Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 1986 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:16 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    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.

    For what its worth I really do appreciate the things you share with us. I may not always agree with it, but that will happen with anyone. You guys are making a game. A very specific type of game. I think it goes with out saying that you arent looking to appeal to all MMO players nor should you try. In short, you cant please everyone. As I was discussing with someone else the other day, even among oldschool EQ players, they dont necessarily all like the same things. There will be things we like and things we dont. Some will be necessary evils (death penalties). Some will be widely excepted (expected?). And some we will just have to get used too. I come from XI, but that didnt mean I liked everything SE did. (The stories I could tell) But I liked most of what they did. And I think thats what is most important to me and probably others. Brad, if you make a game that has (for instance) 7 things that I love and 1 thing that I dont. You can bet that wont stop me from playing. So far that is the general feel I have for Pantheon. There is too much right for me not to play it. There is nothing closer right now to what I want to play. If I seem upset or frustrated at times its just because I have that much passion for the game! To put it bluntly Brad, you made me give a **** again. So please please please dont stop sharing concepts and ideas!

    • 2530 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:21 PM PDT

    Well there goes this thread.

     

    You might just have to accept that their design and your desires are at opposites and perhaps this game is not designed with your desires in mind.  That said, we're still not even into alpha testing yet and I will say now that when testing is opened and pets are introduced I will be taking a serious yet unbiased approach to them, setting aside (as much as possible) my preconceived notions and look at them on their own merits.  I would hope everyone would take the same approach.

    • 2115 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:22 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    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?

     

     

     

    Amsai said:

    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.

    _______________________________________

    No offense taken.  I'm always open to discussion.  But lets look at it.  It seems your list has many more "offensive pet" classes than mine did.

    Take note that there is a major difference between being able to summon a pet...and being able to charm...and then there is a large difference to being able to charm "any living, intelligent NPC" (which is what we are talking about when "charm" is used loosely) and only being able to charm a specific type of creature when it is available

    __________________________________________

    Amsai said: 

    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?

     

     

    __________________________________________-

    My list has 1 class that will be able to summon a pet on release.  The Summoner.  The Necro would come later.  Those are the only two classes that I have being able to summon an offensive pet.

    The rest are situational and would only be available very intermittently.  Not only are all the situational pets not permanent, you couldn't zone with them, but there are a number of other hurdles the player has to overcome in order to make them useful. 

    Pets like this (various forms of charmed pets), not only are they only available in certain situations, but many times it can be difficult to find one of the optimal level.  By that I mean a pet that is both A: low enough level that you can charm it and have the charm spell reliably last a decent amount of time (a few minutes at least) and B: not to low of a level that it is ineffective against whatever you are fighting.

    Your list has 5 that summon a pet..  Summoner, Necro, Ranger, Druid,...Bard maybe? I assume the "song bird" would be summoned. 

    Honestly, it seems to me your list is night and day more in favor of pets than mine is.  It is interesting that you commented on me saying "lets not go overboard" and then listed a bunch of classes with summoned pets

     

     Edit: decipher my formatting issues Amsai


    This post was edited by philo at June 7, 2016 6:33 PM PDT
    • 1986 posts
    June 7, 2016 6:32 PM PDT

    @Philo

    Thanks for being open. ^.^ Oh that was me trying to be positive about there being pets. I simply revised your list to change it up so I didnt see the word "Charm" as much. My real list was what I first said: Necro, Summoner, Enchanter, and if you twisted my arm give some to either Shaman or Druid (not both and honestly not either to be perfectly honest). As for mine being more combat based, I guess I just assumed thats what your list was because at the top of your list it said:

     

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

     

    Oh I did forget to specify about the Bird, Id prefer persistant type. So you would need to bring it with you. The whole bring it with you thing would also assume pet/mount stables in cities. Again for clarity I realize Im putting a lot of thought into it, but that isnt me being pro pets so much as trying my best to be more positive. I might be failing at both :b

     

     


    This post was edited by Amsai at June 7, 2016 6:38 PM PDT
    • 295 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:33 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    Well there goes this thread.

