Cohorts and Hirelings? Something for players who might be in different timezones and not be able to be part of the main time-zone players !


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Something that bugs the sheer ever-loving hell out of me is that most MMOs I play either don't have Oceanic Servers, or if they do, they refuse to put up RP Servers out of some bizarre idea that Australians and New Zealanders are too busy fighting off enraged drop-bears and randy sheep to Roleplay.

Other Players might find themselves marginalized due to faults of their own, or the actions of larger groups of people, such as Guilds who might slander them or deny their choice of Character Race within their 'region'.

So what about Cohorts?

Now, this has the potential to make every Class a Pet-Class, but before the enraged sodomizing begins, the Cohort system I am thinking of should NOT be an equal-power companion. At worst, 1/2 your 'power' level, at best, 2/3rds. Every Cohort is different, building upon the same Skills and Merit Badge system as the Player Characters, but they will never be so powerful as to rival another Player of similar level.

For Example, we'll say Player A has a Cohort, who is 2/3rds as powerful as he is. Player A has an approximate power-level of '13', so the Cohort has an approximate power-level of '8', rounded down.

Player B is trying to get back at Player A for some reason. Stole her horse, ate her chicken mcnuggets etc etc. Her power level is '8' too.

Player B decides she'll get back at Player A by killing his Cohort. As a Pet, the Cohort can't 'die' per-se, but the loss means that Player A could be without his Cohort for an hour or more.

Player B and the Cohort fight, they have equal levels but the Cohort is fated to lose. Cohort's power level might be the same, but Player B is much more adaptable, has better health and saves and is likely better equipped, unless Player A has been blowing some wealth on his Cohort, which should cost just as much as equipping another PC out!

Ideally, a Cohort should function as your back-up in adventuring, should the worst happen and you find yourself unable to play with your friends for a period of time. Not as effective as another Player, but with some help from yourself, the Cohort can make it possible to Solo-Play to a greater extent, and maybe even help with Crafting.

When grouped up, however, I fully see Cohorts going back to your 'home base', or 'splitting' from the group to set up a base-camp outside the entrance of the dungeon you are in. Getting battered by the mobs, get out of the dungeon, stagger back to base-camp and have everyone's Cohorts help heal everyone, assist with getting your weapons and armor back into shape and restocking your supplies.

I also see a Cohort as something your character has for life, with only a few ways to permanently lose or change your Cohort.

A Hireling, on the other hand ....

Hirelings are mercenary sort, be they crafters, fighters, mages or priests or any other type of character, and you can hire a new one at any time. Hirelings also come pre-equipped dependant upon their level. For example, a 1st level Character cannot hire a 15th level Hireling, but a 15th level PC can hire the 15th level Hireling.

Furthermore, dependant upon their level they may have access to magical abilities, special combat maneuvers or even just a talent in some other direction.

The difference between Hirelings and Cohorts is that a Cohort needs nothing from you except equipment and leadership. A Hireling is already equipped, but demands payment promptly and on time, thus forming a permanent drain on your wealth, cannot be 'trained' to do other things like a Cohort can and in certain situations, might even go so far as to abandon you if the going gets too tough or leave your side if another PC offers a higher wage.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

Something that bugs the sheer ever-loving hell out of me is that most MMOs I play either don't have Oceanic Servers, or if they do, they refuse to put up RP Servers out of some bizarre idea that Australians and New Zealanders are too busy fighting off enraged drop-bears and randy sheep to Roleplay.

Well I think to an extent this will be a moot point. PVE Dungeons etc... will be a small part of the game, and the game itself will be 1 universal all country server. In your case, less allies will be compensated by less enemies. Adding hirelings will just raise the number of foes you may have to deal with.

Goblin Squad Member

As far as I'm aware, mobs and mob-numbers will not be dictated by number of players.

30 goblins in a cave will be 30 goblins in a cave regardless of whether or not you've got 1 PC going in to kill them or 4 PCs going in to kill them.

I was thinking more along the idea that the Cohort and Hireling concepts allow People to solo play, but it will not be optimal. Optimal will be playing with other people which is sort of the point of an MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

I like this idea, but it does not require everyone be a pet class...require a leadership skill/feat to be developed first. Those who have friends in game will not bother, those who need/want cohorts will not mind spending time earning some (as this will give obvious advantages to those without cohorts, this advantage must be balanced).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
I like this idea, but it does not require everyone be a pet class...require a leadership skill/feat to be developed first. Those who have friends in game will not bother, those who need/want cohorts will not mind spending time earning some (as this will give obvious advantages to those without cohorts, this advantage must be balanced).

