Discuss: Companions
Companions are a feature in Guild Wars 2. Companions will have customisability similar to Heroes. Players will be allowed to bring a single companion with them, who will not take up a party slot. When a player chooses not to bring a companion, their character will instead be buffed so that they will not be disadvantaged by not bringing a companion.
- taken from PC Gamer magazine 161
- taken from PC Gamer magazine 161
Brokunn
4 years ago 
More info
Members who voted on this answer also voted on:Please login or register to see notification options.
Like this answer?
Your ballot is empty. Sign in to vote on this topic and rank your ballot!
GuildWarsIdeas.com is a fan-operated website that is not endorsed or affiliated with ArenaNet.
Guild Wars is a trademark of NCsoft Corporation. Copyright © NCsoft Corporation. All right reserved.
© 2012 ArenaNet, Inc.
All rights reserved. ArenaNet, Arena.net and the ArenaNet logo, as well as Guild Wars, are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCsoft Corporation.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Help Members & Groups Guild Wars 2 Trailers Community guidelines About GuildWarsIdeas.com Report a Bug
Powered by KL Communications
Revision: @REV@
Comments
Add a CommentPresumably companions are not replacements for heroes since I understand GW2 is designed like GW1 to be soloable: Just speculating but I reckon what might happen is that you have just the player and a companion in the persistent areas where you can meet other players, but would be able to add heroes for missions and quests that take place in instances.
The companions idea sounds a bit hokey to me - because (it would seem) as your character increases in level your companion would need to decrease in level to compensate. Can't imagine sustaining interest in a companion that gets worse with experience...
i completely agree with you
i think that ncsoft and anet are pretending to be innovative again :(
No I think you might be confusing the sidekick system for companions. Anyway, I think its possible that they won't add in anything to replace henchies. Instead, really difficult enemy parties might only be found during events, and the event system will draw players to the area to fight as your allies so you have help only where its needed and don't carry it with you. At least they might design it that way. If they do then dungeons would either require special allies or need to be soloable.
companions would just be a hassle to use
I think Companions would be for times when you want to not take any self heals, or having a build that you need a tank for, or something like that. Just adding variety. It's more innovative than boring ol' Heroes.
If they are removing hero's (in which case they are), then why do we even need a companion? Wouldn't that... in essence be a hero as well?
My argument is, buff the player and forget about the companion unless they plan to setup something truly revolutionairy with their AI responsiveness to the player.
In a fantasy setting there isn't a lot of call for a "young ward" sidekick. Having a peer companion is what heroes should have been about. Given these grounds, paring the heroes concept down to a single companion is a step backward. The bold move would have been to promote companions to a level that makes them equal to foes and fully customizable (exactly like player characters).
From a programming PoV it's easier to reduce functionality to a single hero than it is to figure out what's really wrong with the system and fix it.
Companions is a cop out that takes the submarine potential out of James Bond's Alfa Romeo and promises that you'll like it better as a roadster. We've played with a single companion already. That was the first level Nightfall.
The only advantage that has currently been offered for a companion over a hero is that the companion might be more customizable in terms of looks.
Can anyone tell me what's exciting about that?
Does this companion thing really imply that there will be no more heroes any more?
Anet has promised that in GW2 the campaign story missions will be instanced and soloable as in GW1. How could that be the case without heroes (or henchmen). It's hard to believe they would retain henchmen (shudder) when so many people prefer heroes. I've also seen information form Anet that suggests they are (rightly IMOP) very proud of the heroes idea.
Also, has anyone played city of heroes - how do companions work there?
IF, a companion becomes advanced enough to even provide combination techniques and helps coordinate its own bar with yours based on a learning process, then I most definitely see a place for these companions. We do not want mindless allies following us around. Companions should be an extension of yourself, being curious and yet careful. Perhaps it's wishful thinking but in order for a companion to pass my gates of approval, it needs to be like Kitt from Knight Rider, smart, rebellious at times recommending alternative measures based on the objectives at hand.
It is suggestively clear that we are not looking for yet another HERO to join our ranks, that would be waste of game play, speaking for myself of course.
And to answer your question Roq, there will be NO hero's in the 2nd game. They are removing that concept, according to wiki articles and official site news. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2
Instead they are putting this Companion in.
Thanks Astra, I did notice that link, but I can't see where they say they will discard heroes. Are you sure that companions will replace heroes?