     

    You might just have to accept that their design and your desires are at opposites and perhaps this game is not designed with your desires in mind.  That said, we're still not even into alpha testing yet and I will say now that when testing is opened and pets are introduced I will be taking a serious yet unbiased approach to them, setting aside (as much as possible) my preconceived notions and look at them on their own merits.  I would hope everyone would take the same approach.

     

    Every class having a pet of some sort that is linked to combat/buffing/storage etc is a large design decision.  I highly doubt that a system like this that made it into alpha/beta would be thrown out because a bunch of people complained it was bad.  At that point they already have too much resources invested into the system and it's too late.  Minor things can be tweaked during alpha/beta, major systems can't be.  A system like Brad explained, with combat pets having roles in PVE for every class, whether it be through buffing, storage, spellcasting or physical combat, cannot be so easily dropped, because it is intertwined with other systems, like balancing, class roles, lore and art.

     

    If you have this system come alpha/beta, I believe it will be too late to remove it.

    • 1455 posts
    June 7, 2016 7:48 PM PDT

    Part of what I liked about EverQuest was the sense of realism it instilled. I'm not talking about today's EQ, but the original game. It was a fantasy world, with magic and fantastic creatures, but it was dangerous and governed by real life rules and logic. For instance, if you had a low level pet, mobs would aggro on you from further away. It meant you had to be cautious. Any entity could be killed, and there was a cost associated with it (mana, regeants, time, etc).

    Today in MMOs, we see pets everywhere, especially in those of eastern origin, and that sense of realism is gone. People bring their beloved pets everywhere. They are, of course, impervious to damage and have no impact on the gameplay beyond whatever trivial benefit they provide. They are there almost entirely for the look. That is what I do not want to see in Pantheon.

    I think every entity should be susceptible to harm, with few exceptions (an enchanter's illusion, an extraplanar manifestation, etc). If people want to bring out a pet, even one that simply follows them around, they should get roasted if a mob drops a fire AE on you. Furthermore, that pet should be a liability, making surrouding enemies more aware of the player's presence (unless its trained in the art of stealth).

    Pets should be susceptible to death and they should impact gameplay. There should be decisions to make on how to manage them, when to use them, and when to send them home. There must be risk involved with that reward. Upon death, pets should need to be healed. Players should have to expend time, resources and reagents to restore a pet, possibly even needing to return to town to do so.

    These are the kind of things that would make pets "mesh" with the Pantheon I'm looking forward to playing. What I'm not looking forward to is a bunch of vanity pets or companions following every player around that have no serious impact on gameplay.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at June 7, 2016 8:01 PM PDT
    • 192 posts
    June 7, 2016 8:28 PM PDT

    Some thoughts on how a rogue might have pets.  Snakes.

     

    A Rogue could have different types of snakes from which he uses to extract poison at different times.  Certain poisons would be more effective on certain mobs, causing the rogue to need to collect a variety of snakes for many kinds of poisons.

    If you wanted to add a combat and leveling element to the rogue's snakes, you could allow them to be put out sort of like a trap.  The rogue would place a snake in a fixed location, maybe before someone makes a pull And if the mob walks over the snake, he gets bitten.  The snake wouldn't move around and constantly attack but act as a trap for a short duration and strike when stepped on until exhausted or the rogue picks it back up. 

     

    I believe a little outside the box thinking could make this much better than the typical pet always following a player in game .

     

    Thoughts?


    This post was edited by Thanakos at June 7, 2016 8:43 PM PDT
    • 43 posts
    June 7, 2016 8:34 PM PDT

    ecdubz said:

    Aenra said:

    His reply was "our fans like pets and collections / you can always choose not to have a pet although that will be affect you negatively."

    I think what Brad was trying to say was in comparitive to a player with a mount versus without a mount clearly the dismounted player is at a speed disadvantage when compared to a mounted player. On the same token a rogue with a thief-type pet with possible small stat adjustments or other typical bonus would be at a disadvantage from one that chooses not to have one if that is in fact where he was going. I am hoping that a previous poster was correct when he was refferring to Boats or Mounts are regarded as pets because it would feel odd to have every single class running around with a little minion that gives them bonuses and is probably not going to jive well with me honestly.

