You're making me leave? Then I want my cut of the treasure!

[Tamerlane]

If every addition is a new hire and every removal is a firing... well, that's a huge ****ing pain in the ass. Maybe I just want Viconia to chill the **** out while I go and do Valygar's questline before I bring her along again?

[AGX-17]

If you're just going to kick someone to the curb for good (who's helped you along the whole time 'till now,) no better off than they'd started aside from their level, it seems right that they should get a cut of what they helped acquire. It should be an option, but so should being a greedy, selfish ****. Unless they weren't doing it for the money or loot. In which case they should be fine with it or emotionally distraught. And then start stalking you.

 

Edit: for the record, Obsidian, **** is 7 letters, not 4. This is a rather perplexing situation.

Edited October 27, 2012 by AGX-17

[BasaltineBadger]

It just needlessly complicates the game. Basically it's a price you pay when switching companions and I don't like it.

[Hormalakh]

The point is that companions shouldn't be some sort of mindless, life-less quest option for you to finish and do away with. Companions should be just that, people who are by your side from the beginning to the end, through thick and thin. It's supposed to make players think a little more about why companions follow the PC and what they're willing to put up with. I understand this is a game, but a game with a well-thought out series of companions that act life-like makes the game that much more interesting.

 

I truly do understand the perspective of players who want to be able to experience every companion (and the rest of the game) with the first play through - what some people call "power-gaming." It's how I play most of my games. But there have been those games where they've tried to minimize this sort of thing, and I've appreciated it. It's made me want to replay the game to further experience those aspects that I haven't. It's makes the world richer and deeper for it.

 

Treating your companions like some sort of chattel should make the player feel guilty. Or at least fully think about that decision. That's what a thought-provoking game like this should do.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Tamerlane]

The thing is, the six-man-limit is entirely arbitrary from an in-character perspective. It's there for balance and to make party management not-godawful. As far as the Bhaalspawn or The Nameless One or whoever the hell is concerned, there's really no reason for being limited to five followers at a time. Trying to build harsh plot-consequences around something that doesn't really make sense from plot-perspective is... generally not a good thing,

[Hormalakh]

The thing is, the six-man-limit is entirely arbitrary from an in-character perspective. It's there for balance and to make party management not-godawful. As far as the Bhaalspawn or The Nameless One or whoever the hell is concerned, there's really no reason for being limited to five followers at a time. Trying to build harsh plot-consequences around something that doesn't really make sense from plot-perspective is... generally not a good thing,

 

Eh not really. The way I see it, is that even in real-life, many people only have a few really close friends and allies that they would be willing to place their lives in their hands. Some people have a few more close friends than others, but usually you don't have a horde of people who you are willing to call "good friends/allies/companions." It's always a select few.

 

Some prior RPGs have made companion limits based on a player's charisma. This is an abstraction of real-life. Six-man limit might be slightly arbitrary (why not seven or eight or five?) but as a general rule it follows what people would accept as a realistic possibility. It's not entirely arbitrary.

 

Edit: the other thing I noticed is that some people consider the PC's party in different terms. Some call them followers. Others call them companions. I think companions is closer to what they are than "followers."

Edited October 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Tamerlane]

Eh not really. The way I see it, is that even in real-life, many people only have a few really close friends and allies that they would be willing to place their lives in their hands. Some people have a few more close friends than others, but usually you don't have a horde of people who you are willing to call "good friends/allies/companions." It's always a select few.

But there is no requirement that you be a "best friend" of someone to be a companion/ally. You can be a hireling. You can be following someone else because their agenda aligns with your own. You can be following someone else out of a feeling of debt. Myriad reasons. But none of them have anything to do with how many people are already around. None of those things would require me getting rid of any one character just to bring in any other character. That is purely a matter of balance and manageability.

[Hormalakh]

Eh not really. The way I see it, is that even in real-life, many people only have a few really close friends and allies that they would be willing to place their lives in their hands. Some people have a few more close friends than others, but usually you don't have a horde of people who you are willing to call "good friends/allies/companions." It's always a select few.

But there is no requirement that you be a "best friend" of someone to be a companion/ally. You can be a hireling. You can be following someone else because their agenda aligns with your own. You can be following someone else out of a feeling of debt. Myriad reasons. But none of them have anything to do with how many people are already around. None of those things would require me getting rid of any one character just to bring in any other character. That is purely a matter of balance and manageability.

 

Per the dev team, there will be occasions where you might have more than 6 people who are "following" you, but those are for a limited period.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

In addition to being terrible, this feature you folks are discussing is totally unneccessary. They will already have a hire cost for the Adventure Hall; Sawyer noted this as a money sink in the game. So, there are your money grubbing hirelings. Done. The prefab characters join for other reasons. If you played MotB, characters joined you for various reasons not related to all the phat loots scattered about the realms. In other words, maybe they don't give two hoots about the +5 Dagger of Pointiness you just found.

[BasaltineBadger]

@Hormalakh

It's an RPG, not a life simulation and there should be some simplification, just like in other areas. It's not like you can't feel sorry for leaving them if you didn't lose gold because of it.

[Sistergoldring]

I'd like my companions to ask for their cut. It seems realistic that they would want a share of the loot. I'm not sure I get the whole experience side of thing but I'd expect them to want to keep their gear and a cut of the loot and any special personal quest Item they'd picked up.

[Osvir]

Realized some potential design issues:

* When you get to a high level, and start to feel that Godmode feeling about your character, will anyone (specially someone who knows you by now) ask for anything from you? Likewise, your companion might be Godmode and what could you do to stop him/her/it from claiming?