How are we going to be able to solo instanced missions with only two characters in the party?
"companion . . . who will not take up a party slot".
Heroes do consume a slot. Also, on the wiki page where this information is provided ( http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2 ) it states that:
"The system of companions and allies is being reworked."
This would seem to mean that companions are a character add-on, like a pet, that don't consume party slots. Heroes and henchmen are allies that do consume party slots. If you review common wiki descriptions you will notice that available allies have been part of the jargon for GW for some time, being interchangeable with either hero, henchman or non-player character. This means that your imaginary GW girlfriend can have a dude on the side that you pick to party with. The party size of 8 is thus actually 16 (8 humans with 8 companions, 1 comp/hu). Replacing henchmen with a higher quality, hero-like ally that players can choose, but not customize, allows each of these allies to also have their own companions and still only take up a single party slot.
This would be a best case scenario. Given that many online games are now hosting maps of 32-256 players, having 8 party slots equivalent to 16 characters per party meets the 32 player minimum standard in a clever and efficient way. It also allows larger parties to exist. In persistent areas this would allow up to 8 parties of 32 to play simultaneously. As shown by the MAG demos at E3 09, this is an area population that can now be handled with no more lag than older games had with 16 players. Also, if Aion is used as a barometer, poly counts will be only slightly improved, to maximize the number of players possible in any area.
That's my best interpretation and riff. Do you see any flaws in my logic?
This would make sense for many reasons: I can't believe they will really allow lots of parties of 16 wandering around in persistent areas, because of lag and crowding. Further, just allowing PC+companion would encourage grouping between players in persistent areas (to do optional missions there with perhaps slightly better rewards and XP) without forcing people to group. If they do want to allow mega battles with lots of parties they could do that in instances too.
Just speculation, but it all seems to fit together.
Why do you (BFThump) think that they might include hero characters that are not customisable, other than the type of NPCs in GW1 that temporarily attach themselves for some mission?
One thing I'd like to see is instances for different numbers of characters i.e. 4 man instances, 8 man instances (perhaps even larger?). If doing that with only heroes the game could simply choose the top X-1 heroes in your party where X is the number allowed in the instance.
Roq, I think that when Anet says they are reworking the companion and ally system they might be trying to get it right. To do this, I think they will lose henchmen and replace them with what they are calling allies. These allies will be selectable like henchmen. I think that's a given.
I'm speculating that allies will lack customization based on past experience. In the recruitment quests for each hero the character appears as an ally that is added to the party without consuming a party slot, like Kormir when she fights with you. GW1 always places allies in a separate party from the player party. I think GW2 will remove that barrier by putting the allies in the player party. Then I'm guessing the code lord or lead designer will get lazy and advocate skipping customization because they don't want to handle all the required data. Thus, they sell players on a customizable companions and keep their server data minimal. It's like telling the community that they will be getting more storage, then making the majority of that storage a monetized SKU rather than a free reward for loyalty.
It would be great if this were not the case. I just don't have that much faith.
Nothing I've read explicitly or implicitly says that there will be no heroes. Sorry Astra, but I didn't understand the text on your link or any previous link to exclude heroes. Anet is really careful to only use the terms "companion" and "ally". This might mean that heroes still exist. I think they are using ally as a blanket term for all hero- and hench- like entities in the game.
Just hope you are wrong on the lack of customisation. I think the ability to customise heroes was one of the best features of GW1 and I know that you, Sersun and many other people have expressed the same opinion. plus I know that Anet were (rightly) very proud of the idea. So fingers crossed on this one.
I understand you Brown.
Personally speaking, I'd rather remove hero's/champions/whatever completely unless as suggested by Roq they are included for instance based events only.
I never liked them, as for me they diminished game-play with real players.
Now a days I see way to many hero-way setups that take out the MMO from GW. The reason I am playing this game for 4 years straight is because I want to interface with actual players not a party of 3 humans and 5 hero's/champions. I'm sorry... for me that's not how to play. Granted that some hero's or champions suggested might be better than most average gw players, but it ruins the connection of playing with someone else out there.
If they do plan to keep companions and allies which I doubt they'll do, because I'm not beating around the bush it does say they'll revoke them, whether those are hero's or henchmen or my goldfish Steve. I'm not going to read between the lines of whether they are suggesting it or perhaps even just kidding. The facts are they are being removed and included with only a " single " companion which entails that ONLY 1 real player can bring only 1 champion.
