Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 365 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:27 AM PDT

    As always, this is a personal opinion.

    When Brad posted the first details regarding pets a couple of days ago, i responded by reminding him that pets need to be a choice and not a forced mechanic, as that would inevitably turn all regular classes into, effectively? Pet classes. PC walks, pet walks by him. Runs? It runs by him.

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

    Two problems here and honest to God, it saddens me to find them, both in terms of the logic behind all this and in terms of the response itself:

    -1: Dilluting roles and archetypes: Have pets. Have collections. In abundance too. Have us be capable of not having one pet out, but two. Maybe three. Whatever. But do NOT force us, all of us, to have them. Not everyone likes pet classes. Even if, like you said Brad, 'most of us' like pet classes, that's still not ALL of us. A rogue is a rogue is a rogue. I wouldn't even consider making one if i got to have x pets (even worse if in plural) all the time with him. Same with so many other classes, but i believe the point is evident. 

    If they like pets, they can have them. As fluff. Fun. Collecting. Tertiary activity involving. Not as beneficiary/bonus providing systems. Then everyone has to have them. Then everyone is a pet class.

    - 2: Faux choices: Twenty years later, and i am still treated like i am a twelve year old. The, to quote Brad again, "you can choose not to have a pet although that will be affect you negatively" comment? That's not a choice man. It is a forced condition. We all know if this is to be the case with Pantheon, everyone will have pets out. Like it or not. Pseudo alternatives such as what you stated to me are.. not good. Personally, i'd say insulting, but let us stick to not good. Give us real choice, or no choice at all. Because the above is not a choice.

    I am pro collectibles, fluff, vanity pets. The more the merrier. But skip the benefits please, skip forcing everyone to have one out, skip dilluting the archetypes. If one wants combat-related pets, there's always hunters, necros, maybe coercers if done right. The rest of us pick other classes for a damn reason. Do not eliminate it.

    Am really baffled that VR even considered this, let alone (apparently) decided for it....


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 6, 2016 7:36 AM PDT
    • 820 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:39 AM PDT

    Aenra said:

    As always, this is a personal opinion.

    When Brad posted the first details regarding pets a couple of days ago, i responded by reminding him that pets need to be a choice and not a forced mechanic, as that would inevitably turn all regular classes into, effectively? Pet classes. PC walks, pet walks by him. Runs? It runs by him.

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

    Two problems here and honest to God, it saddens me to find them, both in terms of the logic behind all this and in terms of the response itself:

    -1: Dilluting roles and archetypes: Have pets. Have collections. In abundance too. Have us be capable of not having one pet out, but two. Maybe three. Whatever. But do NOT force us, all of us, to have them. Not everyone likes pet classes. Even if, like you said Brad, 'most of us' like pet classes, that's still not ALL of us. A rogue is a rogue is a rogue. I wouldn't even consider making one if i got to have x pets (even worse if in plural) all the time with him. Same with so many other classes, but i believe the point is evident. 

    If they like pets, they can have them. As fluff. Fun. Collecting. Tertiary activity involving. Not as beneficiary/bonus providing systems. Then everyone has to have them. Then everyone is a pet class.

    - 2: Faux choices: Twenty years later, and i am still treated like i am a twelve year old. The, to quote Brad again, "you can choose not to have a pet although that will be affect you negatively" comment? That's not a choice man. It is a forced condition. We all know if this is to be the case with Pantheon, everyone will have pets out. Like it or not. Pseudo alternatives such as what you stated to me are.. not good. Personally, i'd say insulting, but let us stick to not good. Give us real choice, or no choice at all. Because the above is not a choice.

    I am pro collectibles, fluff, vanity pets. The more the merrier. But skip the benefits please, skip forcing everyone to have one out, skip dilluting the archetypes. If one wants combat-related pets, there's always hunters, necros, maybe coercers if done right. The rest of us pick other classes for a damn reason. Do not eliminate it.

    Am really baffled that VR even considered this, let alone (apparently) decided for it....

    I hate to say it, but my initial reaction here is to agree with the above.

    I'm reserving complete judgement until we hear more about this, but I would stress one thing that OP said, "That's not a choice ... That's a forced condition".

    Here's hoping we are collectively mis-interpreting things.

    • 1211 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:43 AM PDT

    Want a horse mount? 
    That's a pet. 

    Want a boat? 
    That's a pet. 

     Will you be at a disadvantage if you choose not to get these? Yes. 

    Could that be the limit to the types of disadvantages Brad mentioned? Possibly. 


