Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 298 posts
    June 8, 2016 3:12 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..

    Monkey pet is for the Monk, obviously!

    • 411 posts
    June 8, 2016 4:47 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    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 ;)

     

    lol, I thought it wasn't a bad idea. :)

    • 818 posts
    June 8, 2016 5:11 AM PDT

    I think this can be a lesson to everyone on the dangers of marketing and letting information out too early, but also a lesson as to WHY it's a good idea to do so. Words have multiple meanings, semantics becomes a problem, everyone has their own lingo, and things get misconstrued - but thankfully, VR continued their practice of clarifying when things get heated, and after some back and forth, sorted it all out.

    After Brad's and Kilsin's last posts, I feel much, MUCH better about the direction they're going with pets. It doesn't seem all that different than what I've come to expect, with the exception of the crusader (Really though, a warhorse in a tiny dungeon?).

    Let's all breathe.

    • 695 posts
    June 8, 2016 5:32 AM PDT

     

    Great thread, thanks for the involvement Visionary Realms.

    I have read this entire thread again this morning and it looks as if most agree with brad, just are all hung up over on how his idea is going to be implemented. That is the trick. Because a system like what brad has envisioned has to be organic in nature for it to be fair and work.

     

    Also..

    A "Human" has every bit of a chance in befriending a bird, (that will go pick berries for him..?), than another race..? Then most assuredly, a human monk could also as well...

    In real life, people's dogs don't care what any of Our careers are. Why would they care what class you are (monk, cleric, rogue, etc)...?  Most pets are unconditional. So it all comes down to why would a Monk, or a Rogue choose the burden and upkeep to have a pet. Once you get the answer you half way to solving your implamentation problem.

    We don't have the full design-doc and I respect brad for voicing his ideas and vision (more please) . It is just a shame that others can't place most of their ideas under his contex. And that was perhaps because brad understands internally the rest of PRF workings, and so this pet discussion (no matter how deep) seems a little weak, as a stand-alone idea. A discussions about pets, without knowing what they do and how the effect the environment is a soft discussion.

     

    So, there will be pets, familairs, mounts and boats. All mobile, and owned by a Character. How each will fit in to the Character's life, would seems a logical path.

    There should be no fears or worries about how this will get implamented. We are adults and can discuss things and come to Consensus. But that is hard for a community, that is still trying to figure out itself out.

     


    This post was edited by Hieromonk at June 8, 2016 5:34 AM PDT
    • 79 posts
    June 8, 2016 6:40 AM PDT

    Aradune said:

    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.... 

    i really like this list and as a summoner main i got to admit the idea of pets is never going to bother me. i would however like to thank you for getting us involved with this, these few posts have been the most fun ive had on these forums in a while and im sure i'm not the only one who thinks so.

    • 208 posts
    June 8, 2016 7:38 AM PDT

    To expand on persistent pets, is there any hope that mounts would be used to hold our equipment? I really really like the sound of that, with the possibility that different cities will have stables where I can store my mount. Maybe even being able to have a small wagon or cart attached to them for additional storage, almost like a mobile housing of sorts! The idea is that I carry only what is needed for my journey on my mount, if I'm heading somewhere dangerous I leave my mount at a safe location (stable) with all of my items. If my mount is attacked and killed I would have to revive my mount in order to get my items back. 

    I always disliked the idea that my character can magically carry 4 sets of armor, 6 weapons, an assortment of foods and potions, and whatever random stuff I can find, I know it's just a game but I think something like this would add greatly to the depth of the game. 

    After reading through the thread on player housing, I think having a nomadic style of play would also offset the land rush for non instanced type housing, if I had to choose between a house or a work mule,donkey, or horse with a wagon or trailer on the back, I'd definitely take the later!


    This post was edited by Grimix at June 8, 2016 7:45 AM PDT
    • 2115 posts
    June 8, 2016 8:27 AM PDT

    Let me preface this by defining what I mean when I say "summonable" as far as pets.  To me summonable means any spell/ability/item etc that will produce a pet out of thin air that wasn't there before.  This is different than a mechanic that makes you work with what is already present in your current area through some sort of "charm".

