17 hours with TOR

[Manic Velocity]

An extensive, though not exactly positive article over at PC Gamer:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/13/17-hours-with-star-wars-the-old-republic/

This part worried the hell out of me:

The only problem with companions is that you can only have four people in a group, and they count. So when Andy, Josh and I did manage to team up, both of them had to give up their companions to do so. For Josh, it wasn’t worth it, and he ended up leaving our group and fighting alongside us separately. It’s a bizarre restriction.

"Bizarre restriction" is putting it lightly.  This effectively discourages group play.  If your companion proves valuable, you may have to sacrifice playing with real people if you want to keep your NPC counterpart in a fight.  At best you're limited to just four people in a group.  At worst, it's two real people and two companions in a group.

[Tbone]

Yeah, I'm definitely concerned about it for open PvP. Why would we all group up in a group of four to do open world PvP when it would gimp us on our companions? Instead the most we'd ever have in a group is two, so that when we PvP, we'll have the advantage of having our companions fighting as well. It's definitely something they need to figure out.

Typically in a group, though, another player is going to be more beneficial than a companion.

[Venlar]

Yeah, I'm definitely concerned about it for open PvP. Why would we all group up in a group of four to do open world PvP when it would gimp us on our companions? Instead the most we'd ever have in a group is two, so that when we PvP, we'll have the advantage of having our companions fighting as well. It's definitely something they need to figure out.

Typically in a group, though, another player is going to be more beneficial than a companion.

Would forming a raid group in open world with groups of 2 work?

[Revalis]

Have any of our Beta people experimented with this yet? If Companions actually do absorb slots outside of instanced zones (ie, warzones, flashpoints, etc).
I, for some reason, had the impression that they only took up slots in those particular cases, not in the open world itself?

[Manic Velocity]

I, for some reason, had the impression that they only took up slots in those particular cases, not in the open world itself?

I always thought companions were a mechanic to help you solo if you couldn't find a group.  But the way they're described in the article, it almost sounds like they're meant to replace the group.

On top of that, four people to a group just seems laughably low.  Even MxO's early days maxed groups out at eight people before they nerfed it to six.

[Subb]

 it almost sounds like they're meant to replace the group.

Daniel E said they're not intended for raids and PvP and cannot be selected to do so in an E3 interview. Will try and find a link.

[Tbone]

If a companion is out, they take up a party slot, regardless of what you're doing or where you are. When you load into a Warzone, your companion is not accessible. I imagine it would be the same for a raid instance. But open PvP is out in the worlds, and so your companion would be available as it isn't an instanced event.

[Ragnarok]

One thing to remember though is we don't know what the PVP server rule set is and they could make it so in open world pvp you cant have companions out.

[Keeloth]

Well, that would mean that you just couldn't have companions out in the open world at all, or at least not in any place where open PvP would be possible, which is hopefully the majority of the map.  I don't think Bioware would do that, PvP server or not.

[eeth]

that review sounds very critical with zero explanation for it's criticisms. "...For Josh, it wasn’t worth it, and he ended up leaving our group and fighting alongside us separately..."

EXPLAIN why it wasn't worth it!

"...The visual effects of combat between eight players are fast, flashy and tough to read, but the actual business of killing people is slow. That means it may have some tactical depth at the higher levels of skill and coordination, but it isn’t hugely satisfying to play..."

WHY EXACTLY isn't it satisfying? Because you want to kill people quickly? Really?

Sloppy biased journalist IMO.

How much in subscription sales does Blizzard stand to keep if they get a lot of negative reviews out there? Tell me that hasn't crossed anyone's mind?

[Keeloth]

Easy now.  Some people aren't going to like the game, that doesn't mean they were paid off by Blizzard.

For the first, I thought it was kind of self explanatory.  The choice is either to have a group with 3 people and 1 companion, or have 1 person go solo so you can have 1 full group consisting of 2 people, 2 companions and 1 group consisting of 1 person, 1 companion.  Since it's been made clear that companions are a significant amount of damage (Think I recall them saying 75% the output of a player?), sacrificing 2 companions is a significant slowdown in time clearing mobs, making questing take longer than it otherwise would.  That's why the guy didn't feel it was worth it.

For the second, some people prefer a faster pace for combat.  I don't, apparently the reviewer does.  Naturally, whether or not it's satisfying is a matter of opinion, but he's getting paid to give us his opinion, so that's what he does.  He acknowledges the strengths of the system (tactical depth, skill and coordination-based gameplay etc) but makes it clear that he didn't find that to make up for the shortcomings of the system in his eyes.

[Tbone]

that review sounds very critical with zero explanation for it's criticisms. "...For Josh, it wasn’t worth it, and he ended up leaving our group and fighting alongside us separately..."

EXPLAIN why it wasn't worth it!

He does say that the reason that Josh left the group is because he was able to quest/get through mobs quicker with his companion than in the group of players. If they didn't have a healer or tank and that's what Josh really was used to for supplementing his playstyle, then I can see what he's saying.

"...The visual effects of combat between eight players are fast, flashy and tough to read, but the actual business of killing people is slow. That means it may have some tactical depth at the higher levels of skill and coordination, but it isn’t hugely satisfying to play..."

WHY EXACTLY isn't it satisfying? Because you want to kill people quickly? Really?

It's my understanding that a class, such as the Jedi Sentinel can cut through enemies like butter, so I can only assume that his slower style of fighting must have something to do with his class. I also hear that HP levels of stronger mobs have been adjusted since this 17 hour play through.

[eeth]

He does say that the reason that Josh left the group is because he was able to quest/get through mobs quicker with his companion than in the group of players. If they didn't have a healer or tank and that's what Josh really was used to for supplementing his playstyle, then I can see what he's saying.

i guess that tells us something about their competency with the game if two companions are doing better than two real people? everything Bioware has put out has said that a live player will always be better than a companion. just seems like an absurd complaint that fit in with the arc of what he wanted to not like about the game.

and i wasn't saying that this dude in particular was paid off by Blizzard, that idea just came to me later, should have made that more clear. there's just a ton of money riding on all this and i wouldn't put some things past a lot of people. I know people are gonna hate on the game for many many reasons. I'd just like the reasons to at least make sense.

[Keeloth]

I guess that tells us something about their competency with the game if two companions are doing better than two real people? everything Bioware has put out has said that a live player will always be better than a companion. just seems like an absurd complaint that fit in with the arc of what he wanted to not like about the game.

and I wasn't saying that this dude in particular was paid off by Blizzard, that idea just came to me later, should have made that more clear. there's just a ton of money riding on all this and I wouldn't put some things past a lot of people. I know people are gonna hate on the game for many many reasons. I'd just like the reasons to at least make sense.

I'm confused.  It's not a "Two companions or two players" kind of deal.  They're not doing instanced content, they can have more than one group attacking the enemies here.  Their choices are to have 1 companion and 3 players, or 3 companions and 3 players.  The latter is obviously the optimal choice, but in order to support it you have to split into 2 groups, which is what he was talking about.

[Tbone]

Right. They were still fighting together, but in separate parties so that there was room for companions - which is my fear for open world PvP as well - we'll just have two man groups so that's there's room in the party for companions