    Not if the dismounted player has a spell to make him run fast I wish they wouldent add Mounts at all but thats just me I guess..

    • Moderator
    • 10017 posts
    June 7, 2016 8:59 PM PDT

    Aenra said:

    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 :)

    Aenra, this is being completely taken out of proportion and misinterpreted, Brad gave everyone a little bit of inside info into something that we are working on in the game with a small amount of info to get feedback and gather thoughts on it, you went ahead and created a thread titled "The first warning bell..." (hence the quite fitting alarmist remark) as you are publicly warning the entire community about something you do not have all the details on, yet you have decided it is something to warn everyone over.

    If the developers of EQ and VG (and many other titles) released every scrap of information to the entire community while developing those games to get opinions and reactions on features, mechanics and systems, those games would most likely never have made it to their release dates and such is the nature of crowd funded and open development games, everyone has an opinion on something, not everyone will agree and when we put something forward like that it is usually because we have much more information available to us to know how it will be implemented and good knowledge on how it will work within our game and how compatible it is with our other mechanics, systems and features that we can test and have access too but until we open testing up to get proper feedback we are interested in hearing everyone's thoughts and ideas to help us fine tune and tweak the implementation of these things, without even testing this system or knowing what is fully involved some people have completely rejected it and created doomsday posts out of nothing more than a scrap of information and wild thoughts they have created to fill in the missing gaps, these things sadly always tend to fall onto the negative side of discussion rather than the helpful ideas and suggestions side, which is most critical to helping development.

    I alerted Brad to this thread and he was more than happy to come back and explain himself a bit better while still needing to withhold most of the details and is met with a post like yours, which is very disappointing, to say the least.

    This is one reason why it's very hard to release information to the public without waiting until we are absolutely ready with full details, people cry out for information and news, which is understandable as people are excited and are looking forward to Pantheon and wanting as much info to absorb and devour as possible but unless we cover every possible detail and provide an almost dummy proof release of that information, people turn it into whatever their imagination can concoct and usually in the most negative possible way that it "could" affect the game, a game that they have no proper knowledge of yet, no experience with and no experience creating, it is a sad but common theme and one of the main reasons companies take so long to release information or play with marketing and PR words is usually because they know all to well what people will do with that information, in some cases it can be quite damaging to companies, their games, and their brand, we choose to be as open as possible, ignoring warnings and examples of others' downfall so we can keep our supporters informed as best as possible and posts/threads like this hurt that opacity and trust, a lot.

    I would suggest that before making posts like this in the future, that people stop and think about what damage it may do in the long term, especially based on such little information, if you are concerned about something, please post a question on the forums in the appropriate section or feel free to send me a PM or email if it is a little more sensitive or something that may cause unwarranted concern among others if posted publicly, I am always here to help you folks with whatever I can.

    I also ask that people please not jump straight to the doomsday/end of the world/the game is ruined forever conclusions before getting more information as it isn't helpful to the community or the development team, we are all here to make an awesome game and you folks support us greatly in that aspect, something that we are very thankful for but there is no need for alarming or warning posts on things we want to test or implement, we would never intentionally ruin our own game and by being seasoned gamers ourselves we know many of the problems that affect MMORPGs and why you dislike them, because we dislike them too!

    I want to leave this thread open so we can turn it around and get the mature and helpful feedback that Brad has requested from you all and on the topic of Pets which can be found here: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3448/pets-and-pantheon, so please keep your posts on topic and positive so we can continue this discussion and get some helpful tips and suggestions to the Devs to help them with this request.

    • 208 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:21 PM PDT

    I need a like button for kilsin's post!

    After seeing the ideas Brad posted I'm more excited than ever about this game. I think pantheon will be the mmo to get "pets" right! I look at things from the perspective of how this will break immersion and the scenarios that Brad described made me feel like I would be more immersed in the game world!

    Keep up the good work guys!