    I like combat pets.  I would like the game to treat combat pets in a more "realistic" way than they have generally been treated in other games.  

    Please let people attain pets in a more thoughtful/involved way than summoning them out of thin air.

    I don't want to see any class, other than a summoner and necro, be able to summon a combat pet as if by magic out of no where.

     

    I'd like to see the various forms of "charm" improved.  Other classes could "charm" or "pursuede" or "command" or "control" or "call" an NPC that is already present in that zone to fight for them.  The key difference is they are not summoning something that isn't actually there...that hasn't already spawned. 

    Examples: A ranger or druid should not be able to "call" an animal friend to aide them, as if by magic out of no where, unless that animal friend has already spawned and is walking around the zone prior to when they "call".  An enchanter should be required to enchant, or charm, something to fiight for them.  They shouldn't just summon a combat pet as if they were a summoner.

     

    The more summonable combat pets are added in game the more it diminishes the importance of the summonable pets of the "pet classes" who are supposed to benefit the most from having a summonable combat pet :mage/necro.

    The given scenario where approximately half of the classes can summon a combat pet waters down pets for those whom they are most important. 

    I do feel EQ had to many summonable combat pets.  It seems a very mediocre and outdated mechanic in comparison to some sort of charm or command or control etc. mechanic.

     

    I'm guessing this is to little to late at this point...


    This post was edited by philo at June 8, 2016 8:42 AM PDT
    • 707 posts
    June 8, 2016 11:35 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    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



    After reading this list of Brad's I too see little problem with it. I like the idea of this collectible system and I don't see why it has to pertain strictly to pets. Brad even mentioned in a response that bards might not collect pets but rather would collect rare instruments so why not aim to expand on this to include classes like the warrior, cleric, etc.


    This post was edited by NoobieDoo at June 8, 2016 12:26 PM PDT
    • 707 posts
    June 8, 2016 11:37 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    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 ;)



    Awwww, c'mon! How can you say no to a face like that??? lol

    • 707 posts
    June 8, 2016 12:23 PM PDT

    Tralyan said:

    I think this can be a lesson to everyone on the dangers of marketing and letting information out too early, but also a lesson as to WHY it's a good idea to do so. Words have multiple meanings, semantics becomes a problem, everyone has their own lingo, and things get misconstrued - but thankfully, VR continued their practice of clarifying when things get heated, and after some back and forth, sorted it all out.

    After Brad's and Kilsin's last posts, I feel much, MUCH better about the direction they're going with pets. It doesn't seem all that different than what I've come to expect, with the exception of the crusader (Really though, a warhorse in a tiny dungeon?).

    Let's all breathe.



    Excluding a few responses that seemed to have taken things a little too personal than what was needed, I believe this entire discussion/thread is exactly what this game needs. Because of VRi's open dialogue with its community surrounding PRotF we are given insight to the development and if it is something that doesn't resonate with majority of the community I honestly believe VRi will investigate further into the topic and fine-tune it to create something that DOES resonate with the community.

    Discussions such as this one with heavy scrutiny over an idea of Brad and Co. forces them to take a hard look at it, and unlike some developers who can not be told that an idea of theirs is bad or won't work, Brad and Co. are not scared to admit when an idea turns out to be a bad one. But with saying this, I trust in Brad, and if there is a hard stance from the community scrutinizing a design idea and if after Brad and Co. take a hard look at it and still want to proceed with it I have faith that it will be the right call. All we can ask for as members of this community is that they listen to our concerns and take a look at them. We know the talent of this group and should trust in their judgement of our concerns.

    As long as we can keep our feelings out of the conversation and stick to the topic at hand, as long as we can take the time to thoroughly read what is being said, and as long as we can try not to jump to conclusions and hear each other out I believe we can ensure this game to be great.

    • 1021 posts
    June 8, 2016 4:00 PM PDT

    Dullahan said:

     

    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.... 

    ...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!

    First, I want to say /agree with your last post Dullahan, and I echo those thoughts.  I snipped it due to the length. 

