Goblin Squad Member
|
@Daniel, I'm not sure I understand the question.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the game should support not only direct power, by having a large army immediately present, but also amassed power, where you build up resources over time and then can unleash those resources when the timing is right. I see the effort to capture a dragon and bend it to your will temporarily in this light. Likewise, my oft-stated desire for it to be possible for a Necromancer to gradually build up an entire army of undead (with appropriate costs, and very likely working with other players to help tend his army and gather resources, etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Daniel, I'm not sure I understand the question.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the game should support not only direct power, by having a large army immediately present, but also amassed power, where you build up resources over time and then can unleash those resources when the timing is right. I see the effort to capture a dragon and bend it to your will temporarily in this light. Likewise, my oft-stated desire for it to be possible for a Necromancer to gradually build up an entire army of undead (with appropriate costs, and very likely working with other players to help tend his army and gather resources, etc.)
I think Dan was just being facetious. Since dragons are generally thought to be at least as intelligent as humans and much more powerful, any attached human would make more sense as the minion. I could be wrong, but that is how I interpreted it.
That is one way to look at it. Player thinks the dragon is his pet, while the dragon thinks something else entirely. That would make for an interesting PnP game at least.
Generally though, I think that a dragon is at the least going to qualify as a player companion similar to a PC; he's along for the ride, it just so happens that he can best contribute by being a dragon most of the time, but that doesn't make him the equivalent of a wizard familiar, druid animal buddy, or even the paladin warhorse. Dragons normally don't stay charmed for long, they would be choosing to adventure with the player, and the player better not do anything to offend the dragon, or it will leave, at best, worst it decides you've crossed a line and is going to personally punt you back across it. It has more in common with intelligent magic items with high ego, including the ability to back up demands. ;p
I would however like to see players who have cleared an area be able to hire NPC levies, if only to provide law and order among NPCs in the area. And as an assist during a player lead assault. Certainly nothing like a directly puppeted minion. The control is the constant demand on coin, which would increase as they became better at their work, to a point as they have limited leveling potential in any event, usually 4th being about the best, as that is certainly high enough to deal with the rabble locally. Population being something to consider in an area once cleared and NPCs move in to settle, the more that live there, the more levies possible. In the event of drastic activity like a war, casualties will decimate the population reducing the levies directly through attrition.
That does not mean I'd expect to see players wandering with armies following them around. For one thing, that's usually frowned upon by your neighbors because it's pretty aggressive behavior unless you are at war already. More of a menu that allows you to issue commands of a more general nature, like patrol, mount a defense, launch an assault, siege, etc. No direct control individually, just a group command. Having played Mount & Blade, I know that the costs of having a standing army can get very high if you have a diverse command with a lot of experts. And you can't just conscript engineers and other specialists, those guys are adventurers in their own right, and expect to be paid well for that expertise.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I was saying that dragon's aren't pets, and aren't mounts in the same sense that horses or even griffons can be.
You can't rent a dragon large enough to carry a person in combat. You just might be able to convince such a dragon that your interests coincide enough to cooperate for a time, but that makes such a dragon an ally, not a mount or pet.
Regular humanoids, on the other hand, can become loyal members of an army who may or may not be willing to die by following orders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Methinks dreams are getting a bit grandiose. The reason I say that is that if pets are implemented in a way anywhere near what is being suggested here, then that's going to become the game itself. Anyone would be foolish not to invest all their time in building up their pet army. Sounds a lot more like Warcraft/Starcraft to me.
Odd that it's being suggested by so many that insta-kill (with saves) spells are overpowered because not everybody has access to them, and yet coming over here and asking for some to have 100x that kind of power. Odd is really an understatement actually...
@Daniel, I'm not sure I understand the question.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the game should support not only direct power, by having a large army immediately present, but also amassed power, where you build up resources over time and then can unleash those resources when the timing is right. I see the effort to capture a dragon and bend it to your will temporarily in this light. Likewise, my oft-stated desire for it to be possible for a Necromancer to gradually build up an entire army of undead (with appropriate costs, and very likely working with other players to help tend his army and gather resources, etc.)
Maybe if the implementation were just right...
