Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Pets and Pantheon

    • 697 posts
    June 5, 2016 7:33 AM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Transient Pets

    The pet’s character model, it’s stats, its abilities, and its behaviors are all determined by the Ability used to summon the pet.

    Is this all, or will the summoner's equipment also influence the pet stats? I made a topic about this recently in the summoner sub-forum. I hope that the summoner's gear will play a bigger role in the strength of the pets (and not only through pet focus items): A wizard with high INT will probably do more damage with a spell than a wizard with low INT would (of course this is an assumption, but since we know that equipment will be important I think we can safely assume this). Shouldn't a summoner with great gear summon stronger pets than a summoner with just basic gar?

    On the topic of "collecting" pets: I really hope that this is not overdone. If there are vanity pets, and people like to collect them, ok. But if they are something that I "must" get for whatever bonus, the fun ends for me.

    • 1321 posts
    June 5, 2016 7:41 AM PDT

    Grimix said: The term "pets" seems to be used in a much broader sense then what I think many are interpreting it for. In that post it was mentioned that pets can be anything,even machinery, to me it sounds like your mounts and various modes of transportation will be considered pets as well. I did't get the image that everyone in a raid will have a full attack pet, rather you may be required to say to raise or create your own mounts and level them in the way you want to use them. Kinda like how you wouldn't take a baby horse, raise it as a workhorse for hauling then turn around and take it to the racetrack. This kinda thing wouldn't bother me and I think it will add another layer of immersion to the game.

    Absolutely agree, and it is in part what I was getting at in my last post. 

    A "pet" could be any number of things with any number of benefits, or lack thereof. It might be a crow that scouts, like I mentioned. It might be a horse you raise over time, like you mention. It might be a cat that raises an alarm when there's an intruder. It might be a dog that fights at your side. It might be a pig that finds truffles. It might be an flame elemental, or a squirrel, or a frost drake, or a rabbit, or a boat, or a parachute for that matter. 

    By classifying a category of "pet" in design terms, you provide a logical mechanism to deliver capabilities. Those capabilities can run an unfathomable spectrum from somewhat interesting out-of-combat utility to colosal combat effectiveness. 


    This post was edited by Feyshtey at June 5, 2016 7:41 AM PDT
    • 1986 posts
    June 5, 2016 10:19 AM PDT

    I see what some of you are saying but I didnt think it was clear at all to what degree pets will be needed. Until I get more clarification from this quote:

     

    Certainly no one will be forcing you to have a pet, but you may be at a disadvantage if you decide you absolutely want nothing to do with them.

     

    Then it could mean for battle. That said, even if its not for combat, disadvantages will apparently still be there. That means for a min/maxer, someone that wants to be their best, or if you dont want to be a burden on your party/raid you will get a pet. Like it or not. I will say that it will be a great relief to me if these advantages are not specific to "active combat". But even needing pets for passive stat increases or storage or scouting and whatever else is aesthetically not pleasing to me. When I play elder scrolls I walk everywhere, because I dont like mounts. I dont like Dragon Age because I dont like "companions". And I neither want vanity or persistant pets. The only exception to these rules are turn-based jrpgs and tactical/strategy games. But guess I better get ready for pets.

    • 794 posts
    June 5, 2016 10:37 AM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Here's some information about our plans for Pets

    Transient Pets

    A transient pet is similar to a no-rent item – when you log out, it is removed from your inventory.  Transient pets may also have timers associated with them – if so, when the timer runs out, the pet disappears and its icon is removed from your inventory. 

    Persistent Pets

    Persistent Pets are also represented by an icon in your inventory and as a 3D character model in-game (in world space) if they are activated.  Persistent pets can be activated (summoned into the world) by double-clicking on their icon in the player’s inventory.  Typically, only one Persistent Pet may be active (in world space) at a time, although there could be exceptions to that general rule.

     

    Bud, one thing i did not see mentioned is that of the "Transient Pets" turning into "Persistent Pets" until said death or recalled / reclaimed.

    Also a possible ability to "rename" the Pet in general. I do know you said more can be added or removed later on, which is fine. Would this be a possible feature you will continue to keep?

    The same applies to buffs after logging off for the evening. Most do not wish to rebuff the pets up or regear them, if purchasing items from an AH or getting cleric buffs.

     

    Another note, Limitted buffs such as 11 minutes drives buffers nuts. I hated the feature and enjoyed the 1hr + buffs.