    Second, you obviously don't have to listen to me Aradune, but, a suggestion I would make for future hot topics/new information like the perception system, pets, climate system, death penalty, travel, trade, crafting etc. is to treat it more like a REDDIT AMA rather than a forum post.  Even if we all don't agree with everything you may post, I think I can speak for everyone when we all love it when you do post.  So, I most definitely wouldn't want this thread or other critical threads from keeping you from posting in the future.

    So, I would suggest when you make a post like you did in this thread here, which are basically sharing high level design docs, respond in the thread stating something like..  "check out XYZ thread that has just been created" which could be stickied under developer journals as proposed systems.  The thread title could be called something like "Proposed System: Pets"  And, once you post it, at least have enough time to answer a few questions before needing to leave.  I realize this may be asking a lot of your time, but I think some of your ideas would be better received if you had time to clarify a few ideas versus dropping new information and not being around to respond/clarify/or clear up any confusion.

    Either way, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, I always enjoy reading your thought process and the time you put into writing your posts.

    • 695 posts
    June 8, 2016 10:09 PM PDT

    Raidan said:

    Dullahan said:

     

    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.... 

    ...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!

    First, I want to say /agree with your last post Dullahan, and I echo those thoughts.  I snipped it due to the length. 

    Second, you obviously don't have to listen to me Aradune, but, a suggestion I would make for future hot topics/new information like the perception system, pets, climate system, death penalty, travel, trade, crafting etc. is to treat it more like a REDDIT AMA rather than a forum post.  Even if we all don't agree with everything you may post, I think I can speak for everyone when we all love it when you do post.  So, I most definitely wouldn't want this thread or other critical threads from keeping you from posting in the future.

    So, I would suggest when you make a post like you did in this thread here, which are basically sharing high level design docs, respond in the thread stating something like..  "check out XYZ thread that has just been created" which could be stickied under developer journals as proposed systems.  The thread title could be called something like "Proposed System: Pets"  And, once you post it, at least have enough time to answer a few questions before needing to leave.  I realize this may be asking a lot of your time, but I think some of your ideas would be better received if you had time to clarify a few ideas versus dropping new information and not being around to respond/clarify/or clear up any confusion.

    Either way, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, I always enjoy reading your thought process and the time you put into writing your posts.

     

    So much this^

     

     

    • Moderator
    • 10017 posts
    June 8, 2016 11:55 PM PDT

    NoobieDoo said:

    Kilsin said:

    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



    After reading this list of Brad's I too see little problem with it. I like the idea of this collectible system and I don't see why it has to pertain strictly to pets. Brad even mentioned in a response that bards might not collect pets but rather would collect rare instruments so why not aim to expand on this to include classes like the warrior, cleric, etc.

    Yeah and collectibles and cosmetic pets are fine in my opinion as long as they are lore friendly and not littering the world with rainbow sparkles etc. an option to turn the visibility of them off would be awesome as I wouldn't want to ruin anyone else's fun or roleplaying but sometimes I want to immerse myself and not see those things bouncing around in my camera view ;)

    • 295 posts
    June 9, 2016 2:50 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    NoobieDoo said:

    Kilsin said:

    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



    After reading this list of Brad's I too see little problem with it. I like the idea of this collectible system and I don't see why it has to pertain strictly to pets. Brad even mentioned in a response that bards might not collect pets but rather would collect rare instruments so why not aim to expand on this to include classes like the warrior, cleric, etc.

    Yeah and collectibles and cosmetic pets are fine in my opinion as long as they are lore friendly and not littering the world with rainbow sparkles etc. an option to turn the visibility of them off would be awesome as I wouldn't want to ruin anyone else's fun or roleplaying but sometimes I want to immerse myself and not see those things bouncing around in my camera view ;)

     

    Really.. well that's a 180 from your opinion on them last year.

     

    Personally, I don't like Vanity pets either!

    I don't mind combat pets for combat classes like Necromancers, Shaman etc. (only limited classes though) but I really dislike anything Vanity, especially little fluffy pets following people around making the odd noise or doing the odd animation.

