Companion Pets - How to make them useful, simply.

[Dagolar]

(thanks for pointing me to this thread)

Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with a simple "take this item to bank" and "bring this item from bank" commands.

Could always add a bit of a delay during to execute the command.

( Yes, I know it's in a way a total SWTOR ripoff, but over there you tell your companions to go craft for you and go sell junk for you, and go farm junk for crafting for you. I don't want things to go that far. Just a little useful perk or two that's neato. )

That option could lead to a continuation of the disappearing item bank bugs, and also gives quite a bit more immediate inventory space, even with the delay. My option makes it more specific, and also encourages purchase of more unique pets.

I'd like it if they simply went and picked up and spare gold/plat that was on the ground. Many times I break boxes and 1-5 play falls out. It would be so nice if, while the pet was active, it would run over and be credited to your inventory. Not items mind you, only gold/plat.

Sounds reasonable, until you think of the massing of pets on each pile of coin. Perhaps an AI element where if they walk near it they try to pick it up? That way it functions as if you were picking it up, but with less effort, and less room for kobold rampages.

Though, y'know.. that has its merits.

/not signed

They are cosmetic. They are not meant to be useful.

If you want the shared bank then buy it and support the game that you play.

The first post addressed the last point. The remainder of the posts after addressed the first.
Posting only to argue was also addressed.

In fresh summation:
1: Determining something as cosmetic in this circumstance is a matter of nothing more than choice, so as an inherent statement, that doesn't work.
As far as the language of it goes, you'd have some measure of a point, but not when you note that the word's definition does not preclude additional features, only details a prominent aspect.
Of course, if you're referring to affecting the game.. cosmetic hats already do that. So that's not a change of pace, either.

2: This isn't meant to replace the shared bank, this is meant to provide an additional approach to inventory management to provide extra convenience and functionality to players while encouraging pet purchases.

To replace the (60?) total spaces of bank space, one would have to dedicate a lot of time to collecting pets with my concept.

A concept which:
1: Given what little gain it gives after the first few purchases..
2: How it doesn't affect game balance (since all it provides in quests is extra inventory space, the shared bank element only takes effect as a matter of convenience when switching toons)..
3: How it doesn't affect other players
4: How it relieves complaints about limited inventory space (Which will only increase as more, and more, and more named items and ingredients and so forth continue to come out)..
5: AND how it encourages purchase of more items in the game- ones that VIPs don't get free, thus encouraging them to use their points and perhaps enjoy their status even more for it..

..supports the game we play.

[Postumus]

They are not meant to be useful, just meant to be cute and cuddly.

I find them useful for staving off the boredom as I wait for someone to find their way to the quest entrance.

[Kadriel]

I'm against anything that makes then need to be processed out of client side. That would prob create a new lag source.

Even a shared acount bank slot might be troublesome.

I would not be against them having 1-3 extra inventory slots though. I mean, even if they are useless, you can aways tie a bag to their backs, no?

[Dagolar]

I find them useful for staving off the boredom as I wait for someone to find their way to the quest entrance.

If only we could make them fight each other..
Even if it's only 'cosmetically'..
We'd never stop being entertained.

I'm against anything that makes then need to be processed out of client side. That would prob create a new lag source.

Even a shared acount bank slot might be troublesome.

I would not be against them having 1-3 extra inventory slots though. I mean, even if they are useless, you can aways tie a bag to their backs, no?

Actually, the mechanical functionality would be exactly the same as an extra inventory slot.
Given that devs can inset shared tricks and gear for companions already, both the framework and, in theory, validation of smooth mechanics are there.
As with the tricks and gear, the inventory slot'd be tied to the pet, so when you summon it, it would load.
There shouldn't be any lag additions whatsover, and even if there were, it would only show as a slight increase to pet summon time.

As I mentioned, the mechanical functionality is that of an extra inventory slot- so is the practical functionality.
It's EXACTLY like tying a bag to their back- only, when your other toons call on that pet, that bag doesn't mysteriously vanish for a while, but rather travels with them.

[Kadriel]

As I mentioned, the mechanical functionality is that of an extra inventory slot- so is the practical functionality.It's EXACTLY like tying a bag to their back- only, when your other toons call on that pet, that bag doesn't mysteriously vanish for a while, but rather travels with them.

Well, I can easily tell that the time it takes to open my bank is far longer than the time it takes to open my inventory. And it became even longer after I got a shared bank. I'm pretty sure the comunication with the db is more complex.

