Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 79 posts
    June 6, 2016 5:57 PM PDT

    kiwenzel said:

    Aradune said:

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.

    Persistent pets belong to specific classes that have lore-driven reasons for having them. It is hard to extend this to specific races-- imagine in a believable world where all [insert some race] naturally are accompanied by [insert some pet/animal/entity]. The only way I can see that working is if that entity is a diety/elemental/spiritually relevant to the race. Which if that were the case, it would feel more comfortable putting that in the transient pet section.

    I honestly do not see much good in being generous about providing persistent pets to characters outside of specific classes. Some sort of pack mule would make the most sense out of the persistent pets mentioned, but do we really want everyone to have a pack mule summoned? Sounds immersion breaking. 

     

    I don't mind the idea of people have packmules etc even if there are a lot of them. Think about the prep behind an adventure that you read about in books etc, they would want to make sure they have supplies. example if a party of six adventurers wanted to map out a cave system. They would need torches, food, water, tents etc and these would be heavy so having three pack mules or so does make sence at least in my mind so i don't think somthing like that would be immersion breaking. 

    now everyone having a battle wolf with magic fangs, diffrent story. 

    in eq2 there were buff pets, cosmetic pets that gave a small bonus to stats and if you wanted too you could hide them as well. i wouldnt say no to this personally but others may not like it.

     

    • 1322 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:09 PM PDT

    Well s***. 

    I'm going to have to really sit back and digest this, but Aradune I gotta say you're really killing me on this. I'm trying desperately to believe you wouldnt go down this route, but you're not helping my case at all. 

    If you have a pet system (beyond mounts/vehicles) that really provides a compelling beneift, every min/max player is going to engage in it. And it doesnt even matter if they really like it. They'll just do it for the benefit. And we will end up with the feared circumstances Aenra and others are rightfully dreadfully afraid of.  That's the wrong approach. 

    The last thing in the world I want to see is the (forgive me) Asian game style of aboslute total visual chaos everywhere. I dont need the flashy b***s*** or gimmicky systems. I need a solid core-system MMO. 

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:09 PM PDT

    A Druid charms animal and it stays his pet, levels up, but can only be summoned outdoors and in certain climates...


    A Ranger summons a hound to hunt a mob or to help him forage but cannot maintain its presence while fighting.


    Between fights, a wizard summons an owl familiar to help him mem faster, but cannot maintain it during combat (he could not cast spells due to how much focus is necessary to keep the owl in this plane with him)


    A Summoner sends in a fire elemental to taunt a mob, equipping it with some items (likely not very valuable ones), but it dies before it can bring the mob to where the group is waiting...


    A Direlord summons a skeleton by animating a dead mob which then assists him in combat... until his focus fades and the skeleton turns on him.


    A Crusader leads his noble war horse into the depths even though he cannot mount it in a dungeon, and it fights by his side, weaker than a player, but very talented at taunting/rescuing.


    A Shaman summons a spirit being during a portion of combat. That being applies AoE buffs to his allies but it cannot engage the enemy directly due to its ethereal nature.


    Pets require resources. They can require focus. They can be useful during combat but not actually able to engage. They can help during non-combat exploration, travel, and resource gathering.


    They are not something every class would necessarily have access to, but in context, many (most?) of our classes would have some sort of 'pet' in a high fantasy world.


    They are not mercenaries or proxies for other group members.


    They would not be always in a summoned state making it so that if you saw 6 players in a group, you'd *always* see 12 entities.


    I continue to appreciate the comments, even the skepticsm, and the assumptions that we would do this poorly, or exactly like some other game you didn't like. I don't want you to hold back :) What I would also appreciate, however, is taking a little time, thinking this through, and imagining scenarios where this could be pretty cool. Add resource management to your thoughts, various restrictions that make sense in the context of a world where the environment truly matters, how a pet could benefit a class without just being another combattant in the group, etc.  You guys can do it -- come up with positive ideas and examples -- solutions to problems you've seen in the past.  Yeah, it's harder than just citing extreme examples of absurdity, or pointing to another game and an aspect of it you didn't like, or applying only the logic 'if not in EQ, do not want!'....  but you can do it :)  You did sign up to contribute ideas, help build upon ideas, to seek solutions and make Pantheon an amazing game, right?  It wasn't just to throw stones at design docs I open up and share with you, right?