    This post was edited by Feyshtey at June 6, 2016 7:44 AM PDT
    • 1541 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:43 AM PDT

    I see where you are coming from. I guess if pets bestow a benefit on a player and that player decides not to use a pet they will be at a disadvantage. On that point you are perfectly correct but I don't see the idea as bad I just don't think it was explained that well. Maybe pets could mean all sorts of things. What if a mount was conisdered a pet for instance? It would give you a benefit for sure but you wouldn't need it out all the time just when you are travelling.

    Until we have some more information on the types of pets that they are considering I think it is a bit premature to be saying that the idea sucks. We were only given a very brief overview of the idea. Furthermore given what they have said in the game tenets I doubt they are going to do anything that dilutes player classes down. Perhaps pets will be class restricted so only certain classes can use certain pets. That would mean that classes would keep their unique feeling while still having pets. Maybe clerics are the only class that can have a pet that increases healing efficiency for instance?

    I'm prepared to just wait and see what comes of this. Personally I find it quite an interesting idea and it is certainly unique. Time will tell I suppose.

    • 820 posts
    June 6, 2016 7:48 AM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    Want a horse mount? 
    That's a pet. 

    Want a boat? 
    That's a pet. 

     Will you be at a disadvantage if you choose not to get these? Yes. 

    Could that be the limit to the types of disadvantages Brad mentioned? Possibly. 

    Fey, I am hoping you are 100% correct here, but in a crowd of MMO'ers that all speak the same MMO language, the lingo is fairly clear. What you're referring to are Mounts, and I can't recall Mounts being classified as Pets in universal MMO-speak.

    But that's just semantics, I suppose. Again, I for one am hoping you are right.

    • 1211 posts
    June 6, 2016 8:01 AM PDT

    Tralyan said:

    Fey, I am hoping you are 100% correct here, but in a crowd of MMO'ers that all speak the same MMO language, the lingo is fairly clear. What you're referring to are Mounts, and I can't recall Mounts being classified as Pets in universal MMO-speak.

    But that's just semantics, I suppose. Again, I for one am hoping you are right.

    A significant portion of Brad's post responding directly about pets was specifically focused on travel. Two of the five categories (Vehicles and Flying Mounts) were wholly dedicated to it, and another (Pets and their ability to possess/contain Items) was notably about how your vehicles (which are pets) can store items and in some cases equip them. Brad gave a specific example with "...a mount like a horse may have slots for a saddle, saddlebags, horseshoes, etc ". 

    "Pet" in this context is just a game design construct. It's a method to deliver capabilities. It does not inherently mean (and it is not in fact suggested anywhere in Brad's post) that every class is going to have any combat-oriented pet. 

    • 193 posts
    June 6, 2016 9:39 AM PDT

    Let's just wait and see how it turns out.


    This post was edited by Thanakos at June 7, 2016 6:06 AM PDT
    • 1016 posts
    June 6, 2016 9:44 AM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    Tralyan said:

    Fey, I am hoping you are 100% correct here, but in a crowd of MMO'ers that all speak the same MMO language, the lingo is fairly clear. What you're referring to are Mounts, and I can't recall Mounts being classified as Pets in universal MMO-speak.

    But that's just semantics, I suppose. Again, I for one am hoping you are right.

    A significant portion of Brad's post responding directly about pets was specifically focused on travel. Two of the five categories (Vehicles and Flying Mounts) were wholly dedicated to it, and another (Pets and their ability to possess/contain Items) was notably about how your vehicles (which are pets) can store items and in some cases equip them. Brad gave a specific example with "...a mount like a horse may have slots for a saddle, saddlebags, horseshoes, etc ". 

    "Pet" in this context is just a game design construct. It's a method to deliver capabilities. It does not inherently mean (and it is not in fact suggested anywhere in Brad's post) that every class is going to have any combat-oriented pet. 

     

    I think this is something that has been blown out of proportion.   Feyshtey got it right on what Brad had responded too.   There is a ton of dynamics that go into the pets and mounts in these games.   The ability for the VR to make every single person happy with design decision is totally unrealistic.   I am sure as the game gets closer to “ALPHA” we may understand more about what they are trying to achieve. With any game comes balance so we are a long way from knowing the details of how that may impact characters with or without pets. Vehicles fall into the same category.

     

    Good post Fey for injecting some level ground.

     

    Ox

    I think this was a something that has gotten blown way out of

    • 419 posts
    June 6, 2016 9:59 AM PDT

    Don't leave its hanging,Ox! Blown way out of what?!