[Dagolar]

Well, I can easily tell that the time it takes to open my bank is far longer than the time it takes to open my inventory. And it became even longer after I got a shared bank. I'm pretty sure the comunication with the db is more complex.

Agreed!
However, in this circumstance, the slot would register as a local inventory slot, since it's tied to a specific, localized entity, rather than to an abstract localization. Or, in simple terms, it's not actually shared, since it's not connected to other toons in any way, it's connected to the companion, who himself is shared.

However, as I noted, even if the system for some reason doesn't arrange it in that way, or can't arrange it so that method doesn't create lag, then it's still not a problem:
Any loading would take place during the summoning process anyway, which means the summoning process would mask any delays. Add in that it's a single slot, and not the 20+ slots of a shared account, and even if it does lengthen the summoning process, it won't be to any notable degree.

[Gurei]

I think because of how easy it is to get pets and how **** practical they are, I'd be happy with a super mini pack that each one gets, with a holding limit of like 5 spaces. I think that would balance out with the slightly overpowered nature of this idea, and perhaps this could be upgradable via ddo store points or, maybe, Forgotten Realm favor rewards anyone?

Anyways, great idea, /signed.

[HungarianRhapsody]

They are not meant to be useful, just meant to be cute and cuddly.

I agree with your position, but Fernando has said that they would be cosmetic only... for now.

The implication that I saw there was that they would grant powers/abilities/uses to companions once they figured out how to make enough money off of that to make up for any customers that they will lose to anger over their continued slide toward Pay2Win.

[Captain_Wizbang]

How about removing them altogether and assigning that bandwidth for more useful things

[MsEricka]

To replace the (60?) total spaces of bank space, one would have to dedicate a lot of time to collecting pets with my concept.

You miss the point, or perhaps are trying to sidestep the point because you want to hide the obvious.

The shared bank is one of the most useful and most expensive purchases any free or premium account will make. If I remember correctly the non sale price is 1495 points which equates to $15 if you buy points in large quantities.

By allowing a cosmetic pet to have a single shared bank slot, this would mean that free and premium users would no longer need to buy the shared bank to move things between characters. Yes it might be slow with only one slot, but it's still possible.

Now here's the kicker that you're obviously not stating. Cosmetic pets can be bought in the auction house for platinum. This means you want access to the shared bank for the cost of platinum and not cash.

Again

/not signed

[Thrudh]

cosmetic should be cosmetic because it's cosmetic

/not signed

[Thrudh]

If only we could make them fight each other..
Even if it's only 'cosmetically'..
We'd never stop being entertained.

Now THIS I could go for...

Little Red Shaman, I choose YOU!

[countfitz]

For those who disagree because "they're cosmetic"... they don't HAVE to be. Nothing inherent in them that forces them to be cosmetic.

And, while I'm doing the exact same thing as you are, derailing the thread, I still must respond. In this case, possibly in a more "friendly" way than the OP. Because the OP is making logical and reasoned statement. Seriously, OP, logical and reasoned statements, with definitions and links and so on, on the internet?!? Who's going to listen to that here?!?

I will instead make a nerdy reason.

Try to consider the pet as a pack animal as done in the 3.5 rules this game is based upon! Because, 3.5 has pack animals, they're in the rules, they function just fine, you buy them, they carry stuff, and they are in no way considered unbalancing. OMG! Just like what the OP is asking for! An expansion of the game into more of the multitude of options that D&D provides! Everyone can be happy!

Back on topic.

OP, love the idea. Personally, I've been asking for that as a Paladin class feature for years. Since, you know, 3.5 has this as a Paladin class feature, and unlike rangers, which were given something in return for not getting a class feature (both TWF AND ranged feats, which in PnP they only get one of), the Paladin got NOTHING. So, the Paladin, of all the classes, is the weakest. So they really need a pack animal, at the very least, if not a "Mount" like they're supposed to get.

Alternatively, cosmetic pets could, instead of being seen as pack animals, easily be made instead into "familiars" and provide +1 to a skill, (each animal gets a different aura that provides this skill).

Also useful, ALSO FROM D&D 3.5 rules!, and more importantly easier to implement than a walking shared bank, which always has so many glitches.

The only problem with this is that only casters were supposed to get this feature. But eh, who cares?

That's my only reason for being even kinda against your idea, by the way (other than the all the "My pet lost my bag" issues, which SHOULDN'T be an issue but probably will be) is that I kinda feel, like in my suggestion, it's unfair to Paladins who are supposed to get a Mount but got nothing, and this option would do nothing to balance that problem, because everyone would get this.

