Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
This is something I noticed during the very last stream with Cohh in Halnir Cave. where they went back to defeat Gnashura. They explained the fight and told Cohh that he would need to stay IN the blue circle to absorb the damage so that the group wouldn't take damage. They also spent a lot of time talking about the Warrior banners and all that.
They SHOULD HAVE made this encounter where Cohh NEEDED to put up a defensive banner AND stand in the blue circle. The defense banner would be needed to keep Cohh alive so that he could then stand in the blue circle so the group didn't die. The entire encounter could have been soooooooo much better, soooo much more dangerous. During the Spell reflect fog, even the cleric shouldn't be able to heal others, only himself. (because if I healed you, it would reflect and heal Me instead) Cohh should have needed to use a shielding banner to not die while the healers can't heal.
Cohh basically used nothing but the dps banner the entire stream.... doesn't matter if you have 4 or 16 banners if you only need to use the one for dps all the time.,
basically, I agree. fights can be a challenge and it not matter what level of gear, hps etc. this could also help people from being able to solo named mobs. A summoner might be the best soloer in the game, but it he doesn't get a heal or remove curse etc.. from that dot, he dies.
Flapp said:Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
This is something I noticed during the very last stream with Cohh in Halnir Cave. where they went back to defeat Gnashura. They explained the fight and told Cohh that he would need to stay IN the blue circle to absorb the damage so that the group wouldn't take damage. They also spent a lot of time talking about the Warrior banners and all that.
They SHOULD HAVE made this encounter where Cohh NEEDED to put up a defensive banner AND stand in the blue circle. The defense banner would be needed to keep Cohh alive so that he could then stand in the blue circle so the group didn't die. The entire encounter could have been soooooooo much better, soooo much more dangerous. During the Spell reflect fog, even the cleric shouldn't be able to heal others, only himself. (because if I healed you, it would reflect and heal Me instead) Cohh should have needed to use a shielding banner to not die while the healers can't heal.
Cohh basically used nothing but the dps banner the entire stream.... doesn't matter if you have 4 or 16 banners if you only need to use the one for dps all the time.,
basically, I agree. fights can be a challenge and it not matter what level of gear, hps etc. this could also help people from being able to solo named mobs. A summoner might be the best soloer in the game, but it he doesn't get a heal or remove curse etc.. from that dot, he dies.
it's still prealpha and they haven't even done number balancing. usually you don't see fleshing out of numerics until alpha and tweak it in beta. it is noteworthy that they have mechanics in place as with enviromentals.
Nephele said:I want every encounter to be challenging. From the lowliest wandering monster up to the largest raid boss, nothing should ever be so simple or so easy for it's level that we don't have to think to beat it.
I want to see real differences between players of the same class based on meaningful choices. Gear selection, spell selection, ability use - all options should be viable in different ways, and players should have the flexibility to play uniquely from each other.
I want to see true group dynamics. The whole should be greater than the sum of its parts because of the interaction of everyone's skills and abilities. A group with a shaman healing should work differently than a group with a druid or cleric healing, but still be just as effective. There should never be a single standard for group composition, or required classes, and instead, players should be able to make different combinations work just as effectively, simply by leveraging different sets of synergies within their groups.
I couldn’t agree more with your first statement which is why I would love to see a dynamic leve system such as in GW2. Otherwise, players will out-gear and out-level content
Your second point would be awesome, but unless Pantheon will offer specialization paths, i’m not sure how one member of a certain class would/could significantly differentiate themselves from someone else of the same class other than through gear (BIS). My experience from EQ was that certain spells were BIS as well.
Your third point seems to be where Pantheon is headed, I.e. - by having 3 group-capable healer classes that function differently, but are designed to function “equally” well. As far as a single standard for group composition- well to some extent that will be determined by the content (what you are fighting), moreso by the central quadrinity/quadrangle (w/e). However, they have stated that classes will be synergistic, so this could help downplay inflexible group composition.
stellarmind said:
it's still prealpha and they haven't even done number balancing. usually you don't see fleshing out of numerics until alpha and tweak it in beta. it is noteworthy that they have mechanics in place as with enviromentals.
I am very aware that that was Pre alpha and things could, should or maybe will change. That's not what we are discussing here. Saying its pre alpha should have been your response the the entire forums right now. we are talking about what we WANT. not what is Pre alpha or place holders or what might happen in Alpha or beta.
sometimes i wonder if you even read the OP or maybe you just don't wanna go with the flow. Even when the devs post: do you want to be a toad or a flower, you talk about cats and farts....
in other words, Pre alpha is NOT the answer here.
Flapp said:Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
This is something I noticed during the very last stream with Cohh in Halnir Cave. where they went back to defeat Gnashura. They explained the fight and told Cohh that he would need to stay IN the blue circle to absorb the damage so that the group wouldn't take damage. They also spent a lot of time talking about the Warrior banners and all that.