     

     

    • 192 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:57 PM PDT

    I've another idea for an evil class like a Dire Lord.  In this case the "pet" would be an evil spirit or a demon.

     The Dire Lord would be able to trap or by contain these evil entities.  At certain times the Dire Lord could open himself up to "possession" by these evil spirits.  Perhaps one spirit would greatly increase his a strength for a time  or another increase his health regeneration.

     

    These entities could increase in power over time (level) similar to other pets.  Other players wouldn't see the spirits but might notice a change in him during possession, such as turning opaque or having horns sticking out his back or eyes turning red or something like that.

    • 607 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:57 PM PDT

    Dullahan said:

    Part of what I liked about EverQuest was the sense of realism it instilled. I'm not talking about today's EQ, but the original game. It was a fantasy world, with magic and fantastic creatures, but it was dangerous and governed by real life rules and logic. For instance, if you had a low level pet, mobs would aggro on you from further away. It meant you had to be cautious. Any entity could be killed, and there was a cost associated with it (mana, regeants, time, etc).

    Today in MMOs, we see pets everywhere, especially in those of eastern origin, and that sense of realism is gone. People bring their beloved pets everywhere. They are, of course, impervious to damage and have no impact on the gameplay beyond whatever trivial benefit they provide. They are there almost entirely for the look. That is what I do not want to see in Pantheon.

    I think every entity should be susceptible to harm, with few exceptions (an enchanter's illusion, an extraplanar manifestation, etc). If people want to bring out a pet, even one that simply follows them around, they should get roasted if a mob drops a fire AE on you. Furthermore, that pet should be a liability, making surrouding enemies more aware of the player's presence (unless its trained in the art of stealth).

    Pets should be susceptible to death and they should impact gameplay. There should be decisions to make on how to manage them, when to use them, and when to send them home. There must be risk involved with that reward. Upon death, pets should need to be healed. Players should have to expend time, resources and reagents to restore a pet, possibly even needing to return to town to do so.

    These are the kind of things that would make pets "mesh" with the Pantheon I'm looking forward to playing. What I'm not looking forward to is a bunch of vanity pets or companions following every player around that have no serious impact on gameplay.

    Agree with everything you said.  Keeping your pet alive will be important.  Ressurecting your fallen persistent pet will be costly.  I hope nothing I've posted would make you think otherwise.


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 7, 2016 10:02 PM PDT
    • 707 posts
    June 7, 2016 9:59 PM PDT

    Kilsin, if you could humor us, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. I like the idea of collecting THINGS that give benefit/utility/buffs/storage/dps/etc that can grow with the character that can also be displayed graphically on screen but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go. If the idea is to aim for every class to benefit from pets such as this I can't help but to imagine a world where they are eveywhere and this image is a tad cartoony which I can't shake. And this isn't even touching on the subject of actual pet classes no longer exisinting since EVERY class would inherently be a 'pet' class.

    Again, I like the collectible idea, I just don't like everyone having pets. What I suggested was possibly having some classes/races collect things OTHER than pets. A warrior could collect tabards/banners that they could post in the ground during combat that provided buffs or utility/benefit to the group. As the warrior leveled they could grow their tabard by gaining new material for it and it could grow in the same manner as a 'pet' would. A rogue could collect powders/potions/poisons to provide that provide utility and support to him and/or his group.

    The idea is to keep the collectible idea alive where players can collect things that grow with them that provide beneficial support while also creating a collectible system that functions for a variety of things ranging from pets to tabards to whatever can be thought of. It also keeps alive the possibility of an item which the player can display graphically when they use it. I believe part of the appeal of every class able to use pets is that these pets can be displayed on the screen so that players can interact with them as well as being able to see their progress.

    Again, I'm curious to know your thoughts. I am having troubles picturing a world where everybody has access to pets. It just seems a little silly but I am open-minded and possibly your voice of reason can help me see the light. ;D lol

    • 607 posts
    June 7, 2016 10:19 PM PDT

    NoobieDoo said:

    Kilsin, if you could humor us, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. I like the idea of collecting THINGS that give benefit/utility/buffs/storage/dps/etc that can grow with the character that can also be displayed graphically on screen but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go. If the idea is to aim for every class to benefit from pets such as this I can't help but to imagine a world where they are eveywhere and this image is a tad cartoony which I can't shake. And this isn't even touching on the subject of actual pet classes no longer exisinting since EVERY class would inherently be a 'pet' class.