    Look at the title to this thread -- do you want to help us *design* or just be an alarmist?


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 6, 2016 6:29 PM PDT
    • 2317 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:09 PM PDT

    If you (generic you, plural) find yourself on one extreme or the other on this issue I suggest the following:  Donate enough money to get an early-alpha tester slot for yourself so that when pets are introduced you are there going over every single aspect of them and providing thoughtful, well reasoned, relevant and un-biased feedback during your rigorous testing sessions.

    • 1986 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:13 PM PDT

    The most important point for me would be no combat pets for non-pet classes. And that there should be a limit on just how many clases are pet classes (current line up: 2-3 max). And this point still has yet to be clarified. Though that last comment in reply to Driven was working in that direction, all it says is that most pets would not be combat pets. Not that pet classes would be the only ones to get combat pets. Could I get further clarification that this is or isnt the case. Specifically something like "All classes (will/will not) be able to use combat pets".

     

    As for disadvantages about summoners not using summons or not using mounts for transportation, Im sure everyone understood that. Or at least I did. I was specifically referencing what I wrote just above. That is the disadvantage Id be concerned about.

    Brads last post made it some what clear. Sounds like half (or more) classes will have pets, and they may be situational. However, sounds like there could be plenty that while not spefically doing damage would be something you use durring combat. Id still qualify that as combat pets though.

     

    As to other concerns like not seeing pets everywhere, I agree its not something Id like to see.

     

    Pets for other purposes like pack mules, augments for the perceptions system, travel, sniffing out mats for gathering (or your corpse should you loose it), or any other non-combat thing could be cool...... I guess? But honestly I just dont want them. Mounts are the only "pets" Id want to have to deal with. Pack mules if thats really the answer to "inventory limitations and weight" that people were worried about with situational gear (immersion stikes again?). Personally either just not worry about that or using a system similar to FFXIVs armory system would be easier and more sane to me. But I could live with it.

     


    This post was edited by Amsai at June 6, 2016 6:27 PM PDT
    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:24 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    snip

     

    those all seem to be in the transient pet category you mentioned. are persistent pets, then, only things like mounts, pack animals, etc?  that would really clear things up. thanks in advance

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:28 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    Aradune said:

    snip

     

    those all seem to be in the transient pet category you mentioned. are persistent pets, then, only things like mounts, pack animals, etc?  that would really clear things up. thanks in advance

    The druid example was specifically persistent... I could see the Wizard's familiar as persistent... 

    • 333 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:38 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    A Druid charms animal and it stays his pet, levels up, but can only be summoned outdoors and in certain climates...


    A Ranger summons a hound to hunt a mob or to help him forage but cannot maintain its presence while fighting.


    Between fights, a wizard summons an owl familiar to help him mem faster, but cannot maintain it during combat (he could not cast spells due to how much focus is necessary to keep the owl in this plane with him)


    A Summoner sends in a fire elemental to taunt a mob, equipping it with some items (likely not very valuable ones), but it dies before it can bring the mob to where the group is waiting...


    A Direlord summons a skeleton by animating a dead mob which then assists him in combat... until his focus fades and the skeleton turns on him.


    A Crusader leads his noble war horse into the depths even though he cannot mount it in a dungeon, and it fights by his side, weaker than a player, but very talented at taunting/rescuing.


    A Shaman summons a spirit being during a portion of combat. That being applies AoE buffs to his allies but it cannot engage the enemy directly due to its ethereal nature.


    Pets require resources. They can require focus. They can be useful during combat but not actually able to engage. They can help during non-combat exploration, travel, and resource gathering.


    They are not something every class would necessarily have access to, but in context, many (most?) of our classes would have some sort of 'pet' in a high fantasy world.