Why would those with friends in the game not bother? I fail to see why one would chose why a party of 4 would not want to be a party of 8, even if 4 of the members are only half as good. Nor an army of 100, not become an army of 200 even if half the members suck. The big question is, in the small scale it is a great idea, but how do you prevent it from being supersized? In DDO they used this well, mainly it worked well because the game was 5 man instances, 5 was the number of people who went into the instance, and the hirelings counted against those 5. If the game does feature many instances I would say absolutely, just limit them to instances.

However since the prime point of focus in the game is actual persistence, that implies non-instanced content, IE you can bring 30 or even 3,000 people. If the difficulty is scaled for 5 people to be doing it during peak hours, it has to anticipate all of them having hirelings, in which case the problem is still there.

I think the actual issue you are trying to fix, is going to be negated by the games design anyway. 1 world server, in which anything can be happening at any time. People are going to be looking to recruit as many people outside of normal timezones as possible, due to the danger of attacks etc.. at the times the main players aren't around to defend. As well as most likely a less significant power difference, and no XP grinding as a factor (meaning no loss for teaming with someone more experienced then you).

The difference in level was one thing that makes finding players in a traditional MMO a PITA, not only do you have to find someone, but even if 10 people are availible the odds of them being at the same place as you is usually low. In a game with less liniar direct power creep, we are looking at a different ballgame.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
I like this idea, but it does not require everyone be a pet class...require a leadership skill/feat to be developed first. Those who have friends in game will not bother, those who need/want cohorts will not mind spending time earning some (as this will give obvious advantages to those without cohorts, this advantage must be balanced).

Why would those with friends in the game not bother? I fail to see why one would chose why a party of 4 would not want to be a party of 8, even if 4 of the members are only half as good. Nor an army of 100, not become an army of 200 even if half the members suck. The big question is, in the small scale it is a great idea, but how do you prevent it from being supersized? In DDO they used this well, mainly it worked well because the game was 5 man instances, 5 was the number of people who went into the instance, and the hirelings counted against those 5. If the game does feature many instances I would say absolutely, just limit them to instances.

Good point, I meant it to sound as if leveling the "leadership" skill/feat would take a lot of time and effort. It is no different than the discussion of pets/mounts...if you want to spend all your time leveling the Animal Handling skill so you can train a pet, do so, but that pet should be on par with the abilities you could have gained had you just worked on your own combat skills for that time. You prevent it from being overused by making it difficult to achieve.


The biggest issue I have with hirelings, in the way DDO executes them, is that they tend to become a crutch people rely on to avoid other players. Especially if the AI is even remotely intelligent. Even if it is bad AI, the player can at least plan for the behavior of the hireling, due to it being static. While it is a bit of a slippery slope argument for PFO, the reality in DDO is that it's better to have an idiot you can rely on than a genius you cannot. At least, it is for those that would normally have a static group but are not playing with them at a given time.

Goblin Squad Member

Stormanne wrote:
The biggest issue I have with hirelings, in the way DDO executes them, is that they tend to become a crutch people rely on to avoid other players.

This is important. There are a significant number of negatives associated with random grouping, and you won't meet new people if you don't partake in random grouping. Because of these inherent negatives, and if the game has any reason to promote grouping, they need to make a very sincere effort not to create any additional negatives to grouping.

One thing that would go a long way towards countering those inherent negatives is to grant the full reward you would receive if you solo-killed a mob to every player in the group. In other MMOs, this would mean that if you got 100 xp for killing it solo, then each player in a group would still get the full 100 xp if their group killed it, regardless of how many people were in the group.

Another thing (but this only applies if we have a reason to kill 15 mobs in an area where only a few mobs spawn at a time and many other players are also there trying to get their kills) would be to automatically put the players in the same vicinity with the same goals in a "soft group" where they share their efforts. Rift started down this path, but I don't think they went far enough, and they didn't make you automatically leave the "soft group" you automatically joined once you left the vicinity.

From an RP perspective, there shouldn't be any game mechanics which make you want to turn down help while fighting for your life.

Goblin Squad Member

You should take a look at an MMO that uses cohorts/hirelings very well: Guild Wars. Each player can have 3 cohorts and around 5 hirelings, making it easy to fill missing roles. However, the fights assume this larger group; you need the extra manpower to win fights.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm, there is that. On one hand, everyone being able to have a Hireling or Cohort of some kind would be a nice touch, but at the same point such 'pets' should not be able to supplant another player.

I do like the idea of Cohorts being necessary for certain fights. Yes the Cave can be cleared of Goblins by just players alone, but their Hobgoblin Leaders will require the additional grunt that the players Cohorts can give, even if it is only just some average attacking, healing or crowd controlling.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:
...but at the same point such 'pets' should not be able to supplant another player.

I totally disagree. As I've said elsewhere, I really hope that a sufficiently powerful Necromancer type can raise an *actual* army of undead minions to use to terrorize a small town.

