I am not grasping the sense of the game style at play here.
In this recent video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfIqoNszVKc -- Joppa stated this: "An originally aquatic being ... there is one way you would look at a human adapting a macro adaptation developing gills ...". Now, I think this is a great way to think about the game, storyline, and how races/classes should be built. But, I think the gameplay should be in the same format.
As it stands, the current guideline is that you cannot trade gear or swap spells in combat. This seems to break the "realistic" gameplay. EQ, EQ2 (ehh), and Vanguard all had the idea of "Realistic Fantasy". Where you could actually immerse into the gameplay and experience it as if you were there. But, in Pantheon, it seems we are removing the "realism" sense that other games don't have, e.g. WoW. For example, you can not mem spells in combat, at this point in time. On the other hand, you are only limited to 8 spells. Realistically, you could only remember 8 spells off the top of your head. This makes sense. But, if I wasn't getting hit, I can't open my spellbook and change spells? Sure, add a delay to "remember the spell and forget the other one". But, it would be 100% feasible.
It seems that Pantheon is breaking their original gameplan of this "realistic fantasy" into a game restricted by rules "just because".
Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
Additionally, Why can't I rez in combat? What in the game prohibits rezzing in combat? I think a function such as "if you get hit, the rez stops" is more appropriate. It aligns more with what the developers are stating instead of these bizarre rules that come out of nowhere because that is the current MMORPG standard. Pantheon, much like EQ, seemed to be the game to break the standard and be the sense of strategic fantasy that traditional MMORPG players hope to see.
I hope this can be seriously considered once more.
Small note: I come from an EQ/EQ2/Vanguard/WoW/etc, all MMORPGs background. I understand that a game is a game but there is usually a reason for rules. The gameplay thrives on this foundation. It seems that Pantheon is obeying some rules (like the spell limit - i.e., a person couldn't remember everything at one time) but is breaking others (the inability to mem spells during combat - if I wasn't being attacked, I could definitely take the time to say "hang on, let me look up this spell" and mem it for 30 seconds similar to EQ).
As you note, it *is* a game *shrug*.
A lot of realism will and should be disregarded in the name of maintaining challenge. However you feel about LAS, something like mid-combat skill changing 'breaks' the concept to some degree. I actually am unconvinced regarding LAS and feel that mid-combat memming would be good, *but* I understand that VR feel that that kinda 'undoes' the point of LAS.
I seem to remember that VR have said that there will be skills that 'break' combat and allow skill changing though, but the point there is, it will be a *designed* mechanic, which is controlled to maintain challenge, not uncontrolled and certainly not in the name of realism.
They have also commented in the past that LAS is not set in stone and can be tweaked, relaxed and maybe even removed if it works out badly (though I doubt the latter will happen now).
Personally, I like as much realism as possible, yes, but I totally understand and accept that a game has (and needs) a ton of limitations to attempt to balance challenge and that is an extremely difficult thing to do already.
To be honest, I find it much more 'unreal' that a person can't hold all the skills they 'know' in their head at once, but you seem to accept that. The whole concept of 'memming' spells is weird, to be honest, and I always found it so in EQ. Why would someone 'forget' how to remove poison (and somehow *choose* to 'forget) just because resisting cold is more important at the moment? Bizarre. But, I accept that's how LAS 'works' in many games, including EQ.
As for combat rez, you *can* do that in Pantheon... When you get the skill... Feels pretty real to me that the miraculous ability of resurrection from death might require more experience and skill to execute mid-melee, no?
I guess the point for me is, there are some mechanics that people, subjectively and personally, find more or less real and immersive. That some people consider 'standard' and others do not. That some consider a modern MMO mistake and others see as an innovation overcoming historic mistakes. That we accept as in-keeping with the gameplay of a particular game or rail against as feeling out-of-place. We have to trust VR that they are balancing game and realism in the way that is needed for Pantheon to work well and be consistent and fun.
I mean, sure, push for the things you enjoy. Discuss what you find to be mistakes and failings. That's what we are here for. But perhaps accept that most of that will be personal and subjective and not a 'standard' VR should accept?
Like I said, I'm not convinced by Pantheon's implmentation of LAS yet. I see it potentially causing more frustration and fiddliness than it's perhaps worth, but I see it's quite a fundamental design choice and VR have thought deeply about why they are adopting it. I didn't like EQ's implementation of LAS either, but it was clearly intentional and didn't spoil the game overall *shrug*.
Evilsmaher said:I am not grasping the sense of the game style at play here.
In this recent video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfIqoNszVKc -- Joppa stated this: "An originally aquatic being ... there is one way you would look at a human adapting a macro adaptation developing gills ...". Now, I think this is a great way to think about the game, storyline, and how races/classes should be built. But, I think the gameplay should be in the same format.