    Again, I like the collectible idea, I just don't like everyone having pets. What I suggested was possibly having some classes/races collect things OTHER than pets. A warrior could collect tabards/banners that they could post in the ground during combat that provided buffs or utility/benefit to the group. As the warrior leveled they could grow their tabard by gaining new material for it and it could grow in the same manner as a 'pet' would. A rogue could collect powders/potions/poisons to provide that provide utility and support to him and/or his group.

    The idea is to keep the collectible idea alive where players can collect things that grow with them that provide beneficial support while also creating a collectible system that functions for a variety of things ranging from pets to tabards to whatever can be thought of. It also keeps alive the possibility of an item which the player can display graphically when they use it. I believe part of the appeal of every class able to use pets is that these pets can be displayed on the screen so that players can interact with them as well as being able to see their progress.

    Again, I'm curious to know your thoughts. I am having troubles picturing a world where everybody has access to pets. It just seems a little silly but I am open-minded and possibly your voice of reason can help me see the light. ;D lol

    If I mistyped something or wasn't clear enough, I do apologize, but the desire is not that *every* class has some sort of pet.  But most of them will, and I think they make sense.  Let's take a look:

    1. Cleric -- maybe, but I don't see a strong reason here.

    2. Crusader -- Crusaders/Paladins have a long history of being able to summon (e.g. not have to buy) a faithful steed.

    3. Warrior -- don't see this one making a lot of sense, although the squire idea people brought up was interesting.

    4. Dire Lord -- Necros have pets -- necro/warrior hybirds should have pets, yes?

    5. Ranger -- this may be 'newer', but I think having a hound or other canine companion to help you hunt and forage is pretty strong.

    6. Rogue -- Don't really see this.

    7. Monk -- the same -- don't really see this.

    8. Summoner -- Obviously yes.

    9. Enchanter -- Pretty traditional

    10. Wizard -- Pretty traditional

    11. Druid -- very traditional

    12. Shaman -- very traditional

    So 4/12 pets unlikely -- but 2/3rds of our classes pretty much make sense to have some sort of pet.

    You said: "but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go".  Did you read through my posts and examples?  I clearly stated they would NOT be with you all of the time (and explained, in context, why they wouldn't). 

    Guys, please read through what I post as opposed to going off on a crusade half-cocked.  If a post of mine wasn't clear enough or examples were needed (as was the case with my initial pet post), please ask again for more details (as many of you did) before going off half-cocked.  I read this post and others and wonder, "are they even reading through what I've written?"  Someone with thinner skin might even be discouraged to open up the way I did again.... 


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 7, 2016 10:25 PM PDT
    • 1986 posts
    June 7, 2016 10:26 PM PDT

    @Brad

     

    I know they arent official but What do you feel about Bard? How do they fit in to the pet scheme? Mostly just curious? What would you think of a song bird?

     

    Also could we have varied methods of gaining pets? I wouldnt want to see the Charm or any other pet gaining mechanic nailed into the ground. Thoughts?

    • 607 posts
    June 7, 2016 10:49 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    @Brad

     

    I know they arent official but What do you feel about Bard? How do they fit in to the pet scheme? Mostly just curious? What would you think of a song bird?

    Bard doesn't feel like a pet class to me, but rather a collector of rare and exotic musical instruments.

    Amsai said:

    Also could we have varied methods of gaining pets? I wouldnt want to see the Charm or any other pet gaining mechanic nailed into the ground. Thoughts?

    Absolutely -- it should vary by class and even by pet type.

    • 707 posts
    June 7, 2016 11:00 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    So 4/12 pets unlikely -- but 2/3rds of our classes pretty much make sense to have some sort of pet.

