Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 707 posts
    June 7, 2016 12:17 AM 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?



    A couple questions I'm kicking around my head which are not neccessarily directed towards you Brad nor do they neccessarily even need answered at all at this point since nothing is set in stone. Just a few things I'm thinking of that possibly others are too and maybe just some food for thought.

    First, since these are being described as collectibles, from the examples you gave such as the ranger's hound that helps him hunt or the shaman's spirit being that aoe buffs their allies will ANY and ALL classes be able to collect these pets? Or will there be class specific pets that only players of that class can collect? Sort of a universal pet vs class specific pets.

    Second, in VG the necro could collect body parts to summon their pet which was awesome. But part of that awesomeness was the fact that nobody else had that ability. Pets don't just provide function, they provide identity and isn't it possible that 'pet' classes in Pantheon will lose their uniqueness if all classes can have pets?? What I'd suggest is keeping the collectible system but instead of it strictly pertaining to pets why not have classes collect a wide variety of things. The same way rangers could collect pets to help them hunt, rogues could collect different poisons, powders, and potions to provide perks and utility to them.

    Third, everyone keeps bringing up classes. Ya' know, let pet classes stay pet classes and don't allow other classes to use pets. Or let all classes use pets. Yadda yadda. What about having collecitbles (pets and/or other items; see above) based on a player's race? This would help build upon having collectibles not solely based on pets because different races could have different types of collecitbles. Everyone knows dwarves love their artifacts and gnomes love to tinker. A dwarven player could collect artifact(s) that they build upon during their adventures to provide a vast array of benefits.

    I think it's important that 'pet' classes keep their identity. I don't even play pet classes but I'm a big supporter of class uniqueness and identity and if we could come up with other ways to utilize this collectibles feature I think it would go a long way.

    • 1104 posts
    June 7, 2016 1:48 AM PDT

    After reading most of this I really can't say how I feel on this whole issue, I'll have to wait until Brad and team have a more flushed out idea I guess.

    One thing I can say is I simply want some non-combat vanity/cosmetic pets (mini pets). I love collecting them (especialy if they are rare!) and I would hate to have to use a specific one because it gave me a buff or something that was "needed", or it gave more pack storage (can't immagine how much a cute little bunny or cat can carry :P). Maybe have these seperate from the type of pets thats mainly being discussed here. 

    Aradune said:

    ...

    But we do want them to matter and be helpful if you choose to use them.  We don't want them to just be cosmetic.  Exactly how we balance that will rely on alpha and beta testing.

    Let me know if that helps and/or if there are additional concerns/quesitons.

    thanks all,

    -Brad

    ...

    Not sure if this was thought about but a cosmetic mini pet may not have a "use" to the gameplay and mechanics of Pantheon, but can add to the RP value that players add to the game themselves. Much like some nice formal wear one might wear in towns/cities to add RP value.

    I also like Dullahans idea of adding a /hide function for these types of non combat pets, unecessary screen clutter can be pretty annoying at times.

    • 245 posts
    June 7, 2016 5:28 AM PDT

    I could imagine the Cleric having a little spirit pet, that floats around with you that does not engage in combat but gives off a faint aura of healing, giving a extremely small heal over time to all group members while they are nearby while in combat, and perhaps a slightly higher heal over time while out of combat.

    I could imagine a Warrior having a gnome blacksmith that travels with him, able to repair gear for a higher than normal price.

    • 695 posts
    June 7, 2016 5:40 AM PDT

    OK..

    A wizard hears of a story and sets out to find a elder hermit that eventually teaches him (after gaining trust) to sit at night and watch the moon and learn to meditate deeper. Along in this process, the wizard learns that the hermit allows himself to go into a deep state, because he has a animal friend that will notify him, if he is in danger. The hermit learns to trust his animal friend.

    This animal friend standing attentive, allows the Wizard greater ease & focus, in which to recoup after battles, because of the deeper meditation, etc.