    - Kilsin

    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/430243/pets-pets-and-more-pets/p1

    • Moderator
    • 10017 posts
    June 9, 2016 4:05 AM PDT

    Rallyd said:

    Kilsin said:

    NoobieDoo said:

    Kilsin said:

    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



    After reading this list of Brad's I too see little problem with it. I like the idea of this collectible system and I don't see why it has to pertain strictly to pets. Brad even mentioned in a response that bards might not collect pets but rather would collect rare instruments so why not aim to expand on this to include classes like the warrior, cleric, etc.

    Yeah and collectibles and cosmetic pets are fine in my opinion as long as they are lore friendly and not littering the world with rainbow sparkles etc. an option to turn the visibility of them off would be awesome as I wouldn't want to ruin anyone else's fun or roleplaying but sometimes I want to immerse myself and not see those things bouncing around in my camera view ;)

     

    Really.. well that's a 180 from your opinion on them last year.

     

    Personally, I don't like Vanity pets either!

    I don't mind combat pets for combat classes like Necromancers, Shaman etc. (only limited classes though) but I really dislike anything Vanity, especially little fluffy pets following people around making the odd noise or doing the odd animation.

    - Kilsin

    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/430243/pets-pets-and-more-pets/p1

    It's exactly in line with what I said, I posted my limited class list and if I have the ability to turn cosmetic pets off, I would, as I don't personally like them but others do and I don't mind if they enjoy them, who am I to ruin other people's fun just because I don't like something.

    • 580 posts
    June 9, 2016 8:44 AM PDT

    Aradune said:

     

    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?

    First, I'd like to say thanks, Brad. This is exactly why I love how this game is being handled. You look at both the good and the bad and still find ways to try to discuss with the playerbase when they are some what against you. 

    I for one want to be a help in the design of the game but at the same time don't want to stand by and watch what I think will be a mistake, play out. The suggestions you give here, are in fact, completely viable in my book. These type of things I would be ok with. However, the way it was originally worded made it seem like you wanted fluff pets that would be collected in the world would give benefits to any and all classes. For instance, me as a warrior should never have some (insert random fluff pet here) that would give my party or even myself a benefit. It should not provide buffs or even fight in combat. It doesn't fit the class or the lore. So my previous comments were based on an obvious misunderstanding. 

    You suggestion for the shaman spirit is actually a really good one in my book. Giving them the ability to conjure spirits to provide a unique party buff could be a whole new way to play the class and give us reasons for making them useful in comparision to the cleric. My question now goes to the "focus" required, there have been games that have used a focus method to maintain spells/buffs by using a type of focus meter with each spell requiring so much. How do you plan to implement this feature? 

    • 320 posts
    June 9, 2016 11:22 AM PDT

    Some people mensioned hiding pets. I agree that this is crucial, especially once raiding starts. An easy option of All, Group, Self, None with separate settings for main pets (summoner style) and vanity/utility pets.

    For shaman buff pets (or any of this generic type) I'd say the focus could be based on which spell types would break it. So a heal spell would break a certain pet where a dmg spell would break a different one.

    To expand on NoobieDoo's bard pet comment: Amsai and NoobieDoo suggested in a post that exotic instruments are enchanted to improve a specific type of song - melee dps, mana/health regen, etc. or that's how I read it at least (correct me if I'm wrong, NoobieDoo). A suggestion I made was that the really high end ones could [instead] have a clicky where the "pet" summoned is an instrument that acts as if you're holding that specific instrument (mod not stats). Making it a short duration pet (less than one minute) with a cooldown could be a solution to people thinking that not needing to constantly keep an instrument of that type equipped is a bit too much. Another way could be that the pet doesn't give the full boost that the instrument gives. Regardless of those type of restrictions, only the highest modifier of an instrument or pet would be active - no stacking the same instrument type.