    They are not mercenaries or proxies for other group members.


    They would not be always in a summoned state making it so that if you saw 6 players in a group, you'd *always* see 12 entities.


    I continue to appreciate the comments, even the skepticsm, and the assumptions that we would do this poorly, or exactly like some other game you didn't like. I don't want you to hold back :) What I would also appreciate, however, is taking a little time, thinking this through, and imagining scenarios where this could be pretty cool. Add resource management to your thoughts, various restrictions that make sense in the context of a world where the environment truly matters, how a pet could benefit a class without just being another combattant in the group, etc.  You guys can do it -- come up with positive ideas and examples -- solutions to problems you've seen in the past.  Yeah, it's harder than just citing extreme examples of absurdity, or pointing to another game and an aspect of it you didn't like, or applying only the logic 'if not in EQ, do not want!'....  but you can do it :)  You did sign up to contribute ideas, help build upon ideas, to seek solutions and make Pantheon an amazing game, right?  It wasn't just to throw stones at design docs I open up and share with you, right?

    Look at the title to this thread -- do you want to help us *design* or just be an alarmist?

    The bolded part of your statement would have been much easier for us to do in the first place if you had provided some of the examples in the top of your post in your original.  


    This post was edited by Reht at June 6, 2016 6:42 PM PDT
    • 208 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:45 PM PDT

    Sabot said:

    Aradune said:

    Driven said:

    Yeah, I don't mind pets as pack mules and mounts and such but I don't want to have to have a pet in battle to be effective in a group because it ups my DD by some random %. If I wanted to play a pet class I would do so.

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.  Like I've said, I'm not keen on putting a lot of effort into purely vanity/cosmetic pets.  Part of Pantheon is that Stuff Matters(TM).  Weather matters.  What item you're using matters.  Contending with the Environment matters. Exploration and mana climates matter.  Group class composition matters.  How you appear to others reflects the items you are wearing and wielding.  Etc.

    OK, having them as storage might be good. Could we have a feature that makes a kind of camp or base of operations? A group makes their "camp" outside of a dungeon and has thier pets stay there. Those pets can be used to hold your extra gear or other items that you have but dont want to bring with you into the dungeon. This way they have a use and are not cluttering up things. You could return to the camp from time to time to offload some things or pick up other things. Maybe you need that extra set of armor because you died and are on a CR. Maybe you run out to get another weapon because you found something inside that is vulnerable to this other weapon type.

    This could open up a whole new set of things they could be used for that I for one would see as useful but not game breaking or unappealing visually.

     

    I really like the thought of this idea! Like dog meat from fallout 4 except instead it's a horse or a steer or something else. Not a pet you will take with you to fight, but one you'll take for gathering or you take it and leave it at a small ranch near a dungeon with extra supplies. Maybe you could use your companion to live a somewhat nomad lifestyle 


    This post was edited by Grimix at June 6, 2016 7:04 PM PDT
    • 79 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:45 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    A Druid charms animal and it stays his pet, levels up, but can only be summoned outdoors and in certain climates...


    A Ranger summons a hound to hunt a mob or to help him forage but cannot maintain its presence while fighting.


    Between fights, a wizard summons an owl familiar to help him mem faster, but cannot maintain it during combat (he could not cast spells due to how much focus is necessary to keep the owl in this plane with him)


    A Summoner sends in a fire elemental to taunt a mob, equipping it with some items (likely not very valuable ones), but it dies before it can bring the mob to where the group is waiting...


    A Direlord summons a skeleton by animating a dead mob which then assists him in combat... until his focus fades and the skeleton turns on him.


    A Crusader leads his noble war horse into the depths even though he cannot mount it in a dungeon, and it fights by his side, weaker than a player, but very talented at taunting/rescuing.


    A Shaman summons a spirit being during a portion of combat. That being applies AoE buffs to his allies but it cannot engage the enemy directly due to its ethereal nature.


    Pets require resources. They can require focus. They can be useful during combat but not actually able to engage. They can help during non-combat exploration, travel, and resource gathering.