The need to balance players the way you suggest is really only necessary, in my opinion, when they're primarily going to be competing in an arena, with a set number of players on each side, and rules to ensure the competition is fair. In PFO, I believe we're primarily going to be competing in the world at large, where more often than not the two sides in any conflict will be seriously mismatched. In that environment, the relative ability of any single player is much less important than the aggregate power of the group of players.

I really hope that PFO is truly open-ended, and that we'll have the opportunity to hire a small army to help us, if we can afford it.

Goblin Squad Member

In the case of a Necromancer, I agree, the 'army' of minions should be an extremely valid threat to all and sundry. Mostly BECAUSE of the 'army' for balance reasons otherwise every man and his dog who thinks he can become the new King of the World will be a Necromancer.

The reason I suggest player-Cohorts and Hirelings be less powerful is to make them attractive enough for use in combat, but not so much that people start to 'distance' themselves from each other. Player A is a Rogue-type and Player B is a Cleric-type. They need to go kill an Ogre, but can't find other party-members, so they rely upon their Cohorts to help in the fight. It's close, but they still pull through, albeit having expended a lot more time/effort/resources in the process. But the rewards are all theirs.

Under another situation, Group A has two Fighters, a Wizard, a Cleric and a Bard. Everyone has their Cohort (for the sake of expediency, we'll say the Cohorts are all the same class as their 'Leader' PCs) and have brought along five Fighter Hirelings for some added muscle when taking down a Forest Drake that has been hassling their town.

Forest Drake has some Kobold minions that they did not know about. Players decide to take on the Drake themselves to buy time, order their Cohorts and Hirelings to slaughter the Kobolds then come help them fight the Drake. The PCs take a real battering until the Cohorts and Hirelings finish off the Kobolds and come running back. With the pressure off, the PCs can run back 15 feet, out of range, quaff some potions, then charge back into the fray and slaughter the Drake.

Trying to do that encounter without the Hirelings could have been disasterous, but with a noticeable expenditure of gold used to hire the Mercenaries, the PCs have slain a very powerful and very deadly threat that would otherwise have overwhelmed them in time.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:
Mostly BECAUSE of the 'army' for balance reasons otherwise every man and his dog who thinks he can become the new King of the World will be a Necromancer.

Again with the "balance". It's going to be armies on armies, or roving bands on a wagon train. It's almost never going to be "balanced" in numbers of opponents on each side. And as for everyone who wants to be a king rolling a Necromancer, I would think a large guild would be a much better route, or even hiring a literal army of hirelings...

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:
... but not so much that people start to 'distance' themselves from each other.

Please, instead of trying to force players into grouping by making everything else not really viable, can we please entice players into grouping by making grouping fun and worthwhile?

I absolutely despise the way most MMOs try to push me into grouping. I'm playing SWTOR right now, but I'm already getting sick of it because I really, really enjoy crafting all of my own gear. It's just how I am. I don't want to craft part of my gear and then trade with other players for the rest of it. I want to craft all my own gear. But SWTOR has decided that I should be pushed into trading with other players so they only allow me to take one crafting profession per character. Does that *actually* make me trade with other players? No. It makes me roll a bunch of alts I don't really want to level up, so now I feel like I'm just grinding away, and the game is significantly less fun. If they get 3 months of subscription out of me, they'll be lucky.

Can we please just get a game that lets us have fun doing the stuff we want to do?

Goblin Squad Member

True, but given that they have stated gameplay will be around the 6-12th level, roughly, nobody is going to be commanding legions of the Damned or calling Bahamut out to play kick the can.

I suggest weaker but more numerous Necromancer minions because, otherwise, we're just going to have thousands of them made for no other reason than PvP if they can summon legions of pets that are, singularly, a match for other players.

I know that, if I intend to PvP, I am going to go for the easiest method to win. At my age, that means something I can dogpile onto the enemy and then try to keep up with their faster response-time. In WoW, that's a Warlock dotting the ever-living Hell out of the enemy and then charming/fearing their healer. In Pathfinder Online, assuming the Necromancer goes as you seem to intend (and if I've gotten this wrong, again, I do apologise), that means that a Necromancer can potentially field a small army of powerful Undead that can mangle other players, as well as the Necromancer running around doing the spellcaster thing.

On the other hand .... what if a Necromancer can only have, say, a maximum of five pets at a time or the old 4hd per caster level of Undead, whichever is reached first, but he has to find the bodies and raise them himself? THAT would work with your idea. Everybody can run around with their basic run-of-the-mill Zombies, or they can go out and find those Hydra skeletons or those Ogre Zombies to raise themselves. However if those Undead are destroyed .... that's it. Gone.

