Sweety said:It seems you just explained the exact "player performance" limitation you are saying you don't see. In your scenario, the player is limited at being their best if they can't evac and root in the same encounter. I guess it all comes down to how you define "best". I’m not at my best if I have taken the time to learn and master the evac and root ability, but I am not allowed to use them.
Ah, I agree with you on this coming down to defining "best". I like the required choice of LAS and you don't. That's fair. I will say though, if LAS limits the players so much that they no longer have viable options to contribute to an encounter it would be too limiting. I have no interest in standing around during an encounter without viable options to contribute. I also have concerns with "clickies" in game. I wouldn't want to be too limited in my ability to use them, but I don't expect this to be an issue for a very long time.
If I choose to have a line of dps spells on my hot bar that aren't optimal to the situation I'm in, that's my poor choice. That is where the skill comes in. In my previous example, I fully expect to be able to evac and root in the same encounter, but that will be two of my choices out of the available. I don't ever expect to "not be allowed to use them". I view this as a similar limitation such as aggro. Aggro could be seen as a limitation where a player can't be their best because they are unable to continue healing or dpsing without pulling the mob off the tank. That's up for the player to understand in the context of their group/encounter. To me this is the same principle of requiring a LAS. In the end, I think we will have to see how it plays out in Alpha and I expect VR will be looking closely at this.
stellarmind said: my mind is telling me noooooo, but my body, my boooddddy is tellinngg meeee yyyyaaaaaasssssss.
R. Kelly. Bump N' Grind. 12 play album, once great, now a creep. lol
stellarmind said: my big concern with las is how tedious it could get swapping abitilites from pack to pack to optimize combat efficiency.
I agree. That isnt fun at all.
I understand the need to take a different point of view,
What came to my mind was the memory of watching someone play a shaman and what struck me was the "just in case" mentality that was created by the player because of the spell choice availability that, on observation of the game play, caused the player to be defeated in the exact same encounter instead of progressing or continuing on.
The scenario was a certain area with regular spawns and nice distance from each other with predictable roaming patterns. Shaman loads all the resist spells he can- and cast them on himself. Then he loads his battle spells- which take up maybe 6 of the 8 slots. The resists I think took up all 8 and "needed" spell shields an additional 2. So the shaman had to mem 8 spells, cast them, then mem 2 spells, cast them, then mem the 4 spells to be used in battle.
first fight, is close, he wins, he is able to heal himself, slightly low on mana and meds up, back to full and second comes in, same as before, this time he loses-timing is crucial. Dies and runs back and...mems 8 spells to cast those resists "just in case". On observation had he just went in with the battle spells and shields he would have been able to try again on that second monster, probably win and then progress before respawn.
What occured instead was - due to the time spent "just in case"- because he had unlimited spells available and (crucial ->)taking the time to cast them, when second monster was engaged, first monster respawned and he died again.
incidentally, none of the resists he cast upon himself were needed in that fight. They were undead, and had no poison, disease, fire, cold or magic spells, neither did they cast any ac debuffs or the like.
There is going to be a learning curve. When things go south in a hurry, I think the average player in a panic will return to their basic learned successfull patterns that may not extend beyond 5 spells and 3 abilities especially when dealing with the general populous which we all will be doing. Conversely I think 6 players that have grouped, all the time (us four and no more, shut the door) will come to a point of highly nuanced play that when things go south in a hurry, they will use all their spells and all their abilities and wish they had more.
Now, Put this 6 in a guild and break them up to group with other guildies to get "cohesiveness" and to learn from each other, get to know one another and what I think will happen is the same thing. They will default to the same 5 spells and 3 abilities even from the highly nuanced when in a group that does not know how to play "their" way that have spent months learning how to do with each other. Break them up and put them in a raid, when things go bad will they disband and reform in their own group and try to save things?
Sweety said:To that end, My question is this:
If you are a healer, and 70% of your spells are for healing, 20% for low or average damage and 10% for whatever (cc for example). Why then would I not be able to bring all my healing spells with me to a dungeon? My purpose is to heal. I won’t likely be doing much damage anyway. I should be given the chance to heal my best, all the time.
