Companions Revisited: A.K.A. Why Do Defense Slots Even Exist?

vorphied · October 2018

An old complaint, but brought to the forefront of my mind by the new Consult Expedition Pack, which contains yet another companion that will barely see the light of day owing in large part to the inclusion of a Defense Slot. And no, I don't think a party 1% damage buff is enticing enough to get players to run it as summoned, much less upgrade it to Legendary.

(Edit: Not to mention that its active bonus is horrible.)

It's really okay that not every companion is an automatic meta BiS choice, but this begs the question of whether or not we are ever going to get some kind of overhaul in the companion runestone slot system. I would suggest that it's enough that companions have varying equipment slots and that players should be able to switch runestone slots to Offense or Defense, perhaps even with some kind companion "respec" option with a nominal AD fee.

That way the handful of players out there who actively make use of Defense slots retain the option to do so, while potentially dozens of companions graduate from "completely horrible" at least to "serviceable" and get to leave the basement once in a while to enjoy some fresh air.

frozenfirevr · October 2018

A couple thousand power isn't going to change anything in the current powersharing situation (hence people don't mind using Con Artists). If we go thinking like that, why would we want defense slots even? Offense is the best defense afterall.

vorphied · October 2018

frozenfirevr said:
A couple thousand power isn't going to change anything in the current powersharing situation (hence people don't mind using Con Artists). If we go thinking like that, why would we want defense slots even? Offense is the best defense afterall.

That last bit is basically my point.

I only threw in the bit about Defense slot "switching" to satisfy the inevitable protest of "Hey, but I like my Defense slots!"

vordayn · October 2018

Reaching these artificial 'soft caps' leads me to think that perhaps an overhaul of the stat system may come soon

mithrosnomore · October 2018

This would just change which companions are considered "good enough", not add more to that list.

If you make the slots irrelevant by letting the players tailor them to their personal taste then all that matters is the type and active bonus.

These are your words, OP:
"An old complaint, but brought to the forefront of my mind by the new Consult Expedition Pack, which contains yet another companion that will barely see the light of day owing in large part to the inclusion of a Defense Slot. And no, I don't think a party 1% damage buff is enticing enough to get players to run it as summoned, much less upgrade it to Legendary.

(Edit: Not to mention that its active bonus is horrible.)"

So what I am hearing here is that even if you could change the slots around you would not upgrade or even use this companion.

Why? Because the active bonus isn't "good enough".

So this change isn't something that I think would expand the variety of companions used; To the contrary, I think that it would shrink that number.

You would have the "A-list" companions that the "best" players use, the "B-list" companions for those on a budget (real or in-game currency) or that haven't yet managed to get the elusive drop or mission reward or whatever, and every other companion that would immediately identify that player as someone *not* to invite to your party.

vorphied · October 2018

> @vordayn said:
> Reaching these artificial 'soft caps' leads me to think that perhaps an overhaul of the stat system may come soon

At this point the name of the game is definitely (very) marginal/incremental increases. I suppose I would rather a marginal increase of a desirable stat than a modest increase of an unnecessary one, but we’re not getting much either way.

I strongly suspect that the next character level increase will be Cryptic’s opportunity to carry out that overhaul and try to phase out the current glut of +% damage equipment along with the ubiquitous Demon Lords’ Immortality set by adjusting the multiplicative buff system and scaling new content appropriately.

vorphied · October 2018

> @mithrosnomore said:
> This would just change which companions are considered "good enough", not add more to that list.
>
> If you make the slots irrelevant by letting the players tailor them to their personal taste then all that matters is the type and active bonus.
>
> These are your words, OP:
> [quote]An old complaint, but brought to the forefront of my mind by the new Consult Expedition Pack, which contains yet another companion that will barely see the light of day owing in large part to the inclusion of a Defense Slot. And no, I don't think a party 1% damage buff is enticing enough to get players to run it as summoned, much less upgrade it to Legendary.
>
> (Edit: Not to mention that its active bonus is horrible.)[/quote]
>
> So what I am hearing here is that even if you could change the slots around you would not upgrade or even use this companion.
>
> Why? Because the active bonus isn't "good enough".
>
> So this change isn't something that I think would expand the variety of companions used; To the contrary, I think that it would shrink that number.
>
> You would have the "A-list" companions that the "best" players use, the "B-list" companions for those on a budget (real or in-game currency) or that haven't yet managed to get the elusive drop or mission reward or whatever, and every other companion that would immediately identify that player as someone [b]*not*[/b] to invite to your party.