    • 547 posts
    June 9, 2016 1:25 PM PDT

    Waited until the dust settled (or is at least floating around in the lower layer of the room) before I commented. I really don't have much of an opinion on the pets thing, other than I would greatly prefer NOT to see Pikachu running around zapping NPCs with lightning bolts and such. However, I would like to touch on the subject of how people reacted to this thread, whether justifiably or not.

    Most of us (no, not all, but I strongly feel that "most" is an accurate assumption) are very interested in keeping PROTF true to its tenets. When something is suggested/mentioned/commented on that even sounds a bit like an idea that doesn't support those tenets, you can be damned sure that alot of folks are going to be up in arms about it.

    So, a suggestion to Brad & Company: Please discuss an idea thoroughly amongst yourselves before you post it. Ask yourselves "How will our supporters react? What further information do we need to give them so that they can see our vision for the idea we are discussing?" That sorta thing. I'm not saying that you don't already do that, but you have to admit, the first post from Brad about pets was a bit vague. We all want this to be a great game...scratch that, a great WORLD TO EXPLORE. More information about ideas--new and old--can never be a bad idea.

     

    • 1293 posts
    June 9, 2016 4:11 PM PDT

    I would probably have to agree mostly with Aradune's list. Very traditional regarding what you would expect from a EQ style game.

    I do think that 'how' you obtain your pet is a great way to really give the pet classes a twist. Sure, some will summon their pet. Others maybe have to quest for a pet or only have temporary pets. Shaman spirit quest? Ranger's companion that helps out of combat? Different types of Wizard's familiar that provides bonuses?

    Make it fun!

    • 1536 posts
    June 9, 2016 4:24 PM PDT

    Anistosoles said:

    So, a suggestion to Brad & Company: Please discuss an idea thoroughly amongst yourselves before you post it. Ask yourselves "How will our supporters react? What further information do we need to give them so that they can see our vision for the idea we are discussing?" That sorta thing. I'm not saying that you don't already do that, but you have to admit, the first post from Brad about pets was a bit vague. We all want this to be a great game...scratch that, a great WORLD TO EXPLORE. More information about ideas--new and old--can never be a bad idea.

    I'm going to have to disagree with this. I think what most people want is to be included in the game design process as early as possible. I know that is what a lot of VIPs want and I'm sure most champions and supporters as well. So please Brad and Co please keep giving us information as early as possible so that we can be included in the design of the game. That is why quite a lot of us backed the game so that we could get pre-alpha access and help right from day one rather than waiting till the game was done and just giving you bug reports.

    Yes this will likely mean you get some negative feedback from people but you will also most likely get positive feedback as well and both of these are going to useful to you as long as the feedback is constructive. It will also allow us to talk to with each other (VR employees and Pantheon backers) about the game that everyone wants to be awesome. The earlier you can let us help shape this game the better. I understand there are some business considerations to consider when it comes to releasing information too early but as soon as you feel comfortable enough to release the information please do. We are all dying for as much information as possible and we love it when you tell us your ideas so it actually gives us something real to discuss on the forums rather than the usual speculation here.

    I'd rather discuss an idea that I disagree with than not discuss anything at all.

    I think the more important thing is for members of this forum to be constructive with their criticism rather than jumping to the conclusion that it is automatically going to ruin the game.

    • 374 posts
    June 9, 2016 4:58 PM PDT

    Cromulent said:

    Anistosoles said:

    So, a suggestion to Brad & Company: Please discuss an idea thoroughly amongst yourselves before you post it. Ask yourselves "How will our supporters react? What further information do we need to give them so that they can see our vision for the idea we are discussing?" That sorta thing. I'm not saying that you don't already do that, but you have to admit, the first post from Brad about pets was a bit vague. We all want this to be a great game...scratch that, a great WORLD TO EXPLORE. More information about ideas--new and old--can never be a bad idea.

    I'm going to have to disagree with this. I think what most people want is to be included in the game design process as early as possible. I know that is what a lot of VIPs want and I'm sure most champions and supporters as well. So please Brad and Co please keep giving us information as early as possible so that we can be included in the design of the game. That is why quite a lot of us backed the game so that we could get pre-alpha access and help right from day one rather than waiting till the game was done and just giving you bug reports.