As it stands, the current guideline is that you cannot trade gear or swap spells in combat. This seems to break the "realistic" gameplay. EQ, EQ2 (ehh), and Vanguard all had the idea of "Realistic Fantasy". Where you could actually immerse into the gameplay and experience it as if you were there. But, in Pantheon, it seems we are removing the "realism" sense that other games don't have, e.g. WoW. For example, you can not mem spells in combat, at this point in time. On the other hand, you are only limited to 8 spells. Realistically, you could only remember 8 spells off the top of your head. This makes sense. But, if I wasn't getting hit, I can't open my spellbook and change spells? Sure, add a delay to "remember the spell and forget the other one". But, it would be 100% feasible.
It seems that Pantheon is breaking their original gameplan of this "realistic fantasy" into a game restricted by rules "just because".
Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
Additionally, Why can't I rez in combat? What in the game prohibits rezzing in combat? I think a function such as "if you get hit, the rez stops" is more appropriate. It aligns more with what the developers are stating instead of these bizarre rules that come out of nowhere because that is the current MMORPG standard. Pantheon, much like EQ, seemed to be the game to break the standard and be the sense of strategic fantasy that traditional MMORPG players hope to see.
I hope this can be seriously considered once more.
Small note: I come from an EQ/EQ2/Vanguard/WoW/etc, all MMORPGs background. I understand that a game is a game but there is usually a reason for rules. The gameplay thrives on this foundation. It seems that Pantheon is obeying some rules (like the spell limit - i.e., a person couldn't remember everything at one time) but is breaking others (the inability to mem spells during combat - if I wasn't being attacked, I could definitely take the time to say "hang on, let me look up this spell" and mem it for 30 seconds similar to EQ).
In table top gaming which most MMOs were originally inspired by, time is only really felt in combat. Preparing spells or reviving the dead could take as long as the devs wanted, without ruining gameplay. In video games like MMOs they are sped up for player sanity. Rather than out of combat time they have out of combat spells and options.
Preparing spells is as complicated as VR wants to make it in the lore. They may make it a quick load spell set button for streamlining gameplay but the act of preparing a spell or ability doesn't mean you are simply memorizing it. What spell components do you have at the ready, how many pockets can you feisably have easy access to? Yes it is arbitraury for game mechanics point of view, but the "realism" can be in the lore just fine to explain away most of the limitations. You can't realism magic.
I don't really care one way or another if they let people alter abilities in combat without using a drop combat ability, I just dont think "realism" should be the reason. For instance they could let players do it in combat but let the mob see it and go coup-de-grace the sitting duck. I would be perfectly fine with that so the in game reason works, but I don't think it is necessary to build vs hard ruling it to be out of combat because your PC simply knows better.
I do think changing weapons (and only weapons) in combat should be an option though. Especially if there are things like bludgeoning resistant or immune creatures. It should be part of the melee expectations to have damage types at the ready, just how casters should need to do the same with their spells. Immune to piercing? Pull out a bludgeoning weapon. I will say shields though are often affixed to the arm. Many large shields shouldn't be droppable even if the person wanted to. If VR did shield sizes then sure, treat the small bucklers like one hand weapons, but giant tank shields should take more time than going from a dagger to a hammer if they were actually going for realism.
As for the res thing I think it is more of a convenience aspect. Lets say they turned the out of combat res into a 1 minute cast time, it would quickly become very annoying out of combat and never be used in combat. The game mechanics hard blocking things like that are often used to smoothe out the gameplay. In a tabletop the hours it takes to revive a dead player pass in seconds of story telling, you can't have that in an MMO.
Realism is good - I strongly support it. I also agree with most of what disposalist and jobeson say.
In terms of spell use - I too look back at the tabletop roots of the genre. A magic user could only memorize a small number of spells no matter how many he or she had in the spellbook. The number memorized and thus available during the day increased with the magic user's level. For a cleric the opposite applied since a cleric didn't need extensive preparation, memorization and use of material components to call upon his or her God. To balance this very significant difference - clerical spells tended to be less dramatic. One magic user spell could and often did dramatically change the course of a battle or even a campaign. This was less likely for clerical spells though not impossible. Clerics tended to get such spells later in their careeers and in lesser number.
Is that "realistic"? Who knows - we all all live in a far more mundane world where magic is non-existant - or perhaps just well concealed. But it was good game balance.