Or, if I am a Tank and 70% of my spells are used for tanking, like blocking abilities, or low damage agro (hate) building spells and 20% are used for low or average damage and 10% for whatever else. I will not be so overpowered that I can do rouge-like DPS while tanking. (assuming rogue DPS is very high)
I would understand the need to limit spells if each class had an even mixture of healing, tanking and damage spells. But I think it’s been fairly well established that class balance is not something we will have, or want. So, why not let us be our best all the time? What am I missing?
My take is that classes are multi-dimensional and situational circumstances paired with group composition are going to dictate what you need to take skill-wise. Joppa mentioned in the last stream that it was their intention for classes to be able to flex into one other role at the cost of their primary role. He used the rogue's CC as an example of being able to flex into a secondary role.
Using healers as an example, a shaman is a healer, but it was shown in a stream that if they max out mastery for Circle of Flame they are able to give their group a fire resist debuff. This spell is a DPS ability but its mastery provides a damage prevention utility. There may be a situation where this fire resist buff is extremely desirable. You may have a situation where your group takes two healers and a shaman decides that they are going to act as backup heals and debuffs/DPS depending on what the group needs.
I think that it's way too early to be discussing this topic because it requires experiencing in the game and seeing how things are working firsthand.
FatedEmperor said:I think that it's way too early to be discussing this topic because it requires experiencing in the game and seeing how things are working firsthand.
I like your take on this, but it's never too early to discuss. It's fun and VR has explicitly asked for our opinion.
Swap out the stun and swap in the root.
"Wait, the rogue is doing root"
Swap out the root and swap in the cure poison.
"Wait, the druid has the poison covered"
Swap out the poison and swap in the cold resist.
"What about the mages?"
Swap out fire resist and swap back in the in the stun.
"There's way more imps than frost mages, though"
Swap out the cold resist for cold damage and swap back in the fire resist for the stun.
"But you can't just ignore the frost mages"
Swap back in cold resist and stun and drop a DoT and fire damage.
"Oh, nevermind, we're moving to the next zone now"
Forget all that swapping and discuss the loadouts everyone is taking for the next zone...
"Hang on, which *part* of the next zone?"
...
Hmm.
disposalist said:
Swap out the stun and swap in the root.
"Wait, the rogue is doing root"
Swap out the root and swap in the cure poison.
"Wait, the druid has the poison covered"
Swap out the poison and swap in the cold resist.
"What about the mages?"
Swap out fire resist and swap back in the in the stun.
"There's way more imps than frost mages, though"
Swap out the cold resist for cold damage and swap back in the fire resist for the stun.
"But you can't just ignore the frost mages"
Swap back in cold resist and stun and drop a DoT and fire damage.
"Oh, nevermind, we're moving to the next zone now"
Forget all that swapping and discuss the loadouts everyone is taking for the next zone...
"Hang on, which *part* of the next zone?"
...
Hmm.
This.
Here is my take on this entire topic:
Starting off, I am against LAS and all for open bars. I believe the "restriction" and the "Choice" and the "nobody should be able to do everything" should be determined at the time of class selection. From there, I believe every class should be the same class. IE: A shaman should be a shaman, not a shaman COULD be a Healer, or it COULD be a debufer, or it COULD be a dps, etc. It should just be a dang shaman. And within that role if you have multiple shamans, then you can have each one focus on different things. 1 Shaman focus on healing and another focus on debuffs. You dont have to be limited to X slots to be able to focus on different things. It also allows the ability that if one particular pull is easy peasy you can be fluid within those roles as needed. Yet if its a tough fight, you need to stick with what you need to be doing.
EX: if a there is 1 shaman in a group in a dungeon, whose obvious main goal is to heal the group...it seems ridiculous to me to cut his hands off from doing things other than healing due to an arbitrary, made up system of LAS. If we start off pulling extremely easy mobs where there is literally no need for healing...why cant I decide for myself that in this particular moment my healing abilities are not needed, and I can help dps a little, or buff a little. Meanwhile maybe the next pull is hard, or a bad pull grabs too many mobs. Well now I should have the ability to recognize my situation has changed and now I need to focus on healing. This puts the skill into the players hands instead of the players arbitrary loadout. Meanwhile....all of this was done under the capabilities of a what a shaman truly is. The shaman wasn't doing any wizard damage, and the shaman wasn't doing any enchanter CC...the shaman was still doing very low basica shaman DPS but he was at least able to contribute to something...as much as a SHAMAN is capable of doing.