Granted, as mentioned if they include them into instanced based play such as missions, dungeons and other group based content, I will be perfectly fine with that.
From the links provided on this page and on the gw site, I envision the companion as somewhere between a pet and a hero. I don't think they'll be as strong as a party member, because NC Soft thinks they can maintain balance by buffing the player when the player does not bring their companion, and I can't see buffing a player strongly enough to make up for a separate NPC. But I think they'll be a little stronger than a pet would be in most builds, because IMO unless you have a ranger running a dedicated BM build, players treat pet damage as basically just a nice little bonus.
Related to this I think that there will be three types of play in GW2. i.e.
1) PvE with levels
2) PvP with levels (i.e. in the mists).
3) PvP without levels for serious PvP. Here everyone will be the same level and have access to the same skills wepaons etc, just as in GW1.
I think that if go into PvP in the mists you may be able to go as a sidekick and be buffed to a certain level so as to be able to compete there with higher level players.
Does anyone understand this differently? - Anet have certainly not made the intended system very clear yet.
A sidekick is anyone who teams up with someone of a substantially higher level. The sidekick system buffs this person so that they can be of use to the high level players. We know next to nothing about companions except that you can have only one at a time, they take up no space in a party, and they will be customizable to some extent.
Also, if the hall of monuments allows us to inherit certain companions, what does that mean? Obviously, we could not inherit Melonni or Jora as companions. That is, unless the statues we erected of them can be reanimated and their spirits summoned back from the Mists. However, this poses the Problem of Companions and Henchies in the Continuous World. Suppose we do not inherit the hero itself but rather a descendant of or person related to that character. This would allow for some randomization or customization of appearance. Still, the article says that they will be unique and only available to those with GW:EN accounts. I'm sort of at the end of my rope. I don't think we can have 3,000 Joras running about or even 3,000 of Jora's decedents. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Now that you mention it, all pets are considered companions in the Hall of Monuments. That would obviously mean that the single companion in GW2 is equivalent to a GW1 pet. It would also mean that Rangers would no longer be the required profession to control a pet. This makes pets available to everyone.
That would make sense, given the state of the Menagerie and the fact that the HoM has a default icon for most pets labeled "companion".
This would also point to pet skills being moved to companion skills. The idea of buffing then makes sense because a pet generally can't deliver as much damage as a character or creature.
In this scenario companion = pet and ally = hero/hench. It follows logically from the appearance of both on the same monument. Inheriting companions that you have preserved in your HoM may be the only way to access charmable animals that have become extinct. That would be cool.
This "companions from pets" would be an evolution comparable to evolving heroes from henchmen.
That's sexier than fooling around with the heroes system and it makes more sense given the game's history.
Reply to above,
Most likely yes as the "companion" and the pet would be serving as two seperate entities with differing AI and utility.
Reply to Everything else,
I for one hope they keep this companion deal to a minimum. I support the idea of the entire game to be soloable, but honestly, that's not why the first players bought Prophecies. We *including me* bought it because it promised a customizable 8 skill system, forcing the PLAYER to adapt his build as needed for the situation. And we did it through experimentation, there was no wiki to just search for the best build that did the job but required the least possible skill.
Heroes were a nice touch and worked well for awhile, until players discovered how to exploit them. Several biulds are run better by heroes than by players. This is accomplished by the Heroes Superior AI and the ability to micromanage EVERYTHING about them that wouldnt involve altering their coding.
All in all, for this "companion" to not escalate into a mindless build>skill boredom that came through hero exploitation, the player can be allowed to customize the companions skills, but the companion AI will have to be reduced a slight bit as well as NOT, i repeat, NOT allow the player to micromanage individual skills of the companion.
You might be on to something there.
Very nice. I've been considering this myself. The Charr and the Humans are the only races that do not have some form of confirmed buff. Firearms don't count, since every race will have their own. Personally, I hate the idea of having enslaved anything, because I don't think supremacists and racists should be promoted or glamourised. Slaves, after all, are not equals and companions should be equals.
Socio-politics aside, the point you make about the companions monument in the HoM is very strong.The fact that some animals don't have unique statues would seem to point in the direction of companions having a special way of working in GW2.