I...think you may be reading more deeply into this than necessary. A lot more.

The main point, again, is that defense slots are widely considered to be undesirable, but for some reason Cryptic keeps throwing them in there.

Companions that are BiS for the meta are a different conversation; even if we swapped all defense slots for offense right now, the BiS stable wouldn’t change.

The “B List” can’t get any worse. As for the Tutor, I wouldn’t use it because the bonus is unnecessary for my end-game characters. There are characters that could benefit from it, but it’s the kind of bonus you outgrow and can’t base a build around.

mithrosnomore · October 2018

Forum ate my post. I messed up some of the formatting and was trying to correct it. I guess I edited one too many times.

Anyway, though, this was mentioned by you so I thought that it was part of the purpose of the proposed change...

"That way the handful of players out there who actively make use of Defense slots retain the option to do so, while potentially dozens of companions graduate from "completely horrible" at least to "serviceable" and get to leave the basement once in a while to enjoy some fresh air."

What stops anyone from using a "serviceable" companion now?

A player can swap their active companions in and out, so if the random queue sticks you in the Cloak Tower then take whoever out of the active list and put the Tutor in for a while.

So apparently I just don't get it.

This just seems like an argument to further optimize some companions in order to fill a non-existent need.

pitshade · October 2018

I can only hope that if they raise the cap again, they don't dance around with the old gear like in mod 6. Throwing tons of HP pn gear didn't invalidate the old set bonuses and it messes up the game on its own way. Then 4 mods later they finally reopen old wounds and ditch the set bonuses. Please let them just pull the rotten tooth the next time.

vorphied · October 2018

> @mithrosnomore said:
> Forum ate my post. I messed up some of the formatting and was trying to correct it. I guess I edited one too many times.
>
> Anyway, though, this was mentioned by you so I thought that it was part of the purpose of the proposed change...
>
> "That way the handful of players out there who actively make use of Defense slots retain the option to do so, while potentially dozens of companions graduate from "completely horrible" at least to "serviceable" and get to leave the basement once in a while to enjoy some fresh air."
>
> What stops anyone from using a "serviceable" companion now?
>
> A player can swap their active companions in and out, so if the random queue sticks you in the Cloak Tower then take whoever out of the active list and put the Tutor in for a while.
>
> So apparently I just don't get it.
>
> This just seems like an argument to further optimize some companions in order to fill a non-existent need.

Let me boil this down:

Defense slots are bad, and virtually no one wants them.

While it would not change the meta, it would hurt nothing to swap them to offense slots, and it would make many companions slightly better as summoned than before.

It’s not about optimizing BiS options. The presence of offense vs defense slots is one of the measures of a “good” summoned companion, so why not even the playing field very slightly by removing that handicap?

If that’s not bring clear, let me turn it around and ask you why we should continue to have defense slots.

I thought my suggestion was fairly uncontroversial since I’m proposing to do away with something pretty much no one seems to like, but by all means, let’s talk it out

ecrana · October 2018

I'm not a fan of defense slots but you could take this same argument and apply it to rings.

Why do double defense slot rings exist? Why mixed slots? Most go after double offense rings.

The answer is simply variety. People act like they're being forced to be BiS. You don't need to have a companion with all offense slots. But you can decide to have that companion if you deem it worthy.

I see no reason to "even out" the playing field by making the slots all offense or giving the choice to switch them.

vorphied · October 2018

ecrana#2080 said:
I'm not a fan of defense slots but you could take this same argument and apply it to rings.

Why do double defense slot rings exist? Why mixed slots? Most go after double offense rings.

The answer is simply variety. People act like they're being forced to be BiS. You don't need to have a companion with all offense slots. But you can decide to have that companion if you deem it worthy.

I see no reason to "even out" the playing field by making the slots all offense or giving the choice to switch them.