However, it looks like LAS is going to be here to stay so the question isn't so much of why or why not LAS, but how many slots. Granted I think if they wanted to, even in beta, they could change and open the bars and revamp combat entirely relatively easy, but I digress.
The answer to how many action slots is going to come down to a few factors.
1) There must be enough slots to do the role that is asked of you. IE: I need enough taunt and survival abilities on my bar to be an effective tank. Or, I need enough buffs and heals on my bar to be an effective healer.
2) I need enough slots to cover #1, and also enough to cover a basic "defensive" type of strategy. IE: I need a root, or a snare, or an interupt etc. Not saying I need 6 different ones, but I should be able to cover one or two while my group covers the rest.
3) I need enough slots to cover #1 and #2 as well as not feel restrained to the point that abilities that are extremely situational can't be utilized. IE: Rogues death from above is EXTREMELY situational and will not be used overall throughout a dungeon crawl. So with a tight LAS, it simply wont make the cut no matter how awesome of a spell it is. If I am much less restrained I can afford to put it on my bar if I choose.
4) I need enough slots to cover #1, #2, and #3...while also enough slots to not make it feel like I'm playing a child's game that caps my skill level for the sake of simplicity sake. I'm in no way saying I need 75 spells. However, who remember playing a warrior in EQ1 that had like 2 abilities. That was neither FUN, nor skillful. Maybe it was skillful in the way you geared, or how you pulled a mob...but the combat itself was not fun or skillful.
5) I would like an option for all of my non-combat abilities to NOT be counted towards any LAS slots. This will be a grey area on what is considered non-combat abilities as there are some that would seem completely non-combat related, but when you see how it can be used in other ways...can definitely affect combat (Kind of like the Rangers ability that lets them look through the eyes of an animal to scope out around corners for potential adds). Possibly things like runspeed buffs that do not apply in combat. Something that just improves quality of life but doesn't affect combat. It seems silly to have the LAS system designed specifically to affect combat gameplay, but then also have LAS to affect quality of life. IE: If a runspeed buff doesn't work when you are engaged in combat, but yet when you are out of a zone and about to start running home, now you have to tediously change out your hotbar abilities for that runspeed buff just to cast it. Just let me have it off to the side and cast it when I need it.
Those are my requirements for how many slots I want. I go through phases where I am willing to give LAS a try and then phases where I'm extremely against it. I will say this though, LAS is a hill I will die on. And if it turns out to be restrictive, I will ultimately leave the game for another game that may be similar in the genre. Unfortunately there isn't a lot out there to choose from, so I may be forced to live with it for a bit. But I know VR doesn't want to claim success on the premise that there was no competition.
Counterfleche said: The standard configurations should be a simple hotkey to switch between and I'm more interested in choosing between general builds based on my group dynamics.
To me, it seems if we are ‘willy-nilly’ switching between builds, we may as well just have everything at once. I'm not fond of the idea of memorizing 20 LAS builds, all with 1 or 2 slight variations. I certainly see that there is more strategy involved in this system, but it seems cumbersome and not as fun.
Hoiyay said:
I believe every class should be the same class. IE: A shaman should be a shaman, not a shaman COULD be a Healer, or it COULD be a debufer, or it COULD be a dps, etc. It should just be a dang shaman. And within that role if you have multiple shamans, then you can have each one focus on different things. 1 Shaman focus on healing and another focus on debuffs. You dont have to be limited to X slots to be able to focus on different things. It also allows the ability that if one particular pull is easy peasy you can be fluid within those roles as needed. Yet if its a tough fight, you need to stick with what you need to be doing.
It’s seems it would be more fun to be in situations where it’s fluid and dynamic and you need to react and be fluid during combat. I don’t ever want to be thinking, “we would not have wiped if I was using my other spells.”
