I agree with Red's comments and would posit the following idea:

Work it like this, you can design a side kick and a nemesis if you want, they only ever show up in specific missions you can do which interact with them (so yes, my idea is basically Red's idea), sort of like how the Alignment/tip missions worked in CoX along with the storyline arcs involving Proton and Dillo, etc.. So you have a sidekick and/or nemesis you've created using the usual character creation tools, and then, and when you go to do the missions that interact with that stuff, your sidekick appears as a NPC inside the mission and joins you, or you have to rescue them from the nemesis, etc. So basically the sidekick ends up being Twin Shot and the nemesis ends up being Doc Quantum or someone. For making and leveling the sidekick and nemesis, to some extent I think the player ought to pick things like power sets and ATs and the game itself should pick specific powers and how to level them up, etc. This way your NPC sidekick isn't just an add-on you get to use whenever you want, but rather a specific part of a mission every time it shows up, and sometimes you have to rescue it and sometimes it has to rescue you, etc.

Edit: Then I'd sell the missions/arcs that interact with the sidekicks and nemeses for Stars/microsub, like SSAs or the alignment missions in CoX (which you had to be a sub to do).

Redlynne wrote:

Tannim, any kind of "full time sidekick" will quickly be turned into a Game Balance Point that divides the Haves from the Have Nots. People with permanent sidekicks will have asymmetrical advantages over those who don't. My concern is that turning this into a potentially "universal" feature carries with it a factor that can destabilize game balance just as permanently.
So let's look at what purpose an NPC Sidekick is intended to serve.
On the face of things, an NPC Sidekick functions in much the same way as an NPC Nemesis for your character would ... they are a recurring character "participating" in the story of the character you are playing. Which makes me think that ideally you'd want to run any kind of Sidekick system off the exact same code base as any kind of Nemesis system (after all, why reinvent the wheel?). The reason for this is that both are NPCs that are "attached" to your character in some way, with the only major difference between them being Loyalty (in the US vs THEM sense).
My notion is that any sort of NPC Sidekick and NPC Nemesis ought to be ... confined ... to somewhat specific storylines and story arcs. Ideally, these would be "recurring characters" who appear for/against your PC with content specifically designed (and therefore, balanced) for the inclusion and participation of these NPCs. For extra bonus points (and replay value?) you could have 4 different "versions" of such storylines and story arcs be possible:
Solo PC
PC + Sidekick
PC + Nemesis
PC + Sidekick and Nemesis
The burden of content creation being what it is, I would assume that not every story arc would have all 4 options developed for it ... but simply having the intent and goal that storylines COULD have all 4 options, and with ongoing development and evolution of the game potentially might realize all 4 options at a future date, would I think be a wise choice for keeping the game relatively open ended. So long as content is created in an Easy To Modify fashion in the first place, you'd be able to produce Variations On Themes over time as resources permit. That way you don't have to get everything out the door on the first push.
The "baseline" for such stories, of course, would be the Solo PC experience, but if you DESIGN your content for "plug and play" (literally!) additions to that content that permit the inclusion of NPC Sidekicks and NPC Nemesis types as carryover/recurring characters that your PC interacts with ... well ... I'd say you were well on your way to providing the necessary space for a wide variety of playing styles and adventure themes.
I agree with you that any sort of Sidekick and/or Nemesis system ought to be purchased through Stars. I'd even go so far as to advise that such a service be subscription based ... pay X stars to enable access 1 Sidekick or Nemesis for 30 days. If you want both for one character then you're paying double. Sidekicks and Nemesis NPCs would be "bound" to specific characters, although there ought to be an option allowing for the "duplication" of such characters to multiple PCs (you'd just have to pay more Stars for the "privilege" of doing so). That way you can have either a single Grand Nemesis who opposes ALL of your PCs or have a "rogues gallery" of opposing Nemesis NPCs, each one tailored to each of your PCs. Likewise, you could have a single "omni" Sidekick who is loyal to all of your PCs (because of copy copy) or each one could have their own Sidekick who is unique to each PC. Add an "auto renew" feature onto the subscription of the service and you're good to go.
Objections?

Radiac wrote:

I agree with Red's comments and would posit the following idea

The proposals as the stand are understandable in the sense that the concern is over game balance on a whole and the requirement of specific content design around the sk to resolve the balance concerns. I would say however that it is a very limited version of what is being sought after by what quite a few of posted about. Further more, if the system requires specific content in order ot engage it, there stands a chance that it will be very infrequent in receiving attention.