We don't need more variety of rings except perhaps to have the devs stop creating entire collections of hunt rings with double defense slots. It's conceivable for specific builds that players might actually make use of defense slots once in a while, and at least they have the option of using that slot for any defensive stat they want to place into it. Rings with mixed slots fill that niche.

Companions are less complicated because, regardless of their slot, the only thing you're sticking in there is a Bonding runestone. Not much involved in the way of variables, and no viable option to customize for the desired defensive traits. Companions also have somewhat unique functions that players might want to use, even if only for flavor in many cases.

I suppose I'm not seeing the harm in wanting to make bad companions slightly less bad. As @frozenfirevr helpfully indicated, the differences are marginal in a buffed party, but the average up-and-coming player who spends a lot of time alone or in low-buff, uncoordinated random queues does notice these differences a bit more.

pitshade · October 2018

The devs design items for a game in which we aren't all glass cannons, but design content that renders any other build criteria pointless. The companions can be thought of as just following a template, perhaps. What is harder to understand are the hunt rings from Omu.

mentinmindmaker · October 2018

Defense slots DO have some desirability for some situations/builds:
* Tanks (situationally) need +defense, at least GFs
* Defense slots also let you put in +lifesteal, which is the defensive stat for dps

Removing defensive slots would make the game less complex.. I like it complex

Also:
It is my guess that with mod16 we'll get diminishing returns for +power and +dps. This will be the final answer to the current unhealthy 4 supports + 1 dps party building.

sumplkrum · October 2018

I'm not sure the companion system really works the way the devs originally intended.
There are about 100 companions available, and everyone just uses the same like dozen or so.

I feel like companions need an 'appearance change' feature similar to equipment so there's some use for the 90 companions that never get used.

I'd like to have my Chultan Tiger or Con Artist, but have it look like Xuna.

Maybe appearance changes only happen with like-function companions so animations aren't a problem. ... A striker companion can only change the appearance of another striker companion, etc.

mentinmindmaker · October 2018

The companion system need an upgrade bringing the stat companions closer in value to the +dps/+crit severity ones.

andyy22 · October 2018

From a game-design perspective the current companion system is a fail, it only succeeds as a extra ZEN/AD sink. The reason is that choices boil down to "can i afford BiS", "can i afford alternative BiS" if the answer is no than use whatever you can cheaply get.

In comparison the mount system is better designed, since it allows for more choices and also the ability to just unlock stuff and actually ride the mount you fancy. In contrast companions are mainly chosen based on how the stupid bonding system works and if you can stack debuffs.
The companion system had the potential to actually add some interesting mechanics or at least some personal flavor, instead they treated the system like a extension of your normal gear progression. It seems keeping players in the powercreep hamster wheel was more important than promoting a more "fashion" or lore based system. This is a really strange decision, since games like Warframe show that players will also shell out substantial money just for "fashion frames", so f2p devs don't need to go 100% powercreep all the time to sell there goodies.

ecrana · October 2018

andyy22 said:
From a game-design perspective the current companion system is a fail, it only succeeds as a extra ZEN/AD sink. The reason is that choices boil down to "can i afford BiS", "can i afford alternative BiS" if the answer is no than use whatever you can cheaply get.

In comparison the mount system is better designed, since it allows for more choices and also the ability to just unlock stuff and actually ride the mount you fancy. In contrast companions are mainly chosen based on how the stupid bonding system works and if you can stack debuffs.

Are you really saying that people don't buy mounts based on whether they are BiS? So all the people buying Swarms, TRexs, Tensers discs, etc are just doing that for looks?

No, the mount system is still "Can I afford BiS?" (ex 4k power mount) , "Can I afford alternative BiS?" (ex 2k power mount). If the answer is no use what I got.

Yes, the big difference is that you can ride whatever mount you want to ride. But slotting a special power from the mount just feels different to me than a companion debuff based completely off of that companions attack.

The system doesn't bother me in the slightest but then again I was never concerned with seeing oh so many con artists/tigers/sellswords/etc etc etc around. If they changed the system the biggest change would be a lot more people gravitating towards whatever the most skimpily dressed companion there is out there while still using the same exact debuff as before.

Then people would be complaining that they only ever see XX companion running around because they look the best so please make more fashionably dressed companion options.

Companions Revisited: A.K.A. Why Do Defense Slots Even Exist?

Comments