Hoiyay said:
The answer to how many action slots is going to come down to a few factors.1) There must be enough slots to do the role that is asked of you. IE: I need enough taunt and survival abilities on my bar to be an effective tank. Or, I need enough buffs and heals on my bar to be an effective healer.
2) I need enough slots to cover #1, and also enough to cover a basic "defensive" type of strategy. IE: I need a root, or a snare, or an interupt etc. Not saying I need 6 different ones, but I should be able to cover one or two while my group covers the rest.
3) I need enough slots to cover #1 and #2 as well as not feel restrained to the point that abilities that are extremely situational can't be utilized. IE: Rogues death from above is EXTREMELY situational and will not be used overall throughout a dungeon crawl. So with a tight LAS, it simply wont make the cut no matter how awesome of a spell it is. If I am much less restrained I can afford to put it on my bar if I choose.
4) I need enough slots to cover #1, #2, and #3...while also enough slots to not make it feel like I'm playing a child's game that caps my skill level for the sake of simplicity sake. I'm in no way saying I need 75 spells. However, who remember playing a warrior in EQ1 that had like 2 abilities. That was neither FUN, nor skillful. Maybe it was skillful in the way you geared, or how you pulled a mob...but the combat itself was not fun or skillful.
5) I would like an option for all of my non-combat abilities to NOT be counted towards any LAS slots. This will be a grey area on what is considered non-combat abilities as there are some that would seem completely non-combat related, but when you see how it can be used in other ways...can definitely affect combat (Kind of like the Rangers ability that lets them look through the eyes of an animal to scope out around corners for potential adds). Possibly things like runspeed buffs that do not apply in combat. Something that just improves quality of life but doesn't affect combat. It seems silly to have the LAS system designed specifically to affect combat gameplay, but then also have LAS to affect quality of life. IE: If a runspeed buff doesn't work when you are engaged in combat, but yet when you are out of a zone and about to start running home, now you have to tediously change out your hotbar abilities for that runspeed buff just to cast it. Just let me have it off to the side and cast it when I need it.
Those are my requirements for how many slots I want. I go through phases where I am willing to give LAS a try and then phases where I'm extremely against it. I will say this though, LAS is a hill I will die on. And if it turns out to be restrictive, I will ultimately leave the game for another game that may be similar in the genre. Unfortunately there isn't a lot out there to choose from, so I may be forced to live with it for a bit. But I know VR doesn't want to claim success on the premise that there was no competition.
I like this explanation. I am also assuming that the attributes you can assign to the spells to boost them- as well as the skills or combined with the available skills- will be enough to make these decisions. But I realize that is only my speculation at this point based on my understandoing of the spell line-ups and attribute boosts you can assign to them in the living codex.
Sweety said:
Counterfleche said: The standard configurations should be a simple hotkey to switch between and I'm more interested in choosing between general builds based on my group dynamics.To me, it seems if we are ‘willy-nilly’ switching between builds, we may as well just have everything at once. I'm not fond of the idea of memorizing 20 LAS builds, all with 1 or 2 slight variations. I certainly see that there is more strategy involved in this system, but it seems cumbersome and not as fun.
For me the opposite is true - once you are locked in combat part of the fun comes from non optimal builds.
Oh no, a fire resistant add just spawned and our chanter is dead, and my build is all fire spells... but I do have root memorised, maybe I can root the add.. or maybe its better to burn all my mana and bring down the main target faster , or maybe we should evac.
Without LAS you might just have top fire DPS then switch to cold....always optimal and always automatable by a robot!
Basically LAS adds a strategic and tactical layer where you need inteligence to addapt to non optimal situations, and if you specialise your LAS too much you risk some randomness impacting your R vs R
Improvising when stuff happens that you could not prepare for is challenging, but not strategic or tactical.
The strategy is in planning for encounters you think are coming.
LAS does require more planning, but the question is, is that fun or frustrating?
There is already interdependency between classes and roles. No one can do everything.
There will often be non-optimal groups to cope with.
Does stopping classes from even doing some of what they know they *can* do improve challenge in a good way?
How can VR design encounters to be at the optimal level of challenge, when they don't know what skills you will load?