    • 1321 posts
    June 5, 2016 10:44 AM PDT

    Amsai said:

    I see what some of you are saying but I didnt think it was clear at all to what degree pets will be needed. Until I get more clarification from this quote:

     

    Certainly no one will be forcing you to have a pet, but you may be at a disadvantage if you decide you absolutely want nothing to do with them.

     

    Then it could mean for battle. That said, even if its not for combat, disadvantages will apparently still be there. That means for a min/maxer, someone that wants to be their best, or if you dont want to be a burden on your party/raid you will get a pet. Like it or not. I will say that it will be a great relief to me if these advantages are not specific to "active combat". But even needing pets for passive stat increases or storage or scouting and whatever else is aesthetically not pleasing to me. When I play elder scrolls I walk everywhere, because I dont like mounts. I dont like Dragon Age because I dont like "companions". And I neither want vanity or persistant pets. The only exception to these rules are turn-based jrpgs and tactical/strategy games. But guess I better get ready for pets.

    If you use your tracking skill, you have an advantage. If you choose not to use your tracking skill, you are at a disadvantage in that you choose not to use a skill available to you. What real dfiference does it make if that skill manifests in just a GUI that shows mobs, or a crow flying over an area showing you what's there?

    The point being, you could choose to not use any particular skill that exists for any character because you dont like the mechanic used to present that class benefit. It doesnt mean the skill or benefit is inappropriate for the class. If just means you dont like it, and have chosen not to use it. 

    • 208 posts
    June 5, 2016 11:10 AM PDT

    @Amasi: I understand what you are saying, I don't particularly like pet classes either. However I think its very unlikely that the game is going to devolve into something like pokemon. The creators of this game seem to be aiming for an extremely immersive experience, so I don't think you have anything to really worry about. Reading the post about pets the wording is very vague, I think they used the term "pet" was being used to categorize everything from combat pets and summons to different types of mounts. Hopefully we'll get more info on tuesday.

    • 794 posts
    June 5, 2016 11:58 AM PDT

    Amsai said:

    I see what some of you are saying but I didnt think it was clear at all to what degree pets will be needed. Until I get more clarification from this quote:

     

    Certainly no one will be forcing you to have a pet, but you may be at a disadvantage if you decide you absolutely want nothing to do with them.

     

    Then it could mean for battle. That said, even if its not for combat, disadvantages will apparently still be there. That means for a min/maxer, someone that wants to be their best, or if you dont want to be a burden on your party/raid you will get a pet. Like it or not. I will say that it will be a great relief to me if these advantages are not specific to "active combat". But even needing pets for passive stat increases or storage or scouting and whatever else is aesthetically not pleasing to me. When I play elder scrolls I walk everywhere, because I dont like mounts. I dont like Dragon Age because I dont like "companions". And I neither want vanity or persistant pets. The only exception to these rules are turn-based jrpgs and tactical/strategy games. But guess I better get ready for pets.

     

    No, i think your referring to all classes and races requiring to have a pet.

     

    If your a mage type, they use pets to give the balanced DPS required in a fight. If you do not wish to use a pet that is your choice. You will only be fighting with a percentage of what your potential will be. If you dont like this, then a wizard might be your better class. Sometimes familars will be enhancing your abilities much like a totem for a shaman. It doesnt mean you have to use it, just it will enhance your abilities for that fight.

     

    The SK class in EQ didnt use the pet for dps, or added advantages it only helped provide support to the SK. Otherwise many didnt use one.

    The warrior never used a pet, but would have items to enhance the class, the cleric mainly went healing all out, they did have a temp pet if wanted but it didnt stop them from healing.

     

    I dont think many devs will change this system type for a long time, since pets are the same item value as a car to us. 10pts anyone!! :)

    • 1986 posts
    June 5, 2016 12:02 PM PDT

    Grimix said:

    @Amasi: I understand what you are saying, I don't particularly like pet classes either. However I think its very unlikely that the game is going to devolve into something like pokemon. The creators of this game seem to be aiming for an extremely immersive experience, so I don't think you have anything to really worry about. Reading the post about pets the wording is very vague, I think they used the term "pet" was being used to categorize everything from combat pets and summons to different types of mounts. Hopefully we'll get more info on tuesday.

     

    There should be an attraction to collect pets as well as build them up as you play Pantheon – we should try to incorporate the ‘gotta collect them all’ paradigm from similar games where applicable.

