Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Henchmen - specifically Player character henchmen... think of the possibilities


Recommended Posts

On 1/25/2023 at 4:27 PM, Rogue.8235 said:

 

The gameplay of conquerer's Blade is not dynamic like GW2.  The goal of GW2 is to use movement and active skills to not get hit while simultaneously putting pressure on the enemy.  The game you refer to is merely two people beating each other's health bar until one dies.  There is also no vertical considerations in the gameplay of Conquerer's blade.

Baldur's gate has no 3-dimensional movement.  Also, Baldur's Gate is turn-based combat.

Again, you are comparing completely different things and vastly underestimate the complexity of free-range, 3-dimensional, active combat.

 

 

Are we talking about the same Conqueror's Blade?  Conqueror's blade has lots of multi-directional considerations.  It isn't merely two people beating on each other, unless you're referring to duels.  In the actual combat environment, there are units fighting, players fighting, in a 3D environment, extremely high pressure and intense.  There are also trebuchets launching, arrows, bolts, musket shot flying, horsemen galloping, some throwing javelins.

 

In CB you're literally using movement and active skills to not get hit while simultaneously putting pressure on the enemy. 

I'm glad you brought all that up, because with the skillsets, and scope of GW2, leading small squads would be absolutely fantastic, and add far more dimension and scope to the game, while being GW2 and taking on a lot of elements that CB just doesn't.

 

There is no relevancy between Baldur's gate having turn-based combat, no 3-dimensional movement and the point I was making.  The relevancy is that you're leading player-made henchment/companions.  That's the example I was using.  That's it.  Just demonstrating how the NPCs were utilized as companions.

  • Confused 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 6:51 PM, robertthebard.8150 said:

Well, that certainly went to strawman really fast.  Here's the problem, these games you're going to be reaching out to were built with a party based system in mind, at least as far as Baldur's Gate goes.  This game was not.  So, one would have to completely revamp it, for next to no return.

 

And you don't see the illogical approach to your statement?   That this game wasn't built for henchmen?  This game wasn't built with mounts, AT ALL.  They didn't even show up until halfway through the life of the game.  Yet mounts did show up.  The game mechanics had to be altered.  There was a ROI.  

How do you know there would be no ROI in implementing player made companions?

 

Edited by Crimthan.9308
  • Confused 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

 

And you don't see the illogical approach to your statement?   That this game wasn't built for henchmen?  This game wasn't built with mounts, AT ALL.  They didn't even show up until halfway through the life of the game.  Yet mounts did show up.  The game mechanics had to be altered.  There was a ROI.  

How do you know there would be no ROI in implementing player made companions?

 

eso added henchmen a while back..they ended up being glorified dps pets that caused additional lag.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

So I'm going to address the Fear in the room.

 

Essentially from what you've expressed and a couple others, it appears that there is a fear that "when NPC X is placed in an environment, Player Y can no longer be there."

In other words, NPC X x 4 are now present, following a player around.  So those 4 NPCs will now magically make 4 players unable to also be there.  The moment those 4 NPCs show up, *POOF* 4 Players are kicked out.

So if 100 NPCs are in an instance, 100 Players are *poof* kicked out...

Someone even went so far as to say that's how GW1 died.  Player character Henchmen were made possible, and so instantly, any chance of that player playing with other players in their group, was eliminated by default.

I don't know why you've suddenly decided to quote the post from the previous page again when you've already quoted and responded to it, then I subsequently responded to it again and then we had a bunch of posts after that, but for some reason you've ignored the latest one to go back to the one we've already been through? I don't get the approach here.

50 minutes ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

And we know none of that is even remotely true.  It's ludicrous.

It's a fear based on what ifs... an inauthentic fear.  There is an attachment present, one of a hooked mindset on displacement.

It goes something along the lines of "when a new item is placed, we must ditch an already present item."  It's an entirely disempowering construct created by a myopic mind.

Servers/instances/zones have player caps. You want to have multiple alt chars as npcs joining you on the server.  Performance and balance (power creep?) issues exist. That's how your npcs are pretty much bound to take player space, in other words replacing them.

...well that and you literally said you'd want to be able to clear group content with npcs instead of players. On the other hand all you're doing in this thread is hopelessly (and somewhat blindly) repeating "noo, they wouldn't take space". I already asked that question directly to you and as far as I remember, you simply avoided it, but lets try again: how are they supposed to NOT be taking player space? 🤨

50 minutes ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

How about this, how about a mindset I've already mentioned.  Instead of "One OR the Other" we can see the power around "One AND the Other."  

 

Just like when any other new content or instances are added to a game (which happens when an expansion is created, or even new stories), servers are added and/or bolstered and/or repurposed to where needed; in order to anticipate the increased demand.

 

I can see that some are saying "No" straight away without entertaining the possibilities present.  

As explained above, this is not some "attachment issue", this is not some fear of new "because it will replace the old!" or w/e you're trying to suggest here. You probably understand it seeing how your proposed solution is... to add servers. If you understand it might require adding servers then you surely understand how this is an issue with player space, right?

On the other hand, exactly acording to what you wrote (it doesn't need to be "one OR the other"), whenever you want to play an mmorpg, play gw2. If you want to play in group of players, maybe even command them -tag up. If you want to command npcs -and going by your posts you clearly know which game you like playing to do exactly that- play that other game you already enjoy for that specific reason. You don't need to quit one or the other, literally play them according to your current needs and wants, it's really that simple.