If they design for non-optimal loadouts, won't encounters be too easy for groups with optimal loadouts?
If they design for optimal loadouts, won't encounters be too frustrating/difficult for non-optimal loadouts?
VR are the experts and I'm willing to try LAS, but I don't envy their job in this regard. It seems awfully complex to get right.
Sweety said: ... I don’t ever want to be thinking, “we would not have wiped if I was using my other spells.”
IMO:
In order for LAS to accomplish it's reason for existence, this is exactly what MUST happen, and often, Sweety. You absolutely MUST be punished for choosing the wrong spells, if LAS can ever be called a success.
Otherwise, there's no point to having a Limited Action Set at all. It's in the name. You're Limiting the Actions that can be used. The spell is in your Codex, you know it. You've upgraded it. You've spent Mastery Points on it. It's just not on your 8+6 UI hotbar at the moment. Oh well, you fail. Try again.
It has to restrict or limit your ability to react, and as a result, to increase the chance of failure. That's why the mechanic is being put in the game. You chose... poorly. :)
Objectively, it's an entirely punitive mechanic, from start to finish.
Otherwise, without it, you could have the EQ1 implementation of sit-and-med changing spells in combat and having access to all non-spells all the time, and the only thing preventing you from using them is re-cast/re-use timers. Where you can react to dynamic combat situations. It's been discussed many times on these forums over the past however many years since LAS was revealed, but if you Limit the Actions of your customers, you can't design and implement dynamic encounters. Especially if players are locked in combat for the entirety of encounters (except Rogues, evidently).
At least, not unless you want rage-quit levels of frustration because your encounters are designed to guarantee your customers fail. Then it's just bad business.
vjek said:
Sweety said: ... I don’t ever want to be thinking, “we would not have wiped if I was using my other spells.”
IMO:
In order for LAS to accomplish it's reason for existence, this is exactly what MUST happen, and often, Sweety. You absolutely MUST be punished for choosing the wrong spells, if LAS can ever be called a success.
Otherwise, there's no point to having a Limited Action Set at all. It's in the name. You're Limiting the Actions that can be used. The spell is in your Codex, you know it. You've upgraded it. You've spent Mastery Points on it. It's just not on your 8+6 UI hotbar at the moment. Oh well, you fail. Try again.
It has to restrict or limit your ability to react, and as a result, to increase the chance of failure. That's why the mechanic is being put in the game. You chose... poorly. :)
Objectively, it's an entirely punitive mechanic, from start to finish.
Otherwise, without it, you could have the EQ1 implementation of sit-and-med changing spells in combat and having access to all non-spells all the time, and the only thing preventing you from using them is re-cast/re-use timers. Where you can react to dynamic combat situations. It's been discussed many times on these forums over the past however many years since LAS was revealed, but if you Limit the Actions of your customers, you can't design and implement dynamic encounters. Especially if players are locked in combat for the entirety of encounters (except Rogues, evidently).
At least, not unless you want rage-quit levels of frustration because your encounters are designed to guarantee your customers fail. Then it's just bad business.
Your logic makes perfect sense. 2 things to note:
1. Personal preference, this style of play is not fun for me. I admit that’s on me. Not VR.
2. It seems too much RNG is involved. I realize this is an RPG and we are rolling dice every time we are in combat, but MMORPGs have evolved to the point of making skill an equal or greater part of the success factor. Enemies are all different, so I just have to *hope* that choosing my fire spells against what looks like an ice enemy was the right choice? Will there be a tooltip telling us the type of enemy we are about to fight so we can load the right LAS build? - I sure hope not! (obviously VR would never do that). I am just making the point that while I see the value in failure, as you explained. I think failure needs to be the expectation, not the rule.
Sweety said:2. It seems too much RNG is involved. I realize this is an RPG and we are rolling dice every time we are in combat, but MMORPGs have evolved to the point of making skill an equal or greater part of the success factor. Enemies are all different, so I just have to *hope* that choosing my fire spells against what looks like an ice enemy was the right choice?
It is about making sure your group has everything covered, not just you. Group composition and communication will be important. If everyone tries to do the same one thing then no one will have the required ability eventually.
