"Combat pets"

...keeps popping up within the AoC community since the recent interview that Steven gave.

At some point in L2 we all rolled around with combat wolves (the animal that captivates me most in reality) for the dps they added.

We shared xp with our pet wolves (which we had to quest, lv up and gear for) but all in all they made progress faster. And they were EVERYWHERE.

I disagree with combat pets, they steal focus from all classes and they make everybody a summoner.
They are visual clutter.
They are not a new gameplay experience. They are mandatory meta annoyance.

Will it impact negatively animal husbabdry sooo much? I dont think so.

I say we give our feedback.

Why do you like combat pets?
Why dont you like them?
What are the benefits to the game?
What negatives do they bring?
What parameters would make then acceptable IF you dont like them.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Korela

+1
I don't like combat pets for the same reason I don't like the Summoner archetype - it helps and even encourages solo gameplay in group-based game.

Songcaller

I don't know. I do love combat pets but I don't like how we become reliant on combat pets too.

Ruerik

Also not a fan of combat pets for everything said here.

Instead I would rather see 'summons', where you cast the spell, and then some creature shows up, does damage or healing or something for a few seconds, and leaves.

George_Black

Korela wrote: »

+1
I don't like combat pets for the same reason I don't like the Summoner archetype - it helps and even encourages solo gameplay in group-based game.

I always thought of summoners as people that dont like friends.

George_Black

Taerrik wrote: »

Also not a fan of combat pets for everything said here.

Instead I would rather see 'summons', where you cast the spell, and then some creature shows up, does damage or healing or something for a few seconds, and leaves.

That seems like class identity.

novercalis

Korela wrote: »

+1
I don't like combat pets for the same reason I don't like the Summoner archetype - it helps and even encourages solo gameplay in group-based game.

it's doable - just dont make the pets to OP to allow solo gameplay.

See original Mages and Enchanters in EQ (not P99 - wasnt true to classic). Necro were the only ones capable of solo'ing but that didnt happen till way later, when everything became min/max number crunching - a specific path opened up to allow necro the ability to solo... and I am okay with that type of aspect. But in general - you can make pets work w/o being OP enough to allow single play.

Pets cant taunt, EVER. Can be killed decently quick, low AC and/or HP. Allow them to have decent, above avg DPS output - sure. but no tanking/taunting capabilities. They can aggro and will probably die real quick.

Ludullu

I like them cause I like pets. And if I'm gonna have a pet follow me around, it might as well fight too.

The benefit is having another target for your opponent to kill/cc and another source of dmg in case you get CCed.

Do agree that they can add visual clutter, but with them taking a part of your char's power I don't really know how many people would want to have them. L2's wolves were cool cause they were their own power source. Yes, they needed your xp and money, but it was worth it because it was a direct increase in your overall power value. In Ashes it won't be (or at least doesn't seem to be).

And if only some people bring pets then the clutter is not as impactful either.

Voirak

I like pets. I think they can add interesting options. I agree that they shouldnt be too powerful, so that they dont interfere with role allocation of classes too much. If there are enough viable pets, that work in a passive way, e.g. toggled auras or links with players, then it could perhaps remedy some of the issues mentioned above.

Also I hope pets won't be too huge for obvious reasons.

However i understand that in PvP having to carry some pet around for minor dps-increase that dies easily, can be very annoying. Maybe there could be some pets, that only sourround the players like ghosts and help occasionally (with attacks, buffs/debuffs or w/e they do) but aren't physically quite there and therefore can't be killed? So that they work like some additional skiils, that you can cast independently from your actual character. just a suggestion.

Bottom line: I like pets. But I understand why some take issues with them.

Songcaller

I prefer the swg approach to pets but swg didn't have a summoner class.

Taleof2Cities

Although it's not an archetype I'm interested in playing, I agree with most of the replies in this thread.

Summoners shouldn't lose their identity.

I'm fine with permanent pets as long as the archetype is balanced with the rest of the archetypes.

All that said, I know George's favorite combat pets are the sorcerer pets in ESO ...

George_Black

Now, that's a lie.

3Earthling3

I agree with everything said by OP. My main reasons for not liking combat pets is balance and screen clutter. Even though it’s said that pets will take part of your dps as their own, it is still a second target people will have to focus on. So it pretty much adds HP to the person with the pet. So if I’m fighting someone with a pet it makes sense for me to have a pet for that added second source of HP/focus. This makes me believe pets will be meta and there is really no way around everyone running them. Now circle back to screen clutter from everyone having them.

George_Black

The big losers of combat pets are all the aggressive classes, whilst tanks and supports benefit unfairly.

Unless we want to steal everything from summoners and introduce a variety of combat pets, like tank pets, healing pets, etc, to improve aggressive classes.

Depraved

i dont see how summoners or pets encourage solo gameplay

Songcaller

Depraved wrote: »

i dont see how summoners or pets encourage solo gameplay

Usually because the ai is gimped against multiple targets. Its why hunter was the fastest solo leveller in wow for ages 👌

Okeydoke

I don't like to call for cuts to anything that others might be looking forward to.

But yeah...combat pets. If it was my game, it never even would have come up in mundane design conversation.

Screen clutter.

George_Black

Or if people want this variety so badly, combat pets should be killable by even non-combatants.
Bypass the pvp systems.

Have them, but defend them if you want them.

Waste the time to develop them for a small benefit, but let them fall victims to circumstances (raiding, grinding, pvping).

Mag7spy

Think a good way on approaching this is if you have a full group 8/8 with no spare spots you can't summon a combat pet. This was done in swtor with your crew only taking up spare slots if you didn't have a full party.

That way for the most part it won't be a clutter nor add more targets than normal. while allowing people without as many people to have their pets help with their content and fun for more solo / small group of players.

Win win for everyone.

Veeshan

Neurath wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

i dont see how summoners or pets encourage solo gameplay

Usually because the ai is gimped against multiple targets. Its why hunter was the fastest solo leveller in wow for ages 👌

alot of that came down to having 0 down time between fights since pet healed faster than eating or drinking and you could typicaly just aa a mob and use heal pet and regen ur mana back during the fight so u never had to stop :P

I also think outside of pet classes there needs to be a trade off for using a pet other wise everyon will be using combat pets and not using one is not viable :P

Tyranthraxus

I could go either way, on them.

Never was a fan of combat pets in other games - but as long as it's lateral and doesn't make NOT having one a fatal personal lacking, then yours truly has no objection.

Child Item