    You said: "but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go".  Did you read through my posts and examples?  I clearly stated they would NOT be with you all of the time (and explained, in context, why they wouldn't).

    edit: If we cannot set up a system where any class can interact and benefit from collecting pets that is more than just cosmetic, we'll likely ditch that part of the system.  Or at least make that part of it lower priority -- I've nothing against the cosmetic, but do feel compelled to put the majority of our development time into systems that truly affect the game (whether it be pets, weather, or whatever).



    Trust me Brad, I am TOO OCD to post anything half-cocked. I've read through this entire thread TWICE now to fully understand it and my post was based on this post alone quoted from yourself. You said yourself that if you can't create a system where ANY class can benefit...and I'm pretty sure I didn't misinterpret this. It would seem that if the system is in place then ANY and all clases will benefit from pets and not cosmetically or you wouldn't bother. And you seemed pretty adamant about hoping to get this system to work.

    I'm not up in arms over this or mad. I'm just having troubles shaking that image of pets everywhere when you yourself make statements such as the one I have in bold here because even though these pets will be situational that doesn't mean there will be zero possibility of moments where there are a bunch of em out there on the screen at once which, again, in my mind would just look silly/wrong. And this is why I asked Kilsin for further thought because I know how he thinks a little better than I do you and I know he has mained a NON pet class. So I thought that if he could explain this idea in a different way to me that maybe I could get fully on board because I have read your posts on the topic and I still wasn't sure about it.

    Until now. You state now that there DOES seem like some classes that don't seem to fit well with pets and that's good to know. But trust me that I read everything, most times more than once, and I won't post anything half-cocked.

    edit. the +1 comment was worded poorly as I tend to get colorful with my writing at times. Hopefully I cleared this up with this post.


    This post was edited by NoobieDoo at June 7, 2016 11:47 PM PDT
    • 1986 posts
    June 7, 2016 11:09 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Amsai said:

    @Brad

     

    I know they arent official but What do you feel about Bard? How do they fit in to the pet scheme? Mostly just curious? What would you think of a song bird?

    Bard doesn't feel like a pet class to me, but rather a collector of rare and exotic musical instruments.

     

    Amsai said:

    Also could we have varied methods of gaining pets? I wouldnt want to see the Charm or any other pet gaining mechanic nailed into the ground. Thoughts?

    Absolutely -- it should vary by class and even by pet type.

    I really love hearing that too. I know nothing is set in stone but I cant lie. That answer made me both happy and interested in collecting exotic instruments. Quick Noobie Doo to the Bard Mobile!... er Forum ;D

     

    I like the added pet type as well, it just makes sense different pets would require different methods, tricks, baits, locations, etc. Really enjoyed Dullahans last post and your response too.

     

    Thanks for taking the time to answer. I know the Bard question was a bit out there because they arent in the official line up yet so I really appreciate it.


    This post was edited by Amsai at June 7, 2016 11:14 PM PDT
    • 1455 posts
    June 7, 2016 11:23 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Agree with everything you said.  Keeping your pet alive will be important.  Ressurecting your fallen persistent pet will be costly.  I hope nothing I've posted would make you think otherwise.

    At this point, I sincerely believe this topic and issue was mostly a misunderstanding. However, I don't feel like this thread was an alarmist reaction or that we did not have cause to question some of the information given earlier this week. Some of the specifics definitely hit me sideways.

    First, the general nature of the information regarding pets without being specifically applied to the relevant classes. This led me to believe that "everyone" would be "collecting" pets.

    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.


    The Pantheon community is definitely one, however, that enjoys collecting things -- items, etc.  I think collecting pets fits in quite nicely, especially if you can level up certain types of pets, equip them with your 2nd tier items, etc.

    The problem was only compounded when in Aenra stated not "everyone" likes pets and you responded by saying:

    While not everyone likes pet classes, as you can see from my post above, pets are a much bigger part of Pantheon than just those available to you based on your character's class.

    This only made it seem more likely that "everyone" regardless of class, will be utilizing what we traditionally think of as pets. There was nothing in your response that gave us any reason to believe otherwise. In retrospect I think you did mean everyone would have pets, but that was likely because you were including mounts in the pet category. In fact, this misunderstanding was probably entirely an issue of language as I don't think most of us classify mounts as pets. That caused us to misinterpret the information to mean "every single player will have traditional pets that will fight and level up with us."

