Would you like the ability to have 3 companions at once?

ElvenOverlord

Yes

I’m all for it but strictly for instanced content. Great for people who dungeons and other instanced content but prefer to play solo. Now they’ll have that option. As mentioned before though the AI would need to be improved

Kappachi

No

No; it gets rid of companion individuality and they aren't meant to completely replace players for group content, you're meant to matchmake/use group finder/etc. If I had Isobel AND Ember out they'd both hate me for doing the thing the other likes, even if it's just for dungeon it's far more efficient to clear with real players... remember this is an MMORPG not singleplayer RPG.

To go further, ESO is the last MMORPG that actually has social elements, people discussing things in zone chat & helping eachother out and grouping for dungeons/trials/etc and actually explaining mechanics & if someone asks for secrets for instance people will usually oblige, etc... Do NOT get rid of the community this game has or it'll end up like the other mmos.

Sarannah

Yes

Hell yeah! For dungeons especially, like who wants to deal with that fake roles/speedrunner toxicity anymore?! Atleast I don't!

For overland I don't think multiple companions should be possible though. And only for trials once we have 11 or more companions. That way we can't use the same companion multiple times.

colossalvoids

No

Definitely no at the overland. Maybe for a dungeon content, obviously excluding random normals which are rewarding for helping other's and being bit more social, as you're not doing it. Overall this game is already made communication as non mandatory as possible, I don't want to see even smallest bits of it gone because someone wants it to be yet another modern mmo without any social core.

spartaxoxo

Other (Explain)

As a special version of normal mode dungeons, purely so you can hear the story (no group loot). Yes, I'd support that. In overland, no.

Rowjoh

You can already have as many companions as you like - they're players and can be found in guilds.

Calastir

Yes

LPapirius wrote: »

Why not allow 11 companions at the same time? That way people can solo 12 man dungeons.

old_scopie1945

Other (Explain)

Only for Daily Dungeons and Pledges. That way I could escape the speed runner pests.

Ulvich

No

Having more then one companion would create only one thing..... Poorly geared players. Why would anyone want to fully gear up when their army of companions will fight for them? This would be really bad during dungeon runs or even trials.
And why would you need more then one companion? I have the Adventurer Across A Decade achievement which I earned with only one companion, so having more then one is not needed.

tom6143346

Hell no I don’t use one companion most of the time bc it annoys me after 5 minutes why I should want 4 of them ? But oc I’m fine with it when people want it in overland but not in dungeons!

Bo0137

Other (Explain)

I actually have a very good idea for the invevitable abundance of companions we will have (sorry for deviating the topic).

Bulletin boards in your home (it's a furniture). Get quests for your companions (and alts) to explore Tamriel and beyond. Escorting a caravan, dealing with a rat plague, delivering a message...

These quests are divided into tiers of "difficulty", which is basically a success rate determined by the gear, overall level and skill level of your companion.

Your companion will be unavailable while they are under these assignments (which may take minutes or hours).

The quests are random and will update daily and weekly.

They will reward you gold, exp for your companions, rapport and companion gear. Plus exclusive collectibles!

Dragonnord

No

No. There is always offline games if you don't want to play with other people.

Also, funny how people complain about lag but then ask to multiply or triple the characters actions on the server (like this thread does).
 

Onomog

Other (Explain)

I'd prefer to have the ability to have my alts as companions

Calastir

Yes

Dragonnord wrote: »

No. There is always offline games if you don't want to play with other people.

Speaking for myself, I do want to play with other people.
Problem is gathering a certain number for certain quests at a certain time. It often takes a lots of begging, bargaining and explaining when I just don't have that time available. Having the option to summon multiple companions would solve that.

Scaletho

No

I want the ability to have ONE really strong, resourceful and useful companion. It will be most valuable than 3 useless ones.

SolidBeast

Yes

Araneae6537 wrote: »

The system doesn’t seem made so that they could work together well and haven’t been designed to have banter with one another (as in Dragon Age). If built to complement your character’s build, a single companion is very helpful for completing many normal dungeons, world boses, the Infinite Archive, etc.