     

     

    Now, I do not think the "animal friend" should be SUMMONED after battle everytime to aid in the wizard recouperation.

    I have a problem with a Wizard, Rogue, Warrior (etc) summoning anything. It is unatural and makes the game world cheesy. I would much rather have the Wizard's "animal friend" (owl?) just fly down from a tree, or high point and land on the Wizard's shoulder when he is meditating.

     

    But, summoning a packhorse anywhere..? (How about summon it when you are at a stable..?)

    Summon an owl anytime...  or how about a new attribute to items, called karmic (like lore), meaning that you can only have one on your person, many in storage. Pets, mounts, familiars are karmic. If you want a new pet, or familiar you have to take your current one back, and get a new one. Kinda like 8 spells/abilities on hotbars, you can only have one NPC in your backpocket at a time. (ie: A collection of pets, only one on your person at a time...?)

    If the Wizard wants to trade his technique and strategy for another (owl for a fox) , he will have to equip them before he leaves the kennels, house, or city. Where as true Summoning classes don't have this restriction, because their "pets" come from the ethereal...

     

     

    I understand where Brad wants to go with this, but it all comes down to implamentation and future proofing the mechanic.

    • 1455 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:11 AM PDT

    Not that I think those classes should have pets, but the ability to bring forth a pet doesn't necessarily have to be a "summon" spell. They could have actions like Call or Enlist. There could be a whistle for horses, etc.

    • 1536 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:35 AM PDT

    I actually quite like the whole pet idea as Brad has described it so far. It could offer some exciting features that haven't been seen in any MMO up until now. The idea of having a pack horse that could increase your inventory space sounds good as well. I was always running out of inventory space in EQ. But what if mobs could kill your pack horse and you lose all your items until you find your pack horses corpse? That would add another layer to the whole death penalty and would mean that you'd really have to look after your pet and make sure it doesn't die.

    I love the idea of a ranger pet to help scout out the land. That sounds pretty awesome and may sway me to play a ranger again rather than going with a dire lord like I was originally planning. Overall these ideas sound like they are pretty solid. As someone who likes to collect things in real life I also like the idea of collecting pets with possibly different abilities so you'd have to choose the correct pet for a given situation. That would add another layer to the game play and make sure that people are always thinking about their environment and what they need at any given time.

    • 695 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:38 AM PDT

    Aye Crom, it just comes down to how all the "pets" get implamented.

    The ideas are limitless.

    • 13 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:42 AM PDT

    I would like to think that the base function of classes would not be directly impacted or tarnished by inclusion of some sorts of pets. Taking out the obvious benefits of land, water, or air Mounts I can really only hope that our illustrious producer will also consider general game mechanics and performance. I think we can all agree that certain classes are expected to have pets (necromancer or shaman) by the but others are not (rogues, clerics or fighters). There are, and have always been, some classes where there is a potential for pets (shadow knights) but there may not be enough of a benefit provided by the pet to make it necessary to game play allowing the player to decide if they want to bother.

    However, I am completely against the idea of vanity pets that serve no real purpose. I think they are a waste of graphics power and game logic that could be better focused on other game mechanics that matter and I sincerely hope that becomes the focus. I hate to mention failed games from our past that died before they truly got started because of their extremely poor performance from day one. Performance and symmetry should be fundamental core values with any MMO.

    If vanity pets are going to be included as a norm I would ask that settings be included to exclude them from rendering and visibility. Perhaps as a different layer that can be disabled completely. Unfortunately, we, the community, don't know and can only speculate and hope that our concerns make their way to the higher powers that be and that they will take mercy on our poor retched souls by listening and adjusting as needed.


    This post was edited by NotASaint at June 7, 2016 6:44 AM PDT
    • 83 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:51 AM PDT

    A whole lot of assumptions by the OP and jumping to conclusions about a feature that is far from fully fleshed out.

    If we were talking combat pets I could see an issue, but we are not. 

