Toning Down Companion Conflicts.

[Scorch!]

I relatively simple suggestion, to do with the new companion like/dislike system.

I really like it, and it makes roleplaying more interesting in the game, but it seems a bit to intensive.

Maybe you could tone down the conflicts between companions A little bit?

I think it is reasonable to assume that you would be able to get at least 7 or 8 companions in your party and keep them without them biting each others heads off, then leaving your party because they're unhappy.

 

[Zed]

You can get 8 companions in your party without them ripping into eachother.  Chances are, you just can't get the 8 you want.  Pick and choose: Jeremus the prefab omni-healer, or Artimenner the engineer & Lezalit the trainer?

Choices choices.  There's a thread dedicated to compatibility around here somewhere.  I'm sure someone will come along to link it shortly.

 

[Conners]

Companion fight should be toned down, yes! What sort of childish infant leaves the most powerful army in the world where they're well equipt, always paid, and given the best food, just because someone in the army's command doesn't bode well with you? I mean, you have to EXPECT jerks to be in command along-side you, it's INCREDIBLY lucky in general to even get into command! I can understand some would leave, but they would have to not like how things are going in general.

 

[Scorch!]

@Zed:
Though you're probably right, and i just need to search more, i still think that they need to fight less frequently, instead of imediately after the first battle.

Maybe there could be some sort of percentage chance that they will have a go at each other, instead? (so that its not so predictable?)

its not that i don't like this new feature, i like the new dynamics it brings to your companions, but it could be a little less frequent.

p.s Does anyone know how many companions there are now?

 

[DamienZharkoff]

This goes with my thread about being able to choose to take companions ****e before they leave (by choice or force)
And numerous threads on bribing them with a lump of gold to stay

 

[Merentha]

Companion fight should be toned down, yes! What sort of childish infant leaves the most powerful army in the world where they're well equipt, always paid, and given the best food, just because someone in the army's command doesn't bode well with you? I mean, you have to EXPECT jerks to be in command along-side you, it's INCREDIBLY lucky in general to even get into command! I can understand some would leave, but they would have to not like how things are going in general.

They don't.  I've never had anyone leave my party if the morale was high enough. 

 

[Aethelred]

I've had Borcha leave when every other companion was 'Enthusiastic'. All because Deshavi didn't like him.

 

[DanAngleland]

Personally I think it's balanced as it is- I had a couple of people who didn't get along for a long time, and eventually one of them left. I think it's a good feature and realistic too. You just need to select who you need and who you can do without or find an alternative for.

@Damien Zharkoff: I like the idea of taking back items from the leaving companions, the loss of investment for an early game player can be pretty tough as it stands.

 

[Art Falmingaid]

I think the conflicts are great, just not enough.  It only takes 2 disagreements to make a companion leave sometimes.  I would like to see it stretched out with more dialogue.

 

[alh_p]

I think the conflicts are great, just not enough.  It only takes 2 disagreements to make a companion leave sometimes.  I would like to see it stretched out with more dialogue.

Yep, I had one character (the khergit horse archer guy) leave without any warning. Normally i've had the opportunity to persuade them to stay 1 or twice, but he just upped and left.

In general, I've found keeping the NPCs happy a bit of a pain. The main reason they get demoralised seems to be the mix of other NPCs, and without high enough leadership/charisma I am unable change their morale by persuasion.

This isn't enough control for me. I'd like to be able to do something to make their morale increase. At the moment, the only way of doing that (to my knowledge) is completing a quest in a way that suits them -you can't always find an appropriate quest or situation to do that either.

I end up feeling like I've wasted the XP investment in them when they do leave.

 

[VariousArtist]

Seems most players who want the fights to be toned down rather want to keep as much as possible companions in their army... Usually I have maybe 4-5 comps in my army without much rabble. Guess its the way it was intented?

 

[DamienZharkoff]

Seems most players who want the fights to be toned down rather want to keep as much as possible companions in their army... Usually I have maybe 4-5 comps in my army without much rabble. Guess its the way it was intented?

