new content Hawker Sub-tree/Mastery: Beastmastery

[Bobbity]

Hawker players tended to get one 'free' summon from their skill tree and another from a Unique skill book. These skill points are wasted as these summons are relatively one-dimensional, squishy and even weak. Mere distractions, even. Could we change this?

 

What if we had an option for the player to go hard on becoming beastmasters? Basically, the summoner variant of their normal playstyle. We could have 2 major options:

- Quest-based Summon - only one summon 'charmed' from the field that grows over time. Loyalty increases with food and rest, decreases with deaths and neglect. Can become a mount. Can eventually equip items (once quest is completed). Items have dura etc. (Basically a familiar.) Does not impact summon gauge.

-Ad hoc summoning - 'Tame' skill - gets many familiars (based on summon gauge) tamed from the field, loyalty value that only decreases. Abandons caster when loyalty reaches critical value (any death, neglect). Cannot be used as mounts. Cannot equip items.

 

The sub-skilltree could have various parameters influencing active skills available to the beast. With regard to the familiar-type summon, summons could increase in combat stats based on their feed, i.e. one could develop a familiar for speed, vitality (HP), durability (DEF) and so on based on the types of food one gives them. There could also be breeding skills to grow a special bloodline of familiar. Maybe an economic opportunity if we could put these monsters in capsules and sell them to other players?

 

Advantages:  

- Not too demanding in terms of skill points consumed, tbh.

- It offers a more diverse playstyle that can keep players engaged well into the endgame.

 

Problems:

- Needs to be properly thought out before implementation as it easily risks imbalancing the classes

- Could become the de facto meta for hawkers, esp. scouts if no other diversity is found in their builds.

- Too similar to another suggestion.

 

 

 

[Bobbity]

Right, so THIS post suggested some of what I've outlined here. Didn't see that.