But how do you draw the line between what is part of your character and what is part of the company/settlement/kingdom (ie: group)? Are you the necromancer because you have a unique skill with undead that allows you to make use of the resource your group is amassing? Are they similarly at the disposal of another necromancer that joins your group? Or do they disappear when you log out, or answer only to you?
In brief: Are you making your group powerful or are they making you powerful?
I could be sold on the idea if it's the latter. A group of 100 people dedicating themselves to the power of one player's undead army could theoretically be balanced against 100 players each dedicated to their own power.
100 necros + 100 undead = 1 necro + 100 undead + 99 plebs.
The trick would be finding 99 suckers. And figuring out what happens when you log out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Daniel, I'm not sure I understand the question.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the game should support not only direct power, by having a large army immediately present, but also amassed power, where you build up resources over time and then can unleash those resources when the timing is right. I see the effort to capture a dragon and bend it to your will temporarily in this light. Likewise, my oft-stated desire for it to be possible for a Necromancer to gradually build up an entire army of undead (with appropriate costs, and very likely working with other players to help tend his army and gather resources, etc.)
Maybe if the implementation were just right...
But how do you draw the line between what is part of your character and what is part of the company/settlement/kingdom (ie: group)? Are you the necromancer because you have a unique skill with undead that allows you to make use of the resource your group is amassing? Are they similarly at the disposal of another necromancer that joins your group? Or do they disappear when you log out, or answer only to you?
In brief: Are you making your group powerful or are they making you powerful?
I could be sold on the idea if it's the latter. A group of 100 people dedicating themselves to the power of one player's undead army could theoretically be balanced against 100 players each dedicated to their own power.
100 necros + 100 undead = 1 necro + 100 undead + 99 plebs.
The trick would be finding 99 suckers. And figuring out what happens when you log out.
I would say neither, you are making your cause powerful.
Methinks dreams are getting a bit grandiose. The reason I say that is that if pets are implemented in a way anywhere near what is being suggested here, then that's going to become the game itself. Anyone would be foolish not to invest all their time in building up their pet army. Sounds a lot more like Warcraft/Starcraft to me.
Odd that it's being suggested by so many that insta-kill (with saves) spells are overpowered because not everybody has access to them, and yet coming over here and asking for some to have 100x that kind of power. Odd is really an understatement actually...
I don't see this at all. Many people's interest will not be conquest...and even more (even if they are interested on conquest) will not be able to pull it off in a way that in effective...and finally, almost no one, (even if they had the interest and skill) will be able to pay the dedication requirement to make this work. Personally, I have no interest in being forced to be on-line for 18 hours a day to hunt for enough food to feed my warehouse full of pets...nor to grind enough gold to buy my pets food. Nor do I have interest in being on 18 hours a day to support my guild leader's dreams of grandiose with his pet army.
In brief: Are you making your group powerful or are they making you powerful?
I would say neither, you are making your cause powerful.
Then you aren't thinking about balance.
The former is a hugely inflated necro whose overpoweredness is added to the rest of the group's power. The latter is a group effort of power sacrificed to the power of one player.
The former is OP; the latter could be balanced against other similar sized groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In brief: Are you making your group powerful or are they making you powerful?I would say neither, you are making your cause powerful.Then you aren't thinking about balance.
The former is a hugely inflated necro whose overpoweredness is added to the rest of the group's power. The latter is a group effort of power sacrificed to the power of one player.
The former is OP; the latter could be balanced against other similar sized groups.
I agree, I do not see a balance issue here. If something can be done, then two players or two groups can do it...I don't see the problem. I was strictly discussing mechanics I hope are in game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think I'm being misinterpreted. I don't care IF save-or-die abilities are unbalanced. They can be made over or underpowered by other means.
I object to putting an entire fight on one random element. A necromancer with an army could easily be balanced against a fighter with supreme cleave, or a wizard with Acid Fog. Or a siege engineer with a trebuchet. Or a banker with a company of mercenaries. Balance isn't about concepts, it's about numbers, and those numbers can be any value desired.
I object to the concept of "A large portion of this fight will be determined by one random chance."; that is a very distinct concept from "If these players both play perfectly, or with similar levels of skill, they start with an equal chance of winning."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx that's really hard to discuss your answers. Who knows what you mean by whatever vague concept of cost and investment you're talking about.
