Also called mini pets, but are more of a gold sink in other games. But why couldn't they be part of a fun collectable achievment?
Say you are exploring in the wilds, kill a grizzly and see a little cub (could be a rare spawn) cowering or even mouening the death of its mother (that uh... You just killed... Woops)
You could have a system in place that would allow you to befriend the cub. Find berries, play with the cub and take it under your care. The one thing that has always bothered me about minis is A. They are unrealistically small and really do not fit within the lore or believability of a fantasy setting. B. Usually they are rare drops, purchased from a cash shop or auction house (where is the sense of connection in that?)
Imagine if you mini had to be cared for, leave it in your house or guildhall to roam and forage. Take it on an adventure, if it dies... Well there could be incentive to stow it in your backpack/mule ;)
If I have to put that much effort into it, I'm gonna expect it to at least contribute a little dps every now and then. I am a fan of pretty much any type of collections/achievements. They are addicting and a great way to keep you in-game even when you just don't feel like risking your life in a dungeon some days. But only to a degree - the system that you described seems like it turns into a chore to constantly manage all the pets. I would never take it out for fear that it would die and all that effort would go to waste. In which case, it is really worth it? In my opinion, no way. They're a fun way to "show off," but if they can die, it's pretty pointless. So maybe even just eliminating the possibility of the cosmetic pets dying might make it more interesting. Otherwise, it just sounds like a lot of risk for not a lot of reward :(
I once played an MMO where you could get a dragon mount by first finding a dragon egg (rare), hatching it, and raising it until it was big enough to ride. And I think you even train it to have different abilities. That was a really fun and rewarding process and you do feel a sense of connection with it. But that was a mount. Mounts are way more useful than the mini pets you are describing.
I can see some mileage here, if we consider the 'familiar' aspect of fantasy (and historic) lore. Since there have been (said to be) witches there have been (said to be) witches' familiars! It should be possible to incorporate this idea into the game, in the same way many games have the magic user's focus present as an animal/mini-mob. Even EQ1 wizzies had the flying rat thing for extra mana regen.
Have those applicable classes a choice of:
A. Default 'pet' whatever that is:
For Wizzies/Mages/Chanters, maybe a cat/owl/whatever ... much the same way early PnP D&D did familiars.
Chipmunks for the Rangers?
B. Have ways to get (if you want) a 'better' pet:
More 'better-different' than 'better-stronger' here. Perhaps a pixie/stirge instead.
They would have to be befriended/faction'd, 'bought' or even 'hired' as a sort of DNPC.
They should have little/no effect in combat at all - though they may offer a bonus of some kind
Perhaps you have to buy them with AA points ...
Perhaps some have to be quested ....
I can picture a pixie 'familiar' that has a temperament of 'materialist'. It would be constantly wanting new outfits ... new hand-made pointy booties from the latest 'Gimme Jimme Atchoo' fashions ... lots of shiny gems.... and whines constantly (imagine if they had 'Avarice Barbie'). OK, our AI systems have not got there yet.... but thats what I would call 'flavour text' :)
Bazgrim said:If I have to put that much effort into it, I'm gonna expect it to at least contribute a little dps every now and then. I am a fan of pretty much any type of collections/achievements. They are addicting and a great way to keep you in-game even when you just don't feel like risking your life in a dungeon some days. But only to a degree - the system that you described seems like it turns into a chore to constantly manage all the pets. I would never take it out for fear that it would die and all that effort would go to waste. In which case, it is really worth it? In my opinion, no way. They're a fun way to "show off," but if they can die, it's pretty pointless. So maybe even just eliminating the possibility of the cosmetic pets dying might make it more interesting. Otherwise, it just sounds like a lot of risk for not a lot of reward :(
I once played an MMO where you could get a dragon mount by first finding a dragon egg (rare), hatching it, and raising it until it was big enough to ride. And I think you even train it to have different abilities. That was a really fun and rewarding process and you do feel a sense of connection with it. But that was a mount. Mounts are way more useful than the mini pets you are describing.
fair enough, perhaps perma death would be a bit harsh. Would really just like a system that caused the pets to get off the screen if things got heated, and lets be honest if you are in a fight, you are probably not concerned about your mini pet at that point. I don't agree with them doing damage though, if you are not a pet class, you should not have a pet that does damage. WoW did that with The panda expansion, I got the egg, but never bothered with it beyond that.
Haha awesome input Evoras, I would totally have a squirrel for my Ranger.
bigdogchris said:I'd rather not see a bunch of pets everywhere. It's hard enough to keep track of what's going on let alone double the amount of things on screen due to everyone having a pet.
Pets should be saved for pet classes only.
I have honestly never had an issue with keeping track of what is going on in a heated battle, GW2 comes to mind, once the cluster becomes full, they make mini pets disappear. Besides, if they have an option to turn off mini pets locally, it is really a non-issue for people who do not want to see them. (ie. have a setting in the menu)
bigdogchris said:I'd rather not see a bunch of pets everywhere. It's hard enough to keep track of what's going on let alone double the amount of things on screen due to everyone having a pet.