I'd gladly pay for a companion expansion to make them interact akin to Dragon Age (not that I would expect it to reach that depth). Or just fleshing them out in any way deeper than what we have now. I think it would add a lot of soul to the game.

jaws343

Yes

It would be cool for dungeons. I already regularly solo all but like 2 dungeons (due to unavoidable mechanics). Having a full contingent of companions would make that go a lot quicker and provide some interesting gameplay interactions. And actually provide a more versatile approach to companion setups where differing support and dps options are more creative and useful.

On the other end of the spectrum, the game suffers from a severe lack of tanks/healers queuing for dungeons. So being able to do this with 3 companions, would ease the overloaded DPS side of the queue, making group finding for DPS players actually wanting to play with other players a lot quicker.

Araneae6537

No

I’m not against it being an option for others in instanced content, but since the poll asked if I would like the option, that is what I answered. Unless they engage in badinage like in Dragon Age, I’ll pass.

Elsonso

No

Dragonnord wrote: »

No. There is always offline games if you don't want to play with other people.

I think it is safe to say that, long term, people are playing this game because they want to play this game, and not some other game.

Often times, playing with other people is a hassle. If I can avoid the hassle, I do. If I cannot avoid the hassle, I reflect on whether I really want to do that thing. The only time it is not a hassle is when I don't have to formally group with them and we just play together for a few minutes until we go our separate ways.

The idea of formally grouping for things like dolmens, world bosses, public dungeons, and other overland content just seems so ... outdated. Seems to me a modern MMORPG should see that and quietly group adhoc players that are just doing the same content for a few minutes.

The idea of managing groups for such things, or creating a group finder to facilitate them, seems a lot like upgrading your rotary dial telephone to a touch tone phone in the age of the iPhone.

Dragonnord wrote: »

Also, funny how people complain about lag but then ask to multiply or triple the characters actions on the server (like this thread does). 

Normally don't see performance issues in PVE. Based on what I see in overland and base game dungeons, I doubt that three companions would bring the server to the ground. The main issue that I tend to see in this game is not being able to log into the game because the place I am trying to log into is too busy.

For me the issue with 3 companions vs 1 companion is just effectiveness. Maybe three is the companion density required to get them to actually function. I dunno. I cannot recall the last time one actually changed the outcome of a battle, and in the places where they need to, they are usually dead already because I am too busy fighting to bother with them.

They are basically along for the oft-repeated quips and comments. The absence of those comments is usually when I notice they are missing.

Syldras

Other (Explain)

Desiato wrote: »

I disagree completely. I think that a lot of players are apprehensive about interacting with other players for a variety of reasons and need to be nudged out of their comfort zones to do so. Especially in this day and age when people are more isolated and asocial than ever. Dungeons serve as a kind of icebreaker.

I have a completely different mindset: People play a game to have fun. They are completely free to decide what fun means to them (as long as their behaviour in game isn't intentionally disturbing other players = griefing, trolling). No one needs to be "nudged out of their comfort zones" against their will when they just want to spend some fun or relaxing time after their workday which might have been stressful enough. This is a game, not a chore. Some people have so much social contact and stress during their work, they don't want more of that in their freetime.

Seriously, I don't understand all that "encouraging", "incentivizing", "nudging" - to me it all sounds the same: intrusively pushing people into things they don't want. Not sure if it's cultural, age or just personal differences, but If I feel like talking to someone, I just do it. I'm an adult person, I know what I want and what I don't want, I'm capable of making autonomous decisions, I don't need help for something as mundane as "talking to people". And even less do I want to have it shoved into my face against my will by "well-meaning" people.

Elsonso

No

Syldras wrote: »

Seriously, I don't understand all that "encouraging", "incentivizing", "nudging" - to me it all sounds the same: intrusively pushing people into things they don't want. Not sure if it's cultural, age or just personal differences, but If I feel like talking to someone, I just do it. I'm an adult person, I know what I want and what I don't want, I'm capable of making autonomous decisions, I don't need help for something as mundane as "talking to people". And even less do I want to have it shoved into my face against my will by "well-meaning" people.

Well, you probably want to keep your distance from modern live service games, then. To promote engagement, and thus revenue, they encourage, incentivize, and nudge.

I had quite the laugh when I saw the enhanced endeavor for HoF.