This is why I suggested that the sk if it is not a pet based on a tertiary set, that it require the use of a character slot and / or an additional account. And in addition to that, requiring that the SK be considered an actual team member and thus the content engaged automatically scale with the use of the sk. Another important note, if the sk earns xp but is never actively logged on (in the external system concept) then it will never be levelled up and have very limiteed functionality. This also does not take into consideration any mechanics with the use of the sk that limit its capabilities and also what may occur in the case when the sk is defeated.

Again, most of this is rather a moot point in being that the main course of action would first be to see if we can make a summons tertiary work well enough within the game.

So, after Dev's get player requests to make SideKicks better..
..it might turn out to be more like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/P1fg9Ic.png[/img]
They will eventually have to gimp the Main toon to prevent Imbalances. :{

Whoah, accidental multi-post?

Be Well!
Fireheart

sorry I didn't notice the multi-post. It was time to go to work and I was having connection problems.

I forgot to mention that there should probably be limits on what class a sidekick can be, (a sidekick mastermind sounds like an oxymoron) and on who can use them. Why would a mastermind need a sidekick?
You could also make some power sets not available to sidekicks
and sidekicks should only get one command bar
so when they get to higher levels you'll have to choose which abilities they can use and that will limit their usefulness
And dont forget that part of their command bar will be taken up with commands like "come here", "don't Move" or "interact with the targeted object".

Lothic wrote:

Other players like Masterminds are already going to have their own built-in pets so we don't need some kind of extra system that'll make everyone a "pocket Mastermind" with their own controllable combat pet.

+1.
Plus... the Devs wont have to deal with the Headache of maintaining both. :/
Just make One.. Awesome! ;D

I agree with sentiments toward the concern of game balance all classifications having access to combat pets. It is our intent to make as many of our primary sets into tertiary sets as possible, this includes our Summons Sets. A couple of things to keep in mind in considering this possibility:

Masterminds were truly effective with their entire array of pets at their disposal and were typicall best suited for non-aoe-based encounters, or where the MM could direct attention toward themselves to leverage Bodyguard to help spread damage and keep their pets alive. Tertiary Sets won't have a full compliment of the Summons primary, nor would it have all of the tools of Primary set will have to augment their pets or use in addition to their pets. What version of pets the Tertiary summons set uses may not directly compare to the Primary version either - point in fact one concern is the possibility that the tertiary version pets could be too "squishy".

At any rate, this is something for testing way, way off from where we are at now and will be approached with extreme care when we do get to it. I would say it is a fair bet that if it doesn't work within the performance metrics we have established, it won't happen.

I'd point out that DDO isn't the only example of eternal hirelings on the market. Star Trek Online does something somewhat similar in that for ground missions you've almost always got a complement of Bridge Officers along for the ride. Depending on the "challenge factor" of the zone, you'll typically get either 1, 2 or 4 Bridge Officer NPCs accompanying your captain on ground missions (usually 4). This essentially turns every captain into something of a pet herder, and you have to equip your Bridge Officers with gear, decide their costume designs, allocate their skills ... and on and on and on. Bridge Officers in STO are rather broadly customizable.

Of course, when you team up with other Players, the number of Bridge Officers each Player is contributing to the fight gets reduced ... until in a team of 5 captains you've got zero Bridge Officers along for the ride.

So there are precedents for this kind of thing.

The problem, from my perspective, is the "Pocket Empath" heal/buff bot that allows people to create Tank Mage duo combinations. Note that the reverse is also true, where a "Squishy" PC could have a "Pocket Tank" as their sidekick designed to inhale all aggro and give the "Squishy" PC free reign to unleash havoc. As Radiac mentions, the opportunity to create "perfect"ly complimentary sidekick duos is just too seductive to ignore ... hence my point concerning the Haves vs Have Nots.

As for Tannim's point about using another PC as a Sidekick, that sounds substantially like a [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Leveling_Pact]Leveling Pact[/url] to me, with the added privilege of not needing a human to "drive" the Sidekick. On the face of things, I can envision a few too many ways to exploit such a relationship, including Radiac's already mentioned Power Level concern.

Perhaps the best way to express my qualms is that I suppose Sidekicks ought to only be PCs ... not NPCs.

Because most of the CoT nomenclature is still in flux I think it an apt time to point out what we are talking about*.

Social Systems - Sidekicking is a way to bring up new players and encourage teaming. It creates player bonds and goes a great way toward player retention.