If it's attainable, you better believe the more hardcore players with more time are going to make sure that extra large gap is there between them and the casual players though, and everyone else would be a shmuck for not doing the same, or for not supporting those who have the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I reread my post and I am not sure what is difficult about it. I don't think we are intending to play the same game. Due to this, I am not particularly interested in debating, as I just said, I am not worried about balance and the such. I don't see the problems as you do evidently, so I will stay out of it. For me, 1 unit of work for 100 hours should equal 100 work hours...even if it is expended over a shorter period of time. I hope the mechanics reflect this. 100 work hours of effect on the game should take 100 work hours to accomplish. Read from that what you will...or don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see UO style taming too, powerful pets, powerful mounts, all that fun stuff, but with some modifications- the more powerful and intelligent the creature, the harder to take, but also harder to control, and the more creatures you have tamed at a time, the harder they are to control except for pack mentalities like wolves or dogs or horses.
The really big, powerful stuff would require maintenance of the taming, so you'd need to keep an eye on your pets, the more your big pets do, the more likely they are to ignore you or turn on you, depending on the animal and depending on their motivations. If you till your pet dragon to kill something it likes to eat, like a nice tasty horse, it's more likely to do it than to kill a not so tasty ogre or another dragon.
So basically the more powerful the pet, the more involved and intensive your time trying to control it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I am not sure that all powerful pets are be all and end all here. There is the opportunity for a pet handling class not to necessarily be strong but fun and useful. I am not sure how many people remember the creature handlers in SWG, they were tough to play but a lot of fun. The pet and character together had the effect of a single combat focused class.
There is the opportunity for pet handling classes to train guard dog pets to defend settlements, beasts of burden to help transport goods quickly, vanity pets such as a dancing bear (probably not as its politically incorrect now so a dancing griffin instead?) its not just about combat or undead minions
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I am not sure that all powerful pets are be all and end all here. There is the opportunity for a pet handling class not to necessarily be strong but fun and useful. I am not sure how many people remember the creature handlers in SWG, they were tough to play but a lot of fun. The pet and character together had the effect of a single combat focused class.
There is the opportunity for pet handling classes to train guard dog pets to defend settlements, beasts of burden to help transport goods quickly, vanity pets such as a dancing bear (probably not as its politically incorrect now so a dancing griffin instead?) its not just about combat or undead minions
I hadn't thought of that. I like this approach too!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, now I so want the ability to forge golems. Maybe a way for crafters to fight? Haha.
Probably not too strong, lest you unite all the crafers to forge an invincible army of iron soldiers.
If we do have these multiple ways to get minions (Taming, building, necromancy, leadership, summoning), be nice if they also had utility versions of some sort too, perhaps. If only so the evil kingdoms can run mines with zombie workers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of mines run by zombie workers. Not sure how the resource gathering is going to work if it will be an Everquest / WoW type model of clicking on resource nodes and looting everything. A more Eve type mining over time from respawning areas, or a SWG surveying and mining approach with a huge variety of resources.
If it is one of the two latter approaches then this will create a whole new role for pets / minions / golems which could work really well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect pets to take up ability slots, that's where they will be balanced, if you have a pet out, you will probably have 4-6 abilities tied to that pet, and it will have some basic things it does on it's own.
Pets should have an upkeep of some sort outside of combat, like food for animal companions. The more I'm thinking about this game the less I am wanting to see 1:1 balance, and more of a group balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love the idea of mines run by zombie workers. Not sure how the resource gathering is going to work if it will be an Everquest / WoW type model of clicking on resource nodes and looting everything. A more Eve type mining over time from respawning areas, or a SWG surveying and mining approach with a huge variety of resources.
If it is one of the two latter approaches then this will create a whole new role for pets / minions / golems which could work really well.
--
here is the opportunity for pet handling classes to train guard dog pets to defend settlements, beasts of burden to help transport goods quickly, vanity pets such as a dancing bear (probably not as its politically incorrect now so a dancing griffin instead?) its not just about combat or undead minions
A resounding YES! Minions/Pets that are useful in different practical ways - not just/only combat drones.
/a feather in your cap
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love the idea of mines run by zombie workers.
That is a truly awesome idea. However, from what we already know of PFO, we won't ever actually see the NPCs that are working our mines, etc. I guess that means you can imagine them as zombies, though :)
The more I'm thinking about this game the less I am wanting to see 1:1 balance, and more of a group balance.