    Pets that provide stat bonuses or other benefits?  Why complain?   This would be a GREAT flavor feature in my opinion.   Don't want the stats don't use them. 

    I would not be surprised if they don't add a feature, like existed in EQ2 and other games, to /hide pets.

    • 83 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:55 AM PDT

    NotASaint said:

    I would like to think that the base function of classes would not be directly impacted or tarnished by inclusion of some sorts of pets. Taking out the obvious benefits of land, water, or air Mounts I can really only hope that our illustrious producer will also consider general game mechanics and performance. I think we can all agree that certain classes are expected to have pets (necromancer or shaman) by the but others are not (rogues, clerics or fighters). There are, and have always been, some classes where there is a potential for pets (shadow knights) but there may not be enough of a benefit provided by the pet to make it necessary to game play allowing the player to decide if they want to bother.

    However, I am completely against the idea of vanity pets that serve no real purpose. I think they are a waste of graphics power and game logic that could be better focused on other game mechanics that matter and I sincerely hope that becomes the focus. I hate to mention failed games from our past that died before they truly got started because of their extremely poor performance from day one. Performance and symmetry should be fundamental core values with any MMO.

    If vanity pets are going to be included as a norm I would ask that settings be included to exclude them from rendering and visibility. Perhaps as a different layer that can be disabled completely. Unfortunately, we, the community, don't know and can only speculate and hope that our concerns make their way to the higher powers that be and that they will take mercy on our poor retched souls by listening and adjusting as needed.

     

    I'm completely for vanity pets that serve no purpose.   Man cannot live by bread alone.   If Pantheon doesn't have more than combat and leveling... then it will be a very sad game indeed.   This isn't 1999... the market has changed and this needs to be recognized.  The game needs to have appeal beyond the vanishingly small group of people that wants a return to the old school days of the original EQ.   For example we need things like:

    1.  EQ2 flavor features (housing, pets, mounts)

    2.  Collections

    3.  Scripted events

    4.  Guild halls

    There's a ton of things that can be added that will provide variety and spice to the game.  If these kinds of things are excluded then the game will become boring very quickly and it will fail.  I've seen it over and over again.  Challenge is not enough.   Imo.

    • 13 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:11 AM PDT

    I would agree that variety is good and will help keep people involved and enjoying the game. In common areas, in guild halls, etc I would be totally OK with the vanity pets and other non-essentials. When it comes to the quests, grouping, etc I would just prefer not to have to see the vanity pets. I'm actually capable of holding a conversation, telling bad (and poorly timed) jokes, and generally enjoying the company of the group without additional graphical distractions that serve absolutely no purpose to the game play or the group dynamic.

    • 774 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:18 AM 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

     

     

     

    Rogue pets .... Ferrets and weasels..   :P

     

    • 774 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:22 AM PDT

    NotASaint said:

    I would agree that variety is good and will help keep people involved and enjoying the game. In common areas, in guild halls, etc I would be totally OK with the vanity pets and other non-essentials. When it comes to the quests, grouping, etc I would just prefer not to have to see the vanity pets. I'm actually capable of holding a conversation, telling bad (and poorly timed) jokes, and generally enjoying the company of the group without additional graphical distractions that serve absolutely no purpose to the game play or the group dynamic.

     

    Agreed..I don't mind vanity pets but I also don't want to see a purple spotted squirabbit playfully hopping around while I'm adventuring. :) If they do, at least have a high probability that it entices unwanted guests to come after it and the owner. (IE: ogres can smell a squirabbit from a long distance and come instantly in search of a nice meal ;) )

    • 1368 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:27 AM PDT

    Before Brad's responses here I was completely confident that this would not go off the rails. No I'm less so, and I'm still deciding how concerned I am. But suffice to say I like the idea of utility pets being used for a number of things. But still highly worried about pets constantly darting around doing crap. I'm picturing the scenario Heiro described and his concern that all group members have something that allows them to recovery more quickly. I'm seeing a 6 person group all sitting down and 6 critters flutter/crawling out of the woodwork.