Pets should be saved for pet classes only.
I dont mean to be a fun-hater here, but I tend to agree with this. I just don't see vanity pets having a major role in Pantheon. Too kitsch for my taste.
However, if I can disable rendering vanity pets via options, then it's alright by me. Collect all the pets you want. As far as developer priorities, I would still put this rather low on the list.
I wouldn't be opposed to non-combat pets if they were able to be killed and had to be taken back to a vet or stablemaster in the city to be healed. The point is preventing a whole bunch of invulnerable entities and clutter around players in environments that shouldn't be conducive to them.
I'm just not for these optics that MMOs have created today where players are surrounded by pets that aren't subject to the reality of the game world. Here you are in a supposedly dangerous crypt and your fluffy bunny or bear cub cannot be harmed by the ongoing violence all around them. It's just one more immersion breaker in a long list.
Dullahan said:I wouldn't be opposed to non-combat pets if they were able to be killed and had to be taken back to a vet or stablemaster in the city to be healed. The point is preventing a whole bunch of invulnerable entities and clutter around players in environments that shouldn't be conducive to them.
I'm just not for these optics that MMOs have created today where players are surrounded by pets that aren't subject to the reality of the game world. Here you are in a supposedly dangerous crypt and your fluffy bunny or bear cub cannot be harmed by the ongoing violence all around them. It's just one more immersion breaker in a long list.
Fluff pets than can be killed... Im cool with that... They just for show but will die when a mob comes by a smacks its face off...
Again we find ourselves at the crux of realism vs. practicality. In most cases, I lean more toward realism and I agree that it doesn't make sense that a squirrel, owl, etc. would be immune to damage. In fact, realistically they'd probably only have like 5 hp and would probably die in the first fight of any dungeon. So at that point, there's really no reason to have them out unless you're gonna just be sitting in town for a while. ESPECIALLY if I have to find a specific NPC AND give them money to rez my pet? I assume most people will spend the vast majority of their time out adventuring, in which case why bother collecting pets if I'm rarely ever gonna be able to show them off? Again, I say that's completely pointless. Maybe at the very least, they should grant a very minor buff to you while they are next to you or something like that.
Fortunately, it'll probably be years before cosmetic pets are even introduced, if at all.
I can SO see a useage for non-combat pets in a dungeon! ... stress relief!
Imagine you are grouped with 5 Gnomes ....
/stress-check me
YOU are VERY stressed (38,342)
YOU feel the urge to lash out at the nearest Gnome (78)
/stroke Tiddles the cat
Tiddles purrs
YOU feel less stressed (38,341)
/stroke Tiddles the cat
Tiddles purrs
YOU feel less stressed (38,340)
/stroke Tiddles the cat
Tiddles purrs
YOU feel less stressed (38,339)
/stress-check me
YOU are VERY stressed (38,339)
YOU feel the urge to lash out at the nearest Gnome (75)
Options are always the best and the more the better.
Perhaps have collectibles that are "used" and disappear once "used" AND
Have pets that follow you for cosmetics only (viewing these can be toggled) AND
Have pets that actually live and have to be cared for, follow you, and have varying degrees of functionality AND
Have pets that live and have to be cared for and are placed in your domicile only as pets and have varying degrees of functionality
The more options the better. Just don't force anything. Choice is the key word here.
I really do not like the idea of going the EQ2 route with pets. I mean, they brought Pokemon into the friggin game, for Brell's sake! If a class has a pet that augments their abilities (e.g. Beastlord and Shaman from EQ1) then, yeah, that's cool. Everyone and their sister running around with mini versions of the latest boss they killed? I hope not. As far as the ability to toggle said pets on/off, I hope the devs have decided to devote their time to the actual game mechanics than the fluff (which I know they have, just saying).
The detereoration of the EQ universe didn't necessarily start there.... but it sure accelerated. It probably had a lot to do with the rise of cash shops as well, but ridiculous cosmetic pets that had no place in player lore, wildly obnoxious mounts (flying saucers, flying carpets, flying everything, mini dragons, basically anything that looks tougher than any mob you'll ever face).... all of that stuff... put me firmly in the column that is against it.
Some tongue-in-cheek humor is great in a game. But when everyone is running around using something that doesn't fit in the game world, it just becomes dumb.
And there's just not a lot of reasons for adventurers to all be carrying around a non combat pet.
Bazgrim said:I just realized that some pledge tiers include a "Keepsake Vanity Pet," so maybe this sort of thing will come sooner than we expect. Mixed feelings. Maybe Kils can shed some light on this?
Ugh...everything above Supporter's and Watcher's. Gross. I could definitely do without these things also. If they have to be in the game it would be cool if I could choose not to see them.
Well, since the preponderance of opinions on the "non-combat" nature of some pets seems to be leaning towards "vanity", let me throw something else out there.
Utility-type pets. Think Harry Potter owls.