I've been making that point for a long time...
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
|
The more I'm thinking about this game the less I am wanting to see 1:1 balance, and more of a group balance.I've been making that point for a long time...
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.
I fully agree, though I also have to point out that in some cases, (not necessarally on pet classes, assuming the pets do indeed take ability slots or some way to balance them so that a mixed rogue/druid isn't = straight rogue before calculating the pet, then add the pet on top of it).
Some cases things are clearly so much better, IMO if a group of 22 X's would be stronger than a well mixed group with 2 of each role, then clearly something is wrong with X (or one could argue that the other 10 roles are too weak, but point still remains).
IE say if pets were indeed a noted value, that were say, half as good as a character, and had it's own independent skill bar, had a fairly small upkeep cost, and could be revived and returned cheaply, and thus mixed with any class. Well everyone and their grandmother would be stupid not to either start out as druid, or take druid as their second role, and keep the full perks of their main class with the added bonus of the pet.
(again I think that all could be negated assuming the pet has a notable cost to the main abilities of the character)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's also technically possible that EVERY group of 22 X's is stronger than a equal split. The perfectly balanced group also needs a counter...
I do have to disagree that a perfectly balanced group containing all classes necessarily needs a counter. The reason why 22 X's must be counterable is obvious, I don't want to play an X, yet the only way I will be of use in a battle is if I were. While the best group being the group that contains the most diversity, well then there's never anything stopping me from finding a group that would become stronger by having me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers and Druids both have animal companions in the tabletop game, so that's something I think we'd look to have eventually in the online game too. Mechanically I have no idea how it gets implemented, or what you could have as a companion.
Provided there are plenty of alternatives to that play style I hope. I don't really see it being an issue here. But, having played rangers almost exclusively since 2e I can say the beastmaster line is my least favorite when implemented into mmo territory. Overall I think it detracts from my perception of the ideal ranger being muti-faceted, high utility with multiple weapon/armor proficiency (second only to fighters) and plenty of nature based spells for light healing, minor cold and fire destructive capabilities and some control thrown in with use of snares and shackles.
Mechanically it doesn't translate well into mmos from a balance perspective. Typically they are grossly overpowered or highly enefective depending on whichever game mechanics happen to be in place. Being dependent on pets to achieve maximum potential and the subsequent micro managing of what amounts to two active players is not something I personally enjoy. If calling upon animals of the wild for short duration supplemental damage is what it amounts to then I'm all for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
blance would be fine for animal companions if they are limited to ranger and druid, and druid pets are 2x better. They would be archetype skills and receive power from advancing the archetype. They are archetype abilities, like sneak attack, and barbarian rage. If people want strong pets, they should need a strong focus in druid, or the proper cleric domain.
I don't really want to see humanoid NPC companions. Any PF:TT skills that grant you this should be re-worked to provide group benefits, like the Squad Leader in SWG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect pets to take up ability slots, that's where they will be balanced
I actually hope all pets are AI driven. The amount of training and base features of the race (hopefully with some individual randomness thrown in) should dictate the amount of fine tuning one can do with their pet's behaviour. But it should be all about setting if/then situationals. If the situation is not recognized, instinct takes over.
Either way, PCs should not ever have direct control over a pets actions without some magical ability to RC them...which should result in some severe if not outright debilitating debuffs on the PC while they are "operating their RPV". PCs should speak/gesture commands and pets respod as they are able or willing (a dire bear under attack is not likely to "heel", no matter what he PC does without magical effects).
Finally, pets should be available to anyone who trains the necessary skills and does the work to acquire/train/maintain them.
I don't really want to see humanoid NPC companions. Any PF:TT skills that grant you this should be re-worked to provide group benefits, like the Squad Leader in SWG.
Brilliant!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith, pets should respond to commands they've been trained to respond to.
I think this should be true within limits, I do not think a raging dire bear would respond to "heel" command while being actively hit. I just do not see it as a possibility with any amount of training...without magic. I also think the ranger druid should actually have to say/gesture as the animal is trained.
Using the "sit" command on my dog would involve "/say Spike sit" not hitting a button on my UI that alternately corresponds to my sword feign skill. Why would not I be able to use my sword while my pet is out? They can also be trained to react to custom emotes for times when speech is not possible.