* Befriended, you've befriended the only companion that really has the banter, personality and concept of someone who even would ask for a cut, but due to the befriendment would he/she/it even ask for it? (I really can't see every companion asking for a cut, maybe every companion from the Adventurer's Hall would though, I dunno)

[TrashMan]

 

I'd also like the ability to IMMEDIATELY attack them upon kicking them out of your party, and to loot everything they have when they perish, even a little hamster.

 

As long as your other party members kill you because they think you've gone crazy.

[Tauron]

hmmm it did sound intriguing, maybe having some sort of favor system and consequence of those

[Hormalakh]

Realized some potential design issues:

* When you get to a high level, and start to feel that Godmode feeling about your character, will anyone (specially someone who knows you by now) ask for anything from you? Likewise, your companion might be Godmode and what could you do to stop him/her/it from claiming?

* Befriended, you've befriended the only companion that really has the banter, personality and concept of someone who even would ask for a cut, but due to the befriendment would he/she/it even ask for it? (I really can't see every companion asking for a cut, maybe every companion from the Adventurer's Hall would though, I dunno)

 

Why would you leave your friend? That's the whole point of this discussion. If you were a true friend then you wouldn't be leaving the companion high and dry. If you're going to treat him like dirt, then he's going to act like a hireling. He's going to demand payment, since it's all business with you. As for godmode, apparently P:E will end at around a D&D equilavent of Level 15. So no godmode.

[Archmage Silver]

All I'd be willing to risk is my influence with the said companion and the possible organisations he/she is affiliated with, unless I'm affiliated with those organisations myself, in which case the only thing at stake would be companion influence.

[Tamerlane]

Why would you leave your friend?

Because arbitrary game mechanics demanded it.

[BasaltineBadger]

Realized some potential design issues:

* When you get to a high level, and start to feel that Godmode feeling about your character, will anyone (specially someone who knows you by now) ask for anything from you? Likewise, your companion might be Godmode and what could you do to stop him/her/it from claiming?

* Befriended, you've befriended the only companion that really has the banter, personality and concept of someone who even would ask for a cut, but due to the befriendment would he/she/it even ask for it? (I really can't see every companion asking for a cut, maybe every companion from the Adventurer's Hall would though, I dunno)

 

Why would you leave your friend? That's the whole point of this discussion. If you were a true friend then you wouldn't be leaving the companion high and dry. If you're going to treat him like dirt, then he's going to act like a hireling. He's going to demand payment, since it's all business with you. As for godmode, apparently P:E will end at around a D&D equilavent of Level 15. So no godmode.

 

Because he's useless in combat and I don't want him to get killed. It's not like they are just left on the street, they usually go to some convenient gathering location and spend their time with everyone else who's not in the party at a time.

 

Also why is third option trying to make people who don't want the mechanic sound like ****?

Edited October 30, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Ninjamestari]

The easiest answer to this question is to not make too many companion characters and thus have no need for an arbitrary maximum party size. When it comes to companions, I think less is more, and I very much prefer to have a small number of interesting and properly fleshed out characters that interact with the player, other companions and even the world and it's NPC's. Maybe at some times they have their own stuff to do so that you can't have them for a particular mission? Maybe they develop feelings towards each other and not just towards the player character? If there is a romance and some kind of love triangle involved, should the player automatically be the object of desire? Maybe he has to compete against another character to win the attention of his/her love? Maybe there is a companion that doesn't really like you but follows you because of his/her friend has decided to stick with you? etc etc...

 

That way you can think of lots of different scenarios with real consequences besides some crude and boring mechanical "you lost a companion, he takes x gold and y experience with him/her as he/she goes away while giving you the finger". But other than that there should also be a real reason for you to kick a particular companion out of your group, not just crude and boring mechanical "I've reached the maximum party size so I'll have to kick this companion in order to make room for the hot elf chick".

[Hormalakh]

 

Also why is third option trying to make people who don't want the mechanic sound like ****?

 

It was written in jest. This is a game afterall Nobody should be taking this stuff that seriously. Except for the devs - it's their job to do so.

[Gleipnir]

Has anyone ever tried the good old game ishar? Now that was an interesting game, back in the day at least, when came to party mechanics. You started with one character and could recruit 3-4 others. I used to get an edge at the start of the game by recruiting characters, taking their money and equipment and then telling them to buzz off. You even had the option to stab them in the back and kill them.

 

However, when I had a party going and came a across a character to rob, the party took a VOTE weather to ditch him. if he got a majority support he could not be gotten rid of. Unless you stabbed him in the back, which might cause one of his friends to stab you in the back in turn.

 

If we had such a system, albeit a bit more refined, it would make party politics and greed an amusing issue.

[Tsuga C]

They might be entitled to a share of the coin and the non-monetary loot, but I'm not yielding any of my XP. It was assigned based upon the actions of the group and nothing the group has done should be lost from memory just because one team member gets kicked to the curb.

[light487]

Think it should depend on the companion's motives, personality and the friendship you have with them.

 

What I'd like to see is the ability for that companion to become autonymous from the player character. So while you go your separate ways, they might go on to form their own party or settle down or whatever was their original motive for joining up with you. Perhaps they will wait for you and so on. If there was some more far reaching consequence than simply affecting the PC, then maybe the PC might actually be willing to give the companion funds and equipment to help them out, that may come back to help them at a later time... or if you don't give anything, it might come back to bite you later and so on.

 

By doing something like this, it would mean:

 

- getting the companion killed to get rid of them would affect you more than a few lousy gold coins.

- would make your decisions have weight

- would make the companions more value, even if not in the party any longer

- and so on...