They SHOULD HAVE made this encounter where Cohh NEEDED to put up a defensive banner AND stand in the blue circle. The defense banner would be needed to keep Cohh alive so that he could then stand in the blue circle so the group didn't die. The entire encounter could have been soooooooo much better, soooo much more dangerous. During the Spell reflect fog, even the cleric shouldn't be able to heal others, only himself. (because if I healed you, it would reflect and heal Me instead) Cohh should have needed to use a shielding banner to not die while the healers can't heal.
Cohh basically used nothing but the dps banner the entire stream.... doesn't matter if you have 4 or 16 banners if you only need to use the one for dps all the time.,
basically, I agree. fights can be a challenge and it not matter what level of gear, hps etc. this could also help people from being able to solo named mobs. A summoner might be the best soloer in the game, but it he doesn't get a heal or remove curse etc.. from that dot, he dies.
They did say the adds that he spawns are suppose to be a lot deadlier but they just haven't done it yet, but yes things like this would be great for the game, it could of been better and im.sure VR knows that and plan on making it better. :)
Flapp said:stellarmind said:
it's still prealpha and they haven't even done number balancing. usually you don't see fleshing out of numerics until alpha and tweak it in beta. it is noteworthy that they have mechanics in place as with enviromentals.
I am very aware that that was Pre alpha and things could, should or maybe will change. That's not what we are discussing here. Saying its pre alpha should have been your response the the entire forums right now. we are talking about what we WANT. not what is Pre alpha or place holders or what might happen in Alpha or beta.
sometimes i wonder if you even read the OP or maybe you just don't wanna go with the flow. Even when the devs post: do you want to be a toad or a flower, you talk about cats and farts....
in other words, Pre alpha is NOT the answer here.
i read :D my interpetation and approach is different from yours. i'm not criticizing, just having a discussion. i realize everyone is edgy with all shenanigans going on with mmos and games these days. my intent is to share my thoughts, opinions and to spark a laugh here and there :o
Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
The point is, challenge isn't only defined just in terms of hit points and damage, but by the different abilities and actions and factors of the fight. If we want to retain challenge, players need to be required to respond to those factors in some way in order to win efficiently. Any time players can simply brute force their way through an encounter and ignore what the mob is doing, for whatever reason, something is wrong.
If I recall Correctly.. I believe that I have seen several streams and videos of gameplay where they talk about this very stuff- Different mobs will do different things, will have different aggro radius, will run periodically, will draw more mobs in a farther radius than others, some will go for healers/casters more often or more directly- So I think you're in luck that it sounds like its already in the works! :)
I just pulled this straight from the website under "The Pantheon Difference"
An area we have not seen much innovation in MMORPGs, almost since their inception, is the area of NPC AI. What if certain enemies had different “dispositions” that had to be discovered by the player? Many NPCs in Pantheon will have advanced behaviors, like the propensity to flee if possible, or to stand and fight to the end. Some NPCs will be inclined to help other NPCs in the area, while some will not. Some will target certain classes within the group that is attacking them. NPC’s movement speeds may vary if they feel they are outmatched. While it is too early to go into a lot of detail, some of the different dispositions we are working on include: the Alarmist, the Bully, the Craven, the Opportunist, the Protector, and the Strategist.
Nephele said:I want every encounter to be challenging. From the lowliest wandering monster up to the largest raid boss, nothing should ever be so simple or so easy for it's level that we don't have to think to beat it.
I want to see real differences between players of the same class based on meaningful choices. Gear selection, spell selection, ability use - all options should be viable in different ways, and players should have the flexibility to play uniquely from each other.
I want to see true group dynamics. The whole should be greater than the sum of its parts because of the interaction of everyone's skills and abilities. A group with a shaman healing should work differently than a group with a druid or cleric healing, but still be just as effective. There should never be a single standard for group composition, or required classes, and instead, players should be able to make different combinations work just as effectively, simply by leveraging different sets of synergies within their groups.
Sounds mostly like EQ to me.
Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
The point is, challenge isn't only defined just in terms of hit points and damage, but by the different abilities and actions and factors of the fight. If we want to retain challenge, players need to be required to respond to those factors in some way in order to win efficiently. Any time players can simply brute force their way through an encounter and ignore what the mob is doing, for whatever reason, something is wrong.
Those are all interesting ideas that I would like to see implemented, but if every encounter can be expected to surprise us in a dangerous way, I think it will be imperative that the GUI provide enough information to let the players instantly assess the situation. And the players must generally have the means to adjust succesfully, or at least to run away and regroup.