Suddenly the Necromancer's a powerful class, but not cripplingly so. A few days of running through bone-yards and cave-systems after other players, animating the corpses of dead PCs and NPCs alike till you find the types of Undead that suit your play-style, be it lobbing Negative-energy-laden Frostballs into the middle of the scum involving your zombies and the Clerics or legions, or do you go raise that Adult Green Dragon and go for a single all-powerful Undead Pet that can challenge even a full group on it's own?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After making my previous post, I realize I may have come off a little... strident.

I have no problem with restrictions. I don't expect to be able to be an expert Blacksmith, Leatherworker, Tailor, Miner, etc. from the get-go in PFO. I realize I'm going to have to train up Skills to be good at those things, and that means I'm going to have to balance training those skills with training other skills I want. I don't have a problem with any of that.

I do however, with all my heart, hope that the incentives to group in PFO are all positive, instead of the negative incentives along the lines of "You're not allowed to do this by yourself because we think you should group".

There will be plenty of incentives for me to associate with other players, not least of which is having a reasonable chance of surviving and having my property protected. Hopefully, it will also be fun and worthwhile, and not feel like I would be better off soloing once I factor in the fact that some of the people I try to group with will be impervious to planning, etc.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

This is an interesting idea however I doubt its going to be implemented if they are able to have everything on one server.

I personally don't want a bunch of cohorts running around, but thats my play style.

That being said if I have an animal companion or perhaps Summon Monster (insert number) then it makes sense because thats the class I've chosen to focus on.

Maybe instead of asking for cohorts you can ask for classes with summoning/animal companions to actually have worthwhile minions.

And, if they get around to adding the Summoner class I think that might be right up your alley.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, most definitely agreed, Nihimon. Somehow, to balance solo play and yet make group-play attractive as well. Solo Play should be perfectly plausible, but maybe group quests should offer something mechanical as an incentive? Bonus Reputation gain or something that is attractive but not "OH MY GOD I MUST GROUP!"

On one hand, it should not be World of Warcraft's 'murder everything solo for 85 levels then try to work with other people in instances', but on the other hand, it's Pathfinder, albeit in an online form. It should not be "Hope you have some friends, 'cause even the Rabbits will eat you alive" difficulty with the mobs/quests/minigames. Being with other people, physically, is one of the things I find most enjoyable with table-top gaming. It's not just pixels I'm dealing with. On the other hand some times a gamer just wants to be alone, even if it is only for a few hours, although I might be letting my fatigue be speaking for me here.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Also I saw that KitNyx mentioned the Leadership feat, at higher levels that would be an interesting way to add followers. Not necessarily for combat, but imagine owning a black smith and your character happens to be really good at making armor. Your follower will stay online and sell your crafted items while your offline sleeping, working, etc.

That's just the tip of the iceberg with followers. That I would like to see implemented, it would be pretty amazing to see your town/mansion/castle populated with your own NPCs going about their business of running the day to day operations while your off adventuring.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps that would be a better way to handle Cohorts and Hirelings? You can choose to have a Combat Cohort (very close to your 'power level') or a selection of NPCs who can Craft or Build for you/with you.

Players who have access to a larger player pool can then either solo-play or group up as they desire, but those who want a 'Cohort' or find themselves playing at odd hours can go into battle with their Cohort.

The reverse could also apply to Hirelings. You can either have a powerful mercenary at your side, or hire servants to assist you outside of combat?

And yes, Hiring NPC guards to patrol the PCs' towns or cook/clean/wait on the tables of your tavern would be a nice touch.

Goblin Squad Member

Kosten07 wrote:
... Not necessarily for combat...

This is what I'm trying to get people to look past.

It's kind of ingrained that every game has to be balanced so that one "max level" player versus any other "max level" player is going to be a roughly even fight, with individual player skill (and gear) being the deciding factor.

I think there's really room in PFO for a different attitude.

In Rift, my wife and I joined up with Gaiscioch, a HUGE guild, that easily put hundreds of people together for in-game events.

What I'd really love to get people to see: If the leader of a huge guild like that, who can easily mobilize dozens if not hundreds of actual players to help him accomplish his goals, and all of those players are going to be acting in the same environment towards the same purpose, how is it even remotely unbalancing for one player to have a few guards that he hires to travel with him to help his wagon make it from one market to the next? Or to hire a literal army of NPCs to guard his town?

Goblin Squad Member

Your example isn't so bad Nihimon. I would like that.

The problem I am seeing is the Trolls. Evil, self-absorbed bastards who think nothing of monotonously grinding thousands of gold, hiring every single mercenary in the game and then going on a slaughter-fest against which whole swaths of the player-base are annihilated and their homes, farms and the result of months of work are razed to the ground, just so some oxygen-thief can post the video on youtube for 'teh lulz'.