    Seeing this kind of thing occasionally would be interesting. Using skills sparingly because they are the right thing at a given moment is a great thing. I'm thinking once every 2-3 fights, maybe. Seeing a fairly constant stream of things obscuring the screen would get really old in a really big hurry. And has someone else mentioned earlier, hearing them all equally so. 

    I'll try to reserve judgement, but for now I'll just repeat my opinion that these should be the exception, not the norm. If I wanted to play a collect-them-all Pokeman game, I'd be playing one of the dozens of those available. 

    • 13 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:30 AM PDT

    Fulton said:

    Rogue pets .... Ferrets and weasels..   :P

    That would not be a vanity pet. There is actually a purpose. I like it. Sneaky rogues whipping out their weasels to help the group...

    Now, while I generally don't look at the classes I listed above (rogues, clerics, fighters) as the types that would have pets, I can certainly see how there are strategic ways to incorporate them into a player's arsenal and be useful. As long as they provide a benefit and are not just pretty cosmetic entities that do nothing other than waste graphic processing power I'm all for them. I will admit that the examples provided to Aradune are great in concept and I look forward to seeing how they play out while always hoping that performance and symmetry are adhered to.

    Disregard below. I hit "quote" instead of "edit".  I should get back to work... :p


    This post was edited by NotASaint at June 7, 2016 7:38 AM PDT
    • 13 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:33 AM PDT

    NotASaint said:

    Fulton said:

    Rogue pets .... Ferrets and weasels..   :P

    That would not be a vanity pet. There is actually a purpose. I like it. Sneaky rogues whipping out their weasels to help the group...

    Now, while I generally don't look at the classes I listed above (rogues, clerics, fighters) as the types that would have pets, I can certainly see how there are strategic ways to incorporate them into a player's arsenal and be useful. As long as they provide a benefit and are not just pretty cosmetic entities that do nothing other than waste graphic processing power I'm all for them. I will admit that the examples provided to Aradune are great in concept and I look forward to seeing how they play out while always hoping that performance and symmetry are adhered to.

    • 818 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:39 AM PDT

    Let's do what Brad asked, and be positive. Let us also go under the assumption that this is happening. Nothing we can do about it. So, given that information, what should our next step be? Assisting however we can in making a mechanic that we may not completely agree with to at least be as enjoyable as we possibly can. Maybe, in the process of doing so and hashing out ideas, opinions may be swayed.

    Let us also keep in mind while brainstorming that one of Pantheon's selling points is class interdependency. That said, we don't want pets to be a compensation for class weakness as much as we might want them to magnify what are already a classes strength, or given a useful utility that doesn't negate the utility of another class. For example, we wouldn't want the Cleric "Pet" to supply a cleric with extra DPS or the ability to track, but rather with an effect that enhances already existing skills and effects.

    List time.

    CLERIC - An Ethereal form that the cleric calls from the divine. The type of form depending on the deity (Think Favored Soul from NeverWinter Nights 2) This form acts less as a "pet" and more as a floating adornment. A cloud, or a light halo, that sits above the cleric's head. This gives the cleric a slight Heal over Time, which enables them to focus more on healing others over themselves. Or perhaps it gives the cleric a damage shield that, once the max damage is taken, the form dissipates, giving the tank just enough time to re-catch aggro in the event the cleric collects too much hate. Or perhaps it simply augments the cleric's heals. Everytime the cleric casts a heal, his "pet" whispers "Assisting in casting, Great One".

    CRUSADER - Like others, I don't know about the warhorse thing. At least not in dungeons. If we think of EQ dungeons, first of all, a giant warhorse would seriously just be in the way. Imagine trying to slide by a warhose in Guk? Perhaps a floating hammer, or a shield? The purpose of which is to help with taunting? Say Crusader is holding aggro on a named mob, but someone accidentally grabs a wandering mob. Crusader sends the shield or the hammer to the mob. Shield/Hammer grabs aggro and drags the mob to the Crusader? OR keep the warhorse, but only make it useable overland. Once the crusader gets into the dungeon, much like Rangers and Druids in EQ with many spells, they are unable to cast it indoors. Instead, so they aren't crippled with the lack, the "spirit" of the warhorse gives the Crusader a buff or some kind. Or the Crusader is given an extra skill that, when cast, a spirit form of the warhorse charges a group of mobs.