Combat Systems - Sidekicks are pets that unlike minions are stronger, presumably more durable and important to keep alive (although the Unreal Pawn system has an option to use this pet as a non-attackable)

Player Generated Content (PGC) - A sidekick is an NPC created by a player for story content. They can be captured, hospitalized, threatened etc for mission purposes allowing unique characterization. Also this would be the system for using characters in personal and supergroup bases.

*The same general nomenclature could apply to Nemesis and other systems. I personally want a Social System of Nemesis (finding a villain player and being able to continually foil their dubious plots) over a PGC Nemesis system.

I'm frequently amazed by how "well, this obviously is the last word on a game that isn't out yet and will go through many revisions and alterations throughout the years while it is running; I'm out" seems to come up so frequently.

If you had high hopes at one point, keep them. We try to be as clear as we can, and create as good a depiction of what it might be like as possible, but we're human and, frankly, we don't have the complete picture in our own minds, yet. Because it does change as we implement ideas, see things that do or do not work, or come up with a last second innovation based on how the systems we're employing can be exploited more effectively to build a smoother, richer game.

Don't get discouraged if you don't like something you're hearing. It may or may not really make it to the final game. Likewise, feel free to discuss what you'd like to see; just be aware that we're at a stage where almost anything we don't already have some sort of plan to include is going to go on a back burner for "maybe in an expansion." Not because things are set in stone, but because we're working on pruning DOWN our wish lists to make sure we get the core of the game put together and, most importantly, [i]know when to stop designing for the first release[/i]. Because one of the big things that I know software designers often mess up on is not knowing when "good enough" is ready to release.

A lot of development hell games got stuck there because the designers wanted perfection before they released anything.

Radiac wrote:

I think people (and I'm guilty of this myself, I think we all are really) just get frustrated when someone disagrees with them and then backs up their opposition with a cogent argument that illustrates how the idea might lead to problems down the line.

It's a bad habit of mine, I know. I'll stop doing it one of these days ...

JayBezz wrote:

Do not want.
I think friendly NPC's serve great purpose in PvE (and PvP) but frankly if there's a story to be told with another player I don't want it substituted by an NPC player. (Yes I'm one of those people who advocated socialization over solo play at every turn as it's not just better for the player (to have a social group) but it's also good for the game.)
People who play MMORPGs to solo perplex me. There's a whole system full of players. If you want a partnership I think it's healthier to have a Player than an NPC.
When it comes to playing the "damsel in distress" that's a great place for an NPC (as no player wants to play as a useless NPC)

Well call me "Mr Perplex"
I solo in CoH to build my character up, I work on my weaknesses and slot my powers accordingly. A group of strong solo players is a force to be reckon with, by the way there was "Batman" before "Batman & Robin". More examples: "Iron Man", "HULK", "Thor", "Captain America" before "The Avengers", and if you say "Xmen" then I'll say "Wolverine" because that's who I would be. You don't have to understand my decision, just know this, a solo player like me would never join a group if he or she is not ready. Because a solo player like me would never need a tanker to keep the aggro, or a defender to heal me ( It would be great if they do, but it's not needed ).

I played many Mastermind characters in CoX. It was the Mastermind Primary that finally provided the game with a level of challenge and complexity that I found enjoyable. I really don't see much difference between "sidekick" and "pet" in the way the terms are being used here.

One of the aspects of Guild Wars that fascinated me was the ability to hire help. If you found yourself soloing and the material was tough-going, you went back into town and hired what you needed. A Tank, a Ranger, or a Cleric. Or even all three. The AI for these mercenaries was pretty well done, although the Cleric did tend to get stuck in the landscape more than the other two for some reason. The mercenary took some of your loot, but none of your experience. If your found yourself outleveling them, then releasing and rehiring them in the next town brought them back up to your level. It was an interesting option for solo players.

I do a lot of soloing when I play. I tend to play at odd times when there are few people around. Also, I often find myself surrounded by immature, foul-mouthed people who make for very unpleasant gaming partners. When you log on at midnight and play until sunrise it is not uncommon to find yourself surrounded by inebriated or exhausted players. Our Villain Group had one member who was constantly falling asleep in the middle of missions. We dubbed her the "Keyboard Ninja". At one point she even made an alt with that name.