    I know what I would add there.  Proportion. Proportion its the word I think you were looking for. :)

    If so, I agree. 

    • 1016 posts
    June 6, 2016 10:09 AM PDT

    yeah my bad...spell check is not my friend on that one...Thanks Mal.

    • 176 posts
    June 6, 2016 10:40 AM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    Tralyan said:

    Fey, I am hoping you are 100% correct here, but in a crowd of MMO'ers that all speak the same MMO language, the lingo is fairly clear. What you're referring to are Mounts, and I can't recall Mounts being classified as Pets in universal MMO-speak.

    But that's just semantics, I suppose. Again, I for one am hoping you are right.

    A significant portion of Brad's post responding directly about pets was specifically focused on travel. Two of the five categories (Vehicles and Flying Mounts) were wholly dedicated to it, and another (Pets and their ability to possess/contain Items) was notably about how your vehicles (which are pets) can store items and in some cases equip them. Brad gave a specific example with "...a mount like a horse may have slots for a saddle, saddlebags, horseshoes, etc ". 

    "Pet" in this context is just a game design construct. It's a method to deliver capabilities. It does not inherently mean (and it is not in fact suggested anywhere in Brad's post) that every class is going to have any combat-oriented pet. 

    This+

     

    • 17 posts
    June 6, 2016 10:48 AM PDT

    Aenra said:

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

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

    • 820 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:02 AM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    Tralyan said:

    Fey, I am hoping you are 100% correct here, but in a crowd of MMO'ers that all speak the same MMO language, the lingo is fairly clear. What you're referring to are Mounts, and I can't recall Mounts being classified as Pets in universal MMO-speak.

    But that's just semantics, I suppose. Again, I for one am hoping you are right.

    A significant portion of Brad's post responding directly about pets was specifically focused on travel. Two of the five categories (Vehicles and Flying Mounts) were wholly dedicated to it, and another (Pets and their ability to possess/contain Items) was notably about how your vehicles (which are pets) can store items and in some cases equip them. Brad gave a specific example with "...a mount like a horse may have slots for a saddle, saddlebags, horseshoes, etc ". 

    "Pet" in this context is just a game design construct. It's a method to deliver capabilities. It does not inherently mean (and it is not in fact suggested anywhere in Brad's post) that every class is going to have any combat-oriented pet. 

    What you say makes sense, and I truly hope that's the case.

    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:03 AM PDT

    i have never seen mounts of any sort referred to as 'pets' before that post, so yeah  not having a 'mount pet' would be a disadvantage if trying to keep up with a group that is riding away if you choose not to use it.

     

    i didnt see anything, however, that would lead us to believe that everyone couldnt have some sort of damage dealing pet if they chose to (just an example).  he described multiple pets, with multiple abilites, some comabt some not, some killable some not.it seems unlikely as well that we can all give our outdated gear to our pet if we couldnt all have a combat pet of a sort.  heh, maybe our 'retired' progeny characters can be our pet, that would be cool.  additionally, pets are aquired 'from vendors, drops, and quests'...what is to stop anyone, of ANY class, from doing that querst for the damage dealing War Wolf?  c'mon, we all know what this is and what it will be, lets not try to delude ourselves.

     

    get ready for everyone in a raid, dungeon group, xp group, etc., to have their damage dealing pets at the ready, or 'gtfo'.


    This post was edited by werzul at June 6, 2016 11:09 AM PDT
    • 365 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:09 AM PDT

    Thanks for your polite responses for starters :)

    i) i've read my comment and Brad's response yet again; i still think i grasped the implications accurately. It is always about the context, granted, but my comment's context was very clear and had nothing to do with mounts/travel. If anything, i'd like to think i am precise enough so as not to leave much room for misunderstandings.

    ii) i distinctly commented on the consequences of ALL classes having ''forced'' pets, i dinstinctly mentioned the words ''classes'' and ''pets'' multiple times, i moved on provide examples so as for my thinking to be made clear. I fail to see how i could have been misunderstood. Just as i fail to see how, in light of the above, the response i was given was anything other than what it really was. A response about classes and active pets.

     

    This was not about mounts, nor was Brad's reply. I just cannot see it. Hopefuly i get proven wrong :)

    edit: i would be more curious to see whether you find this as alarming as i do (or not); fluff and vanity is one thing, what has been hinted here goes far beyond that..