You will easily and quickly learn the general resists for the zone just like every other MMO, but when you find that disposition that is resistant to fire you would swap to your backup damage type. It makes sense for everyone to have something or it is just poor planning. If they are immune to piercing the fighter swaps from a spear to a glaive for killing these creatures. If it gets dark you may swap to a massive light for the party instead of a damage shield because you don't want your cleric to drop the HP buff for a large light.
Beyond those sorts of changes it will be up to who in the group has what kind of abilities they need to make sure are covered. If the creatures you are fighting can run for aid and come back to swarm the group then the party needs to have enough snares, stuns, knock backs, pulls, grapples, or magic that prevents them from fleeing. The group needs to have a variety of abilities. It doesn't matter that everyone in the group could stun the mob if they wanted to. It only matters the group has a person or two ready to stun when needed. And if those two people fail to do what you thought they would then yes, you would die thinking if only I had that job... I am good enough to actually do it.
"So, you've got stun?"
"No, I've got silence, the tank has stun"
"So, I'll take root?"
"No, the rogue has root"
"So, I'll take cure poison?"
"No, the druid has that"
"So, I'll take blinding?"
"There's only one monster that actually has eyes here"
"So, I'll take cold spells?"
"Yes ok"
Growl, smash, bang, boom, arrgh...
"OMG Why didn't anyone cast cold resist?! 10 minutes of discussion and we are still unprepared?! Wizard, you had cold spells?!"
"I thought you meant cold *damage* not resist! Hang on, I don't have a cold resist variant toolbar..."
A few minutes later, growl, smash, bang, boom, aaarrrgghhh....
"WTF Why didn't we Slow that fire imp?! Wizard?!"
"I took cold resist for the frost mages like you said - I dropped the cold damage that slows the imps. Hang on, I'll make another toolbar variant with cold damage and also cold resist and drop the evac..."
"Don't drop the evac! Why would you drop the evac?!"
"Err... so what have I got that someone else also has then?"
A few minutes later multiplied by 6 as all group members discuss the needs of the next few encounters...
"So that time we had what we mostly needed, but died anyway?!..."
"I guess we need to go to a lower level zone... What toolbars do we need for the one next door?..."
AAARRRGGHHH!!
So, I'm obviously attempting some humour whilst making a point... LAS might well be a challenge and a way to encourage coordination and synergy, but is it 'fun'? Wouldn't there be enough fun and challenges in group coordination and synergy without the overhead of arranging multiple toolbar variations and the frustration of being stuck without access to skills you do know?
One major point is to remind people that one of the secrets to a good RPG game is actually giving you the ability to do things wrong. If you don't have to choose which abilities to have ready to use, you can't get it wrong. A good RPG is one that allows a player to make the wrong choice and suffer for it.
vjek said: "Especially if players are locked in combat for the entirety of encounters"
This is an unknown at this time. We know that they want to lock us from changing abilities while 'In Combat' but they don't tell us that we are going to be locked in combat until you or the enemy dies like WoW does it. There may be mechanics that allow all classes to drop out of combat, even if still on hostile lists of enemy targets. We just don't know how it will work yet. So we can't make assumptions.
One other thing that I'd like to mention is in regards to players always saying "If I learn how to use a Spell, why can't I always use that spell?" or some such similar comment. It isn't really that much different than back in D&D with Memory slots.
Back in Dungeons and Dragons, they used to limit how many times a player could use a spell by having the player need to choose which spell he memorizes from his spellbook, and then once that spell is cast it leaves his memory (magically) and he needs to 're-memorize' it in order to cast it again, which took a specific amount of time that the player needed to sit down and not be inturrupted. The Lore of the world suggests that Magical spells are so difficult to maintain in your mind that only the most practiced minds can keep them ready in your mind.
The player would have a set number of 'memory' slots for spells of each spell level, based on his Level. As he got more powerful his mind was capable of hanging on to more Magical spells at a time. (Should be noted that you could use more than 1 memory slots to memorize the same Spell multiple times. But you would still be limited based on how many memory slots you had.)