    WARRIOR - Warrior is a tough one. Someone mentioned a little gnome blacksmith that follows them around and repairs gear. That's not a bad idea, however I'd change the race to one that is not playable by others. Maybe a Brownie? But then that doesn't really give the warrior a combat advantage as much as a convenience advantage. So how do you give the warrior a combat advantage, and what "pet" would you use that isn't completely ridiculous? A warrior in EQ was a pro at Dual Wield. Depending on how warriors in Pantheon gain aggro, but let's just assume it's through DPS. We can again go with an ethereal weapon. Maybe an exact copy of the warrior's equipped weapons that assist in dealing damage/aggro. Maybe the weapons the warrior has equipped are themselves pets? I like that idea. A trait of the warrior is that they are so attuned to their weapons that, when equipped, the weapons themselves almost take on a life of their own. The warrior can throw his Axe at a mob, and the Axe will come back to the warriors hand. The warrior can slash a skeleton and the sword will say "You may want to use your mace on this guy, pal".

    DIRELORD -  Direlord/Shadowknight. I mean, what's wrong with just keeping it simple as it was in EQ and giving them a weaker version of the Necro's skeleton pet? Or if we want, make it a zombie or a ghoul. Instead of pure DPS, whenever the skeleton/ghoul/zombie hits a mob, it's a slight lifetap to the Direlord.

    RANGER - Like the Direlord, I think it's fairly obvious that this would be a somewhat weaker version of the druid's pet, but for the sake of making pet's less noticeable on the battlefield, how about we have a rangers pet rest on their shoulder? A Hawk, or even a hunting cat. Something that sits on the Ranger's shoulder until the ranger directs it to a target? Some pets could even cast spells instead of melee, so they'd never even have to leave the ranger's shoulder. I dunno. Running outta steam here.

    ROGUE - As someone who played a Rogue in EQ, I'm having a real hard time with this one. Someone mentioned a pet assisting with picking locks, or picking pockets. I liked that. More of a utility function here that simply augments what the rogue can already do. Think of this scenario. Group is fighting in a corridor with a locked door behind them as their only exit. A group of mobs will be turning the corner at any moment. Time is of the essence. While fighting, the rogue sends his pet rat, or centipede, or whatever, to the lock. Pet picks the lock and keeps the door open, group gradually moves inside whilst fighting, and the rogue never has to stop stabbing. That's pretty cool.

    MONK - Protege! No need for an animal or an ethereal form! Monk has some dude/dudette following them around, trying to learn from the master's way. Protege can perform a number of functions, most of them menial, such as carrying items (due to weight restrictions on a monk), or bind wounding party members, or cooking food and collecting water for the group.

    SUMMONER - I mean, Magician. If it ain't broke ....

    ENCHANTER - Ditto ...

    WIZARD - Anyone who played Wizard pre-Luclin/PoP knows what their biggest detriment was. Mana Regeneration. You'd sit in a group and basically wait for a bad pull. Then you shine. Otherwise you're sitting there, mending, and picking your nose. I think it's an obvious choice for a pet here, a familiar that assist in mana regeneration. Or a familiar that casts minor spells while you meditate, and while you cast they augment your damage.

    DRUID - I mean, what's wrong with good ol' fashion charm animal?

    SHAMAN - I'm thinking Skyrim, one of the first summon spells you get. Summon wolf. Ethereal wolf. Doesn't get much more Shaman'y than that.

    I would like to note that I'm using these classes as taken from EQ. Summoner = Magician, Direlord = Shadowknight, Crusader = Paladin. End result may vary depending on the direction VR chooses to go in regards to classes.

