Man I hope the companions have more independent thought than the other games

[Troller]

And not just obey every single order you give them, no matter how stupid, and even if it is against the NPC beliefs...

To help with this I think a Morale system similar to the one shogun 2 total war has is decent, where if your troops think the battle is hopeless, they will run away.

[Jaesun]

Have you ever played any of Obsidian's games? Because if you have not, you should. And that would answer your question.

[GhostofAnakin]

I really don't want my entire party running away on me in the middle of a tough battle.

[Tale]

I really don't want my entire party running away on me in the middle of a tough battle.

Squad broken!

 

If we hit the Adventurer's Hall, I see this being more likely. Someone asked about this level of reactivity in one the Kickstarter Q&As with Feargus, it sounded like they weren't quite set one way or another.

[Troller]

Have you ever played any of Obsidian's games? Because if you have not, you should. And that would answer your question.

Never man, actually wth am I doing here, Bye guys!

[Troller]

I really don't want my entire party running away on me in the middle of a tough battle.

Squad broken!

 

If we hit the Adventurer's Hall, I see this being more likely. Someone asked about this level of reactivity in one the Kickstarter Q&As with Feargus, it sounded like they weren't quite set one way or another.

I understand it's probably some complicated stuff to add to the game, and it would cost a lot of cash, but IMO it would be worth it.

[Tale]

My concern is less complexity than it is ending up with an incomplete group as you run off companions. I don't like morale as the way to independent thought, but I do like them disagreeing with choices to the point of abandoning the team. Adventurer's Hall would solve that problem.

[Troller]

Here some ideas:

if a character in your party dies, the morale for everyone would drop, if a good natured character sees you commiting evil acts, his morale would drop.

If your party gets attacked in an ambush, the morale would drop for everyone.

 

I think a system like this would be nice.

[LadyCrimson]

I really don't want my entire party running away on me in the middle of a tough battle.

Same feeling here.

I like morale/reputation check systems, however ... where things you do (or don't do) may accrue points for companions and if they get too high companions start complaining and/or leaving. I'd rather they stick with stuff like that vs. having a potential of them running away every battle.

[GhostofAnakin]

I mean, in general I do agree that companions should sort of have their own ideas and mindset, and there should be some kind of thing in place where certain companions will disagree with you, and possibly even leave your party at some point, depending on your actions. But just the notion of them running off in the middle of battle both made me sad and chuckle at the same time.

 

Hero: "Your reign of terror is at an end, evil doer!"

 

Bad guy: "Oh yeah? And who's gonna stop me? You?"

 

Hero: "Me and my trusty companions! Right guys?"

 

*crickets chirp*

 

Hero: "Guys?"

 

*Hero turns around*

 

Hero: "Wait, where are you ..."

 

*The sound of feet running, then the door to uber powerful lich dragon's throne room slams shut*

 

Hero: "Ah crap. I knew I shouldn't have stolen that old lady's gold ring."

Edited October 5, 2012 by GhostofAnakin

[Troller]

Or maybe they don't want to help you because you are a bad Leader in general

[agewisdom]

I would love it if something alongst the following happens:

 

1. As the PC consistently takes actions that antagonizes some of his companions, the next most influential companion, say Thorne will voice out his objections.

 

2. Other companions with the same views/alignment as Thorne will start voicing the same opinions. If you are adamant in your course, they'll get mighty pissed off.

 

3. Depending on the type of class Thorne is:

(a) A rogue will steal your group's most powerful items and sneak off with your other dissatisfied companions and form a rivalling party;

(b) A fighter will challenge you on a one-on-one duel for leadership;

© A cipher will mess with your mind and make you change your opinions to match his

(d) A wizard may ask for the right of a wizard's duel, battling using spells alone.

 

For the rouge Thorne, you should be given a chance to track him down and his companions.

 

For other classes, if you win, you can either kick out Thorne (or kill him) and intimidate/charm your other companions into accepting your leadership. If you spare Thorne, don't be surprised if you see him heading his own adventuring party, later in the game.

[Rabain]

Or maybe they don't want to help you because you are a bad Leader in general

 

It's a game, you are their ONLY leader, so they should follow you or they should be deleted from existence.

 

If you want that level of realism how about as soon as anyone hear's about the big evil (whatever it happens to be) they flee across the nearest border to a safer land. Many players complained about Khalid in BG1 with his "better part of valor" fleeing that basically made him a liability rather than actually adding any realism considering his wife was still standing fighting by your side.

 

It is almost impossible to add this to a game without making a very annoying feature and forcing players away from npc's programmed to flee.

[Troller]

Or maybe they don't want to help you because you are a bad Leader in general

 

It's a game, you are their ONLY leader, so they should follow you or they should be deleted from existence.