If death is something to be feared because of the penalty it incurs, which I beliveve it should be, we cannot have a world where you must expect to die the first couple of times you tackle any given encounter. Big bosses, yes, but not every mob. The idea behind a severe death penalty is to encourage you to play with care and respect for the dangers, not to deter you from engagement in general.
The Disposition system is a great idea to make encounters dynamic and challenging, but I very much do not agree that every single encounter in the game needs to be a unique or difficult challenge. Sometimes you just want to feel powerful and plow through some minions, too.
Sometimes the purpose of an encounter is not necessarily just to challenge your knowledge of in-game tactics.
If you make every step of the game too complex, you will diminish the desire to form pick-up groups or play with anyone outside of your core group you know you can rely on. That's not a good way to build community.
Keno Monster said:Nephele said:I want every encounter to be challenging. From the lowliest wandering monster up to the largest raid boss, nothing should ever be so simple or so easy for it's level that we don't have to think to beat it.
I want to see real differences between players of the same class based on meaningful choices. Gear selection, spell selection, ability use - all options should be viable in different ways, and players should have the flexibility to play uniquely from each other.
I want to see true group dynamics. The whole should be greater than the sum of its parts because of the interaction of everyone's skills and abilities. A group with a shaman healing should work differently than a group with a druid or cleric healing, but still be just as effective. There should never be a single standard for group composition, or required classes, and instead, players should be able to make different combinations work just as effectively, simply by leveraging different sets of synergies within their groups.
Sounds mostly like EQ to me.
Most mobs in eq were no smarter than a bag of rocks, and that's not a strike at eq, since it was one of the first mmos but to think that we can't improve the ai of the mobs after 20+ years than you're wrong. And pantheon has alrdy proved it, simply by just adding an alarmist into the game, so nah it's much better than eq, thankfully.
Chanus said: ... The Disposition system is a great idea to make encounters dynamic and challenging, but I very much do not agree that every single encounter in the game needs to be a unique or difficult challenge. ...
Jabir said:Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
.... and so on.
The point is, challenge isn't only defined just in terms of hit points and damage, but by the different abilities and actions and factors of the fight. If we want to retain challenge, players need to be required to respond to those factors in some way in order to win efficiently. Any time players can simply brute force their way through an encounter and ignore what the mob is doing, for whatever reason, something is wrong.
Those are all interesting ideas that I would like to see implemented, but if every encounter can be expected to surprise us in a dangerous way, I think it will be imperative that the GUI provide enough information to let the players instantly assess the situation. And the players must generally have the means to adjust succesfully, or at least to run away and regroup.
If death is something to be feared because of the penalty it incurs, which I beliveve it should be, we cannot have a world where you must expect to die the first couple of times you tackle any given encounter. Big bosses, yes, but not every mob. The idea behind a severe death penalty is to encourage you to play with care and respect for the dangers, not to deter you from engagement in general.
Why not, it teaches you how to play your class, and nothing is telling you have to kill that particular npc, if you realize he is either to high level, or fights against your class or skill to its advantage than simply don't fight it, it's that simple and go back to kill something you know you can kill, and come back later when you've got a little bit stronger and see if it changed anything.
Nephele said:Another way to explain my first point in terms of encounter design is that every mob should have a "trick". Nothing should be defined ONLY in terms of its hp and damage.
Maybe the mob has a DoT that it does, that must be cured.
We've seen in several streams this is already present.
Nephele said:Maybe it casts a very damaging spell that must be interrupted.
Every spell cast by an NPC is something you would want to interrupt regardless of what it does. In the streams we've seen NPCs cast some quite damaging AoEs which you definitely want to interrupt.
Nephele said:Maybe it has a knockback attack, or a knockdown, or a stun that it can do.
Again, we've seen examples where NPCs do stun players. Haven't seen knockbacks or knockdowns.
Nephele said:Maybe it's stealthed until it attacks.
Haven't seen this...yet.
Nephele said:Maybe it gets stronger as more mobs of its type are nearby.
Haven't seen this, but isn't a bad idea yet could be offset just by pulling mobs and separating them as best you can.
Nephele said:Maybe it is highly resistant to certain damage types, but vulnerable to others.
The developers have said now for years that they want different NPCs to be affected differently by different weapon types. Skeletons taking less damage from piercing than blunt weapons, etc.
Nephele said:Maybe it has very high evasion against physical attacks but low resistance to magical attacks.
I think we've seen this with Monk class NPCs.
Nephele said:Maybe it will try to run early and come back with friends.
We've seen this already as well.
Nephele said:Maybe it will call for help from other nearby mobs unless it is interrupted.
And this too is already in the game as we've seen numerous examples of it in the streams.