Of course, macros can be made to shortcut all these commands, but the in game effects would be identical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the sake of balance I think having a pet should consume some kind of slot. Passive slots, a weapons slot, refresh slots. Something that balances out the fact you have a creature wish grants you extra damage and abilities. It might even make sense to have it so that certain pets consume more slots than others. So you can have a wolf pet that only takes up a couple slots, and a dire bear that takes up a whole weapon slot a couple passives and a refresh.
Again don't get hung up on the details. Just the general idea.
It would be very cool to have pets of varying power where one might just be a falcon on your shoulder that does nothing but scout for you and takes a utility slot. And the other is a giant man eating monster and all your character's abilities are tied up in controlling this thing.
This could even allow for multiple pets. Say the hunter on the horse with a pack of wolves and a falcon on his shoulder.
I see a lot of possibilities here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not feel a need for synchronic balance. If I have done months of preparation for a battle, I should have a significant advantage over a quickly thrown together force, even of equivalent size. This illustrates diachronic balance, my months of preparation equals 500 hours of work collectively, my enemies can gather 100 soldiers, equating to 100 hours of work for a single battle, with everything else equal, my preparations should allow the battle to be won 5 to 1.
Of course, I am glossing over the fact that there should be some degradation in effectiveness of preparations, and no amount of preparation will defeat good leadership, etc. My example is over simplified, but intended to illustrate a point. Since pets should require training/unkeep effort, that should be viewed as a form of preparation. The greater a bonus a pet offers, the more pre-effort required to get that bonus. That is where you find your balance.
Which brings up a good point, it seems to favour those who have more time to play...so to facilitate the claimed goals of the game, lets let pets effectively have multiple owners. They can be grown and trained by a community. Individuals in that community can draw upon their communities pets. This should almost always trump the effort put in my a single individual, but does not necessarily disallow any individual from making whatever private effort they want.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As long as you recognize that once you fight that battle, your 500 hours of preparation are over, and it will take you another 500 hours to rebuild them. (Worst-case scenario; expect to be able to retain almost all of the effort when you soundly trounce the opponent.)
Meanwhile, the 100-peasant army takes only a day or so to build up to the point where they were, and launch another wave.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In another thread, Ryan talks about players gaining the services of a dragon...
In that context, let's talk about the dragon thing.
Getting a dragon into a combat should be heck of a lot of work, and not something that a single character could likely accomplish. One path might be finding a dragon's lair, capturing a dragon egg, building a dragon egg hatching structure, bringing the egg through to hatching, keeping a baby dragon alive, learning how to train that dragon, bonding that dragon with one or more characters, keeping a juvenile dragon alive, learning how to train the dragon with combat-useful abilities, keeping an adult dragon alive, getting the dragon into a combat zone, and directing it successfully amidst the chaos and confusion of a battlefield.
That might represent months or years of effort by dozens of people. Having exerted that effort, the reward would be a pretty damn effective weapon system. The reward is that you're...
So looking at this, I just see pets as another type of gear or structure.
At the high end it's a big deal. People will be shelling out a lot of money and spending a lot of time to get a dragon ally, and if the dragon is slain, then it is going to be a big hit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The trick is how to make lower-end pets worthwhile as more than just cannon fodder.
I get that a necromancer might build an army of zombies or skeletons and just send them out to die, but a druid, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard might be more concerned for the well-being of their companions/familiars than that.
I have been thinking about this for a while (no, really... Far longer than I have any reason to) and I have an idea, but it pretty much transforms the pets into magic items with an upkeep that provide different types of buffs for the players.
In this regard, those pets would be clearly different from other types of fodder that players may wish to exploit, no matter how impressive that fodder may be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@sparrow: I love that eg that Ryan provides: But in terms of the latest Tomahawk Missle system ie. And I agree with you, let's think about the distinction of such high/highest-end "pets" and the lower-end more day-to-day varieties.
One type of pet that is not always slotted as a pet is The Mount. A prime variety would be Horses. In human history, horses have been working with humans: Transport; War; Communication; Status; Trade etc.
I was thinking what about a "Livery*" for horse-breeding and selling: With upkeep costs of horses and other horse-keeping skills to be able to use horses? And various horse-riding training skills for effectiveness either of use or of upkeep?