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 6, 2016 11:14 AM PDT
    • 316 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:25 AM PDT

    Yes don`t always try and over analize Statements given by the Team VR and try and see hidden messages between the Lines! Nothing is also set in stone as Brad stated. These System even if it was like the OP predicted were to be true they will still go through initial testing and if the majority of feedback is against the System in play it will be changed.

    It is way to early to go this far and over speculate. But at the same time its good to be brought up at this point in time and is a valid concern. Just don`t take this on chain-train and blow it out of proportion because it is not the time.

     

    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:51 AM PDT

    @yarnila i dont think anyone is reading between the lines. brad said everyone can have pets, of there are all sorts... it seems logical that 'anyone' can have any kind of pet, if they so choose.

    when the lead game designer says 'pantheon will be a group based game.' we believe it without any sort of twisting of words - no one says maybe this is soloable, maybe that is, etc...we accept it is truth.

     

    why not take at face value when he says that everyone will have pets, of all sorts, they are a big part of the game,  and NOT using a pet will put one at a disadvantage?

     

     

    edit" btw love the show


    This post was edited by werzul at June 6, 2016 11:51 AM PDT
    • 16 posts
    June 6, 2016 11:58 AM PDT

    Yeah Im strongly against pets being a real mechanic that gives you advantages over others without pet. Im okay with pets being a cosmetic thing with no bonuses (expect for classes that would use "real" pets for their advantage as mechanic for the class, example being summoner with a summoned creature?)

    • 295 posts
    June 6, 2016 12:32 PM PDT

    I want my pet horse to travel. I want my summoned cleric hammer pet. I want the mage class to have their pets. I want the shaman to have their pet wolf. I want the enchanter to temporarily control a mob as a pet. All these and more were in EQ1. I hope it continues here.

    • 93 posts
    June 6, 2016 1:04 PM PDT

    Agree.  It kinda feels like a possible red flag to me.  Hopefully it just was not explained well.   Please dont homogenize the Summoner utility by giving everyone pets (of any caliber) unless they are noncombat frill only.  If it's a patch just to make it easier to solo then please rethink it.  That would make them nothing more than free mercenaries and they were not the answer for EQ.


    This post was edited by ArchMageSalamar at June 6, 2016 1:05 PM PDT
    • 581 posts
    June 6, 2016 1:06 PM PDT

    Mounts/vehicles having storage space, sure. Combat pets in game for all classes, no. Pets that give stat boosts and can hold inventory for you, no. 

    Pets can be a fun fluff collection thing but even mentioned the word required or in Brad's statement, you can opt to not use them but you would be at a disadvantage (which makes them required), is a bad idea. While a lot of people do enjoy pets there are just as many that don't care about them at all. If this becomes a must have thing then it may as well be just another inventory slot to fill. 

    To make sure I am not misunderstood here .. class pets good, WoW/BDO type fluff pets that give bonuses/inventory bad. My comment has zero to do with any mounts or vehicles. I am only focusing on the part of the statement where Brad said we would be at a disadvantage not having the pets. That, for any min maxer, means it's required and you will be required to have the right pets leveled fully for every situation. Just sounds like you want us to have another massive timesink to deal with while grinding gear/levels.

    • 1211 posts
    June 6, 2016 1:43 PM PDT

    @Aenra : To answer your last question first , I am NOT supportive of  every person having  multiple pets flapping/growling/screeching/moo'ing/whatever-ing everywhere you go. Not remotely, and it would make me come out of my skin to see it. I am a proponent of pet classes, however; I generally play a Necromancer when able. I love playing a pet class, and I'm not interested in the uniqueness of them being diluted by everyone having a combat pet. I personally feel that there's an art to playing a pet class well, and I always embrace a class design that requires a degree of finesse to play that class well. I don't really even like vanity pets. Even as a lover of pet classes, I usually keep a vanity pet visible for about an hour and then you'll never see it with me again. It's just clutter and fluff that I find unncesary and frankly distracting. I would be deeply disappointed if what you fear were a reality in the design, to the point where I may be completely turned off of the game.

    @Aenra So, imagine this scenario and answer directly for me : If a "pet" is an item in inventory (and Brad's post specifically and repeatedly mentions that they can be), and this "pet" is a crow, and you click on this "pet" and a crow manifests as a game model. Everyone else can see it fly off and around the area for 30 seconds. In the meantime you see the area as if thru the crow's eyes. And then the "pet" returns to you and vanishes.
    Is this an acceptable game mechanic?
    Does this water down a Necromancer with a skeleton pet?
    Does it create a clutter of pets constantly milling around? 
    Does it meet the criteria Brad explained of a pet that everyone might have access to, that is non-combat, but that you might be at a disadvantage if you decline to use? 