    They are not something every class would necessarily have access to, but in context, many (most?) of our classes would have some sort of 'pet' in a high fantasy world.


    They are not mercenaries or proxies for other group members.


    They would not be always in a summoned state making it so that if you saw 6 players in a group, you'd *always* see 12 entities.


    I continue to appreciate the comments, even the skepticsm, and the assumptions that we would do this poorly, or exactly like some other game you didn't like. I don't want you to hold back :) What I would also appreciate, however, is taking a little time, thinking this through, and imagining scenarios where this could be pretty cool. Add resource management to your thoughts, various restrictions that make sense in the context of a world where the environment truly matters, how a pet could benefit a class without just being another combattant in the group, etc.  You guys can do it -- come up with positive ideas and examples -- solutions to problems you've seen in the past.  Yeah, it's harder than just citing extreme examples of absurdity, or pointing to another game and an aspect of it you didn't like, or applying only the logic 'if not in EQ, do not want!'....  but you can do it :)  You did sign up to contribute ideas, help build upon ideas, to seek solutions and make Pantheon an amazing game, right?  It wasn't just to throw stones at design docs I open up and share with you, right?

    Look at the title to this thread -- do you want to help us *design* or just be an alarmist?

    I quite like this idea so far, in other games such as eq1/2 there were things that we called dumb fire pets that really were not a pet in a way but still a summon, the idea of say a shaman summoning a spirit to buff the party could be seen kind of like a buff well (think light wells from WoW).

    i think we may be overthinking what is a "pet" per say and what may be classed more as a guardian or close to that. as long as there are plain limitations on these creatures to make sure the pet classes stay flavorful and not overly diluted i think this system could work but i would have to see it in action to be 100% sure. It doesn't seem more then the amount of pets in eq1 i mean there was druid charm, shaman spirit, necro and shadow knight skelly pets, mage pets, enchanter charms and pets and this was before the beastlord was even put in and we got the whole warder thing.

    As long as it fits the lore and does not feel out of place i am more then willing to see how this works.

    This all being said, i think the idea of taking a war horse into a mine, cavern or ruins to feel a tad silly, outdoors like the druid yeah but not in dungeons. the poor animal is likely to break its leg in mud or uneasy ground


    This post was edited by Akailo at June 6, 2016 6:49 PM PDT
    • 63 posts
    June 6, 2016 6:57 PM PDT

    Akailo said:

    Aradune said:


    A Crusader leads his noble war horse into the depths even though he cannot mount it in a dungeon, and it fights by his side, weaker than a player, but very talented at taunting/rescuing.

    As long as it fits the lore and does not feel out of place i am more then willing to see how this works.

    This all being said, i think the idea of taking a war horse into a mine, cavern or ruins to feel a tad silly, outdoors like the druid yeah but not in dungeons. i mean poor thing is likely to break a leg in the uneasy ground.

    Everything on Brad's list sounded good to me except the warhorse idea as well. Using specific examples really helped elucidate the ideas beyond the pet statements from earlier that were fairly generalized. But, I think as long as you can ask yourself whether this pet makes sense within the context of the world and the answer is "yes" then I am for the pet implementations. 

    • 208 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:11 PM PDT

    I'm mad I didn't see brads list!!!! I'm usually not one to be a Ranger in most games but seeing the description with the Ranger and having a hound to forage and scout for mobs  gets me really excited!

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:14 PM PDT

    Akailo said:

    I quite like this idea so far, in other games such as eq1/2 there were things that we called dumb fire pets that really were not a pet in a way but still a summon, the idea of say a shaman summoning a spirit to buff the party could be seen kind of like a buff well (think light wells from WoW).

    i think we may be overthinking what is a "pet" per say and what may be classed more as a guardian or close to that. as long as there are plain limitations on these creatures to make sure the pet classes stay flavorful and not overly diluted i think this system could work but i would have to see it in action to be 100% sure. It doesn't seem more then the amount of pets in eq1 i mean there was druid charm, shaman spirit, necro and shadow knight skelly pets, mage pets, enchanter charms and pets and this was before the beastlord was even put in and we got the whole warder thing.

