Pets already DO something. They follow you and look insanely cute. That's all anyone needs them to do.
Any other mechanics would just create a forced need to have pets with you at all times. If I don't wanna have a pet with me, for any reason ranging from RP to screen clutter, I shouldn't be deprived of auto-loot if that were to be a thing.
Just to reiterate, pets do have useful mechanics. You can develop them as allies in combat. Any character can do that.
To prevent players from having a “forced need”, you have to sacrifice your limited skill points to develop a pet into something useful. Steven calls it horizontal, rather than vertical progression. A combat pet won’t make you better, it just gives you a different way to fight. But having one means giving up skills and/or not having your skills developed as high.
So remember, there will be useful pets, but you can safely ignore them and won’t be any worse off for it.
From what has been announced in the past, those battle companions won't be pets, but mounts. Which will be breedable and you can eugenics your way into getting the best stats and skills for your battle-mount.
Yeah, this game seems to have three different types of pets.
The first are cosmetic pets. They have no function.
Then there are "mounts". These are mounts that players ride, mules to carry more stuff, pack animals to pull caravans and battle companions. The majority of these are from animal husbandry.
The third type are summoner pets. These are the pets that you put skill points in to improving.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
From what has been announced in the past, those battle companions won't be pets, but mounts. Which will be breedable and you can eugenics your way into getting the best stats and skills for your battle-mount.
Steven has talked about combat pets, with no mention of them being mounts. Here are his words:
“Combat pets, which can be acquired by any archetype- and this is essentially an item that exists within your backpack- you cast the item to summon your pet. When it is summoned it's not intended to be a vertical gain of power, because when you make combat pets a vertical power gain, then it becomes a no choice solution: you must have a combat pet if you want to play efficiently- you must have a combat pet; and I wanted to steer clear of that because the way I wanted to approach combat pets was more of a horizontal power choice; meaning: depending on the type of encounter you're facing, depending on the threat assessment you have, a combat pet might be relevant, or it might not. One combat pet might be more relevant than another combat pet and that's part of your gear acquisition, your item chase to attain this more comprehensive selection of combat pets that you can have available to you and can be summoned in the event that you want to engage an encounter with a different aspect of your power curve: Not vertical, but horizontal.”
That is different than combat mounts. When you do mounted battle, that mount doesn’t fight independently of you. You just have different skills on its back. Combat pets are like Summoner pets in that it becomes a companion. Mounts aren’t companions.
Here are some things Steven has said about mounts in combat:
“All mounts will have certain types of abilities: Whether those abilities are utility, or sprint, or some type of combat charge through that knocks down players or something. It just depends on the type of mount and the skills associated with that mount. That's also one component of the animal husbandry system is in creating these mounts you can have unique skill sets associated with them that obviously creates an economy for mount types and puts some relevancy on the profession of animal husbandry to present unique mounts.”
“Mounts have obviously many different applications and that's also going to speak to its identity when it has a skill selection choice too. Like do you- are you more aggressive in initiation with your mount? Okay well you probably want the ones that are going to be able to charge through and do some type of CC effect on players in front of you. Are you more about kind of using them out to dodge and avoid you know different types of things? Well then you probably want some type of invulnerability skills or some type of protective skills that you can activate at certain times. Are you going to be more traversal and focus on kind of speed you use your mount just kind of go around the world and you don't really care about the combat aspect? Well then you probably want some skill sets on your mount that reflect that.”
Combat pets will add a companion to fight by your side, so you have to sacrifice skill points for that. Mounts, on the other hand, will give you mobility in combat and can have their own unique combat skills, but you won’t be able to use all of your usual skills when mounted. So each has a trade off of some kind, but they are done differently.
I see no issue with their design philosophy. I have pets in wow and gw2 that just follow me around. They don't have to have abilities. Maybe a person just wants a dog to follow them around
1
Options
RokoMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
idk man yes it would be nice if we could have them do something but sometimes you don't want to have anything following around without feeling like you're missing out.
Perhaps nothing gameplay related. For example if it was like some animation of interactions with the mobs you killed like inspecting it or sniffing it or cowering and hiding in your backpack if they fit when an enemy targets you.
As a cat owner I'd say the primary purpose of pet is to provide companionship and look cute.
And for in game pets I guess we can take the companionship part away. So just look cute.
