yes but lions are better hunters, stronger, but tigers are more dangerous” (that is another “legit” answer out there I kid you not… whatever it even means)

Size wise though, I wasnt aware the siberian tiger was the largest. Interesting.
Averagely speaking tigers are about 20% larger, so the 200kg - 300kg stat you gave is another I will hardly believe. Every source seemingly has different stats. lol. One main thing could be Tigers are longer, Male Lions are taller :man_shrugging:

Other sources have gone as far as comparing the hide and how thick the male lion is, making it (in terms of say gaming terms) not as strong (dps) but overall much more tanky (hp). And to be honest I gave up after a point trying to see what is what. lol. There really is a bias going out there on both sides :smiley: So I’ll stick to my bias too since everyone seems to be doing the same thing :stuck_out_tongue:

LIONS! KING OF THA JUNGLE! HURR DURR! :rofl: They are cooler, and mythology has depicted them as stronger :smiley: (Nemean Lion, etc…)… ummm, Aquilonia, something something, arena! There, thats all the arguments I need :laughing:

Still, waiting for opinions on all the above. My opinion all jokes aside is that they are relatively the same yet these stats do not reflect it, placing the Lion among the same lines of the Panther in the game and not giving it any differentiation is a place holder I assume and doesnt make sense.

I really think the second part to the thread is where the answer might lie. Differentiation in hp stats, making one tankier, the other more dps, etc. How would people place them?

And yes, use your bias too on which you prefer. I havent seen documentaries do otherwise why should we for a fantasy world that even has Sabretooths in it? I vote lion. We already have a primal tiger with the Sabretooth dominating. Id go into making him the second strongest and second best tank. For more realism? Idk, maybe make tigers more dps lions more hp.

Something will have to change though, these stats again do not reflect either that they are almost equals neither a hierarchy to the pet system neither give any valid reasons to pick one over the other aside from personal preference. Lions atm are just a reskin of a panther.

All arguments aside (which have historically gone both ways and bias seems to sprinkle everywhere) just saying both are more or less equal, I think that the pet system in the game should not strive to make a clear winner choice kind of situation for all pets, but differentiate them to give us reason to want to chose either one of the 3 wild cats depending on what we want. Hell, Id say even all 4/5 (depending on if you want to count Jaguar/Panther as 1 or separate. Make those be a viable choice too for a different reason.

This can only be done in making one a faster dps pet, another slower but higher burst damage, and another more tanky. Maybe something also like a slight inventory increase on 1? idk.

Otherwise, we have a whole bunch of tamed animals in the game that become obsolete really. HP all the same, and all the difference is damage which just keeps scaling and which has sunder, which has cripple, which has bleed.

“Average” and “up to” is obviously not the same :see_no_evil:

Not commenting on which is bigger or stronger, because others did that already, but two things: First, the only place where lions and tigers live in the same jungles (so the only place where it matters which is stronger) is in the fictitious Bangalla of Lee Falk’s Phantom comics. And second, lions don’t live in jungles.

ofc, more “Savannah” areas. Thing is, arent some tigers there too? No?

Exactly, the first gives a proper understanding of a comparison the second gives an extreme example which throws the numbers off :wink:

Historically, the Indian subcontinent was the only place where both lions and tigers could be found. In the present day, lions have gone extinct from Asia except for an isolated population of ~650 individuals in the Gir National Park in Gujarat, India, and there are no tigers there (there are some leopards, though).

So yes, lions and tigers could both live on the same savannahs - they’re just geographically separated.

Yeah, but saying the numbers don’t show the same is not the same as saying you hardly believe the numbers :wink:

Makes sense.
Yeah I didnt even bother to think about where they could be in the present day tbh. We as a species have overrun so much I’m surprised they aren’t just in zoos. My mind was going more on the lines of historically. I mean, there used to be lions in some references to antiquity in Greece, hence some of the myths etc. Wtf??? My brain doesn’t even fathom that such a beast could be there and yet it makes sense, climate was so different at the time. Ofc they “imported them” too on occasion? Was that a thing? I assume that was more in Roman times, for Gladiatorial games and such. Unless if that part was complete bs as well.

I think it went over your head mate :stuck_out_tongue: Don’t take it out of context and read it as a whole again. The up to argument is not something I would hardly believe as a stat for a comparison, because it is taking maximums of what is recorded. So again, its not a comparison I will completely believe. It is nowhere near the same as talking about averages which take to account the overall number of findings.

At that point it might as well start going into Guinness record territory :smile:

Going for example by what the largest cat in the world record is doesnt say much. Up to doesnt say much, so I its not I dont believe it doesnt exist, I simply dont believe it/take it to account as a stat to compare the two species.

The numbers you referenced can bring the notion that they at 33% larger. So who do I believe then when they claim the average is about 15-25%??? Not that I believe that the 15-25% is 100% true either, cause like I mentioned I noticed so many “legit” sources that seem biased. Others cause they are probably in love with Simba and the Lion King and others cause they probably love the Jungle Book :rofl:

Just saying. 2 thirds of the size? lol. Maybe in some extreme cases. Hardly anything to go by.

Yeah no problem you are correct that the biggest ever isn’t a good indicator for normal size, you just wrote it like you didn’t believe the numbers were correct

1 Like

I tend to write a lot… people tell me shut up write less xD
So the parts I chose to be more ambiguous with and not explain better are probably not the best, thats on me :rofl:

1 Like

The lions as a species was more spread around earth than the tiger. There’s tigers only in Asia while there’s / was lions in Africa, America, Europe and Asia. The European and Non-African (lions of Atlas) varieties are extinct. Since the early middle-age for the European and the early 19th century for the North-African. Most of the references in ancient mythology comes from those European, North-African and probably Near-east lions.
OTOH, even if the Greeks from Bactria and Sodgia had contact with India, tigers weren’t very well known in Europe up to the 18th century.

1 Like

Gladiator and Russell Crowe lied to me… There were no Tigers in the arenas :rofl:

So, statistically the average tiger is bigger than the average lion. Lions tend to wander in packs or a pride as it were, whereas tigers tend to wander alone. If an average pride of lions were to attack a an average tiger, chances are they stand at a higher chance of killing the tiger, whereas if an average tiger was to attack an average lone lion, the tiger has a higher chance of killing the lion. Also if an average group of tigers were to attack an equal average pride of lions the tigers have a higher chance of killing the pride. They generally are statistically a sturdier and stronger wildcat than the lion

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.