Desiato

No

Syldras wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

I disagree completely. I think that a lot of players are apprehensive about interacting with other players for a variety of reasons and need to be nudged out of their comfort zones to do so. Especially in this day and age when people are more isolated and asocial than ever. Dungeons serve as a kind of icebreaker.

I have a completely different mindset: People play a game to have fun. They are completely free to decide what fun means to them (as long as their behaviour in game isn't intentionally disturbing other players = griefing, trolling). No one needs to be "nudged out of their comfort zones" against their will when they just want to spend some fun or relaxing time after their workday which might have been stressful enough. This is a game, not a chore. Some people have so much social contact and stress during their work, they don't want more of that in their freetime.

Seriously, I don't understand all that "encouraging", "incentivizing", "nudging" - to me it all sounds the same: intrusively pushing people into things they don't want. Not sure if it's cultural, age or just personal differences, but If I feel like talking to someone, I just do it. I'm an adult person, I know what I want and what I don't want, I'm capable of making autonomous decisions, I don't need help for something as mundane as "talking to people". And even less do I want to have it shoved into my face against my will by "well-meaning" people.

Sure, we're all different. I totally get that it doesn't apply to you and many others, but if you google social icebreaker you'll see it's definitely a thing in human society.

Throughout recorded human history, the concept of social icebreakers has always existed. Many people are naturally reluctant to socialize and outside of their existing social circles. It's important for social games to nudge players to socialize, just as it is for all social activities.

The reason I'm so convinced this would be an impactful change is because it's already happened. Craglorn used to be a zone with constant LFGs and LFMs when it was a group zone. Now that doesn't happen because there is no need. (I'm not talking about trial and carry lfgs/lfms you may see now). When it was a group zone and players would pug within it, they would meet each other and sometimes that would result in friendships. This currently happens in dungeons. If dungeons are made solo content by default, the same thing that happened to Crag will happen to them.

Also, if you follow the news, you'll probably notice that social isolation is recognized as a growing problem in western societies. People are less willing to engage with others which is both bad for them as individuals and for society.

I respect that ESO is enjoyed as a single player game by many and some players like to engage in only very light interactions with other players, but the health of the social side of the game needs to be considered as well.

To me, this is another example of how many players want all content in the game to suit them and their individual lifestyle choices and seem to feel nothing should be inaccessible or uncomfortable to them. It is a common theme in these forums.

AzuraFan

Yes

Syldras wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

I disagree completely. I think that a lot of players are apprehensive about interacting with other players for a variety of reasons and need to be nudged out of their comfort zones to do so. Especially in this day and age when people are more isolated and asocial than ever. Dungeons serve as a kind of icebreaker.

I have a completely different mindset: People play a game to have fun. They are completely free to decide what fun means to them (as long as their behaviour in game isn't intentionally disturbing other players = griefing, trolling). No one needs to be "nudged out of their comfort zones" against their will when they just want to spend some fun or relaxing time after their workday which might have been stressful enough. This is a game, not a chore. Some people have so much social contact and stress during their work, they don't want more of that in their freetime.

I think the poster you're responding to believes that EVERYBODY who doesn't want to group must suffer from some type of social anxiety, or be shy, or be afraid to group for whatever reason. They can't seem to see that there are many reasons why players don't want to group.

For some players, it may be social anxiety, but not for most. Some have grouped before and just don't want to do it anymore. Some prefer to play solo - it's about them, not other players. Some play at low pop times. Some need to take frequent breaks. Some just don't like people. Some play the game to relax and don't want to deal with other people. The list goes on.

But there are some people, like this poster, who believe that players who don't group need to be saved. They need to be shown the light, that if they'd just get out of their comfort zone and group, they'd realize how wonderful it is and want to do it all the time. It's an absurd notion, but there are people who actually believe this and won't let the belief go.

Syldras

Other (Explain)

Elsonso wrote: »

Well, you probably want to keep your distance from modern live service games, then. To promote engagement, and thus revenue, they encourage, incentivize, and nudge.
I had quite the laugh when I saw the enhanced endeavor for HoF.

I know ZOS does that all the time. And while I find it annoying at times (and often even more silly), I see that it's a business principle and that they have a reason to do it, because - profit. It's what commercial enterprises do.