I guess if an entire guild got up and did this, I'd still be pissed, but at the same point this could be roleplayed as Bandits on the rampage. A single player doing this? So much rage, and I'd probably lose a lot of interest in the game if one single person could personally raise an army capable of causing wide-spread destruction.

Most people, 90% of the players, won't abuse your Hireling system to that level, but there would be a significant portion who would.

That said, I fully support the concept of being able to hire NPCs to guard your wagons or towns/villages/bandit forts or pick your crops. I just pray there is a reasonable cutoff point to the hiring process, and that guards do not become this die-cast adamantite crutch players can use for griefing.

Again, with the 'balance' issue, I personally consider a Cleric focused on Healing to be 'Balanced' against a Cleric focused upon Frontline Combat. I would consider them 'Balanced', but I would not consider them equals in a PvP Scenario. The Healer Cleric has focused upon being a Supporting Character able to heal, buff and restore other players for longer fights, the Combat Cleric has focused upon being a Primary Combatant able to turn her spellcasting upon herself to become a literal combat juggernaut.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it's going to be fairly unlikely for someone to amass the kind of fortune that would take and then squander it on an assault like that, much less that they'd do it repeatedly.

That said, I'm not really arguing in favor of hiring an army, I'm really just trying to encourage people to think outside the box of balanced 1v1 PvP and open themselves to ideas that might, at first blush, seem unbalanced, but which really won't have the kind of impact they fear in PFO, as long as PFO is not about ranked, arena-based PvP with even teams, yada yada.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed. No 'PvP' stats, please. I enjoy PvP when things are random. A player in 'weaker' equipment needs to bring allies, pick the terrain and have a way to get the hell out of dodge if all else fails.

I do like the concept that Hirelings should be a constant and persistent drain on a player's money.

Actually, that makes me think of something else, going to start a new thread ....

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I think it's going to be fairly unlikely for someone to amass the kind of fortune that would take and then squander it on an assault like that, much less that they'd do it repeatedly.

That said, I'm not really arguing in favor of hiring an army, I'm really just trying to encourage people to think outside the box of balanced 1v1 PvP and open themselves to ideas that might, at first blush, seem unbalanced, but which really won't have the kind of impact they fear in PFO, as long as PFO is not about ranked, arena-based PvP with even teams, yada yada.

Well I do have to point out that in group economy based games, players in the largest guilds/alliences/groups with the largest armies and the deepest production structure, it's members will likely have 3x more than your average joes. So yeah you can expect those people, to be buying 3 soldiers each before attacking the neighboring town. I agree balanced 1v1 PVP isn't going to be the norm, but I do have to say, a hiring system on it's own, favors massively the group already at the top, allowing them to continue to take twice as much, which then lets them hire twice as many mercinaries, which allows them to take even more etc...

The only way to prevent an infinant expansion of them is to make them very expensive, which will put them out of the hands of the people they were intended to help.

The problems I see in all 3 ideas here are as follows

Idea: Team of 3 can hire 3 minions to assist in completing whatever PVE objective there is.

Result: teams of 6 hire 6 minions to breeze through same challange without breaking a sweat, next the complaint that it is to easy for the teams of 6, challenge difficulty is re-scaled to take 6 people + 6 minions, team of 3 is once again unable to do it.

Idea: Individuals can hire unlimited mercenaries, thought someone can hire 5 NPC warriors to guide them as they escort without other players

Result: Bandits also hire 5 NPC warriors when they go to gank him. If what the guy was exporting was valuable enough to be worth hiring 5 warriors to protect, it is valuable enough to hire 5 warriors to take.

Necromancer army: This idea, still has to be scaled. A necromancer with X number of undead soldiers still has to be on par with a normal character, so the sum of himself plus his minions still has to be roughly the same as a similar skilled other. Otherwise we wind up with just kingdoms of 15 necromancers with armies large enough to take out groups of 200 players, and it only gets worse as because of that, more people make necromancers.

The important thing to do with any idea, is supersize it, and imagine what the other side will do with the same access.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Well I do have to point out that in group economy based games, players in the largest guilds/alliences/groups with the largest armies and the deepest production structure, it's members will likely have 3x more than your average joes.

This is exactly my point. The game will *always* be imbalanced in favor of the greater numbers, so worrying about balancing 1v1 is kind of unnecessary.

Onishi wrote:
...which will put them out of the hands of the people they were intended to help.

The idea to allow you to hire mercenaries has *nothing whatsoever* to do with trying to "help" anyone at all. It is 100% about making the game world realistic enough. If something (hiring mercenaries to protect transport of goods) is reasonably going to appear in a fantasy novel set in Golarion, I would hope that, when technically feasible, it would be allowed to occur in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

One other note, and this goes to something I've written in a number of threads, I would really like to see PFO not make significant distinctions between the actions of NPCs and the actions of PCs.