No its more "Mommyyyyyyy Ymira's pickin on meeeee" Is not how a soldier should act. Hell, that nord raider chik left 1 hour before my siege tower finished building.. wtf!?

 

[Art Falmingaid]

Seems most players who want the fights to be toned down rather want to keep as much as possible companions in their army... Usually I have maybe 4-5 comps in my army without much rabble. Guess its the way it was intented?

I usually only have 2.  A healer and a tactics and training specialist.  Otherwise, I prefer to have my factions units instead.  I think there should be more conflicts, but it take longer for anyone to leave.  As it is now, every companion has 1 other person they like and 2 they do not.  I think there should be more they don't like.

 

[bladeofudun]

I like the idea of having them fight it out... or allow you to beat some sense into them.

And I'd LOVE the idea of having positions or ranks for your companions...

 

[buzbybadman]

I'm enjoying managing them, their arguments are tongue in cheek and that's fine by me.  Haven't experimented with it enough to find out if there's a 'combination' of companions yet though, would be a shame if it was so easy once you found your favourite, is it possible to add more random combination or vary their character with each new game?

 

[linehand]

I don't need more companions, and I never had a problem with losing gear. If 2 companions argue I just decide right then which one I want to keep and take the other one's gear back and kick them out of the party right then and there. Just by doing that I have ended up with a solid party with no quarreling.

I do however agree that it is all to predictable a system. Not that I want less arguments or more companions.. not at all. I just think things should be a little more randomized.

Also some party members could just get along fine until you do something that brings out their differences. Like destroy a fief, at which point the character who likes to pillage and the one who is very against that sort of behavior start in with each other and from that point on don't get along and argue all the time. A char who knows that retreat is sometimes needed and one who simply never wants to retreat could get along fine until you retreat at from a battle at which point they decide to hate each other over this difference of opinion.

Also I think that while some of their likes/dislikes should be integral to their characters and never change (as it is now), they should each also gain some likes/dislikes on top of that which could be randomized and different each time you play a new game. The non-random likes/dislikes should be impossible (or nearly impossible) to get around, so that in the end those characters won't likely be in your party together for long (as it is now), while the random likes/dislikes could be more effected by persuasion from the player, general moral, leadership style, etc.. And have a much lesser impact on the characters enthusiasm. This way you would still be pretty well limited to only 8 companions max but there would be a couple among those 8 who didn't really like each other and argued sometimes but may not leave the party because of it. Then your party would feel more dynamic like it had more character of it's own.

 

[Conners]

The problem I probably have with Companions is that I'm fighting-based, so my men often get all slaughtered before I finally beat off the enemy.


I think the way to settle this should be that you can gain your companions admiration. I mean, they start out at 99 and can only go down from there--instead, they should start lower and you are capable of earning their respect. Once earned, it would be hard for a companion to leave you even if there are companions they dislike traveling with you.

 

[linehand]

But then you would be able to have more than 8 companions all the time.. Is that what you guys really want? 16 companions? It just seems like overkill to me.. 8 seems like plenty and makes for greater replay value as well.

 

[Scorch!]

Seems most players who want the fights to be toned down rather want to keep as much as possible companions in their army...

Not true, at least not for me, as I enjoy the fighting (adds character depth/makes them seem more human), just there seems like they are unhappy just because "i don't like the way he looked at me, WAAAA" type things rather than true conflicts, like having a huge dissagreement over one of the aforementioned points, like one companion likes pillaging and one has a moral compass and hates it.

@linehand:
I even though i probably haven't found ALL the companions and i'm sure that it may be possible to have 8 in your party without problems, I'm finding it way too hard to even get 8 companions in my party, let alone 16 (and i think that 16 is definatley overkill).

 

[ArakDemonBlade]

I think what is needed is simply for the threshold of bag packing to be upped a little. As someone pointed out, leaving a well fed, well paid, well equipped army because you don't like the color of the other guy's hair or whatever is a bit ridiculous. While I think that in the long run problems could arise between characters to make one leave, I think there should also be the chance they both just shut up and and deal with it without having to go to arbitration (you)

All depends on what happens...