    Obviously these are just my random thoughts. Trying to stay positive here. Let's add to the pot. Think of the class you usually play in an MMO, and what their strengths are. What would you have loved to change with that class, and how could you maybe incorporate a non-invasive pet into that equation?

     

     


    This post was edited by Tralyan at June 7, 2016 7:45 AM PDT
    • 695 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:45 AM PDT

    Santiago said:

    NotASaint said:

    I would like to think that the base function of classes would not be directly impacted or tarnished by inclusion of some sorts of pets. Taking out the obvious benefits of land, water, or air Mounts I can really only hope that our illustrious producer will also consider general game mechanics and performance. I think we can all agree that certain classes are expected to have pets (necromancer or shaman) by the but others are not (rogues, clerics or fighters). There are, and have always been, some classes where there is a potential for pets (shadow knights) but there may not be enough of a benefit provided by the pet to make it necessary to game play allowing the player to decide if they want to bother.

    However, I am completely against the idea of vanity pets that serve no real purpose. I think they are a waste of graphics power and game logic that could be better focused on other game mechanics that matter and I sincerely hope that becomes the focus. I hate to mention failed games from our past that died before they truly got started because of their extremely poor performance from day one. Performance and symmetry should be fundamental core values with any MMO.

    If vanity pets are going to be included as a norm I would ask that settings be included to exclude them from rendering and visibility. Perhaps as a different layer that can be disabled completely. Unfortunately, we, the community, don't know and can only speculate and hope that our concerns make their way to the higher powers that be and that they will take mercy on our poor retched souls by listening and adjusting as needed.

     

    I'm completely for vanity pets that serve no purpose.   Man cannot live by bread alone.   If Pantheon doesn't have more than combat and leveling... then it will be a very sad game indeed.   This isn't 1999... the market has changed and this needs to be recognized.  The game needs to have appeal beyond the vanishingly small group of people that wants a return to the old school days of the original EQ.   For example we need things like:

    1.  EQ2 flavor features (housing, pets, mounts)

    2.  Collections

    3.  Scripted events

    4.  Guild halls

    There's a ton of things that can be added that will provide variety and spice to the game.  If these kinds of things are excluded then the game will become boring very quickly and it will fail.  I've seen it over and over again.  Challenge is not enough.   Imo.

     

    I agree^

    But I think what some people are fearful of, is pets & familiars becoming so trivial... that a City in Pantheon ends up being a scene out of modern day EQ.

    • 374 posts
    June 7, 2016 10:48 AM PDT

    After reading Brad's post , it really sounded more like thoughts and possibilites than something set in stone. He was gamecrafting. Yes we will have pets, even a boat is a type of pet when it come down to it. What kind of things can a pet do, what are the reasons (racial and professional) for having a pet. It seemed more like, lets not kill all of the possibilites until we test them all out. Beta may have all kinds of crazy pet type things, the release version of the game will have been refined by play testing.

    • 997 posts
    June 7, 2016 12:09 PM PDT

    Skycaster said:

    After reading Brad's post , it really sounded more like thoughts and possibilites than something set in stone. He was gamecrafting. Yes we will have pets, even a boat is a type of pet when it come down to it. What kind of things can a pet do, what are the reasons (racial and professional) for having a pet. It seemed more like, lets not kill all of the possibilites until we test them all out. Beta may have all kinds of crazy pet type things, the release version of the game will have been refined by play testing.

     

    Nailed it! 

    • 2115 posts
    June 7, 2016 4:32 PM PDT

    I would much prefer that non-combat pets are presented in another way other than in pet form for a variety of reasons...

     

    Here are some thoughts on specific class pets as far as combat:

    Summoner: Elemantal pets/monster pets, gollems,  Any variety of anything. Go crazy! Also, charm summoned creatures.