But overall, /signed

[Obfuscated]

Actually, I was pondering this just the other day and I too thought that they could be a bit more like familiars. Mechanics-wise, they could grant some minor buff to nearby players like a paladin aura, eg. +1 armour, or recovering an extra levelx2 hp when you rest, that sort of thing. It would also mean you would have more reason to own more than one companion, so parties could have a mix of different companion auras.

So a wolf could give +5 max hp, a spider could give +1 ac, a kobold could restore more hp when you rest, 2 spiders would do no more than 1 spider would, but having a spider, a wolf AND a kobold would give you all three.

Having said that, I really like the earlier suggestion of having companions bring coins over to you when you smash a box - that gets pretty tedious after the first few levels! Though you'd have to arrange it for everyone in the dungeon to get their own instance of the money, or those with pets would end up snatching gold away from other party members.

And btw, some of the cosmetic hats are not purely cosmetic. Bunny Hat for instance.

[valarx]

From a purely realistic point of view, I'd disagree with the 'shared bank' slot simply because I have no idea how a spiderling would be able to carry anything. But you can ignore that argument. DDO is far from a realistic game.

I agree that having some function in addition to the cosmetic would be nice.

To cut out the 'need to pay' make them obtainable through some sort of turn in. How about turning in a large sum of collectibles that mobs are always dropping for a pet?

[Xynot2]

/not signed

They are cosmetic. They are not meant to be useful.

If you want the shared bank then buy it and support the game that you play.

Bad arguement since some one had to buy the pet from the DDO store whether or not some one else got it from the AH. Their usefulness currently is their addition to lag. Giving the CPU one more thing to think about(one more times the number of pets) would increase that lag.

/not signed.

[Ungood]

The concept:
Give each (unique type of) pet in your stalls the ability to have a single inventory slot each.
This inventory slot acts in all respects as a single shared bank account slot.
Any other of your characters on the server can gain access to that slot by summoning that exact pet.

The functionality:
Awesome way to keep ingredient bags with crafting materials readily available to your other characters.
Uniquely beneficial, doesn't affect game balance or force companions to have any combative effects to be useful. Encourages purchases of multiple companions, across multiple characters.

/signed

However, I know if they do this, it will be buggy, and many bags will be lost from this, which will cause much problems, and somehow Paladin DPS will get nerfed as they try to fix the pets. (and somehow Handwraps will get broken, again)

[Nuralanya]

By allowing a cosmetic pet to have a single shared bank slot, this would mean that free and premium users would no longer need to buy the shared bank to move things between characters. Yes it might be slow with only one slot, but it's still possible.

Now here's the kicker that you're obviously not stating. Cosmetic pets can be bought in the auction house for platinum. This means you want access to the shared bank for the cost of platinum and not cash.

Free and Premium users already have the ability to move things between characters for plat. It's called the mailbox.

They can't move BtA items that way, so yes, the OP's idea would allow that. But it would be so painfully tedious that I don't see it being a major issue... although there would undoubtedly be a few who'd take advantage of it, I think the majority would find it too time-consuming to bother with.

Also, have you considered the fact that people are trading point codes for in-game items and/or plat? Obtaining the shared bank by paying for it with points that you traded for, rather than purchased with cash, is little different than buying a pet off the AH and having this 'share an item' option come with it.

You may say that at least someone has paid for the points, even if not the final user of them, but there's also the matter of those dedicated people who don't spend a single dime on the game and grind for points to get everything completely free... if they have earned the points to buy the shared bank, they also haven't 'paid' for it. Turbine obviously considers this acceptable.

[Dagolar]

I think because of how easy it is to get pets and how **** practical they are, I'd be happy with a super mini pack that each one gets, with a holding limit of like 5 spaces. I think that would balance out with the slightly overpowered nature of this idea, and perhaps this could be upgradable via ddo store points or, maybe, Forgotten Realm favor rewards anyone?

Anyways, great idea, /signed.

I'd consider 5x inventory spaces per pet to be dramatically out of balance, myself. Assuming you already have a shared bank account, and aside from the direct convenience of being able to swap out items quickly and anywhere, the idea I presented effectively only offers a single normal inventory slot.
Having a favor-based pet unlock could work, or simply a few pets thrown in as rare drops. Both ideas have been tossed around the forums. Either way, that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread.

I agree with your position, but Fernando has said that they would be cosmetic only... for now.