If I can hire 5 PCs to help guard my wagon, why shouldn't I be allowed to hire 5 NPCs to do the same?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Onishi wrote:
Well I do have to point out that in group economy based games, players in the largest guilds/alliences/groups with the largest armies and the deepest production structure, it's members will likely have 3x more than your average joes.

This is exactly my point. The game will *always* be imbalanced in favor of the greater numbers, so worrying about balancing 1v1 is kind of unnecessary.

Well I think my bigger beef is this system causes it to multiply exponentially. The problem is inevitable yes, but that is also why in general I am a huge supporter of items that drastically increase power, and would say at the absolute strongest, a top end vet should not ever be much stronger on a power level than 2 mid-level PCs.

Quote:


Onishi wrote:
...which will put them out of the hands of the people they were intended to help.
The idea to allow you to hire mercenaries has *nothing whatsoever* to do with trying to "help" anyone at all. It is 100% about making the game world realistic enough. If something (hiring mercenaries to protect transport of goods) is reasonably going to appear in a fantasy novel set in Golarion, I would hope that, when technically feasible, it would be allowed to occur in PFO.

And it does and will exist regardless. The mercinary submarket will exist among players in every MMO ever, especially ones with heavy focus on economies. People hire escorts and assists for things all the time in eve without NPCs coming into it.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
... but that is also why in general I am a huge supporter of items that drastically increase power

I think you meant the opposite, that you're *not* a fan of items that drastically increase power?

Onishi wrote:
... and would say at the absolute strongest, a top end vet should not ever be much stronger on a power level than 2 mid-level PCs.

I agree with this. I think there should not be a world of difference between veteran characters and relatively new players. I was extremely pleased to hear Ryan Dancey say that the level range in PFO would actually represent something very similar to the 6-10 level range from PathFinder.

I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but it's something that means a lot to me. I really want to see PFO offer a wide range of options, and specifically allow things that would likely appear in a novel.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Onishi wrote:
... but that is also why in general I am a huge supporter of items that drastically increase power

I think you meant the opposite, that you're *not* a fan of items that drastically increase power?

Onishi wrote:
... and would say at the absolute strongest, a top end vet should not ever be much stronger on a power level than 2 mid-level PCs.

I agree with this. I think there should not be a world of difference between veteran characters and relatively new players. I was extremely pleased to hear Ryan Dancey say that the level range in PFO would actually represent something very similar to the 6-10 level range from PathFinder.

I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but it's something that means a lot to me. I really want to see PFO offer a wide range of options, and specifically allow things that would likely appear in a novel.

You are right, my brain was thinking "Huge supporter of limiting the power difference, and huge opposer of things that can drastically increase power", and wound up shortening it to mean the opposite lol.

I agree with you on versatility, but I strongly hope they can obtain versatility while keeping the power level controlled. What could be interesting would be a large set NPC pool in a town, different structures encorage different types, and their prices and the quantity available will both effect whether they can be hired, and what they charge. If a town's mercinaries regularly serve as red shirts, their prices should skyrocket through the roof and population will dwindle like crazy. Where another town could use the same people instead to focus on building, preparing defenses, while another town may use more of them for mercenaries, and another for farmers etc...

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
If a town's mercinaries regularly serve as red shirts, their prices should skyrocket through the roof and population will dwindle like crazy...

Oooh! I like that :)

Goblin Squad Member

I see having cohorts as a focus of a character...Necromancers can reanimate dead things, but they are not WoW Necromancers, they would be near worthless in combat and on the battlefield (except for that sole purpose). I also think similar to the discussion on mounts, cohorts should have upkeep. The fresh brains needed to feed an army of zombies would be cost prohibitive...but I think this is the only real limit to building an army of undead. And, I hope the power of the undead is based upon the abilities of the Necromancer. The "balance" here is that necromancy would not be an easy focus (not offering many survival abilities or combat skills)...and would be similar to focusing on a crafting ability.

Functionally, necromancers should would identical to any other pet/cohort class. The WoW Hunter would be a character that splits their focuses on Archery and Animal Handling. They will never be as good at either as someone who specializes, but if they play their character smart, could be better than either in some situations.

Likewise, "leaders"...people who focus on a leadership skill can recruit "living" cohorts (functionally identical to the Necromancer). There should be no limits to the number short of upkeep. Additionally, the power of these cohorts should be based on the level of their leadership skill...which offers no/few other benefits than the ability to recruit cohorts. In some situations such as castle defense, this would be a powerful class...in others such as assassinating an enemy leader or raiding a dungeon with narrow passages, they would not.