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

 

And you don't see the illogical approach to your statement?   That this game wasn't built for henchmen?  This game wasn't built with mounts, AT ALL.  They didn't even show up until halfway through the life of the game.  Yet mounts did show up.  The game mechanics had to be altered.  There was a ROI.  

How do you know there would be no ROI in implementing player made companions?

 

Because I read the comments in this thread?  Because I don't see any real value in it?  Because of all the things I've seen discussed in game, this has never come up, maybe?  Even if I'm spending all my time in LA crafting, or in any of the other hubs, nobody's spending their time trying to float the idea of how much better the game would be with companions.

Interesting that you bring up mounts though, as I had the first two expansions for over a year before I finally decided to actually get my raptor.  I got the springer soon after, because it's right there, but it took me another year to finally decide that I wanted the skimmer.  I still haven't bothered with the skyscale, griffon or jackyl mounts.  Even having the mounts I do have, I forget to use them about 3/4 of the time.  Of course, that's not unique for me here, as I tend to do the same thing in other games with mounts, I just forget to use them.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

There could be new War Zones for massive warfare PVP

...

 

There hasn't been a new zone since EoD dropped. There hasn't been a new WvW zone since Desert Borderlands was added like 5 years ago. And you think the devs are going to remake this game, add henchmen, add new zones for henchmen, and such? 

 

And nobody is "fearful" of the idea. It's a just a poor idea for GW2 for a plethora of reasons. 

 

Again, this henchmen stuff isn't happening in GW2, so just take advantage of the games that offer that type of design. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh and @Crimthan.9308

 

The devs didn't reinvest resources to redo the awful ranger pet (a forced ranger mechanic) AI since game launch, yet you want them to create henchmen and mirrors of player characters as henchmen, shiny new pvp zones for henchmen, and new pvp mechanics for henchmen... Plus, the devs are still trying to work on alliances from years ago and wvw hasn't seen any substantial changes in years... yet you want the devs to devote years of resources and time for this henchmen stuff... Not gonna happen, so maybe move on to more realistic suggestions and ideas that actually fit this game. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

Essentially from what you've expressed and a couple others, it appears that there is a fear that "when NPC X is placed in an environment, Player Y can no longer be there."

 

Lastly...

 

"Minis may be temporarily disabled in locations overly crowded with other players for client performance reasons."

 

Non-combat minis are disabled in high traffic areas for "performance reasons", yet you think there wouldn't be an impact with player map population and all these henchmen on the same map. Like the devs just made map caps and minis disappear for no apparent reason at all, but you think having 5 of these advanced character copy henchmen per player wouldn't impact map population at all and we who oppose are just having some irrational "fear".    

Edited by Swagger.1459
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the idea, as it clearly works in other games. But, I don't know why you wouldn't play those instead of GW2. I simply don't think that even if they committed to this idea that it would be implemented as well as a game that specializes in and was built around these mechanics. Given the state of WvW as is, as well as how infrequently we get content updates outside of some gem store skins and festivals, I don't think it would feasibly work as well as you imagine. I really think you would enjoy games that are built specifically for this rather than a half-assed, hamfisted version of it in GW2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

 

 

So I'm going to address the Fear in the room.

 

Essentially from what you've expressed and a couple others, it appears that there is a fear that "when NPC X is placed in an environment, Player Y can no longer be there."

In other words, NPC X x 4 are now present, following a player around.  So those 4 NPCs will now magically make 4 players unable to also be there.  The moment those 4 NPCs show up, *POOF* 4 Players are kicked out.

So if 100 NPCs are in an instance, 100 Players are *poof* kicked out...

Someone even went so far as to say that's how GW1 died.  Player character Henchmen were made possible, and so instantly, any chance of that player playing with other players in their group, was eliminated by default.

 

That's not what "someone" said. What "someone" said was: reducing incentives to group results in less grouping. 

 

In case of GW1 it was one of the factors which lead to its social structres deteriorating and while it might not have been the catalyst for the abadonment of GW1, it certainly did nothing to help the situation.

 

19 hours ago, Crimthan.9308 said:

And we know none of that is even remotely true.  It's ludicrous.

It's a fear based on what ifs... an inauthentic fear.  There is an attachment present, one of a hooked mindset on displacement.

It goes something along the lines of "when a new item is placed, we must ditch an already present item."  It's an entirely disempowering construct created by a myopic mind.

 

How about this, how about a mindset I've already mentioned.  Instead of "One OR the Other" we can see the power around "One AND the Other."  

 

Just like when any other new content or instances are added to a game (which happens when an expansion is created, or even new stories), servers are added and/or bolstered and/or repurposed to where needed; in order to anticipate the increased demand.

 

I can see that some are saying "No" straight away without entertaining the possibilities present.  

 

Mindset, is that the reason you intentionally do not quote others which disagree with you? Is that the reason you missquote issues raised while at it? To pad the thread or have your "opinion" validated?

 

NPC henchman can work in a MMORPG. See SWToR (where they can and do occasionally replace other players in easier content). We have games with NPC allies. The effects based around implementation are not assumed or theoretical but visible in other games.

 

Tacking such a system on to a game which was not designed for it would be a huge effort and might (will) cause issues with existing content. Not to mention the resuources required. That's before even addressing the issues at hand of displacement or the potential resulting lack of player ability progress (in regards to groupings skills), which is a serious issue in this game.

 

If you want your RTS fantasies full filled, play an RTS. If you want the MMO-RTS hybrid, seek out the other games which successfully do it.

You are free to have your opinion, just as others are free to disagree with it.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...