Auto-loot imo should not be tied to pets. Either have auto loot, or no auto loot at all, or let it be a toggleable option whether you have a pet or not.
As I've said in another thread, having 20+ looting squirrels hopping behind a raid party is just ... odd. Fun to watch, but odd. absolutely odd. Insanely odd. Heck if I love the idea of working furry animals in a game why don't I just play timberborn.
We got three levels of functionality of 'pet' in this game, and I'm happy with that. Cuteness? Get a pet. Functionality? Get a battle pet or mount. Wanna be the best like no one ever was? Summon.
It is a delicate issue, in terms of functionality it would be fine, it would not be p2W if pets are only obtained in game, it would be a challenge and it would give more importance to the pet breeding profession.
This makes me think of the summoner and the DnD ability.
"While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar’s eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any special senses that the familiar has. During this time, you are deaf and blind with regard to your own senses."
That would be cool, send out your hawk to check out the area around you etc.
I don't mind them having small functions since i am used to it from other games (loot, extra bag slot, buffs you with the food/drinks from your bag, etc) the trick is to be attainable in game for everyone and then for those who want to buy from shop , the shop version should be only a skin change not a function change.
As for everything else if you don't like it, don't use it. Its stupid to say it breaks whatever immersion you want to have or it forces you, since its your own choice to put them out or not!
Also you should add a see/no see toggle about other players pets, to avoid the above mentioned clutter on screen.
When the flame of life glimmers in the wind, my hand shall guard it
When the weak waver on their path, my spirit shall be their guide
When the strong fall to darkness, my heart shall be their beacon
2
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't mind them having small functions since i am used to it from other games (loot, extra bag slot, buffs you with the food/drinks from your bag, etc) the trick is to be attainable in game for everyone and then for those who want to buy from shop , the shop version should be only a skin change not a function change.
A couple things...
As stated repeatedly, combat pets will be in the game. Pets won't provide small functions, they can be made part of your character's set of skills, and any archetype can use them. You just need to sacrifice skill points for them (so you sacrifice some of your normal class skills).
The pets in the cosmetic store aren't skins. They are actual things, unlike the mounts, ships, and buildings which are skins you need to put over items you acquire in-game. The pets you get in the cosmetic store are their own items you can summon, and aren't skins you can use to change the appearance of other pets you can get in-game. Which is a shame; that means you can't turn your royal corgi into a combat pet.
Auto loot in general is a pretty bad idea, it would make bots easier to implement and just afk farm resources decreasing their market value..
Spot on! Quality of life changes need to be implemented with an eye on bots.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised. A system should not punish the rest of us with removing QoL things like auto-loot because of bots. Players should never be auto-looted though, only monsters, and only depending on loot settings if in a group or raid.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised.
Intrepid will lose that fight.
The games design needs to take every opportunity to make things harder for bots if the game is to not be overrun.
If having to manually loot is an issue, the developers should look at how much shit they are giving out to players.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would prefer the live GMs to be focused on interacting with actual players rather than be tied up fighting bots.
So, if auto-loot makes it easier for bots, with the expectation that GMs will deal with the bots related to auto-loot... I'd rather not have auto-loot.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised.
Intrepid will lose that fight.
That's just a defeatist attitude. Of course they won't ever remove bots 100%. Same goes for any other kind of cheating. But having auto-loot or not is not what makes the real difference.
You combat bots by allocating resources towards it. Obviously the game has to be built around supporting analysis of the player's behavioral characteristics and detecting those patterns. And then it's a constant cat and mouse game between botters and the company, where they look at the behaviour and network traffic characteristics and such. It's possible they might need a programmer full time to combat it. Having auto-loot or not doesn't change that at all. Combined with the live GM team that can quickly react to all reports by players, I am confident they can keep botting to a minimum if they want to. But they obviously have to want to and permaban the fuckers.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised.
Intrepid will lose that fight.
That's just a defeatist attitude.
You could say that, or you could say it is a realistic attitude.
Developing a game where you are reliant on people being your primary defense against negative actions is not going to work.
It is far too expensive. It will cost Intrepid more to investigate a suspected botting account than it cost the botters to create it, so your suggestion here is literally putting a weapon in the hands of would be botters.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised.
Intrepid will lose that fight.
That's just a defeatist attitude.
You could say that, or you could say it is a realistic attitude.
Developing a game where you are reliant on people being your primary defense against negative actions is not going to work.