Riahuf22 said:Jabir said:Those are all interesting ideas that I would like to see implemented, but if every encounter can be expected to surprise us in a dangerous way, I think it will be imperative that the GUI provide enough information to let the players instantly assess the situation. And the players must generally have the means to adjust succesfully, or at least to run away and regroup.
If death is something to be feared because of the penalty it incurs, which I beliveve it should be, we cannot have a world where you must expect to die the first couple of times you tackle any given encounter. Big bosses, yes, but not every mob. The idea behind a severe death penalty is to encourage you to play with care and respect for the dangers, not to deter you from engagement in general.
Why not, it teaches you how to play your class, and nothing is telling you have to kill that particular npc, if you realize he is either to high level, or fights against your class or skill to its advantage than simply don't fight it, it's that simple and go back to kill something you know you can kill, and come back later when you've got a little bit stronger and see if it changed anything.
I'm not sure "just go back and do content that is trivial and safe until the content you want to do becomes trivial and safe" is a desirable design goal.
Chanus said:Riahuf22 said:Jabir said:Those are all interesting ideas that I would like to see implemented, but if every encounter can be expected to surprise us in a dangerous way, I think it will be imperative that the GUI provide enough information to let the players instantly assess the situation. And the players must generally have the means to adjust succesfully, or at least to run away and regroup.
If death is something to be feared because of the penalty it incurs, which I beliveve it should be, we cannot have a world where you must expect to die the first couple of times you tackle any given encounter. Big bosses, yes, but not every mob. The idea behind a severe death penalty is to encourage you to play with care and respect for the dangers, not to deter you from engagement in general.
Why not, it teaches you how to play your class, and nothing is telling you have to kill that particular npc, if you realize he is either to high level, or fights against your class or skill to its advantage than simply don't fight it, it's that simple and go back to kill something you know you can kill, and come back later when you've got a little bit stronger and see if it changed anything.
I'm not sure "just go back and do content that is trivial and safe until the content you want to do becomes trivial and safe" is a desirable design goal.
No where in my comment did I say level up 8 times and than try again, now did i? No I said one either get a level or 2 and try again or learn to play your class correctly since that is probably going to be the thing that is stopping you from killing the target anyway, so how about instead of blowing my comment out of proportion, realize I obviously didn't mean to to out level it to where it became trivial lol why would you ever think that, it simply doesn't make sense.
If your intent was to say "go back and better learn to play your class first", "go back to kill something you know you can kill" didn't get that message across.
But the point Jabir was making is, if we are to have a death penalty that is meaningful, its intent should be to make you wary and inclined to plan ahead for a new encounter, not to punish you for attempting a new encounter. If you design a death penalty in a game that expects you to die as a means of learning to overcome a challenge, there is a very fine line there where you are potentially designing a game that is merely punishing with no reward.
Encounters shouldn't be so prohibitively difficult that you are expected to die multiple times before you even understand the mechanics unless you make a death penalty that is merely an inconvenient setback. You don't want to have both a new encounter be so challenging that you can expect to die often and a death penalty that is so punitive you have no incentive to attempt new challenges until they are trivially easy to overcome.
Chanus said:If your intent was to say "go back and better learn to play your class first", "go back to kill something you know you can kill" didn't get that message across.
But the point Jabir was making is, if we are to have a death penalty that is meaningful, its intent should be to make you wary and inclined to plan ahead for a new encounter, not to punish you for attempting a new encounter. If you design a death penalty in a game that expects you to die as a means of learning to overcome a challenge, there is a very fine line there where you are potentially designing a game that is merely punishing with no reward.
Encounters shouldn't be so prohibitively difficult that you are expected to die multiple times before you even understand the mechanics unless you make a death penalty that is merely an inconvenient setback. You don't want to have both a new encounter be so challenging that you can expect to die often and a death penalty that is so punitive you have no incentive to attempt new challenges until they are trivially easy to overcome.
? Look if the npc is casting a spell and you didn't interrupt him, you deserve to get hurt badly by that npc, it shouldn't feel like a butterfly landing on your shoulder, it's just that simple, so if you are not playing your class correctly and are having a hard time killing content at your level than the game is telling you to play the game you like better, it that's simple, interrupt the spells, root adds, cc the alarmist to come back to you, there are things in everyone kit to support a very dynamic playstyle, why give that playstyle if your not going to utilize it to its full potential, so instead embrace it, make it to where if you make a mistake you realize you made a mistake.
The community as a whole said that they want a challenging game, and to have us think on our feet in most if not all engagements, but once a person in that community brings up situations that actually brings those to light people are going against it?
Tell me how that make sense.
stellarmind said:Chanus said:Do you even read the posts you respond to?
i read all your posts =D
you sir are one of my favorite ppl next to 187 and neph :D
Well you two have a lot in common so that's no surprise lol, I'm guessing I'm probably somewhere in the middle. (Hopefully lol)
