Please add a note on The Claw that says, “Please note this does not work to provide more companions than Safety in Numbers will provide as the effects will NOT stack” or words to that effect.
Thank you.
What made you think they would stack? No where does it say it increases you maximum amount of companions in either spot. Not on the claw or the fang or safety in numbers node
5 Likes
Yeah, “You can summon wolves up to your maximum number of companions”, means if you have 5 max companions, you can summon up to 5 wolves…
1 Like
I’ll try to keep my response as civil and professional as possible. It’s a suggestion for the lay player who didn’t read the wording as exactly as you two did. Respectfully, most casual players don’t read the exact details and may believe the two abilities stack. Again, it’s a suggestion to help improve the game and avoid potential frustration. That said, there are notes in other areas that do exactly what I’m suggesting.
In publishing, we have this saying that if a reader is confused or unclear about something, then that’s not the fault of the reader. The writer must be clearer or more exact.
And I believe the point of a beta test is to help improve the game. Again, it’s a suggestion. Please keep this in mind.
2 Likes
I’ll also try to keep my answer civil. So I won’t say that it’s a stupid argument to say “Tooltip is poorly worded because when you don’t read it comlpetely you do not understand it.”
But I’d say - as a casual player myself - that I disagree also with the argument that the major number of us don’t read tooltips.
If it was true what you say changing the tooltip won’t do anything. Because the average casual player won’t read it anyways. Or read only the half tooltip because it’s boring to read such a long tooltip.
But perhaps the casual player that can’t read tooltips won’t even notice that the number of companions doesn’t stack. He would have no clue how many wolves he can summon because he did not read the tooltip of the summoning wolves skill.
Saying you won’t say something, but then saying it, isn’t civil. In fact, it’s outright rude. What I don’t understand is what is the harm of adding such text? Again, this kind of wording is already on other skills and/or items. If it stops potential confusion for any player, or enjoyment in the game due to avoiding such a misstep, what is the harm? I’ll leave it at that and ask a moderator to delete this thread for . . . obvious reasons at this point.
So what’s with your previous response?
Must have taken you a lot of self control to keep it civil because you were treated so bad before.
There’s no need to delete anything. You made a suggestion and got answers. Just because they are not in your flavour does not mean your opinion does not count. Maybe the next hour 5 people jump in that like your suggestion. Who knows. Don’t be sulky.
Sorry if my post was rude.
I know where you’re coming from, there’s a reason why people ask how they can change their mastery when they were told when they chose it that it can’t be changed (foreign language speakers notwithstanding, obviously)…
How do you know that a casual would read the tooltip/description if it did say it doesn’t stack with Safety in Numbers? There’s a load of info in this game for players, often found when holding Alt (& I don’t think it would be a bad idea to spruce up those tooltips to include stuff like this), but I think there needs to be a line between having a concise affix (“You can summon wolves up to your maximum number of companions”) and having a more verbose affix that people may not read/understand anyway.
Surely there has to be some basic level of understanding/reading comprehension (and I don’t mean that in an offensive way, though it could be taken like that) that the player is assumed to have (again, foreign language speakers notwithstanding)? Should it be assumed that the player didn’t read it at all and doesn’t understand why it won’t let them summon as many Raptors as they can have companions? Should it be assumed that the player may not realise that it only applies to wolves and not skellies, or non-Primalist summons? Where do you draw the line?
You can summon wolves up to your maximum number of companions, but this does not stack with Safety in Numbers, nor does it allow you to summon any other companion (that being the Primalist-only summons, namely Wolves, Sabretooth, Bear, Scorpion and Raptors) other than Wolves, so don’t think that it’ll let you have loads of Sabretooths, Bears, Scorpions, Raptors or totems. It also doesn’t affect the number of other Primalist summons, such as Primal Serpents from Serpent Strike. It also really doesn’t affect non-Primalist summons such as the Acolyte’s Skellies, Sentinel’s Shields/Manifested Weapons/Armour/etc.
I know I’m kinda taking the piss a bit, but it’s an honest question. Where do you draw the line? Taken to a logical extreme instead of an affix you get a EULA complete with scroll bars, or “The contents of this coffeee cup may be hot”…
2 Likes
Honestly? This is the age of TLDR. Seeing this hardcore in publishing, gaming, and on Internet forums overall. Am I saying handhold everyone? Hardly. All I suggest is this: “Doesn’t Stack with Safety in Numbers” to be added to The Claw.
Six words. Again, just a suggestion. And thank you for keeping it on-topic and civil.
another consideration for not adding it, is that it actually increases the tooltip text, making it harder to read as a whole. You said it yourself, TL:DR.
“Doesn’t stack.” Better?
You could go on for hours. But there’s just now flaw with the actual tooltip. It’s clear and short. On point. For somebody who’s just a little bit interested in the mechanics of the Primalist/Beastmaster it is clearly understandable.
There are tooltips in the game that are not very easy to understand. This is none of them. And the argument with TLDR just does not work. You can’t help somebody who does not want to read a tooltip by extending the tooltip. That’s not logic.
This is the last I’ll say about this because clearly this is going nowhere fast. On certain items, there are warning labels that I feel are absolutely stupid. For example, “Don’t use hairdryer when washing hair.” Yes, my thought was also . . . seriously? Someone needs this warning? Wow.
But here’s the thing: That warning is not for me. It’s not for you. It’s for someone else.
I’ll not debate the merits of such a warning or the intellect of those needing it. The point is will it help someone avoid a mistake? If so, then what is the harm? Why this generated such . . . ahem . . . colorful responses is curious to me, but I’ll leave that up to the philosophers.
Regardless, and again, it’s simply a suggestion to help those who might otherwise think the two abilities stack. Maybe it’ll help. Maybe it won’t. But I’m of the belief that offering signposts to avoid pitfalls is always better than saying, “Well! If you’re too stupid to understand something so simple, then there’s no helping you at all,” or words to that effect.
Maybe that’s just me again, but so be it. And that’s the last I’ll say about this suggestion. Peace.
1 Like
I must admit it’s true that sometimes it’s not really clear what a node means… Got Safety in numbers at level 27ish, and thought I could summon more wolves. But It took me a while to figure out that there is probably a limit number of pets per level (or summon unlocked skill? still not clear to me)… I had the sabercat and when I got rid of him I could summon 1 more wolf… Some of us are just “fresh recruits” to this game you know? We’re just trying to learn and still support this game. It’s not because we’re dumb or we want to be annoying.
1 Like
The very first thing I do is read tooltips to see what the ability does…to say that new people don’t is like saying you became a novelist without learning how to read and write…it’s a really dumb argument…
Reading the entire message states exactly what goes on with it…it’s not hard to understand and I immediately was excited when I got the Claw to drop because I immediately knew it saved me 6p in my wolf skill tree…because…you know…I read stuff before I make a decision…something us human beings were taught from a very young age…
I guess Millennials were taught different
While reading the text is important, it is entirely possible to misunderstand something.
That’s going a bit far.
1 Like