The implication that I saw there was that they would grant powers/abilities/uses to companions once they figured out how to make enough money off of that to make up for any customers that they will lose to anger over their continued slide toward Pay2Win.

Yes. The devs noted that pets would have no functionality due to some initial limitations in the design that they'd look into resolving in the future. Of course, they never promised anything either way. So lets nudge them to it!
I mean, those of us without a Tourettes-like use of the word 'cosmetic'.

cosmetic should be cosmetic because it's cosmetic

/not signed

...

You miss the point, or perhaps are trying to sidestep the point because you want to hide the obvious.

The shared bank is one of the most useful and most expensive purchases any free or premium account will make. If I remember correctly the non sale price is 1495 points which equates to $15 if you buy points in large quantities.

By allowing a cosmetic pet to have a single shared bank slot, this would mean that free and premium users would no longer need to buy the shared bank to move things between characters. Yes it might be slow with only one slot, but it's still possible.

Now here's the kicker that you're obviously not stating. Cosmetic pets can be bought in the auction house for platinum. This means you want access to the shared bank for the cost of platinum and not cash.

Again

/not signed

You make some excellent points that I hadn't considered..
Unfortunately, you interposed some entirely unnecessary comments that had no usefulness or possible intent at this stage in the conversation except to be offensive. Unfortunately, you did so while pushing a personal button.
Feel free to get on me for having tasteless ideas, poor phrasing, bad attitude, or excellent fashion sense that is clearly there to purposefully drive you to extreme envy, but the next comment on my trustworthyness will be considered a personal attack, as per forum guidelines.

1. While participating on the Community Sites, you must respect the rights of others to participate in the community. To this end you may not harass, defraud, threaten or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other members or Turbine staff. This includes, but is not limited to:
Name-calling or other insults
Posting or commenting with the intent of provoking ("trolling") another user or users
Flaming another user for their spelling or grammar
Bringing disagreements with someone into unrelated threads or blog posts/comments
Creating a thread, post, or comment on any of the Community Sites that calls out another player(s) for their actions in the game

Now, to address your ACTUAL points.
First off..

Bad arguement since some one had to buy the pet from the DDO store whether or not some one else got it from the AH.

Free and Premium users already have the ability to move things between characters for plat. It's called the mailbox.

They can't move BtA items that way, so yes, the OP's idea would allow that. But it would be so painfully tedious that I don't see it being a major issue... although there would undoubtedly be a few who'd take advantage of it, I think the majority would find it too time-consuming to bother with.

Also, have you considered the fact that people are trading point codes for in-game items and/or plat? Obtaining the shared bank by paying for it with points that you traded for, rather than purchased with cash, is little different than buying a pet off the AH and having this 'share an item' option come with it.

You may say that at least someone has paid for the points, even if not the final user of them, but there's also the matter of those dedicated people who don't spend a single dime on the game and grind for points to get everything completely free... if they have earned the points to buy the shared bank, they also haven't 'paid' for it. Turbine obviously considers this acceptable.

I personally agree with these points, and we'll consider at least the point on AH sales to be irrelevant for the time being.
As far as the excellent point on initial Shared Bank Account purchase- Simply add in a new account feature in the store for, say, 995tp, that activates the inventory slots on pets.
Throw in the cost of each pet (ignoring concepts of lootable pets and the sort for now) at roughly 1/2 the cost of a full extra 10 slots of shared bank space, and you'll still have a reasonable balance between the two sets of offerings.

[Dagolar]

Their usefulness currently is their addition to lag. Giving the CPU one more thing to think about(one more times the number of pets) would increase that lag.

/not signed.

From a coding standpoint, I already explained in previous replies how the functionality ought not measurably increase lag. Of course, DDO is a special beast, and it may take the devs a bit to sort out the approach. However, I can assure you it's possible to, based off the design points I provided, keep the lag extremely minimal, and focused only during active pet summoning (during which lag isn't really a concern anyway).

From a purely realistic point of view, I'd disagree with the 'shared bank' slot simply because I have no idea how a spiderling would be able to carry anything. But you can ignore that argument. DDO is far from a realistic game.

I agree that having some function in addition to the cosmetic would be nice.

To cut out the 'need to pay' make them obtainable through some sort of turn in. How about turning in a large sum of collectibles that mobs are always dropping for a pet?

Again, a topic outside of the scope of this thread (which covers adding in functionality, not anything else); However, there's no reason to not expect we'll eventually see a small number of lootable/rewardable pets.