It is far too expensive. It will cost Intrepid more to investigate a suspected botting account than it cost the botters to create it, so your suggestion here is literally putting a weapon in the hands of would be botters.
Not having auto-loot doesn't change the fact that the Live GM team is partially reliant on players. It's not the primary defense, I don't know where you get that from. The primary defense is obviously the tracking of behaviour built in to the game and the live GMs.
As for the cost, that's the practically same with or without auto-loot. Bots can "manually" loot as well, no problem. We are way past the stage where that really matters. With or without auto-loot they still have to do automatic inventory management and dispose of the cheap stuff to make room for the expensive stuff. All of it creates trackable patterns. The looting part is but a small part of it.
So yeah, I'll take QoL in whatever form it may come, over something that affects anti-botting measures very little. The game will be better for it, meaning more players, meaning more revenue for Intrepid to combat the botters/cheaters = less of them in the game.
You want to ban trade between players too, to combat gold/item selling like in BDO? I am guessing not, but it's the same flawed logic.
I still want to be able to send my cosmetic pet to pee on things and people and other pets. No damage, just laughs. Plus let the dogs bark and run and vomit and growl.
No emotes needed for cats, they don't follow commands.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Kittens give Morbo gas
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Comments
I don't think he can select the coins and gems from the dead mobs pockets but leave behind the useless frayed leather chest piece.
To prevent players from having a “forced need”, you have to sacrifice your limited skill points to develop a pet into something useful. Steven calls it horizontal, rather than vertical progression. A combat pet won’t make you better, it just gives you a different way to fight. But having one means giving up skills and/or not having your skills developed as high.
So remember, there will be useful pets, but you can safely ignore them and won’t be any worse off for it.
From what has been announced in the past, those battle companions won't be pets, but mounts. Which will be breedable and you can eugenics your way into getting the best stats and skills for your battle-mount.
The first are cosmetic pets. They have no function.
Then there are "mounts". These are mounts that players ride, mules to carry more stuff, pack animals to pull caravans and battle companions. The majority of these are from animal husbandry.
The third type are summoner pets. These are the pets that you put skill points in to improving.
Steven has talked about combat pets, with no mention of them being mounts. Here are his words:
“Combat pets, which can be acquired by any archetype- and this is essentially an item that exists within your backpack- you cast the item to summon your pet. When it is summoned it's not intended to be a vertical gain of power, because when you make combat pets a vertical power gain, then it becomes a no choice solution: you must have a combat pet if you want to play efficiently- you must have a combat pet; and I wanted to steer clear of that because the way I wanted to approach combat pets was more of a horizontal power choice; meaning: depending on the type of encounter you're facing, depending on the threat assessment you have, a combat pet might be relevant, or it might not. One combat pet might be more relevant than another combat pet and that's part of your gear acquisition, your item chase to attain this more comprehensive selection of combat pets that you can have available to you and can be summoned in the event that you want to engage an encounter with a different aspect of your power curve: Not vertical, but horizontal.”
That is different than combat mounts. When you do mounted battle, that mount doesn’t fight independently of you. You just have different skills on its back. Combat pets are like Summoner pets in that it becomes a companion. Mounts aren’t companions.
Here are some things Steven has said about mounts in combat:
“All mounts will have certain types of abilities: Whether those abilities are utility, or sprint, or some type of combat charge through that knocks down players or something. It just depends on the type of mount and the skills associated with that mount. That's also one component of the animal husbandry system is in creating these mounts you can have unique skill sets associated with them that obviously creates an economy for mount types and puts some relevancy on the profession of animal husbandry to present unique mounts.”
“Mounts have obviously many different applications and that's also going to speak to its identity when it has a skill selection choice too. Like do you- are you more aggressive in initiation with your mount? Okay well you probably want the ones that are going to be able to charge through and do some type of CC effect on players in front of you. Are you more about kind of using them out to dodge and avoid you know different types of things? Well then you probably want some type of invulnerability skills or some type of protective skills that you can activate at certain times. Are you going to be more traversal and focus on kind of speed you use your mount just kind of go around the world and you don't really care about the combat aspect? Well then you probably want some skill sets on your mount that reflect that.”
Combat pets will add a companion to fight by your side, so you have to sacrifice skill points for that. Mounts, on the other hand, will give you mobility in combat and can have their own unique combat skills, but you won’t be able to use all of your usual skills when mounted. So each has a trade off of some kind, but they are done differently.