    Thats literally one word (with a similar context) as the Pokemon catch phrase "gotta catch them all". Thats why I used the Pokemon reference. That and the strong indication that pets will be very important to Pantheon.

    • 208 posts
    June 5, 2016 12:49 PM PDT

    That's why I'm hoping pets will serve more uses other than"combat." Think how pets are used in the real world, dogs for hunting animals, herding sheep, companion ship and protection. Horses breed to work are raised vastly different from those breed to race. Hogs are used to find truffles!  I have no issue utilizing a pet I trained to perhaps be more likely to sense a particular item. I think it would be cool to be able to train a pet to aid you in seeking rare ingredients for crafting purposes, or other non combative ways.  I mean, looking at human history, humans have always domesticated and utilize animals in different ways. Perhaps we'll even be able to build farms or ranches in order to domesticate animals for various reasons. Just throwing ideas out there but none of these possible scenarios would really effect you as an adventurer. 

    • 132 posts
    June 5, 2016 12:56 PM PDT

    @Amsai I wouldn't stress about it to much.  As noted, it's early in development and things might not make it in ever, some not until well after launch, and others tweaked a lot until balanced.

    Anyways, here how I could see it working even though I know nothing more than anyone else here.  There will likely be traditional pets for special pet classes that we all know about like necros, summoners, shamans ect.   Then summoned class pets that are not always typical like VG I think did where Pally/SK could summon a warhorse "pet" that was faster than normal horses.  Then summoned mounts for all like horses and boats.  Finally the "Pokemon" pets you are thinking of.

    These "other" pets might work like buffs.  One might give a run speed buff, one gives poison resist, one gives small mana regen, one health regen, maybe another does dmg but small amounts like a free dot spell Ect.  You can only have one out at a time so you might want to collect them all so you can pull one out at a time as a free buff so to speak in certain situations.  This way they can be useful and desired but not OP since they really are nothing more than a graphical buff.

    • 1321 posts
    June 5, 2016 1:46 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    Thats literally one word (with a similar context) as the Pokemon catch phrase "gotta catch them all". Thats why I used the Pokemon reference. That and the strong indication that pets will be very important to Pantheon.

    What if a "pet" is little more than a buff spell? Could it give "significant" beneft? Sure. Is it a "pet" in the traditional sense? No. But it apperas to be giving you what appears to be significant heartburn because it appears as in an game model rather than just an icon in your buff tray? 

    • 1986 posts
    June 5, 2016 2:31 PM PDT

    Until I know more there really isnt anything other than speculation. But Ill just end it with this. If I wanted to have pets Id play a pet class. And saying its optional but you would be at a disadventage is essentially saying its not optional in my mind. As others have used as argument for various things on these forums: People will take the path of least resistance. In this case that would be having a pet. Id sure like Brad to specifiy about if everyone can have a battle pet or not though.

    • 1012 posts
    June 5, 2016 5:14 PM PDT

    Late to the the party... but, I'll throw my two cents in.

    I like pet classes - enjoyed the necromancer and beastlord in EQ, and other variations in games afterward.  I enjoyed hybrids who also had a lesser form of that pet such as the Shadowknight in EQ.  I am not a fan of cosmetic pets, just as I'm not a fan of ridiculous wardrobe changes.

    From reading Brad's post a few times, I'm thinking the pets for "non" pet classes would be more akin to the familiar he mentioned in the post.  That the pet would give +resistances, or +hp/mana regen etc. similar to how familiars can be used in EQ today.  That said, I'm still not a huge fan of the idea, and, the gotta catch them all phrase did make me think of some sort of JRPG monster catcher game.  But, if it was implemented this way, I would adjust and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker by any means.

    However, as Amsai said, Brad's reference to not using pets being disavantageous can be read into as well.  And, I'm all for alternate forms of progression, but, if these pets level up beside the character and can be equipped - that makes me think more mercenary from current day EQ than familiar.  So, I'll reserve judgement at this point until more information can be released and I'm hoping it's more in line with the familiar status and not the mercenary.

    What I do know though is if I have to collect a ton of pets or a ton of gear for different climates etc., it will eventually border on too much.  I get it as it provides shinies for people to collect and keep people interested, but call me simple - I like having my "gear" and maybe a few pieces of resist gear. 