    As long as it fits the lore and does not feel out of place i am more then willing to see how this works.

    This all being said, i think the idea of taking a war horse into a mine, cavern or ruins to feel a tad silly, outdoors like the druid yeah but not in dungeons. the poor animal is likely to break its leg in mud or uneasy ground

    This, and I bolded what I think is a key point -- it's not necessarily that there are 'more' pets, but rather that they are situational, aren't only for combat, and that some persist and can level up -- it's a deeper dive into where MMOs have taken pets before in many cases, but it's not a crazy new direction that doesn't make sense, or that would simply be a hassle, etc.

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:16 PM PDT

    kiwenzel said:

    Akailo said:

    Aradune said:


    A Crusader leads his noble war horse into the depths even though he cannot mount it in a dungeon, and it fights by his side, weaker than a player, but very talented at taunting/rescuing.

    As long as it fits the lore and does not feel out of place i am more then willing to see how this works.

    This all being said, i think the idea of taking a war horse into a mine, cavern or ruins to feel a tad silly, outdoors like the druid yeah but not in dungeons. i mean poor thing is likely to break a leg in the uneasy ground.

    Everything on Brad's list sounded good to me except the warhorse idea as well. Using specific examples really helped elucidate the ideas beyond the pet statements from earlier that were fairly generalized. But, I think as long as you can ask yourself whether this pet makes sense within the context of the world and the answer is "yes" then I am for the pet implementations. 

    LOL :) Perhaps the warhorses of Terminus are a bit more hearty and comfortable below ground than those found on other worlds... or perhaps it is silly... but I did want to provide some examples and ideas to better illustrate the idea in general.

    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:16 PM PDT

    @aradune

    some ideas, since you asked, some may be good, or bad, or just not fit

     

    Warrior could have a squire that carried his stuff, maybe allows him to switch out a weapon in combat if he is able to disengage for a moment...squire could 'run away' despawn, be lost) if/when the warrior dies. would not fight, might actually run away on its own if attacked (the warrior has to go find him, of course over time he could be made more loyal). can be killed.

     

    Rogue could have some critters -  rats,  bats (or a cats ;) ) that he could use to throw into a group to distract them. this would be in line with a rogue type that really wnts to avoid the attention of enemies. will be killed quickly probably, but the few seconds they distract might let the rogue and his comrades slip by.

     

    Cleric could have an acolyte or follower of the same deity, similar to squire but could also help expedite some of the longer casted prayer-type spells a Cleric would use (if such things exist). can be killed.

     

    Shaman or Druid could possess a bird or some other small animal, to scout a location out from a distance. he is essentially comatose while this is happening

     

    • 208 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:40 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    @aradune

    some ideas, since you asked, some may be good, or bad, or just not fit

     

    Warrior could have a squire that carried his stuff, maybe allows him to switch out a weapon in combat if he is able to disengage for a moment...squire could 'run away' despawn, be lost) if/when the warrior dies. would not fight, might actually run away on its own if attacked (the warrior has to go find him, of course over time he could be made more loyal). can be killed.

     

    Rogue could have some critters -  rats,  bats (or a cats ;) ) that he could use to throw into a group to distract them. this would be in line with a rogue type that really wnts to avoid the attention of enemies. will be killed quickly probably, but the few seconds they distract might let the rogue and his comrades slip by.

     

    Cleric could have an acolyte or follower of the same deity, similar to squire but could also help expedite some of the longer casted prayer-type spells a Cleric would use (if such things exist). can be killed.

     

    Shaman or Druid could possess a bird or some other small animal, to scout a location out from a distance. he is essentially comatose while this is happening

     

    I'd say a rogues pet would better suit them to aid them in bypassing locked objects:)Or maybe it could stealthily debuff an enemy, dropping packets of poison amongst an unwary adversary!