As far as the conceptual element of the idea, if you can put a HAT on a spider, you can put a tiny backpack on its back as well. Even if we get ooze pets at some point, there shouldn't be any pet type that can't manage to carry a single item SOMEHOW.
..I mean, the ooze might eat it a little during transit, but the rest would be okay.

Actually, I was pondering this just the other day and I too thought that they could be a bit more like familiars. Mechanics-wise, they could grant some minor buff to nearby players like a paladin aura, eg. +1 armour, or recovering an extra levelx2 hp when you rest, that sort of thing. It would also mean you would have more reason to own more than one companion, so parties could have a mix of different companion auras.

So a wolf could give +5 max hp, a spider could give +1 ac, a kobold could restore more hp when you rest, 2 spiders would do no more than 1 spider would, but having a spider, a wolf AND a kobold would give you all three.

Having said that, I really like the earlier suggestion of having companions bring coins over to you when you smash a box - that gets pretty tedious after the first few levels! Though you'd have to arrange it for everyone in the dungeon to get their own instance of the money, or those with pets would end up snatching gold away from other party members.

And btw, some of the cosmetic hats are not purely cosmetic. Bunny Hat for instance.

For those who disagree because "they're cosmetic"... they don't HAVE to be. Nothing inherent in them that forces them to be cosmetic.

And, while I'm doing the exact same thing as you are, derailing the thread, I still must respond. In this case, possibly in a more "friendly" way than the OP. Because the OP is making logical and reasoned statement. Seriously, OP, logical and reasoned statements, with definitions and links and so on, on the internet?!? Who's going to listen to that here?!?

I will instead make a nerdy reason.

Try to consider the pet as a pack animal as done in the 3.5 rules this game is based upon! Because, 3.5 has pack animals, they're in the rules, they function just fine, you buy them, they carry stuff, and they are in no way considered unbalancing. OMG! Just like what the OP is asking for! An expansion of the game into more of the multitude of options that D&D provides! Everyone can be happy!

Back on topic.

OP, love the idea. Personally, I've been asking for that as a Paladin class feature for years. Since, you know, 3.5 has this as a Paladin class feature, and unlike rangers, which were given something in return for not getting a class feature (both TWF AND ranged feats, which in PnP they only get one of), the Paladin got NOTHING. So, the Paladin, of all the classes, is the weakest. So they really need a pack animal, at the very least, if not a "Mount" like they're supposed to get.

Alternatively, cosmetic pets could, instead of being seen as pack animals, easily be made instead into "familiars" and provide +1 to a skill, (each animal gets a different aura that provides this skill).

Also useful, ALSO FROM D&D 3.5 rules!, and more importantly easier to implement than a walking shared bank, which always has so many glitches.

The only problem with this is that only casters were supposed to get this feature. But eh, who cares?

That's my only reason for being even kinda against your idea, by the way (other than the all the "My pet lost my bag" issues, which SHOULDN'T be an issue but probably will be) is that I kinda feel, like in my suggestion, it's unfair to Paladins who are supposed to get a Mount but got nothing, and this option would do nothing to balance that problem, because everyone would get this.

But overall, /signed

I already suggested a response to the coin looting idea, in that pets could loot only things just by their owner; That should keep clutter and awkwardness minimal.

As far as familiar benefits, I'm really, really hoping they'll eventually allow spellcasters to get completely unique benefits per each unique pet type. (IE, Red Kobold +1 Evocation DC, Blue Kobold +1 Transmutation DC). Given how cosmetic pets work, and what familiars essentially are, and how familiars would have to work in DDO to be functional, there's no reason not to overlap the two and give casters a special reason to get the pets.

As far as Paladins specifically- in any other setting, we could pass it off, them not having a mount. But in Eberron, Paladins are ALWAYS LG, and ALWAYS hold to the basic template of a Paladin (including having a mount).

Now, companions don't HAVE to be tiny (in theory, it could depend on current implementation) so a horse companion walking next to Paladins with the same ideas I just noted would totally be possible.
But..the graphic clutter.. geh. Well, we'll consider that specific idea later on, when (if) there's the basis for it in the system.

Now THIS I could go for...

Little Red Shaman, I choose YOU!

/signed

However, I know if they do this, it will be buggy, and many bags will be lost from this, which will cause much problems, and somehow Paladin DPS will get nerfed as they try to fix the pets. (and somehow Handwraps will get broken, again)

Hm. Well, looking at those statements, I can only assume they function like Arti Pets- your companions'll be stealing your handwraps and fighting with them. Probably as hats. Companions love hats.