    • 1455 posts
    June 5, 2016 5:29 PM PDT

    I'd just like to go ahead and sugguest a /hidepets option for lesser pets that are non-combat or cosmetic. I'm personally tired of seeing the same old pets following everyone around. It brings nothing to the table for me, and I'm not especially excited about the prospect of collecting them. Sounds more like preparation for something that will eventually be monetized.

    Also agree with @Raiden that I too thought about mercenaries. I really hope that is not what pets become, giving everyone soloing capabilities.

    • 192 posts
    June 5, 2016 6:10 PM PDT

    I was wondering how we were going to carry multiple sets of gear and still have things like weight restrictions and inventory limits.  I assume some pets will function mainly as pack animals?

     

    Will persistent pets need to be maintained with food and drink?


    This post was edited by Thanakos at June 5, 2016 6:11 PM PDT
    • 333 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:59 AM PDT

    Dullahan said:

    I'd just like to go ahead and sugguest a /hidepets option for lesser pets that are non-combat or cosmetic. 

    100% agree with this, played a wizard from early Kunark through about 5 months ago and after years (over a decade) of dealing with the stupid F'ing familiar's flapping and squaking and getting bitched at because i didn't hide my flappy fast enough for someone else's taste, this will really turn me and many others off i have to hear wings flapping, dogs barking, cat meowing, etc. all the time.  If you are married to this idea, at least try not make it obnoxious like other games have by adding sound effects. 

    • 258 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:53 AM PDT

    Dullahan said:

    I'd just like to go ahead and sugguest a /hidepets option for lesser pets that are non-combat or cosmetic. I'm personally tired of seeing the same old pets following everyone around. It brings nothing to the table for me, and I'm not especially excited about the prospect of collecting them. Sounds more like preparation for something that will eventually be monetized.

    Also agree with @Raiden that I too thought about mercenaries. I really hope that is not what pets become, giving everyone soloing capabilities.

    Gonna chime in here as well.... this doesnt smell right, but I'll reserve final judgement until more details are released. 

    I read through Brad's post twice, and my overall feeling was this seems like some kind of "collect them all" type experience.  I agree with Raiden... this feels a bit JPRG and seems like a hard left turn and departure from what I expected Pantheon to be.

    I really hope for some clarification from Brad on this, as this appears to be a major change in game direction.

    • 81 posts
    June 6, 2016 12:12 PM PDT

    Not sure I like where the pet thing is going for non-pet classes. Rather my class be balanced well enough I don't need to summon stuff like this. Is this pet thing for non-pet classes akin to EQ mercenaries or familiars that are just around for the sake of some bonus resist/etc? If it's the latter, put me in the no thanks camp. Since Brad had pointed out that most do want pets that don't play non-pet classes, I felt the need to reply as I'm not in that most camp (if there is truly such a camp). Mounts are an entirely different thing, where I am talking about is augmenting a non-pet class capability through using a pet (be it battle or buff based).


    This post was edited by spyderoptik at June 6, 2016 12:14 PM PDT
    • 1321 posts
    June 6, 2016 2:07 PM PDT

    @spyderoptik
    I would bet with certainty that everyone here with a very rare exception would state they want mounts to speed travel to some degree. That would be pets. He's speaking of the category of pets as a whole, and specifically included vehicles in that greater category. 

    • 607 posts
    • 298 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:23 PM PDT

    It seems like more of an aesthetic problem than anything else. If there is an option for anyone to get a combat pet on any class in a mmo, you can bet that anyone and everyone will get one. Even if they are a small bonus, to a mmo player they are practically a requiremnt to get. So aesthetically you will see 95% of all players with a pet following them, a group of 6 with 6 pets. Personally I don't think it would be uncool but it would totally change the theme of the game. In the other topic I said you might want to change the name of the game to Petheon instead of Pantheon. It may break the immersion/theme of the game and make it a totally different mmo.

    Mabye with testing there could be ways to fit it in. Like say you had to make a trade off in order to use one. In EQII you had a concentration bar of 5 points. Buffs, self-buffs, and pets would take 0-3 points of concentration. So at times you would have to choose which to use and which not to use. So in Pantheon if a combat pet required 2-3 points of concentration maybe a tank class would say it's not worth doing in a group because they lose some really important buffs or group protection spells. Maybe other classes like a Ranger would find it a more favorable trade off. This is just an example, and I don't think from the twitch stream that Pantheon had a concentration system. Something like this to try to discourage some classes from using them might be hard to balance and implement. Not sure which topic to put this in so...