    • 1986 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:48 PM PDT

    @ Brad

    I apologize for getting upset or for sounding negative. I dont mean to sound negative. I see people woried about it fitting the lore, or not being EQ enough, or other things, but I only have two big worries. And I realize Im probably a minority. But I just dont like pets. Thats an Aesthetic thing. So I really hope if nothing else I dont feel sorta forced to choose my class based on if it has pets vs playstyle and role.

     

    Ok positive thinking:

    1. For those that dont want to see/hear pets everywhere, a toggle off? This could be useful even if you love pets but just dont want to see and hear them from other players.

    2. Options for those that might not want to use pets in combat but dont want to gimp themselves or party/raid. Dont know if its planned but class specializations? Not major things that change the roles, but would slightly change how they do it.  Like straight dps vs pet dps.

    3. Pets that can find your lost corpse.

    4. A glowing pet that can provide light in dark places (Luminscent Giant Moth?)

    5. Gathering pets to help you find mats.

    6. Pets that can help you plow a garden.

    7. Racing pets? Perhaps a bit to gamified for this crowd?

    8. Specialized terrain mounts. Water, snow, desert, etc.


    This post was edited by Amsai at June 6, 2016 7:51 PM PDT
    • 1455 posts
    June 6, 2016 8:22 PM PDT

    I feel like both the plans for pets and what constitutes a pet is in a state of flux as what was posted yesterday doesn't seem to be consistent with the last list of examples.

    Not even sure how to respond at this point, but I'm just going to throw a few random thoughts out there about the topic.

    A particle effect that accompanies a certain spell or ability giving you back mana or helping you track is not really a pet. A mob that follow you around giving you some sort of persistent buff, is not a pet either, but at best, a companion or familiar.

    I'm all for the examples listed in Brad's last post. Those sound like solid ideas. However, I'm not forgetting about the previous posts which described some rather conflicting ideas.

    I find pets to be a less appealing method of empowering or enabling players. If you want to give me more storage, create items or crafting recipes or spells which give players bags for their person or mount. If you want to give me a persistent buff, just give me a clickie without the clutter of pets following everyone around. Lastly, if you want to empower a player, just provide a rare spell or ability that directly increase their effectiveness; theres no need to incorporate pets in these processes unless its suitable for the class.

    My personal opinion on pets (beyond "pet classes") in mmos today is that they serve as nothing but meaningless clutter lacking any redeeming value or prestige. I understand that they have a place in mainstream games and appeal to that audience. For Pantheon, however, I feel they should be a rarer occurance and exist in a more limited capacity so as to maintain their distinctiveness.

    Lastly, I only just noticed that certain pledges come with cosmetic pets. Maybe that was always there and didn't notice it before, but I'm just not a fan of the idea. If this is really going to be a thing, I'd like to stress the need for commands like /hidepets passive, /hidepet cosmetic, /hidepet temporary, etc.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at June 6, 2016 8:30 PM PDT
    • 63 posts
    June 6, 2016 8:24 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    Ok positive thinking:

    1. For those that dont want to see/hear pets everywhere, a toggle off? This could be useful even if you love pets but just dont want to see and hear them from other players.

    This would work, but I would highly prefer that they are implemented in a fashion as not to be an annoyance.

    Amsai said:

    2. Options for those that might not want to use pets in combat but dont want to gimp themselves or party/raid. Dont know if its planned but class specializations? Not major things that change the roles, but would slightly change how they do it.  Like straight dps vs pet dps.

    This sounds like way to hack-y of a fix for pet affect balancing. I think you may misunderstand Brad's explanation for their intended implementation for pets when it comes to actual combat.

    Amsai said:

    3. Pets that can find your lost corpse.

    This sounds potentially dope af. Though I don't want it too streamlined that it is immersion breaking.

    Amsai said:

    4. A glowing pet that can provide light in dark places (Luminscent Giant Moth?)

    I really like this idea, but I don't want it available to everyone.