Perhaps nothing gameplay related. For example if it was like some animation of interactions with the mobs you killed like inspecting it or sniffing it or cowering and hiding in your backpack if they fit when an enemy targets you.
100% this...
Or I could order my pet dog to sniff another pet dog's butt? Or growl at something? Or just bark? Or throw up?
And for in game pets I guess we can take the companionship part away. So just look cute.
Auto-loot imo should not be tied to pets. Either have auto loot, or no auto loot at all, or let it be a toggleable option whether you have a pet or not.
As I've said in another thread, having 20+ looting squirrels hopping behind a raid party is just ... odd. Fun to watch, but odd. absolutely odd. Insanely odd. Heck if I love the idea of working furry animals in a game why don't I just play timberborn.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
"While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar’s eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any special senses that the familiar has. During this time, you are deaf and blind with regard to your own senses."
That would be cool, send out your hawk to check out the area around you etc.
As for everything else if you don't like it, don't use it. Its stupid to say it breaks whatever immersion you want to have or it forces you, since its your own choice to put them out or not!
Also you should add a see/no see toggle about other players pets, to avoid the above mentioned clutter on screen.
When the weak waver on their path, my spirit shall be their guide
When the strong fall to darkness, my heart shall be their beacon
A couple things...
As stated repeatedly, combat pets will be in the game. Pets won't provide small functions, they can be made part of your character's set of skills, and any archetype can use them. You just need to sacrifice skill points for them (so you sacrifice some of your normal class skills).
The pets in the cosmetic store aren't skins. They are actual things, unlike the mounts, ships, and buildings which are skins you need to put over items you acquire in-game. The pets you get in the cosmetic store are their own items you can summon, and aren't skins you can use to change the appearance of other pets you can get in-game. Which is a shame; that means you can't turn your royal corgi into a combat pet.
Spot on! Quality of life changes need to be implemented with an eye on bots.
Bots need to be combated with the live GM team we're promised. A system should not punish the rest of us with removing QoL things like auto-loot because of bots. Players should never be auto-looted though, only monsters, and only depending on loot settings if in a group or raid.
The games design needs to take every opportunity to make things harder for bots if the game is to not be overrun.
If having to manually loot is an issue, the developers should look at how much shit they are giving out to players.
So, if auto-loot makes it easier for bots, with the expectation that GMs will deal with the bots related to auto-loot... I'd rather not have auto-loot.
That's just a defeatist attitude. Of course they won't ever remove bots 100%. Same goes for any other kind of cheating. But having auto-loot or not is not what makes the real difference.
You combat bots by allocating resources towards it. Obviously the game has to be built around supporting analysis of the player's behavioral characteristics and detecting those patterns. And then it's a constant cat and mouse game between botters and the company, where they look at the behaviour and network traffic characteristics and such. It's possible they might need a programmer full time to combat it. Having auto-loot or not doesn't change that at all. Combined with the live GM team that can quickly react to all reports by players, I am confident they can keep botting to a minimum if they want to. But they obviously have to want to and permaban the fuckers.
Developing a game where you are reliant on people being your primary defense against negative actions is not going to work.
It is far too expensive. It will cost Intrepid more to investigate a suspected botting account than it cost the botters to create it, so your suggestion here is literally putting a weapon in the hands of would be botters.
Not having auto-loot doesn't change the fact that the Live GM team is partially reliant on players. It's not the primary defense, I don't know where you get that from. The primary defense is obviously the tracking of behaviour built in to the game and the live GMs.
As for the cost, that's the practically same with or without auto-loot. Bots can "manually" loot as well, no problem. We are way past the stage where that really matters. With or without auto-loot they still have to do automatic inventory management and dispose of the cheap stuff to make room for the expensive stuff. All of it creates trackable patterns. The looting part is but a small part of it.
So yeah, I'll take QoL in whatever form it may come, over something that affects anti-botting measures very little. The game will be better for it, meaning more players, meaning more revenue for Intrepid to combat the botters/cheaters = less of them in the game.
You want to ban trade between players too, to combat gold/item selling like in BDO? I am guessing not, but it's the same flawed logic.
They follow you around and give you companionship during your adventures c:
Do you happen to know if they'll interact with other pets in the area?
No emotes needed for cats, they don't follow commands.