    I was also a little confused by the continual use of the word "collecting" to describe the item progression. While the difference may be one of semantics, I've always thought of collections in games to be little more than trite busy work much like "achievement" systems.

    The information about persistent pets also made them sound very similar to mercenaries, mostly because again there was originally no class context or specific application offered.

    Persistent pets are often akin to ‘familiars’

    Then

    Some will not fight and are not affected by damage and therefore typically cannot be killed.

    This conjured up images of every modern MMO with players surrounded by cats, dogs, birds and other silly creatures which have little to no impact on gameplay and completely destroy the believability of a dangerous environment. The fact that there are vanity pets offered in pledge packages made it seem all the more likely.

     

    I just felt like it was necessary to clarify where some of our remarks were coming from and why this issue was raised. Hopefully, it will help prevent confusion in the future.

     

    I believe you have addressed our concerns with further information, and would like to thank you for putting at least some of our minds at ease!


    This post was edited by Dullahan at June 8, 2016 12:41 AM PDT
    • 707 posts
    June 7, 2016 11:49 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    Aradune said:

    Amsai said:

    @Brad

     

    I know they arent official but What do you feel about Bard? How do they fit in to the pet scheme? Mostly just curious? What would you think of a song bird?

    Bard doesn't feel like a pet class to me, but rather a collector of rare and exotic musical instruments.

     

    Amsai said:

    Also could we have varied methods of gaining pets? I wouldnt want to see the Charm or any other pet gaining mechanic nailed into the ground. Thoughts?

    Absolutely -- it should vary by class and even by pet type.

    I really love hearing that too. I know nothing is set in stone but I cant lie. That answer made me both happy and interested in collecting exotic instruments. Quick Noobie Doo to the Bard Mobile!... er Forum ;D

     

    I like the added pet type as well, it just makes sense different pets would require different methods, tricks, baits, locations, etc. Really enjoyed Dullahans last post and your response too.

     

    Thanks for taking the time to answer. I know the Bard question was a bit out there because they arent in the official line up yet so I really appreciate it.



    shhhh, no bard question is 'out there'! They are a BIG part of Pantheon already, actually the biggest class. They just don't know it yet ;)

    • Moderator
    • 10017 posts
    June 8, 2016 12:14 AM PDT

    NoobieDoo said:

    Kilsin, if you could humor us, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. I like the idea of collecting THINGS that give benefit/utility/buffs/storage/dps/etc that can grow with the character that can also be displayed graphically on screen but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go. If the idea is to aim for every class to benefit from pets such as this I can't help but to imagine a world where they are eveywhere and this image is a tad cartoony which I can't shake. And this isn't even touching on the subject of actual pet classes no longer exisinting since EVERY class would inherently be a 'pet' class.

    Again, I like the collectible idea, I just don't like everyone having pets. What I suggested was possibly having some classes/races collect things OTHER than pets. A warrior could collect tabards/banners that they could post in the ground during combat that provided buffs or utility/benefit to the group. As the warrior leveled they could grow their tabard by gaining new material for it and it could grow in the same manner as a 'pet' would. A rogue could collect powders/potions/poisons to provide that provide utility and support to him and/or his group.

    The idea is to keep the collectible idea alive where players can collect things that grow with them that provide beneficial support while also creating a collectible system that functions for a variety of things ranging from pets to tabards to whatever can be thought of. It also keeps alive the possibility of an item which the player can display graphically when they use it. I believe part of the appeal of every class able to use pets is that these pets can be displayed on the screen so that players can interact with them as well as being able to see their progress.

    Again, I'm curious to know your thoughts. I am having troubles picturing a world where everybody has access to pets. It just seems a little silly but I am open-minded and possibly your voice of reason can help me see the light. ;D lol

    I personally agree with most of Brads list except one or two but that is just my personal opinion and I know he hasn't set anything in stone, we need to get in and test it all properly first. Here is what I would like to see.