    Amsai said:

    5. Gathering pets to help you find mats.

    I am on the fence with this. I have seen many people request this sort of thing, but I prefer to get away from gathering automation. Once again, it could be immersion breaking.

    Amsai said:

    6. Pets that can help you plow a garden.

    Like a servant or gardener? Hireling even? Has anyone seen a system like this imlpemented well? Not saying it hasn't, just genuinely curious.

    Amsai said:

    7. Racing pets? Perhaps a bit to gamified for this crowd?

    No, please.

    Amsai said:

    8. Specialized terrain mounts. Water, snow, desert, etc.

    Maybe over-complicating it? But I think there is good potential with some sort of system like this.

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 8:38 PM PDT

    Dullahan said:

    I feel like both the plans for pets and what constitutes a pet is in a state of flux as what was posted yesterday doesn't seem to be consistent with the last list of examples.

    Not even sure how to respond at this point, but I'm just going to throw a few random thoughts out there about the topic.

    A particle effect that accompanies a certain spell or ability giving you back mana or helping you track is not really a pet. A mob that follow you around giving you some sort of persistent buff, is not a pet either, but at best, a companion or familiar.

    I'm all for the examples listed in Brad's last post. Those sound like solid ideas. However, I'm not forgetting about the previous posts which described some rather conflicting ideas.

    I find pets to be a less appealing method of empowering or enabling players. If you want to give me more storage, create items or crafting recipes or spells which give players bags for their person or mount. If you want to give me a persistent buff, just give me a clickie without the clutter of pets following everyone around. Lastly, if you want to empower a player, just provide a rare spell or ability that directly increase their effectiveness; theres no need to incorporate pets in these processes unless its suitable for the class.

    My personal opinion on pets (beyond "pet classes") in mmos today is that they serve as nothing but meaningless clutter lacking any redeeming value or prestige. I understand that they have a place in mainstream games and appeal to that audience. For Pantheon, however, I feel they should be a rarer occurance and exist in a more limited capacity so as to maintain their distinctiveness and functionality.

    Lastly, I only just noticed that certain pledges come with cosmetic pets. Maybe that was always there and didn't notice it before, but I'm just not a fan of the idea. If this is really going to be a thing, I'd like to stress the need for commands like /hidepets passive, /hidepet cosmetic, /hidepet temporary, etc.

    Part of it may be semantics -- I used the word 'pet' in a general sense, just like when we say 'dungeon' we don't literally mean it has to be a traditional underground prison -- could be a frozen tower in the distant north with a mad hermit God-king living on the top floor.  So pet in this context can mean traditional pet, familiar, companion, etc.

    And by persistent pet, I was refering to a pet/familiar/companion that would stay with you, level up, become more effective, etc.  Perhaps more like a RL pet -- I mean, you don't summon your dog, throw him a bone, and then he times out and disappears -- you keep him around, feed him (I hope), teach him new tricks, etc.  

    While I agree that that there shouldn't be 'pets' unless its suitable for the class, I think my list shows that they can indeed be suitable for quite a few.  Are they just a 'method of empowering or enabling players'?  If that's all they were, then I would agree, associate that function with a spell or an ability.  But I think they're more.  They can follow you around, you can name them, you can store items on them, they can level up and improve and learn abilities themselves... Those attributes make them much more than 'meaningless clutter lacking any redeeming value or prestige'.  Again, maybe that's all they are in some games but, and this is a point I am happy to keep driving home :), Pantheon is going to use some systems and nomenclature found in other games but the *implementation* is going to be different (hopefully better).  I've already posted on this quite a bit, but remember there is a difference between an idea or a concept and then the implementation.

    What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.  Yout want pet-free classes.  My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind.  Time will tell.  It's good that we are discussing things things now rather than later :)


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 6, 2016 8:45 PM PDT
    • 208 posts
    June 6, 2016 8:50 PM PDT

    I do have to say that I hope that these "pets" are rare and/or hard to obtain. I wouldn't expect a crusaders horse to be so willy-nilly about going in a damp dark dungeon, I would think it will need quite a bit of training and obedience in order to perform the task, likewise the rogues hound will need to spend time being trained to track creatures, the wizard would need to take a journey of self enlightenment in order to be able to summon the familiar (?) that helps them regeneration mana.