For example a Lvl 5 Wizard may be able to Memorize 8 Lvl 1 spells, 5 Lvl 2 spells, 3 Lvl 3 spells and only 1 Level 4 spell. So if this wizard wants to cast Magic Missle 8 times in a combat encounter he would need to use ALL his Lvl 1 spell memory slots for that Magic Missle. Meaning he wouldn't have any other Lvl 1 spells ready to be cast in his Magical Memory slots. It also means that he can only ever have 1 Lvl 4 spell to use, and once he uses it... no more Lvl 4 spells available. So he/she would need to plan ahead and choose carefully which Lvl 4 spell to Memorize.
In this way, they could balance these Spells knowing there will be a limit in how many and how often they could be used before the player needed to find a time & place to Re-memorize. Thus they could give a Class all sorts of different spell options that allow him to do all sorts of amazing things... while knowing that he will need to choose which of those things he wants to be ready to do.... While without this limit, these spell classes would just become masters of everything all the time. No matter the situation they would always have a solution. So you either put in magical limits, or you don't give classes so many options.
At least with Pantheon, once you choose a spell to fill one of your Memory slots, you can repeatedly cast it over and over as long as you have mana (or whatever resource your class uses) to do so.
GoofyWarriorGuy said: ... This is an unknown at this time. We know that they want to lock us from changing abilities while 'In Combat' but they don't tell us that we are going to be locked in combat until you or the enemy dies like WoW does it. There may be mechanics that allow all classes to drop out of combat, even if still on hostile lists of enemy targets. We just don't know how it will work yet. ...
IMO:
If it's not a design goal that all players (except Rogues) are locked and restricted from making changes in combat for the entirety of encounters, then why put in LAS at all? It's fundamentally required for the mechanic to succeed. (except for Rogues)
It's an enormous amount of development time, resources, and effort for something that actively works against itself.
If people can change their spells & skills throughout an encounter while being locked in combat, then.. there is no Limited Action Set in any meaningful sense.
If you can just stop attacking for 5 seconds and then change your hotbar load out, LAS doesn't succeed.
Same goes for any reliable ability that permits the same thing (like Rogues).
All they would have done, if that's true, is potentially alienate a portion of their target demographic for no good reason.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:One major point is to remind people that one of the secrets to a good RPG game is actually giving you the ability to do things wrong. If you don't have to choose which abilities to have ready to use, you can't get it wrong. A good RPG is one that allows a player to make the wrong choice and suffer for it.
vjek said: "Especially if players are locked in combat for the entirety of encounters"
This is an unknown at this time. We know that they want to lock us from changing abilities while 'In Combat' but they don't tell us that we are going to be locked in combat until you or the enemy dies like WoW does it. There may be mechanics that allow all classes to drop out of combat, even if still on hostile lists of enemy targets. We just don't know how it will work yet. So we can't make assumptions.
One other thing that I'd like to mention is in regards to players always saying "If I learn how to use a Spell, why can't I always use that spell?" or some such similar comment. It isn't really that much different than back in D&D with Memory slots.Back in Dungeons and Dragons, they used to limit how many times a player could use a spell by having the player need to choose which spell he memorizes from his spellbook, and then once that spell is cast it leaves his memory (magically) and he needs to 're-memorize' it in order to cast it again, which took a specific amount of time that the player needed to sit down and not be inturrupted. The Lore of the world suggests that Magical spells are so difficult to maintain in your mind that only the most practiced minds can keep them ready in your mind.
The player would have a set number of 'memory' slots for spells of each spell level, based on his Level. As he got more powerful his mind was capable of hanging on to more Magical spells at a time. (Should be noted that you could use more than 1 memory slots to memorize the same Spell multiple times. But you would still be limited based on how many memory slots you had.)
For example a Lvl 5 Wizard may be able to Memorize 8 Lvl 1 spells, 5 Lvl 2 spells, 3 Lvl 3 spells and only 1 Level 4 spell. So if this wizard wants to cast Magic Missle 8 times in a combat encounter he would need to use ALL his Lvl 1 spell memory slots for that Magic Missle. Meaning he wouldn't have any other Lvl 1 spells ready to be cast in his Magical Memory slots. It also means that he can only ever have 1 Lvl 4 spell to use, and once he uses it... no more Lvl 4 spells available. So he/she would need to plan ahead and choose carefully which Lvl 4 spell to Memorize.