    1. Cleric -- No

    2. Crusader -- Short duration summon of something lore-friendly and battle only.

    3. Warrior -- No

    4. Dire Lord -- No - but raise dead spells/abilities

    5. Ranger -- Tamed via skill/ability - long duration

    6. Rogue -- No

    7. Monk -- No

    8. Summoner -- Yes summoned

    9. Enchanter -- Yes summoned

    10. Wizard -- No

    11. Druid -- Yes - perma pet

    12. Shaman -- Yes - Perma pet

    Bonus

    13. Bard -- No

    14. Necro -- Yes - summoned perma pet(s) plus raise dead spells/abilities

    • 43 posts
    June 8, 2016 12:34 AM PDT
    Thanks for clarifying this issue. I agree the earlier posts had me quite concerned, but listing what pets would roughly mean for each class helped a ton :)
    • 298 posts
    June 8, 2016 1:14 AM PDT

    @Brad

    The part from your original post on pets that was unclear for me was the Persistent Pets.

    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.

    Persistent pets are more typically associated with the player character’s race and not class (the opposite of transient pets, which are more typically associated with the character’s class). There are, however, exceptions to this rule, one being a Crusader’s Warhorse (traditionally Paladin-like classes have the ability at certain levels to summon a loyal Warhorse to their side). Whereas transient pets are often elemental in nature, persistent pets are often akin to ‘familiars’. Some persistent pets will fight with you. Some will not fight, but can be damaged and killed. Some will not fight and are not affected by damage and therefore typically cannot be killed. Note that if a persistent pet is killed, it will die in world space and there will likely be an indicator in the UI on the icon letting you know that the pet’s status is dead. Also note that when a persistent pet is dead, you cannot access items stored on that pet or equipped by that pet. To that end, depending on the type of persistent pet, there will be ways to resurrect or ‘bring back to life’ your persistent pet. These resurrections, how they are accomplished, and what triggers them can vary widely depending on the type of persistent pet.

    Persistent Pets are generally purchased, dropped as loot, or given to a player as a reward for finishing a quest (as mentioned previously, one exception would be the persistent mount that Crusaders can call to themselves). The level, type, abilities, behaviors, etc. of a persistent pet are typically all based on which NPC spawns when that particular pet is activated (brought it into world space). Many persistent pets that will fight by your side also gain experience and can thus level up, have its skills go up, etc., just like a PC or NPC. Their initial level would depend on the data for that NPC, but after that, the pet could level up and become more and more formidable. There are some goals associated with this behavior: 1. There should be an advantage to obtaining a persistent pet and then leveling him up over time, keeping him in your possession, over merely selling your pet when you find another one that is inherently higher level (those advantages are TBD and need to be thought through) and 2. 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.

     

    Persistent pets are more typically associated with the player character’s race and not class

    - this initially sounds like any class can get them

    Some persistent pets will fight with you. -- the pet could level up and become more and more formidable.

    - this is the part where the misunderstanding happened for me. putting 2 and 2 together with the previous part looked like as if any class could get a pet that will fight and level up with them.

    It's still a bit unclear for me. If they are more typically associated with players race and not class then are they different from the ones posted in your class pet lists? Do all classes have access to them or no? (You don't have to answer, this is just what is unclear for me and possibly where others tripped up from the original post).

    P.S. I'm not a complainer here I'm happy with as many or as few pets you want to put in the game :)

     

    • 411 posts
    June 8, 2016 2:23 AM PDT

    @Kilsin

    What about this for a rogue:

    A trained monkey thief! Trigger's traps, pulls leavers,  pick pockets targets, tests climates first without you getting killed/damaged instead..

    • Moderator
    • 10017 posts
    June 8, 2016 2:55 AM PDT

    Nimryl said:

    @Kilsin

    What about this for a rogue:

    A trained monkey thief! Trigger's traps, pulls leavers,  pick pockets targets, tests climates first without you getting killed/damaged instead..

    Lol, no!

    I would want to do all the sneaking, trap disarming, pocket picking and lever pulling myself ;)