    Necro: Any undead pet.  Not only summonable skellies and spectres but also zombies and ghouls and wraiths etc.  Dracolich.  Reanimate undead NPCs that are present in the area after they're slain.

    Enchanter/Bard: Charm only.  Shouldn't have a combat pet unless they charm it

    Shaman: Be able to "Charm" natural animals that are present in the area.  They should not summon/call an animal that is not already present. They could transform themselves into the spirit of an animal with a bonus to their "natural animal charm ability" if they are the same form as the animal they charmed.

    Druid/Ranger:  Should be able to "charm" natural animals that are present in an area.  They should not be able to summon/or call an animal that is not already there.

    Direlord:  Maybe they could only "reanimate" slain undead creatures instead of being able to summon them at will out of thin air.

    Crusader/monk/rogue: No combat pets.  Lets not go overboard with pet classes please

    Cleric/Warrior: No combat pets.  That isn't part of their role. Again, let's not go overboard with pet classes.

     

    Thoughts?

     

     

     

    • 607 posts
    June 7, 2016 5:18 PM PDT

    Skycaster said:

    After reading Brad's post , it really sounded more like thoughts and possibilites than something set in stone. He was gamecrafting. Yes we will have pets, even a boat is a type of pet when it come down to it. What kind of things can a pet do, what are the reasons (racial and professional) for having a pet. It seemed more like, lets not kill all of the possibilites until we test them all out. Beta may have all kinds of crazy pet type things, the release version of the game will have been refined by play testing.

    This.  And even though I'm pretty good at adding a disclaimer that these are ideas we want to hear from the community about and NOT set in stone, news travels around the internet quickly, and so I may need to double and triple my efforts at these disclaimers.

    The alternative (don't post any new or different ideas or risk stirring the pot at all) 1. just isn't compatible with who I am and how I like to interact with the community and 2. wouldn't be recognizing that people *pay* to be able to post here, to be part of the discussions, theorycrafting, etc.


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 7, 2016 5:21 PM PDT
    • 1986 posts
    June 7, 2016 5:50 PM PDT

    philo said:

    I would much prefer that non-combat pets are presented in another way other than in pet form for a variety of reasons...

     

    Here are some thoughts on specific class pets as far as combat:

    Summoner: Elemantal pets/monster pets, gollems,  Any variety of anything. Go crazy! Also, charm summoned creatures.

    Necro: Any undead pet.  Not only summonable skellies and spectres but also zombies and ghouls and wraiths etc.  Dracolich.  Reanimate undead NPCs that are present in the area after they're slain.

    Enchanter/Bard: Charm only.  Shouldn't have a combat pet unless they charm it

    Shaman: Be able to "Charm" natural animals that are present in the area.  They should not summon/call an animal that is not already present. They could transform themselves into the spirit of an animal with a bonus to their "natural animal charm ability" if they are the same form as the animal they charmed.

    Druid/Ranger:  Should be able to "charm" natural animals that are present in an area.  They should not be able to summon/or call an animal that is not already there.

    Direlord:  Maybe they could only "reanimate" slain undead creatures instead of being able to summon them at will out of thin air.

    Crusader/monk/rogue: No combat pets.  Lets not go overboard with pet classes please

    Cleric/Warrior: No combat pets.  That isn't part of their role. Again, let's not go overboard with pet classes.

     

    Thoughts?

     

     

     

    Im not trying to pick on your post, but how can you say lets not go overboard when you just gave 8 classes pets. I understand this is my opinion and maybe no one elses? But thats like 4 too many classes with pets. I mean you have more classes that can have pets than cant. I will admit thats better than all classes having combat pets but still its just too much. I would give Enchanter, Necro, Shaman (or Druid not both), and Summoner pets, but thats as far as Id go if it were me deciding (based on listed classes) Again please dont take offense Philo.