I also think unlike WoW Necromancers, raising undead should cost reagents and require a non-instant "ritual", greatly limiting use on a battlefield. Likewise, not too many animals or cohorts available on a battlefield. These things should be pre-prepared. This, in addition to constant upkeep costs would make building armies a not-insignificant task and would make this "class" only viable to those who really enjoy the labor involved (just like crafting should be).

Anyways, that is how I hope these are realized and how I think they can be "balanced" while allowing maximum freedom for players. Like Nihimon has repeatedly said, I do not think it is about balancing anything, it is about allowing players the freedom to be whatever they want...good guilds/clans/groups will incorporate what they have available and build strategies around that...none of these cookie cutter classes and roles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

I think it's going to be fairly unlikely for someone to amass the kind of fortune that would take and then squander it on an assault like that, much less that they'd do it repeatedly.

That said, I'm not really arguing in favor of hiring an army, I'm really just trying to encourage people to think outside the box of balanced 1v1 PvP and open themselves to ideas that might, at first blush, seem unbalanced, but which really won't have the kind of impact they fear in PFO, as long as PFO is not about ranked, arena-based PvP with even teams, yada yada.

Well I do have to point out that in group economy based games, players in the largest guilds/alliences/groups with the largest armies and the deepest production structure, it's members will likely have 3x more than your average joes. So yeah you can expect those people, to be buying 3 soldiers each before attacking the neighboring town. I agree balanced 1v1 PVP isn't going to be the norm, but I do have to say, a hiring system on it's own, favors massively the group already at the top, allowing them to continue to take twice as much, which then lets them hire twice as many mercinaries, which allows them to take even more etc...

The only way to prevent an infinant expansion of them is to make them very expensive, which will put them out of the hands of the people they were intended to help.

In the economy you mentioned, the guild that will be hiring the armies and amassing the materials of war will need to get them from somewhere. If they are declaring war on other towns all the time they'll probably have a hard time acquiring resources at the same speed as the defenders, especially given their inherent advantage of defenses. Add in the fact that there will be neighboring towns that would *love* to pitch in to defeat the mighty plundering guild that's constantly raiding *them* too, and I'm not sure that it'll be much of an issue.

In an evolving, player-based world the relationships between towns will be extremely important and I would think the prime responsibility of guild leaders or whatever. A guild that wants to rape and pillage indiscriminately across the hillside is going to be under constant attack, so they'll need to be pretty huge and diverse across time zones. But since they're generally reviled across the "sandbox" they'll have a tough time recruiting, and since they'll presumably be comprised mostly of selfish people who get no enjoyment from the actual mechanics of the game it will be hard to keep them organized and focused on keeping the guild secure.

I truly hope that someone can make an "antagonist" guild work for a long period, because that will add a lot to the world. I think it would be the most difficult organization to form and hold together, and i think people who even try to form them will have a hard time becoming relevant.

Goblin Squad Member

If it's not too presumptuous, Mr Darcey, any chance of some Yea/Nay on the topic?

Goblin Squad Member

As long as I'm not put at a disadvantage for not using them, I'm fine. I personally can't stand being tethered to these often buggy and predictable hirelings and it would diminish my enjoyment of the game a lot if I had to deal with them on a regular basis.

Goblin Squad Member

One thing to consider - a trend I have noticed in another MMO:
-hirelings depend on AI. Sometimes that means they are quite limited, but that seems to be assumed and intended. A well controlled hireling though can end up being more useful than inviting a less skilled player.

From an elitist point of view: good! I don't have to put up with insufferable pugs anymore!

From an opposing point of view: goblin t$$@! I can never find a group anymore since they introduced hirelings!

Goblin Squad Member

Oh, definitely agreed Blaeringr! That's why I suggested a Hireling be a constant and potent drain on your coffers, or a Cohort be noticeably weaker than a player, even when equally geared. If Players are, for example, going in with a 20 point build and are approximately level 6-12, then the Cohort should be going in with the Elite array at best, and have a level range of 4-8.

A Cohort should be something useful, but not to the point where they become more useful than another player. Lydia, for example, without the pathing bugs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not big on finding ways to play the game without playing the game. Way too many ideas on that theme have been presented already.

I feel for your timezone problems but if there are more than 5 of you with that difficulty... the answer is get together and play together.

Lantern Lodge

I say stick with the leadership feat, only selectable earlier( I don't want to wait 6 months before getting the feat). The feat allows you to have a cohort and a number of followers. The lvl and number of those is dependent on your leadership score. Personally if the followers made up the "inviisible" populus of the world that would be a good way to make towns.

In addition when you find a new one you can choose whether warrior or craftsman etc.
This way I can have a team of harvesters with me or a team of escorts. Their lvls are limited and I have a limited number of them, both limits my take over the world ideas.

This leadership feat limits how many you can have at a time, be they hirelings or zombies or cohorts.