     

    I just reread Brad's initial post offering information about pets, your reply to it and Brad's reply to you, and I'm still not seeing where you're getting your concerns. 

    HE led with the fact that "Pets" encompasses much more than just combat pets, or just vanity pets or just vehicles. It is all those things. You replied that you were concerned about there being too many pets, and he replied to that to reiterate that "Pets" were a big part of Pantheon; They are combat pets, AND vanity pets AND vehicle pets. We move forward from his initial post with his definition of pets in mind, not yours. 

    In a very real way, his defintion of pets (which came before your post narrowing the scope of "pets" to something else) has been used and not over-used in many games. And yes, you were concerned about all classes having pets.... But by Brad's definition (which, again, came before your post), a mount is a pet. A boat is a pet. All classes would certainly have access to these pets, and any player would be at a disadvantage if they didnt use them. 

     

     

     

    • 1211 posts
    June 6, 2016 1:54 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    @yarnila i dont think anyone is reading between the lines. brad said everyone can have pets, of there are all sorts... it seems logical that 'anyone' can have any kind of pet, if they so choose.

    when the lead game designer says 'pantheon will be a group based game.' we believe it without any sort of twisting of words - no one says maybe this is soloable, maybe that is, etc...we accept it is truth.

    why not take at face value when he says that everyone will have pets, of all sorts, they are a big part of the game,  and NOT using a pet will put one at a disadvantage?

    edit" btw love the show

    Please provide a quote that says every class can have every pet. That doesnt exist in that post, or anywhere that I'm aware of. You are projecting a fear into the statements. The closest it comes is that certain pet types would be available to all races and/or classes, the most obvious (and specifically pointed out) example of this would be vehicles. 

    I am taking precisely what was stated at face value, and not one ounce more. And that's sort of the whole point in this whole conversation. 

    • 1007 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:02 PM PDT
    @Feyshtey,

    I don't think Aenra is reading too much into it or misinterpreting what was written when there is a section on persistent pets which describes damage dealing pets, etc. that level up with the player and a completely different section on vehicles which are described are a subset of persistent pets.

    And, Brad makes a point to say Transient pets would be used mainly by the summoner (but not only), which would indicate that persistent pets would be used more by other non pet classes.

    Like I set in the pet thread, this makes me think more of mercenaries and if I was a summoner whose pet poofed due to it being transient - it does diminish the class a bit in addition to not being a fan of mercenary type features.

    It's good to see behind the curtain, but, I do think more clarification is needed as others have stated - we are all just speculating now, and as previously stated, will reserve further judgement until I know more.
    • 195 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:18 PM PDT

    I have to disagree with the some of the post here saying pets give classes advantages. I go back to my roots and that was EverQuest. Being a mage I had pets that helped me along as I was a squishy and needed something between me and the mob.

    My pet helped a little..... but if I made a mistake my pet would die then I would be next on the mobs menu. Later on the pets helped with the group and burned down the mobs, they could be helpful but also a hindrance.

    If you were a pet class you needed very good control and knew when to get your pet out of the way....when it came to aspects of combat. I think there is way to much over speculation on the pet situation. All classes can have pets and they can be cosmetic and have nothing to do with combat or benefits.

    I would like to see the classic EverQuest style of game play as there was a challenge to playing pet classes. I think everyone needs to take a step back and look at the whole picture. The problem is folks get wrapped around the axel about one mechanic of game play and they should look at all the aspects of game play as we try to do on Voices of Terminus.

    There is going to be a careful balancing act to make combat fun and challenging for all classes. EverQuest is still going after 18 years and brad was the main guy along with the other members on the team.

    Everyone needs to take step back clam down don't get stuck on the mechanics and rip things apart when we haven't even played the game in testing. There will be a lot to say when we all get to Alpha and see what the team has come up with.

    I believe we all need to realize these guys just started getting a lot accomplished as funding has been increasing and team members have been added. So give them all a chance to bring us something worthy to test play and they will take our feedback and use it to improve upon.

    Attacking the developers when they are working hard to bring you a playable Alpha is not the solution or the method to help motivate them along. Use your experiences, facts to help back your opinion, using analyzing of someone's post to formulate a opinion or solution without enough factual evidence is doing no justice to you or any of the other members of the community.

    Dal steps off his soap box and bows.