     

    This is slightly off topic and I made a thread about it some time ago. But I also worry about the over use of recycling abilities. If all the classes named as pet classes have to be so, could we at least limit Charming to 1 maybe 2 classes? Thats 6 of 8 pet classes with the Charm ability. Can we not have it be a bit more original. And I dont know if it is or not, but Im not concerned whether it was in EQ or not. Giving a bunch of classes the same abilities is lazy design in my opinion.

     

    So if some classes just have to have pets lets revise a bit:

     

    Summoner: Elemantal pets/monster pets, gollems,  Any variety of anything. Go crazy!

    Necro: Any undead pet.  Not only summonable skellies and spectres but also zombies and ghouls and wraiths etc.  Dracolich.  Reanimate undead NPCs that are present in the area after they're slain.

    Enchanter: Charm only.  Shouldn't have a combat pet unless they charm it.

    Bard: Song Bird. Echoes its master for a X% increase in songs. (Though as a future Bard Id prefer no charm or pet)

    Shaman: 1 time pet adoption (Bear Wolf,etc) Not summonable at all. Bring it with you or dont!

    Druid: Summon near by Fairies being based on environment. (Fairy, Brownie, Sprite, Dryads, Nymphs (might need to clothe these) etc)

    Ranger: Panther at X level. (Shamans cant get) Not summonable at all. Bring it with you or dont!

    Direlord:  Maybe they could only "reanimate" slain undead creatures instead of being able to summon them at will out of thin air.

    Crusader/monk/rogue: No combat pets. 

    Cleric/Warrior: No combat pets. 

     

     

    Maybe my ideas are bad or someone can think of better ones. But can we just not have most classes having strategic combat advantage with pets?  And if this is absolutely unavoidable because its part of the plan for Pantheon. Please at least make the method of getting, and number of combat pets a class can have, and the type of pets a class can have be different. Please?

     

     

    • 144 posts
    June 7, 2016 5:52 PM PDT

    I say throw it all at us in alpha/beta and lets see what sticks.  Love the idea of mitigating weight constraints/inventory space by having some pets be able to carry items for us.  If you had told folks that your plan to deal with the problem was to just have a weightless inventory tab and hot keys for swapping gear, they would have been having fits about making things easy mode.  In order to introduce climate systems that matter, we will inherently have to carry around more crap....having a squire or packmule that can handle the overflow for us is more realistic...especially if they have to be fed and clothed and protected.  Love where that aspect is going and will look forward to seeing the rest for myself!

     

    Also horses that are vulnerable sounds awesome as well.  The more realism the better!  Also, gearing up and advancing "pets", whether that pet be a horse a boat a goat or a squire, is MORE content for us to play through.  

     

    Oh and +1 for rogues having door-opening weasles lmao....that would be fantastic hehe.

     

    +1 for no silly cosmetic pets.

     

    Do we get to give our pets unique names?  Love the RP possibilities here.


    This post was edited by MINX at June 7, 2016 6:07 PM PDT
    • 375 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:07 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

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

    Cheap shot, should have been below you. Will not even bite. They know if i actually care or don't.

    To everyone else, including Brad even though he will not admit it as it would deconstruct his petty accusation, i think it is apparent i have both thought this through and have some valid reasoning behind it. Whether or not another's reasoning coincides or deviates from mine, different (and personal) story. Not the case here though.

    I would like to remind E-VE-RY-ONE reading how apparently i just "criticise" and ring "bells" despite my explaining my reasoning. Explaining three times by now. I would also like to remind everyone that even after explaining, the senior/lead dev of this game came back with examples of how pets will work a random comment and that's it.. ie entirely skipping the whole point (because it doesn't suit him) of this thread. Namely, who, for how long and with what a reasoning decided to implement must-have pets for all classes in a game like Pantheon.

    In fact, skipping is being kind. He not only ignored my questions, not only moved on to post random (in relation to them) comments, but actually ended up calling me an "alarmist" and not taking the time to think things through, as he urges me to do..

    Well done. Being ignored is one thing, it's your game, your forum. Trolling your own clientelle however? That's quite another :)


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 7, 2016 6:12 PM PDT