Companions

Actually I think you could do it multiplayer too, it relies on setting party sizes. Once you decide that a party is (for argument sake) 8 people, well if I and a friend go and play together that's 2 and then I could have 6 companions to bring our party up to the 8. Or we could have 7 PCs in the party and 1 companion or any other combination

 

I would like companions to have their Ai - that would take over at certain towns - and they would go out and do their own thing - what that is? - it would be for you to find out

From a game perspective - excluding single player - I would not like to see a lot of people running around with companions - it would make the game seem a bit off to me

- pets are another story - it would be nice if you could have a falcon and a dog ... something of that nature - a large pet and a small one but not much else ..

simply for not marking up the screen with a ton of clutter

 

I've mentioned previously that for multiplayer, they could display your named companion to you, but people around you would see a random NPC. That way you wouldn't see multiple story line companions running around.

 

That works - but would you prefer it - if your companion went to gear up on their own / or like to gamble and would go and gamble (maybe make you a little money or lose what you gave them to play)

Something of this sort - possibly you go visit a town and you come to realise that they have a family / and while you take care of travelling needs etc / they leave you and go hang out with their npc family

I think it would add to the game - but I'm sure this feature is more work and may or may not be missed by folks

 

Although I really think any sort of companion should be optional, you shouldnt be forced to have one only because it makes you so much stronger or makes the game so much easier, dont turn this into guild wars 1 please

P.S.: no offense but reading the forums makes me afraid... afraid thisd game will be bad because too many oppinions will be considered

 

Im saying NO companions plz we have enough followers as it is well at least not for multiplayer

 

I'm 1000% FOR companions, and and a multitude of other single-player-focused features.

However, I have no issues whatsoever with them being optional. Ultima's companions have always been optional. Even Iolo could be sent home if you felt like it.

He wouldn't be happy about it, but he would go.

 

so you are afraid there are too many opinions, but here is mine, do this?

Companions, like PVP for UO, is a major element in the Ultima series.

This is a "spiritual" successor to both series, the lack of companions with "somewhat" of a personality would be a disastrous design choice for many people, not to mention the integrity of RG as a game designer given they were part of the sale.

 

COMPANIONS IN PVP SITUATIONS:

Companions in PvP would be like having a few elementals around. Although if you had 7 companions that's a lot of fire power.

How about this? They companions charge you more money if you go into a warzone, or better still most of them might just decide to flee from you because a warzone is not the place these guys would like to go.

ALSO, For those who are flagged Open PvP via the blessing of the oracle.... If you get attacked by somebody then the person who attacked you will have to fight you and all of the companions. That was their fault for attacking you. However if you attack somebody else without provocation, the companions might feel an obligation to leave you because you are attacking another citizen (and this might be an ethical dilemma for the NPCs, and they might leave you for this).

It is also reasonable to assume if you offend certain NPCs' ethical standards, they may never want to travel with you again.


************

As far as I'm concerned that is problem solved for NPCs and PVP.

 

Depends on the companion's personality right? might be they wont even want to enter an open pvp area....

 

even unscrupulous NPCs might not. In fact the unscrupulous ones would be more likely do desert you when you need them most.

 

Would you rather fight a party of 8 players than a party of 4 players and 4 fire elementals? I think the party of 8 players would be far worse. The fire elemental was a simple support pet. I didn't find it a huge adavantage. In fact I never picked up the fire elemental spell, and yet I could still beat the mages that had the elemental attacking me. I was a mage too.

So those elemental are just a different strategy. (in essence it is a simple damage over time spell that looks cool). If they took up a party member slot, that would create a weaker party in my opinion than 8 real players with player character skills. 8 fire mages != 4 fire mages + 4 fire elementals.

EDIT: I honestly think the fire elemental needs to be more powerful when used in PvE though. I like that it is scaled back for PvP, but in PvE let the fire elemental (or any attack elemental) be a reasonably good companion for PvE. So that their fire attacks have DoTs etc.

 

It's funny when there are too many opinions when they don't agree with their visions isn't it.

 

what if the 8 players all used fire elementals??

 

Exactly and with all the focus on MMO-features, announcing complex companions would be a nice, weclome and much needed nod to us single player fans.

 

It is just a different strategy. Having the fire elemental adds an additional damage over time to your existing spells. A group of 8 players with 8 fire elementals would have a lot of "firepower" but they are not invulnerable. Another group of 8 mixed with warriors and mages might be more efficient. The fire elementals only damage over time one target if that target heals himself, and has one other healer then the fire elementals might not be that much help. Also if a single character is attacked they can run. The elementals aren't as smart as PCs, and won't switch targets to the most "relevant" target without some controls from the master. Also each caster that gets killed the fire elemental is also banished. It really isn't that big of an advantage.

Also keep in mind when all of the skills are available highly skilled players wearing heavy armor will have more health and strength than other players especially if they also pick up the earth magic innate skills. Having a person like this in your party who does lots of damage and can take lots of damage might be more valuable than having a few fire elementals around. (again depends on your strategy).

People are making too much of a big deal about the fire elemental. It is just a high level damage over time. Water elementals will likely be a buff and heal over time spell. Which is better? One damages your enemy, another heals and buffs you. It all comes down to strategy.

• Mage with fire elemental -- has additional damage over time along with spells. Moderate helath and lightly armored if at all.
• Warrior with physical damage weapons -- Has many weapon type options that can be quite dangerous. Will have more health and strength than a mage and will be able to take more damage before going down, While still being able to deal loads of damage.
• mage with water elemental -- has heals and buffs on him, and this mage can still cast damaging spells in the meantime.
• Mage without elemental -- still has all the other spells, but has the ability to be stealth (since there is no big bright elemental following him around).
• rogues with sneak attacks...
• archers with powerful and precise range attacks...

Ultimately "one on one" they will all be about the same in the end. The elemental does not guarantee an advantage. If done correctly Strategy will ultimately determine who gets the upper hand. Of course if you walk into the "strength" of somebody's strategy you will be at a disadvantage. I found that I could beat mages with elemental even though I had none... So as it stands even now strategy comes into play as it should.

 

i would agree with you but r8 showed us that summons are free damage and killing one would be a waste of focus and time in most cases, at the end of r8 noone would attack summons but the caster directly. I hope summons in general become weaker in pvp or there should be upkeep requirements that require you to invest more than just one card in them or 3rd option would be a dispel spell. And yes a fire ele alone may not be that strong but the fact it requires only 1 card makes it very powerful

 

Couldn't you cast the summon outside of combat? If so, then no need for it to be in your deck.

I didnt see a problem with elementals but i guess others think there's a problem.

Honestly I dont think it was an imballance. Unless i have super human skills which I dont. I didnt have problems defeating a mage one on one without using a fire elemental. I guess I could have used the spell, but I liked stealth more.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

SotA once was declared as a spiritual successor of all Ultimas. If this is still true we need companions like Iolo, Shamino und Dupre. Just for the story and the immersion and not as stupid mindless henchmen! The henchman and heroes of Guild Wars 1 are a good example what I don't want to see in SotA. I don't want a kind of pet to command, I want companions with an own background story, I can talk to and level up.

 

Not to forget that we need to be able to manage their gear and inventory and level them up ourselves as we see fit!