    What I'm saying is it hope these aren't just a "right of passage," but require one to go off the beaten path to obtain their use. They should be a perk, not a right.

    • 1986 posts
    June 6, 2016 10:02 PM PDT

    @Kiwinzel

    1. Fair enough

    2. I dont think I do?  What do you think I was trying to do?

    3. Some limitations or level of skill training required?

    4. Agreed

    5. Not auto gathering. You would still be required to do the actual gathering. The creature would at best mark them for you and at worst lead you in a general direction.

    6. Assuming you are able to plant crops, you could plow the field yourself with a hoe, or you could get your Ox to do it. The difference would be ease and maybe benefits like Ox "fertilization" lol.

    7. Expected this.

    8. Just made sort of sense to me. Camels better than a horse in desert. Sleigh Dogs better in snow than Horse. etc. It wouldnt specifically mean youd have to use the specialized mount?

     

    Not married too any specific ideas, was just trying to come up with stuff.

    • 298 posts
    June 6, 2016 10:37 PM PDT

    Thanks for the clarification and examples, im on board with you now. So long as there's not a generic combat pet that all classes can use it should be ok. The class specific pets are cool and not much different from spells that they have in most games. I don't see a problem with allowing half the classes have in combat class pets (attaking or non-atticking) with some being temporary and some lasting a bit longer, that's all normal for mmo's. Having some generic non-combat pets available to all classes would be fine too if they go away during combat. Maybe some pets would be allowed in town and others not allowed.

     

    For the classes you didn't list -

    Cleric: Can't think of a need for one.

    Warrior: Squire to carry extra armor sets (non-combat).

    Ranger: You said dog for Ranger but I thought Rangers wer good at forreging on their own. How about a falcon instead to get an overhead view of the area?

    Rogue: Pet snake? Level it up on weak rats to make stronger posions? You wouldn't want to bring it into combat at your level though.

    Monk: This is a hard one too. A diciple is the first thing that comes to mind but what would they do?

    Enchanter: Enchanted armor and weapons would be cool. Like you take real weapons and armor from your bags and enchant them into an invisible thing holding the armor and weapon set to defend you if you get attacked. (see EQOA for some visuals and combat type).

    • 87 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:03 PM PDT

    I would hate to see something like mercenaries in Pantheon, please dont go down that route :(

    As for the the idea of temporary pets assiting with non combat stuff, that could be kinda neat with different classes having that option, but please dont add something that does the part of a groupmember, like taunting/cc'ing/healing, that just makes everyone a pet class which imo makes classes like necromancer/magician/beastlord sort of pointless.

    I do like that "pet requires focus" idea you mentioned, to me it means flavor pets that doesnt intrude on player territory, if that makes sense :)

    • 868 posts
    June 7, 2016 12:12 AM PDT

    @Aradune That little bit of information you delivered is worth so much on here and poured some well needed water on a close to raging fire, imagined as it may be it still is nice to get a slightly more detailed look into the concepts being workshopped over there!

    After listing your examples i like the direction your taking it in, keeping these sorts of pets and familiars to being for mainly short tem uses only is much easier to imagine in the kind of game we are hoping for and gives us faith that we are not taking the game to a "everyone has a fluffy bunny following them around phase". 

    If the plan is to have vanity pets maybe we could implement the "short term" concept and i guess like you mentioned earlier, you can call out the vanity pet for a "aww look at that isnt it cute" moment and then it buggers off lol, not a vanity pet that just constantly follows you around, just doesnt seem the right fit for a more gritty (less cutsie) MMO like Pantheon seems to be aiming towards.

    The warhorse sounds great right up until the dungeon part, but i am sure the logistical issues of a horse sized pet in a dungeon will work its self out come testing, in my mind trying to attain a target past the body mass of a warhorse in a confined space sounds like a battle in its self.