I suggest this because my favorite class in city of heros was the mastermind. I love the idea of finding npcs and convincing them to join me then train in what I want and strategically use them. Some to craft my stuff, some to build my estate, and some to guard my estate while I'm offline. Of course some to follow me in combat, cause I only have temp groups and only rarely, usually from stumbling into them during a fight or both happen to be headed into same dungeon at same time etc.

Goblin Squad Member

It really comes down to how party oriented the game ends up being. If it's just as easy to solo...

By the way they describe it in the blogs, I'm guessing group play is going to be a lot more important for some goals, like escorting traders and gatherers, and less important for other goals, like assassinating a target, or stealthily collecting a bounty. Let's hope they deliver; I've seen a bunch of mmo's promise group focus, but that aspect ends up being a joke.

Having said that, should the game be aimed only at group players? Should players have a solo option some of the time? Sometimes I like hanging out with other people, but sometimes I like my solitude.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I'm not big on finding ways to play the game without playing the game.

But how do you feel about disconnecting the player from the tedium? Because that's mostly what I've seen proposed...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

You can disconnect the tedium directly. Either make those aspects able to be completed by a different player, (crafting) or able to be bypassed (you don't HAVE to interact with other people, but it is harder)

Lantern Lodge

With no exp gain, why have tedium? Use minigames for crafting, building, harvesting, etc.

Lantern Lodge

The cohorts can be fun to have when soloing if used right and can be the cannon fodder for dragons.

Lantern Lodge

Not to mention the fact that they can be pack horses that head home while you deal with the bandit slowing him down so he can loot you but not your followers(since they have enough of a head start to stay clear)

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
The cohorts can be fun to have when soloing if used right and can be the cannon fodder for dragons.

I think that is where I disagree the most. Much like the leadership feat in P&P, I think if hirelings exist, a reputation system should be tied to them. The leadership feat in pathfinder and 3.5, harms your leadership score every time you get your cohorts or followers killed, and IMO if you repeatedly hire people from the same town... and never bring them back alive, their prices should go up every time you hire them, until finally they just flat out stop accepting offers. I don't care if he's paying me 1 million dollars, the last 100 people who followed him died horrible deaths, what good is money if I won't be alive to spend it.

Lantern Lodge

Exactly. That is what I think as well, of course ill probaably rez them but I would go more for the permanent low lvl followers instead of paid mercs.

I made this as a suggestion to expand the feat to basically limit however many npc companions you can have if they don't want you to hire (or raise from the dead) an army as a single person, yet still allow such followers to be had.

In addition it would be cool to have choice in trappings as well. I would start a "cult" and have my followers be adepts in my cult. Thus they would build and support my temple (my estate). Or I could start a merc group and my followers would be my unit.

Goblin Squad Member

Reviving this, DarkLightHitomi hit an interesting point.

What if Cohorts are 'Combat Pets' that the Players have to create, train and supply themselves? This creates more of a market for crafted items, the Player isn't being handed something for a fistful of pixelated coins, and the Character is trading a badge or two that could be placed into a so-called 'solo' ability to bring an additional team-member to the party.

While not individually as powerful as a 'Solo-build' character, this 'Duo-build' has a powerful member, the PC, and a weaker member, the Cohort, but has double the actions, or nearly so.

It would also be quite interesting to hear if the concept of 'hiring' NPCs to be a Militia or to manage your farm or your 'business' while you're off getting the need for adventure out of your system has any appeal. Obviously the non-combat Hirelings are only going to be good at one or two things, namely the 'crafting', the 'maintenance' or the 'market'. They are there to fill a gap, not take over your niche.

Goblin Squad Member

Very old thread again, so beware.

I'll also add my familiar refrain that balance concerns shouldn't be as important as they would be in other games. Why is it "unfair" for me to have 20 skeletons, but it's not unfair for me to have 40 players who are willing to follow me around and roll all over you?


Nihimon wrote:
I'll also add my familiar refrain that balance concerns shouldn't be as important as they would be in other games. Why is it "unfair" for me to have 20 skeletons, but it's not unfair for me to have 40 players who are willing to follow me around and roll all over you?

I have zero interest in playing a necromancer.

That being said, I really, really hope necromancers and evil priests can make undead armies (or at least battalions) to wreak havoc with.

I really, really want to fight guys like that.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I see this idea flying totally in the face of GW's stated goals; namely only PC's can do certain things (as expressed in the various threads on "pets"), and solo play is not what they want - PfO is a cooperative MMO. The DDO solution of having hirelings just won't work in PfO, per Ryan. I don't see him changing that stance.

I feel for the OP, but I am sure there will be other gamers from Oceana for him/her to game with, as well as others who play at odd hours (non-EDT hours).

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Cohorts and Hirelings? Something for players who might be in different timezones and not be able to be part of the main time-zone players ! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.