What honestly bothers me is not understanding and respecting people's disinterest in a certain playstyle and arguing against it with "but that's how it's supposed to be!" or even pulling social concerns out of the hat. For one, because I find it paternalizing to annoy people who have a fulfilling life and just want to spend some happy peaceful alone time in front of the screen with "But you have to be social! Loneliness is a problem!". But also because real loneliness as a social problem (I don't deny at all that people who suffer from it exist) certainly isn't a solved by forced grouping in an online game. If one is really concerned with that topic, it's more useful to advocate for investments into local rl communities, programs and places for people who want(!) to meet others, especially old people (because that's the biggest demography concerned). Maybe also psychological help programs (therapy, self help groups) for people who suffer from sociophobia.

Necrotech_Master

Yes

i like more pets lol

currently speaking, i only really have a companion out because it A) provides chance of companion drops and B ) is free extra dmg/support

its definitely more convenient when i can have a tank companion hold a boss so my dps can parse it down instead of also trying to survive

and its very nice to add extra dmg for my tanky characters who dont have a lot of dmg

my absolute biggest issue with companions as it stands right now is having to run the intro quests on every character to use an account wide unlock

Arizona_Steve

Yes

I'd like 11 of them so I can do trials too.

VouxeTheMinotaur

Yes

I say yes because my favorite game of all time, Dragon's Dogma, has this type of system implemented in their game, where you can have up to 3 companions or "pawns" as they like to call them of different classes, skills, combat awareness, intelligence, monster / enemy intelligence as well as quest, area, other NPCs, material and even weather knowledge that help you with every situation throughout the game. They even interact with each other in and out of combat. They progressively learn through exposure, failure and victory.

The thing is though, it's one of the core aspects of the game, pawns are a massive value in Dragon's Dogma. Companions in ESO seem to be more of an add-on, side option. Yes, you can choose to not have a pawn in Dragon's Dogma and go at its Dark Souls style, so they aren't really 100% necessary once you hit a certain high level and power, but it's the fact that Capcom put a lot of resources, time and thought into the Ai intelligence, that got way more advanced in DD2, and customization into the pawn system that makes them so great.

ESO's companions don't really have that much intelligence, combat awareness, situational awareness, and such. They're very generic, more of a base model NPC you'd find in town that follows you around, and feel like they run on a timer. 1,2,3 taunt, 1,2,3, low slash, 1,2,3, heal. Not to discredit ZOS's companion system, I still believe having 3 would be great, but only if they would tweak the Ai of the companions a bit further to be more, well, just more overall really.

Make them feel more alive.

Necrotech_Master

Yes

Arizona_Steve wrote: »

I'd like 11 of them so I can do trials too.

i dont think even that would work for many of the trials

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i like more pets lol

currently speaking, i only really have a companion out because it A) provides chance of companion drops and B ) is free extra dmg/support

its definitely more convenient when i can have a tank companion hold a boss so my dps can parse it down instead of also trying to survive

and its very nice to add extra dmg for my tanky characters who dont have a lot of dmg

my absolute biggest issue with companions as it stands right now is having to run the intro quests on every character to use an account wide unlock

This is exactly how I feel.

If I could have a clowder of cats following me, plus a herd of horses, and all my companions? I would be happy (no one else would be, though :P)

I have always hated the idea that people who don't want to group/play socially *need* to be forced to do so. Sure, I understand the concept of an 'icebreaker' and even with something like this, you can still have it. Just say 'hi'. If someone wants to interact, they will. If they don't want to interact, then they aren't going to.

People play games for various reasons. For me, I play ESO because it allows me to explore a huge world, that is still being worked on, (and I don't have to constantly restart due to 'this mod requires a fresh character!' requirements some have, nor do I have to sort through several different versions of a game to find a mod that will work with my version). If I want to interact, I can, but otherwise, I can just wander alone, seeing people going about their business as I go about mine.

Bradyfjord

Other (Explain)

My problem with companions mechanically is that in content you could really use the help in they die too quickly to be helpful. Also, I don't like the stories so I just stopped using them. Maybe I just don't understand how to use companions. Either way, I do think more options for play is a win.