I remember some of the other threads on banking and traveling, and the consensus seemed to be "I hate long, inconvenient trips", and "I ESPECIALLY hate long, inconvenient trips to the bank".
What about a "courier" type pet. Essentially a 2-slot container with wings (and fur or feathers). You could send it to the nearest bank while you adeventured. When it got there, you could have a pop up to manage the bank "transaction". And then it would return to you, in a time duration dependent on distance and whatnot.
These things would probably be pretty rare, and there would be restrictions of course. Improved onese would have more slots, travel faster, etc.
Just a thought.
I flashed on how suprised I was to find- after a very long time- the zoo in ak'anon. Then making the asociation in another thread about how people liked contributing to creaing the new zone by working on collecting mats, or working on a guild hall again by collecting mats and contributing to the general pool.
what if, in your home town you could contribute to the creation of a zoo? it would depend on the collection of various body parts of the monsters in the areas you are hunting,fighting in accross Terminus.
A high level group/multi-group/(all-level raid?) would be needed to get the zookeeper. Each town could only have one zookeeper. You would give the animal parts to the zookeeper and once all parts were delivered, the exhibit would be created of that monster.
Newbie yard monsters would frequently "escape"- allowing newbies to re-create the spiderling/rat/bat exhibits while they level up. There would be a player benefit from contributing to the zoo- maybe a perception associated skill improvement from contributing (you have gotten better at slaying spiders!). and there would be a short term, or lower perception benefit just from visiting the zoo (Perception clue: you notice the spider in the exhibit moves quickly, you feel you can predict its movements from this observation and strike it a bit more effectively)
This would encourage home-town proud players to want to return to their home town to make the zoo bigger with the parts they have hunted on their travels to farther away places.
The zoo would need a small fee to enter, scaled by level and only certain levels could "progress" through the exhibit ( again this is assuming verticle progression It could also be horizintal based on skill aptitude). The first section would be free for newbie natives, but higher -or broader progressed players from out of town would have to pay a small fee that got larger as they went into other sections of the zoo as the monsters in these areas would be higher level, likewise with natives, only the higher level exhibits would require a fee beyond the newbie yard exhibits. So even if a native newbie had the money, they could not see the higher level (scarier) monsters because they were not high enough.
So a higher level player, visiting the town for the first time can go to the zoo and see what sort of monsters are in the area and learn a little about them that benefits them. Be shocked at seeing a monster from THEIR home lands and wondering WHO from HERE went THERE!- and maybe get a little jealous and want to make their zoo, better ( return to home town). But the higher level player visiting the town for the first time is encouraged to visit the zoo, because she knows she will get perception clues for the monsters in the area. (small resists or improved aim)
And you need faction to be able to visit the zoo if you are a stranger. Discounted (second exhibit and on) entry fee for natives which would make having a big zoo important for "the people" and would make another reason for your chosen race to return to town to either contribute monster parts from where you've been. or to get the small boost from visiting the exhibits so you are slightly stroinger when you head out to those areas, from having learned about the monster from those people of your race that went before you.
corpserunner said:Well, since the preponderance of opinions on the "non-combat" nature of some pets seems to be leaning towards "vanity", let me throw something else out there.
Utility-type pets. Think Harry Potter owls.
I remember some of the other threads on banking and traveling, and the consensus seemed to be "I hate long, inconvenient trips", and "I ESPECIALLY hate long, inconvenient trips to the bank".
What about a "courier" type pet. Essentially a 2-slot container with wings (and fur or feathers). You could send it to the nearest bank while you adeventured. When it got there, you could have a pop up to manage the bank "transaction". And then it would return to you, in a time duration dependent on distance and whatnot.
These things would probably be pretty rare, and there would be restrictions of course. Improved onese would have more slots, travel faster, etc.
Just a thought.
Carrier pigeons! Now this is a good idea. Could also be useful for trading with players in other zones.
I'm not sure I like animals doing banking and trading for you. Seems like something only rangers and druids might be able to do, and even then probably not. I guess you could maybe have birds or dogs that you send out hunting to procure your food? I'd still probably rather skip non-combat pets, though.
I do think the zoo idea is kind of neat. Getting buffs versus certain animals from looking at them in the zoo seems too complicated, but I like the idea of bringing back a speciman from across the world. The first person to bring a new animal to their zoo could be credited on a little plaque at the particular exhibit. I would rather focus on other parts of the game, but I'm sure there are some explorer types that could get into that.
I think the Zoo concept is rather interesting. But like Shuck said, I wouldn't want to see a player gain any advantage for "donating" to the zoo.
Instead, I'd rather the Zoo just be an in-game Beastiary. Each creature would have a plaque filled with relevant info. Level range. Hitpoints. Resists. Damage Output. Spells (if applicable). Loot drops. Known locations. Maybe even some noted comments from NPC's relating to quests. "Always seem to be running low on leather. Compensation offered for any Legionaire Bracers you may wish to donate. Signed: Seth Brundel of Kaladim."