    Yes this will likely mean you get some negative feedback from people but you will also most likely get positive feedback as well and both of these are going to useful to you as long as the feedback is constructive. It will also allow us to talk to with each other (VR employees and Pantheon backers) about the game that everyone wants to be awesome. The earlier you can let us help shape this game the better. I understand there are some business considerations to consider when it comes to releasing information too early but as soon as you feel comfortable enough to release the information please do. We are all dying for as much information as possible and we love it when you tell us your ideas so it actually gives us something real to discuss on the forums rather than the usual speculation here.

    I'd rather discuss an idea that I disagree with than not discuss anything at all.

    I think the more important thing is for members of this forum to be constructive with their criticism rather than jumping to the conclusion that it is automatically going to ruin the game.

    I agree Cromulent, I wish to hear as much about the creative process as they can allow. 

    I understand that a comprehensive description may not be available about any subject that is presented to us. I really like to read the back and forth and the ideas that the community comes up with.

    As long as everybodys opinion is respected then more people will post an idea, and that is good. We don't want to miss the one big blockbuster idea that will probably spring from this forum because somebody might be too intimidated to post or worried that they have a goofy idea. In my daily line of work I have seen some goofy ideas massaged into outstanding ideas.

    As for the pets , I am sure we will have elucidation as ideas and theories are melded into the reality of Pantheons forthcoming release. We just need to put in our collective ideas when ever the devs reach out and ask.

     

    • 2153 posts
    June 9, 2016 7:28 PM PDT

    My impression is the transient pet is like a buff/pet but that can be trained, maybe like a skill (the mechanics are already there for it).

    It would not appear in the open but maybe in a buff slot or possibly in a seperte place on the UI like the compass window.

    If you wnated ot "see" the transient pet maybe you could click the buff/icon and it would make a brief appearance as long and as complicated visually as a firework. It  can also hold things.

    IN the case of boats or other such things. The old mechanic is I get on the boat I am the captain others get on, I "steer" the boat. if this is another version of transient pet, would it be possible for me to craft a small cannon that does 2 damage min up to 5, three shots and place it in my transient familair or buff pet? then while on the boat, retrieve the cannon from the buff/pet and place it on the boat, where it can be fired by any other player- since it is a crafted item and they are "droppable".

    persistent pets are- made for those that are weak or play a weaker class that relies on a pet for balance.

    That means in a group of 6, 6 go in but our 12 also go in- just unseen for their buff pet like status.

    As a traditional pet health bar be seen in a group, would the benefits of the other members pets also be seen affecting the entire group? that may crowd the grioup UI with many bars.

    But the fact that those bars are in the group UI means that the benefit of each is shared if it is an area of effect like effect- perhaps similar to  old school bard song?

    I imagine that you could put skill pointsd so to speak in buff pets and if enougha rer put in- can become a sort of mount - lots of folks liked the flying mount from Vanguard so maybe that would be level and skill point dependent. You could decide if you wanted to put a skill inm One hand blunt? or in your owl familar to have it sooth your mind.

    Rogue pets? added stealth for the group? or a quiter walk while invis? or even- skimming small amounts of coin from the group members, or whenever coin is looted- unbeknownst to the group members. 

    • 707 posts
    June 9, 2016 10:05 PM PDT

    tanwedar said:

    Some people mensioned hiding pets. I agree that this is crucial, especially once raiding starts. An easy option of All, Group, Self, None with separate settings for main pets (summoner style) and vanity/utility pets.

    For shaman buff pets (or any of this generic type) I'd say the focus could be based on which spell types would break it. So a heal spell would break a certain pet where a dmg spell would break a different one.

    To expand on NoobieDoo's bard pet comment: Amsai and NoobieDoo suggested in a post that exotic instruments are enchanted to improve a specific type of song - melee dps, mana/health regen, etc. or that's how I read it at least (correct me if I'm wrong, NoobieDoo). A suggestion I made was that the really high end ones could [instead] have a clicky where the "pet" summoned is an instrument that acts as if you're holding that specific instrument (mod not stats). Making it a short duration pet (less than one minute) with a cooldown could be a solution to people thinking that not needing to constantly keep an instrument of that type equipped is a bit too much. Another way could be that the pet doesn't give the full boost that the instrument gives. Regardless of those type of restrictions, only the highest modifier of an instrument or pet would be active - no stacking the same instrument type.



