After making the thralls suck (in my personal opinion, disagreed by many, but it’s mine), now they’ll make pets suck too.
Funcom, how about STOP TWEAKING what isn’t a problem and ACTUALLY FIXING what is? Hum?
The game is riddled with game breaking bugs and you are worried with “rebalancing pets”??
Wtf is wrong with you guys?
This is where we respectfully disagree. Thralls are just fine. I’m still using mine even with 0 points in authority, as a helper. I’ve also played with full authority and even corrupt authority, and the thralls are completely viable and fun to use.
Of course, that might be because I play PVE-C, not PVP. Maybe you’re complaining about your PVP base guards?
It is strange however I haven’t seen any pvpers complaining about other than maybe 1 or 2 but since when do they listen to a couple people. If that is the case pvp would be in a much better state. At the end of the day the blame game is always played. It’s a shame people still go after the dying mode that is pvp.
No, it’s not. At least, I’m not playing it. I could add emphasis, if you want:
I read your post correctly but if you read thru the thread you aren’t the first person to accuse pvp or even hint at the idea. Similar to the katana thread where @SirDaveWolf very reasonably mentioned a weapon doing more damage then intended. Very different then the widely used “the devs always listen to the loudest person” excuse. So which is it… do they listen to the loudest person or the most reasonable person?
I mean, it does not make sense in PVE context. So the logical conclusion to jump to is that it must be motivated by PVP. The only difference is that I’m not blaming the players, because we don’t have as much agency as we like to believe we do 
The nerfing is the most annoying thing of all
@prologue1337 Agreed they should stop nerfing everything to the ground but my point is it’s not one modes fault because they want to make a more balanced game. In this situation I didn’t find those pets to be to overpowered but we the players don’t make the changes.
The only thing that is broken in PvP and is related to pets are the sabretooths or other higher grade cat pets.
For me it looks like, that Funcom plans to adjust all the pets down, but will later probably add something to the pets, for example armor or special “weapons”.
Nah… it’s my personal beef with the game. Thralls are viable., especially with that elixir. I just like them stronger.
Out of curiosity, what’s broken about greater cats in PVP? Is it the knockdown? Or something else?
Just check the video. Watch the HP bar. This was on an official server. So 0.5 thrall/pet to player damage. So you can basically count the damage they do on attack x2.
Armor Value: 807
Damage Reduction: 61%
too long, didn’t read it all.
Sounds like this:
Funcom: We are gonna rebalance pets, but first we have to weaken them all. But don’t worry at some point, in some time, if you keep playing our game, they’ll be viable.
Read: We weakened them, later on we’ll put them back to where they are now, so you can be grateful for it.
Interesting. I wonder if this is one of those outlier cases where the pet owner went through a lot of effort to get the best possible outcome, and now everyone’s pointing to that as if it were a baseline.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really know whether that’s the case. I’m just speculating, because I’ve seen that happen before.
I often feel like this isn’t taken into account properly. Let’s do a thought experiment, bearing in mind that this might not be the case on this particular occasion.
Imagine if this was on the extreme of the RNG spectrum. To get that outcome, you would have to:
This takes a shіtload of time and effort and a non-trivial amount of materials that aren’t exactly lying around everywhere. And then you invest into full authority, and feed your cat whatever it is you need to feed it to get as many bonuses as you can.
Am I saying the rarity of the extreme outcome justifies its existence? No, what I’m saying is that it shouldn’t influence the balancing of the baseline. If the RNG variance allows for unreasonable extremes, you don’t need to nerf the baseline, you need to reduce the variance so these extremes don’t occur.
To me, this situations sounds similar to the “one-shot attack” complaints we’ve seen before. To get the one-shot attack, you had to go to extremes. The complaints were valid, but the vast majority of proposed solutions were not. Instead of nerfing the baseline – the weapon or the mounted damage or whatever – the correct balancing change is to make sure you can’t get those extreme outcomes.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. What I’m trying to say is that I agree with you that this extreme shouldn’t exist, but I’m still not sure it calls for a general cat nerf. 
Funcom does though. We can speculate and try to come up with solutions all day but it’s not up to us.
Unsurprisingly. There’s a reason for the knee-jerk “NO MORE NERFS” reaction you often see here, and that reason is Funcom’s love of nerf-hammer
We were 4 vs 2 with 2 cat type pets in that video. You can simulate that scenario and share your experiences if you wish.
I can already tell you my experience: it is no fun
P.S.: We killed them in the end. But only because we were more people.
More or less the same goes for thralls, @CodeMage . You took the best in game, levelled them properly, gave them the best gear… so they were OP. If you took a middle tier thrall with bad stats against the Arena Champion, one example among a few more, she would call him a snack.
I don’t know why people have to impinge on others their choices. Nobody was forced to have OP thralls. That was a choice. It has always been a choice. Same goes for pets.
On pvp, it’s different. Everyone uses the “meta” of every possible thing and then they complain…
Not exactly, at least not for PVE(-C). You didn’t have to hunt for Dalinsia, or even grab a Cimmerian Berserker. You didn’t have to give them the best gear. And there was no reroll potion.
You could simply grab a Lian or a Teimos, give them an endgame but not best-in-class epic armor (e.g. Pictish Warchief), a good enough weapon, level them to 20 with the proper food whatever their growth chances or perks, and you would still be able to sit back and let them do all the work against most of the bosses.
Heh, talk about representing the extremes as baseline. Arena Champion is the thrall killer NPC. Even before 3.0, I would only take my best thrall against her and even then I wouldn’t let the thrall fight on its own, without my help.
If Arena Champion is your measuring stick, you’re always going to get skewed measurements.
It might be a tad short-sighted on my part, in regards to coding and balance wise but perhaps a damage hardcap for players and player owned assets on PvP could effectively restrict some of the more excessive damage outliers. Say for example the katana combo-special follow up is capable of reaching 1k damage, and certain pets can deal 600 damage (just a number i’m pulling out my rear) with the average high end HP of a well-specced player being 1200. Wouldn’t it be a decent solution to cap damage that can be applied within a single second to a player to 400 ish? Things like environmental damage could perhaps be exempted from this, like stepping on one of the tall braziers or stepping in lava. Even if not, not a big loss i’d think.
I am guessing this might still cause issues in one shape or another when it comes to latency and such, but that’ll remain an issue regardless of measures.
Again, this might be shortsighted thinking on my part when it comes to difficulty of implementation and actual effective balancing. If possible however, it’d also remove a lot of the need to keep (downward) tweaking pets, thralls and weapons excessively. It’d also put in place a hard measure on any new sorceries, weapons or pets that might be introduced in the future.