In this way, they could balance these Spells knowing there will be a limit in how many and how often they could be used before the player needed to find a time & place to Re-memorize. Thus they could give a Class all sorts of different spell options that allow him to do all sorts of amazing things... while knowing that he will need to choose which of those things he wants to be ready to do.... While without this limit, these spell classes would just become masters of everything all the time. No matter the situation they would always have a solution. So you either put in magical limits, or you don't give classes so many options.
At least with Pantheon, once you choose a spell to fill one of your Memory slots, you can repeatedly cast it over and over as long as you have mana (or whatever resource your class uses) to do so.
2. It seems too much RNG is involved. I realize this is an RPG and we are rolling dice every time we are in combat, but MMORPGs have evolved to the point of making skill an equal or greater part of the success factor. Enemies are all different, so I just have to *hope* that choosing my fire spells against what looks like an ice enemy was the right choice? Will there be a tooltip telling us the type of enemy we are about to fight so we can load the right LAS build? - I sure hope not! (obviously VR would never do that). I am just making the point that while I see the value in failure, as you explained. I think failure needs to be the expectation, not the rule.
This is a solid point here. MMORPG's are not turned based decisions where they have 1 decision to make per turn per character. MMORPG's today are where you make multiple decisions in a second. Where to stand, where to turn your back, which spell to cast, when not to cast, when to run to your group..when to run away from your group, which mob to target, etc etc. These are all very basic actions that we all use every second of combat play. And all of it takes SKILL to use...its not left to RNG.
Yes, there is some chance to RNG every second we fight too. But it is VERY LIMITED to what the RNG is. EX: The rng of my weapon attack is from 80-100. I know I have a 40% chance (RNG) to get a crit. I know my RNG to block a melee attack is 60% etc etc. These are all things that are VERY LIMITED and also I have control over all of these. If I want better RNG for crits....I stack crit chance.
And pantheon is putting RNG into mobs with the disposition system. So several times I pull this mob its just a tank and spank, but there is an RNG that I will get a random disposition. And that is fine, as long as they dont cut my hands off on how I handle that RNG. Its one thing to miss a crit from RNG, but its FAR TOO BROAD to leave dying up to RNG based on what 8 skills I take into a fight; especially when this game is punishing on death.
It removes the skill to react to the RNG and places it on chance, or RNG that you have your LAS set up right. Certainly if we play the same expac for 2 years we will all KNOW what we need to load up for LAS and we should know better by then to have the right LAS. But when were going into a new game with new fights and simply dying because of the RNG that comes with unknown mobs and unknown dispositions it feels very, very bad. Im ok with dying. Absolutely. Im not ok with dying just because I was arbitrarily forced to have my hands tied behind my back by LAS. You have denied me an opportunity to show my skill.
Joppa has stated we should be okay with dying. I agree with him about this. However, I will die on this hill that we should not simply just die randomly because we haven't died in awhile. We should ONLY die because we were not CAPABLE of defeating our enemies. And I mean Capable in regards to our gear being weak, our levels being low, or our skill just not being there. All of those are things I can change and they should be a reason to die. But simply dying because I was arbitrarily forced to have my hands tied behind my back for for this notion of LAS is a terrible feeling. Yea sure, I could change it and come back...but I still died that first time for no reason other than bad game design that I wouldn't have died to otherwise without LAS.
Joppa also ask: Is this fun?
Is it fun? NO. It is NOT fun to work down to the bottom of a dungeon and then pulling a big boss to see how this fight goes and dying because we didn't know the RNG of this boss and couldn't prepare before hand. Now it will take another 1.5 hours to work to the bottom again to pull the mob prepared the next time. THats NOT Fun.
If you dont want everybody to be able to do everything....then dont let classes do everything. Simple.
If you want the game to be challenging....Make the game hard with open bars. Theres no noticeable different designing a difficult game with LAS or open bars.
IF you want people to make friendships and communicate....let them talk about themselves and to each other about family, and life, etc...not spending 15min at each new group to do a boring briefing of who has which abilities, what everybody's role is, etc etc.