The problem I had with this kind of idea myself was the fact that neither Humans nor Charr have any great history of Asura/Golem style allies in the game. Sure, Charr use Devourers as beasts of burden; but, that doesn't quite equate with a golem, unless Devourers have developed greater intellect. The idea only works if Druids and Golems become something more like pets. Then you have Human/Animal, Charr/Devourer, Sylvari/Druid, Asura/Golem, Norn/Kodan. I don't mind that. I just think making the companion type bound to race is way too limiting. The potential of having a Charr ranger with a Druid companion is just too tempting to pass up, in terms of the strategic variety it would inject into the game.
Dude, the Charr eat humans and have human slaves in GW1. I don't think they mean to glamorize cannibalism or slavery, they're just being realistic. That's the kind of people the Charr are. Anyway golems and animated plant things aren't exactly equals either so oh nevermind. It's just I know I heard grawl and ettins were mentioned in the artbook and I think i heard grawl had ben enslaved by the charr, but I'll ave to check back on that.
@ Shai_Halud
off topic
As a preface: before anyone starts complaining, I'll stop posting rants about slavery and racism when members stop posting mentions of slavery and racism, especially outside of the Stone Summit context in which they belong in GW discussions.
Charr don't treat Humans as slaves. They treat them as chattel. Ettins were only enslaved by the xenophobic dwarf factions, as told at http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Enslaved_Ettin on the wiki. Grawl, as mentioned at http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Grawl "are seen fighting beside the Charr a lot, there is no clear evidence that they are hired mercenaries". There is no reference from Anet that actually states that Grawl are slaves in GWEN or any other game. In the missions that feature releasing Charr captives, the only prisoners are Human, not Grawl; though free-roaming Grawl may appear. If you find information that proves any of this wrong, please link to it and let me know.
I agree that the difference between chattel and slavery and domestication (pet keeping) is meager at best. The only real difference is the justifying purpose: chattel is kept primarily for food with work being a tertiary concern (think European cow), slavery is maintained for work and to serve a superiority/inferiority complex of both the enslaving and the enslaved, domestication is practiced out of a projected need for companionship that replaces potential Human interactions with actual exchanges with animals in a superior caregiver/inferior care receiver relationship that feeds human ego issues. None of these practices actually promote the respect of all living creatures as equals. If you can make a clear and well thought out argument to the contrary, I'm happy to entertain it.
For the sake of the game I would hope that Anet would avoid creating a slavery mini-game in which Charr, or any other race, are running around enslaving other creatures. Still, I admit that the pet-mongering, minion mastering and hero hoarding that exists in the game are not far off of that ugly target. The subtle differences are important though.
The story of GW2 has been reported as one in which all the playable races unify. Given that, it is really silly to think that the Charr will be enslaving Humans while they are trying to build Charr/Human alliances. Granted, this unity is not a Utopian one in which all of the planets' creatures come together; because the playable races do, in effect, commit to a race war against the dragons. It could be argued that this is simply a game mechanic that uses genocide as its fulcrum. Still, it does not allow players to act out their slave master fantasies. This is the only redeeming quality you can assign this common game mechanic with a straight face.
If you can, and are actually willing to, propose a way to make slavery a fun part of the game, in a way that makes sense with the story we know so far, I'd love to hear it. Of particular interest is the game mechanic in which Charr players use skills and items to enslave Humans, Ettins and Grawl that don't eventually get eaten. Maybe you could even detail the negotiation mini-game in which the Charr who have been eating Humans ask Human-allied Asura for help.
I was prepared to admit my comment was off topic man, but, wow, you have issues I think. And you can make the defense that slavery is a serious issue worth taking a stand on and I might counter saying its pointless to attempt to portray a society like the Charr as something palatable to our moral standards. But I think you unintentionally made a much more dramatic argument and I'd rather just leave it at that.
We of free hearts, it burdens us not, my friend.
Also, I just assumed the slaves would have already been broken and given to Charr soldiers as a symbol of their status as warrior nobles. Besides that, Im not arguing for this, I'm just saying it would make sense. Having a Charr companion for our Charr character might also be a viable option. Perhaps also some more primitive form of automaton could be in use be by the Charr at this point, though I find that unlikely.
Astute of you to notice my issues. I documented them at http://www.guildwarsideas.com/announcement/18 some time ago; but, thank you for your capitulation.