    • 239 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:37 AM PDT

    I've always loved the idea of being able to play a Healer, that has a pet. As I enjoy levelling up with my healing set up (usually in a group) it would be nice if I could heal my pet during those odd times when I am not grouped up and gives me something to cast buffs on during those times too. I remember when the Cleric class was first talked about and they said you'd be able to get a Paladin pet, that would follow you around and fight with you, it made me so excited, but then later the idea seam to have been scrapped. I can live without it, but I do really like the idea of being a healer class with a pet, even if its terrible at combat I just want to feel like my skills are going to use at all times. And in groups it would allow the pet to deal some minior damage while I focused on healing.

    I'd love it if when the cleric healed the pet it would become more empowered and fight harder, so if you don't need to heal at the time you could charge up your pet making it fight stronger. Somthing like:-

    (pet skill) Holy Strike: Single Target.
    Strike the target for X damage, for the next 6 seconds any over healing on the paladin will be translated into Righteous fury, dealing the excess healing as damage to all nearby hostile enemy's distributed by the amount of targets hit.

    This is to make it so you can use over healing as damage if cast on the pet, so for example if the pet was on 100% health, and you cast a 100 over heal on the pet, it will then deal 100 damage around the pet, if it hit 3 targets each target would take 33.3 damage, and if there where 10 targets they would all take 10 damage each.

     

    Personally I'm looking forward to testing this all out when we all get in during the testing phases and see how well it actually works, it has the potential to be fantastic and I think condemning it now its a little to early, I have faith in Brad and his team in that I believe they can make a system and make it work well.


    This post was edited by Kellie at June 7, 2016 7:17 AM PDT
    • 1321 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:34 AM PDT

    Kelli, you just described a Shaman  (with a spriti wolf) or a Druid (with a bear) from EQ. Both have a long fictional history tied to nature or spirits, and so it is a believable and logical step to them having those pets. Clerics do not have any such association. And this is precisely why some here are concerned with a notion of every class having a pet. It just doesnt fit with the image of the class in many cases, and would detract from the personality and uniqueness of those that it does fit with if used more commonly. 


    This post was edited by Feyshtey at June 7, 2016 7:35 AM PDT
    • 239 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:21 AM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    Kelli, you just described a Shaman  (with a spriti wolf) or a Druid (with a bear) from EQ. Both have a long fictional history tied to nature or spirits, and so it is a believable and logical step to them having those pets. Clerics do not have any such association. And this is precisely why some here are concerned with a notion of every class having a pet. It just doesnt fit with the image of the class in many cases, and would detract from the personality and uniqueness of those that it does fit with if used more commonly. 



    yep you are right, I'm just saying what has been said when the game was first shown and classes first had descriptions, obviously a lot of that has changed now but the cleric was once described as having a paladin pet in Pantheon. Admittedly that was before the latest class over hauls. I don't think its to far of a stretch to see a Cleric with a holy protector as a guardian.

     

    • 252 posts
    August 20, 2016 12:42 AM PDT

    As a newer member, I apologize rekindling a 2 month old discussion, but I'd like to share my immediate response to reading Brad's post about pets. First, I think he unintentionally, yet unavoidably, invoked some negative vibes simply by using the term 'pet' when trying to hash out his vision with us. I think the use of an new terminology is desperately needed to describe this feature. My knee-jerk reaction was like some of these posts "omg nooo, not cosmetic pets! and everyone gets pets wtf?!", but then I tried to put myself in the perspective of a fully immersed Terminus adventurer and I quickly justified every class having access to "pets". Aside from the obvious class specific pets that were already mentioned that gel with a classes lore, mounts and boats, I remember thinking "In EQ, how did my little gnome enchanter carry 8 backpacks? - thats absurd" which is quickly remedied with a persistant pet. My EQ experience would have actually been more immersive if, as an adventurer who plans to loot alot, I brought along a tinkered gyrocopter or some other sort of pack mule to help me carry everything. Makes complete sense. Also, if I'm going to be adventuring with this companion which assists me with inventory space - why not let it grow with me and outfit it with some other minor benefits? I get it. The immersion begins to break for me a little bit when thinking that everyone in a 6-7 man group has 6-7 pets auto-following them around, but I'm starting to think that might only be a construct of our prior MMO experience. I think this actually makes more sense from a logical adventurer standpoint. I'm on board if the pets are lore related and not gimmiky.


    This post was edited by Syntro at August 20, 2016 12:43 AM PDT