Thursday, May 26, 2011

The Lil' Legendary Pet

since pets from achievements is the biggest topic lately, i decided to check up on the achievement for lil' tarecgosa while on the PTR.

correct me if i'm wrong, but the way blizzard initially presented this companion was... misleading?

the actual achievement on the PTR says that the wielder of the new legendary must only be of honored reputation with the guild for the guild to unlock the pet.

that. is. it.

the way blizzard made it sound when first announcing this reward was that only the guild that earned/created the staff would receive the companion. however, the achievement seems to imply that any guild, regardless if they assisted in the staff's creation or not, can unlock the pet so long as they recruit a player with the legendary and said player reaches an honored reputation with that new guild.

if the latter is true, then this is quite possibly the worst way for blizzard to implement a pet reward. not only will it devalue and cheapen the companion, but it will also give the owner of the new caster dps weapon an opportunity to take advantage of pet collectors/guilds who wish to unlock the pet.

for example: let's say player A is in guild X, and s/he receives the new legendary staff. player A then reaches an honored reputation with guild X (if they weren't already honored), unlocks lil' terecgosa for that guild and then gquits. player A goes on to advertise that they will unlock the pet for other guilds but for a hefty price. guild Z pays player A to join their guild, reach an honored reputation, unlocks the companion, and the cycle continues. (insert possible outcomes where player A takes the gold, joins the guild, but never follows through with reaching honored in this example).

i don't know about everyone else, but this hypothetical (yet entirely plausible) situation feels wrong to me. it was also what i was worried about from the beginning since it would be difficult to implement awarding JUST the original guild with the pet unless the achievement actually specified that is what the pet reward was for.

it could be argued that most people wouldn't take advantage of this situation mainly because of the reputation loss/grind that's necessary, as well as the guild's choice of whom the legendary goes to. but people change. money speaks volumes. and i can't see this NOT happening somewhere down the road and potentially screwing over a guild or two.

not to mention it just cheapens the pet. this companion reward was intended to be something special, correct? a hard-earned, group effort prize. that is definitely not reflected in the situation above, nor in the situation below.

a tiny pro in all of this is that at least small and casual guilds who may not have the resources to craft the legendary themselves, will have a chance at the companion without forsaking their own guild. all they would need to do is recruit an owner of the legendary weapon and have them unlock the pet for their guild. but with that being said, doing so seems like it would be cheating the system entirely.

well, we'll have to wait and see. perhaps there are hidden clauses within the achievement that i'm unaware of and blizzard will clarify in the near future. or maybe blizzard will change/update the achievement. i would recommend at least making the reputation required be exalted rather than just honored.

as it stands right now, though, i'm not liking where this is going. the can of worms, it's starting to spill over.

2 comments:

  1. I'll just hope they don't remove the item so my 5 person guild can 5-man the content in a couple of years. If not, oh well. I'm not thrilled with anything about this pet.

    This is mount collector territory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Harval: i'm not in favor of how this pet is being implemented at all. never have they awarded a companion in such a way like this before, and i think it's really just opening a can of worms that doesn't even need to be opened.

    ReplyDelete

Creative Commons License
Perks N Peeves by Quintessence is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.