    Pretty much the gist of it. The idea was to collect instruments (possibly craft them as bards) and not only did the instruments modify our songs ie drums modify percussion songs such as run speed, but possibly we could collect unique/rare/legendary instruments and have them modify a specific song even further. The concept was geared towards bards being able to customize the instruments a tad and then to create some individuality among other bards. Two bards could have the same unique drum but depending on how they tune it they could modify different songs.

    Not sure if I'm understanding your comment correctly but it would seem you are suggesting that once the instrument is clicked then a 'pet' instrument is summoned. I'm just imagining a giant golden glowing harp bobbing around following the bard with sparkles and though this comment was probably pretty gross and exaggerated even toned down I don't think I'd like a summoned pet instrument in any sense. I like the idea/concept just not the execution. We wouldn't need anything summoned. Just equip the instrument and make it a clicky is good enough.

    • 254 posts
    June 9, 2016 10:09 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    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?

    I've always played a ranger, and I'm not too fond of the idea of pets, but the idea of a hound that helps forage, or a hawk used for scouting (like an alternative to bind-sight) seem like pretty cool ideas to me.

    Another thought:

    -- If we have 10 skill slots available to us, pets could consume some of those slots with their own skills.  Normal pets that anyone could find and use might only consume one or two slots for their abilities, like a summoned beast that might have one or two types of special attacks.  This would mean using a pet would limit the class-skills available to the player which may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff, depending on the context.  This might help prevent the scenario where 'everyone has a pet.'   For classes like magicians or necromancers that specialize in summoning pets, their pets could consume more ability slots, like 4 or 5 and be significantly more powerful.  For example, a mage might summon an earth elemental.  It might consume 5 ability slots with abilities like:

    -- enraging blow (dd ability that also taunts)

    -- solid stance (a defensive stance to decrease incoming damage)

    -- reconstitute earth (a self heal for the pet)

    -- tremor (aoe damage ability)

    -- bash (dd + stun)

    A pet like this would have a lot more power and utility than the generic, available-to-all sort of pet, but it would also come at the expense of half the mages ability slots.  Similarly, a fire pet would consume 5 slots, but the abilities associated with that pet might be more dps-focused.

    • 607 posts
    June 10, 2016 12:35 PM PDT

    Well, even though I've been posting and interacting with MMO communities for 18 years or so, there are still lessons to be learned.

    First, after serious thought and discussion, I'm not going to stop putting out our ideas even if some people might extrapolate in the wrong direction, or resort to alarmism or hyperbole.  You guys pay to be able to post here and interact with us, to be part of the development process, and we take that seriously (and this relationship will actually become more crucial not less as we get farther along in development).  I don't want to just post quick, glib, or inane comments here and there -- I want to be able to bring serious and often detailed ideas to you all.  I also don't want to just 'preach to the chior' and avoid potentially volatile topics.  In fact, I do want to stir up the pot... within reason, of course.

    So I need to be clearer about things.  Clearer that these ideas are not final or set in stone.  Clearer in my descriptions.  Even provide examples of what I don't mean.  I need to try to think ahead as to what someone in the community might get out of what I've written or what could be taken out of context and try to address possible concerns up front (or, at least, as soon as possible with a reply in the thread).  

    We are determined to both create a game in the spirit of the games we've worked on in the past but to also move the genre forward, to implement ideas we've had for years but have never had the opportunity to implement as well as fairly new ideas.  This could even include ideas from other games where we feel the idea was sound but perhaps the implementation not so hot.

    And we remain commited to bringing these ideas to you, even this early in development, to get your feedback.  

    Oh, and I have a new .gif I will be using:

     

    '

    thanks all,

    -Brad


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 10, 2016 12:37 PM PDT