*Definition: 4.
a. The boarding and care of horses for a fee.
b. The hiring out of horses and carriages.
c. A livery stable.
Of course there could be your pets more associated with combat, spying, trade (eg pack animals/carriage pulling beasts) etc? And as mumbles mentions above eg guard dogs requiring kennels equivalent to a livery/horse-breeding areas and so on?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not feel a need for synchronic balance. If I have done months of preparation for a battle, I should have a significant advantage over a quickly thrown together force, even of equivalent size. This illustrates diachronic balance, my months of preparation equals 500 hours of work collectively, my enemies can gather 100 soldiers, equating to 100 hours of work for a single battle, with everything else equal, my preparations should allow the battle to be won 5 to 1.
I suppose I may be thinking less from the idea of tamed animals and more from the idea of animal companions. In a game with Open World PVP making it require considerable time to retrain a fallen animal companion or familiar is just cruel to the classes who use them. I think of animal companions as something always at your side, not something you are afraid to bring out because if you die in PVP it will take you three hours or even a week to train it back up.
The balance could be, animal companions always come back at full strength and are easy to regain when they die, but consume ability slots. Trained animals take no slots, but require considerable training time/investment.
It's the difference between your faithful wolf companion and the hounds of war you only pull out for a major battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game with Open World PVP making it require considerable time to retrain a fallen animal companion or familiar is just cruel to the classes who use them.
This is exactly what I would like to see. But your claim of cruelty is assuming these classes are not viable without their companions...and that the act of catching and training an animal is not the "fun content" the person who chose that class signed up for. I would hope for the opposite to be true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game with Open World PVP making it require considerable time to retrain a fallen animal companion or familiar is just cruel to the classes who use them.This is exactly what I would like to see. But your claim of cruelty is assuming these classes are not viable without their companions...and that the act of catching and training an animal is not the "fun content" the person who chose that class signed up for. I would hope for the opposite to be true.
No offense but I think this is one of those instances where it is apparent you have no experience with Open World PVP games.
When actively avoiding PVP you should expect to die about every two hours on average. When actively seeking it you should expect to die on average every thirty minutes if you have a kill:death ratio slightly higher than 1:1 not counting targets with no reasonable chance of winning against you. (AKA if you aren't hunting newbs) This is going by Darkfall/Mortal Online rates since EVE allows you to see if there are hostile in your system, drastically reducing those rates.
Given that, if animal companions require any significant training time they will not be used outside anything but major battles except by... idiots to put it bluntly.
I am all for a system where you can train up some war hounds or other powerful allies, for usage in situations where you are willing to trade a major investment for a decent edge in battle, but I want animal companions to be commonplace for the classes that have them. Not a once a week or even month kind of thing.
In the P&P getting a new companion is significant but if your character dies... it's dead. Death will be insignificant for players in PFO so it should be for a class feature as major as animal companions as well.
I have the feeling you'll agree with me if you end up lasting very long in this game.
What about humanoid slaves, you know, for the villainous characters?
Having slaves or trying to take new ones usually gets you killed in the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
patronizing stuff...And...what is possible here is limited by what exists elsewhere? I sure hope not. If PfO is those games you listed...well if I wanted to play them I would go do so.
Yes. Yes it is "limited" by the features it is implementing that are exactly the same as those other games.
It will not be those games in a lot of important ways but unless you spend all your time hiding inside areas where you can't be attacked you can expect to die a lot. Whether you are a good PVPer or not. And I don't suppose animal companions will be of much use to you in those areas as you won't likely be doing much combat inside then.
But this game will not be as peaceful as you seem to think. I don't think a lot of people here understand that the developers will not be banning bandits, evil aligned players and organizations, and power hungry war-mongers. Just griefers.
There will be people out there who will kill you just because they can, some who will kill you for anything of value, and if your organization is powerful enough to offer much protection it will also have enemies.
Honestly before you act like I'm being so unreasonable can you tell me you've spent more than 24 hours on any MMO where there were no restrictions on who you could kill? Because I have spent thousands of hours on multiple such games like: Freelancer, Darkfall, Xsyon, EVE, and Mortal Online. And I have been killed, and killed people thousands and thousands of times. No Open World PVP game is a walk in the park. Ever.