However, in addition to soloing I also organize or join PUGs quite often. One of the things I disliked about CoH is that only the team leader could see the dialogs. It was infuriating to not know what was happening. I came over to the heroside very late, a short time after Dual Swords/Willpower came out. There were many times when I would get onto a PUG for a TF that everyone else had run dozens of times so they knew every step along the way without even thinking about it. I was forever asking, "Where am I supposed to be going?" or "Why the heck do we have to farm these particular enemies and how many do we need?" As a result, if I was running with PUGs I tried very hard to make sure they were PUGs I organized and led, especially on the heroside. The only hero I ever got to level 50 was my Dual Swords/Willpower Scrapper, and that took months, right around a full year, as I recall.

CoX also had Veteran's Reward pets. The first couple were just for show, but later on the pet had a small buff it applied. Of course, the buff was very small and the pet was very weak, but they were still nice to have tagging along.

The idea of having one of my own alts as a sidekick fascinates me. I never would have imagined such a situation. If this is implemented it will make for a variety of very interesting experiments.

The number one mistake any MMORPG can make is to force players to do something. It does not matter if the game is forcing them to level, forcing them to group, forcing them to join raid parties, or whatever. The moment a player has no choice in your game it gives them a very good reason to play a different game. Avoiding dictating player choices and behaviors is vital. One of the reasons I avoided the heroside was because in CoH unless you were a Scrapper or a Tank, you basically needed to team in order to accomplish anything. Blasters could do more than Controllers or Defenders, but even Blasters did not have much fun trying to solo Hazard Zones. One of the things that appealed to me about CoV, and especially about the Mastermind, was that it more or less eliminated the need to team and did so intentionally. A Dominator could survive almost anything and in skilled hands really could dominate an entire mission on the hardest settings in the game. I never could manage to get the hang of Controllers. It was quite shocking to me how differently they performed.

Very far along, somewhere around a year and a half before the servers were shut down, I made an Empathy/Archery Defender. She started out as a Valentine's Day joke character but over time she became quite enjoyable to play. Small teams of three or four were best. Larger teams just wanted her to spam heals, very boring. In a smaller team the minor bits of damage the Archery put out came in very handy. Solo with this character was a complete nightmare. I only brought her out when I knew I would have at least one other player to team up with. I suppose I was using other players as "sidekicks", or maybe I was the sidekick and they were the hero.

The sidekick idea, therefore, seems to me to have a certain value. It would have to be playtested and balanced, of course, but I suspect it would prove quite popular. Just about anyone who is going to prefer using a full sidekick (might as well say, "single pet") secondary is probably looking for a pet-class anyway. Certain magic classes in Lineage II have single pets they use as they level up, although I understand that nowadays those classes are far less popular than they used to be. Conversely, being able to hire an NPC to come along and compensate for your weaknesses (as in Guild Wars) could also prove beneficial for many players. If my Emp/Arch Defender had been able to summon a DPS or Tank (or hire one) I probably would have taken her on more solo runs. Maybe she would have seen more stories and progressed more easily that way. She was right around level 30 when the servers were shut down. After a year and a half!

I played City of Heroes solo very very often. I preferred teamplay, but often had to play from work if I wanted to play at all. I was allowed to, but had to stop immediately when something came up. I did not want my team to suffer from my very frequent afk- times. At the same time I did not want to miss City of Heroes.

While not everyone might find themselves in situations like that, but many might have their reasons to play solo. And while it was possible to solo controllers and defenders, it was not really much fun for me. In fact a friend of mine stopped playing City of Heroes because he was so frustrated by the solo experience of his controller. Having hired help available would have made a big difference. Not only would it have been a lot easier to solo those archetypes, but it would also have enabled you to really play out that archetype. Controllers and defenders were build for teamwork, I found they felt awkward alone, with no one to support.

So I am highly in favor for some kind of sidekick, mercenary or a temporary pet summon power. I would limit that to be only usable during solo play though and maybe have the earned rewards reduced a little so that playing without the sidekick has advantages too.

But then again, I have read every classification is supposed to be fully able to be played solo. Maybe something like that is not even necessary.

Actually limiting them to solo play is more a compromise I am willing to make then what I want. A very small one, because I would rarely use sidekicks outside of sole play, except maybe in situations where the team is missing something and summoning my sidekick would remedy that.

And yes, I do want to have something like that too. Not only that, I also think it woul be a lot easier to have some sort of NPC help available for solo play than to balance every classification that it could be played and enjoyed to be played solo. That way you can have dedicated team supporters and still get along fine on your own, if you want or need to.Could save some developing time, I suspect.