 

If you want that level of realism how about as soon as anyone hear's about the big evil (whatever it happens to be) they flee across the nearest border to a safer land. Many players complained about Khalid in BG1 with his "better part of valor" fleeing that basically made him a liability rather than actually adding any realism considering his wife was still standing fighting by your side.

 

It is almost impossible to add this to a game without making a very annoying feature and forcing players away from npc's programmed to flee.

Almost, but it could be done...

[Amentep]

I think running away in the middle of battle probably wouldn't be fun.

 

Player (thinking) "I'm so glad I have Mr. Tanky the Knight. He's totally keeping the orc horde off my spell casters"

 

Mr. Tanky has morale failure and runs. TPK.

 

Player:

 

Players leaving in-between battles because they don't like what you're doing or you keep letting them die and then bringing them back or something...okay. Just so it doesn't devolve into "I want to play a neutral group so I have to randomly give to charity and whack a villager to keep balance"

[DRevan]

While companion reactivity to your actions is important and all, I don't want it to be over punishing.

Oh, and for the love of god, please no influence meters ala DAO and NWN2. I have no problems with companions hating me and eventually leaving me, but having something like influence meters ruins the immersion for me.

If they do add that, I hope there will be an option to disable it.

[smithereen]

I trust Obsidian. But we need a reactive party. It would be so cool if a rogue you haven't been taking care off said "I see where this is going..." and ran away when you told him to suicide-ambush the Dragon Lord of Terror.

[Troller]

One of the weird things was you could have a full lawful good party in BG2 for example, now if you wanted to select 5 guys in your party and attack one, and kill it, no big deal...you could kill everyone doing this, without anyone reacting at all.

[Tamerlane]

You

 

But

 

I

 

oasdhfhasdf

 

SIGOURNEY KEMP HAS PANICKED.

 

ISAO SATO HAS PANICKED.

 

IVAN PETROV HAS GONE BERSERK.

 

HANS GUNKEL HAS PANICKED.

 

CHRYSALIDS EVERYWHERE.

 

 

Anyway, it looks like people are talking about two different things here. On the one hand you have things like combat-panic (see: Xcom flashbacks). The others are talking about NPCs opposing your decisions on a greater level. No to the former, yes to the latter.

[Troller]

I think both could be intertwined

[Amentep]

I trust Obsidian. But we need a reactive party. It would be so cool if a rogue you haven't been taking care off said "I see where this is going..." and ran away when you told him to suicide-ambush the Dragon Lord of Terror.

 

Or how people would strip Khalid in BG and send him to fight alone so he'd die and they could have Jaheria without being forced to have him.

[TCJ]

I remember one time (for another game) suggesting a mod in which an NPC would actually react to things you did, and also make some decisions for himself (not for the player) if he didn't agree. Then came the "That's an awful idea! We don't want NPCs making decisions!" So, yeah, I guess there are some people who want NPCs to be animated puppets that do whatever you want whether they agree with it or not. I, for one, think it's great to have them actually act (or refuse) based on their beliefs, even to the point of departing permanently, staying out of a battle, or other things.

[Jaesun]

I trust Obsidian. But we need a reactive party. It would be so cool if a rogue you haven't been taking care off said "I see where this is going..." and ran away when you told him to suicide-ambush the Dragon Lord of Terror.

 

Or how people would strip Khalid in BG and send him to fight alone so he'd die and they could have Jaheria without being forced to have him.

 

I wasn't the only one who did that?

[el pinko grande]

I remember one time (for another game) suggesting a mod in which an NPC would actually react to things you did, and also make some decisions for himself (not for the player) if he didn't agree. Then came the "That's an awful idea! We don't want NPCs making decisions!" So, yeah, I guess there are some people who want NPCs to be animated puppets that do whatever you want whether they agree with it or not. I, for one, think it's great to have them actually act (or refuse) based on their beliefs, even to the point of departing permanently, staying out of a battle, or other things.

 

I think that's more of a story thing, though, than a combat morale system thing. Like in DA:O, you could end up fighting your companions depending on the decisions you made. I'm all for that kind of thing happening in P:E.

 

Regardless, I love Total War games, but I'm not sure having a morale system would be in keeping with the tone of the IE games that inspired it. You and your companions were typically supposed to be pretty badass in those, and I imagine they intend for P:E to be much the same. It would be weird if half of your crew of world-shaking heroes decided to run away from the evil arch-lich they were fighting.

[DocDoomII]

I trust Obsidian. But we need a reactive party. It would be so cool if a rogue you haven't been taking care off said "I see where this is going..." and ran away when you told him to suicide-ambush the Dragon Lord of Terror.

 

Or how people would strip Khalid in BG and send him to fight alone so he'd die and they could have Jaheria without being forced to have him.

 

I wasn't the only one who did that?

Uh, actually if you split a couple by bringing the one you don't want into a different area (a house for example) and remove him from the party, then you don't need to kill him.