As to swapping gear in combat. Switching armour is somewhat ridiculous especially heavy armour which in the "real world" often could not be put on outside of combat without a squire or someone else to help. I feel no need for the compexity of a rule allowing me to switch my boots for a different set that have magical bonuses better for a particular fight given that realism would seem to require various conditions. Such as being X units away from the nearest enemy. Such as any attack upon me while swapping boots might be at +10 to hit, double damage and high chance of a critical hit. Such as inabilty to do anything else for 2-5 minutes while I was engaged in getting undressed and dressed.
Swapping weapons. Do any of us want the "realism" of a rule having us fight at -4 to hit and -8 damage because we are so laden down with weapons and shields that we can hardly move while we are fighting? In "real life" how well can a soldier fight with, let us say, a sword and shield if she also has a bow, quiver, tower shield, and two handed sword all strapped to her body in case she wants to switch weapons? Not to mention a rule saying that she cannot attack or defend for 30 seconds while switching and she defends at -8 and takes triple damage (with bonus chance for a critical hit) if she is attacked during the 30 seconds.
Numbers in all examples above rather random but isn't this how a game like D&D or AD&D would handle weapon or armour swapping during actual combat?
Evilsmaher said:Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
I'll tell you what. Go put a dagger into a backpack, zip it up and put it on your back (both arms through the straps, not this 'sling of over 1 shoulder' thing) Now go to your neighbor and have him start punching you in the face really really hard and as fast as he can. Then, using a stopwatch, check and see just how long takes you to take off that backpack, unzip it, take out the digger, rezip the bag and put it return it to your back. VR will use that amount of time as the time it takes players to switch out weapons in combat.
That's a joke, mind you, but the point is that combat should be an fluid event where taking the time to do that is worse for you than just trying to work with that you had at hand when you started. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If melee are ever allowed to change weapons in combat, casters should be allowed to change out spells.
Vandraad said:Evilsmaher said:Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
I'll tell you what. Go put a dagger into a backpack, zip it up and put it on your back (both arms through the straps, not this 'sling of over 1 shoulder' thing) Now go to your neighbor and have him start punching you in the face really really hard and as fast as he can. Then, using a stopwatch, check and see just how long takes you to take off that backpack, unzip it, take out the digger, rezip the bag and put it return it to your back. VR will use that amount of time as the time it takes players to switch out weapons in combat.
That's a joke, mind you, but the point is that combat should be an fluid event where taking the time to do that is worse for you than just trying to work with that you had at hand when you started. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If melee are ever allowed to change weapons in combat, casters should be allowed to change out spells.
Your situation would only apply to the tank. I agree, if you are getting hit on, then you probably wouldn't be able to just swap weapons (back to the rez example above, if you got hit, you would stop casting it). Some spells are "harder" than others and require more focus. I could see this being lore AND allowing the game to prohibit god-like abilities. I would think, though, a rogue would 1) have weapons in his pockets, pants, belt, etc and 2) could pull them out pretty dang quick. Maybe an extra second or 2 to trade the other one back. Similar for casters, the idea should be that it should take time. The more "focus" a spell requires, the longer it would take to use from the spellbook. This would even allow for opportunities to "hold" a book while not actually memorizing the spell. You could just read from your book. BUT, if you got aggro, then the book would disappear and you would lose the cast.
A lot of these amazing features are removed because the game says "because I said so" instead of creating "real" rules.
Note: Most people above are arguing about 1) what is real or 2) what should or shouldn't be allowed. To be honest, I don't care about what is allowed - I'm concerned about the why. It seems like a recent MMORPG under the rug excuse to just limit the gameplay of not allowing things, specifically in combat. Again, the discontinuity between the "realism" and "just because" mentality is what concerns me.
Evilsmaher said:Vandraad said:Evilsmaher said:Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
I'll tell you what. Go put a dagger into a backpack, zip it up and put it on your back (both arms through the straps, not this 'sling of over 1 shoulder' thing) Now go to your neighbor and have him start punching you in the face really really hard and as fast as he can. Then, using a stopwatch, check and see just how long takes you to take off that backpack, unzip it, take out the digger, rezip the bag and put it return it to your back. VR will use that amount of time as the time it takes players to switch out weapons in combat.
That's a joke, mind you, but the point is that combat should be an fluid event where taking the time to do that is worse for you than just trying to work with that you had at hand when you started. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If melee are ever allowed to change weapons in combat, casters should be allowed to change out spells.
Your situation would only apply to the tank. I agree, if you are getting hit on, then you probably wouldn't be able to just swap weapons (back to the rez example above, if you got hit, you would stop casting it). Some spells are "harder" than others and require more focus. I could see this being lore AND allowing the game to prohibit god-like abilities. I would think, though, a rogue would 1) have weapons in his pockets, pants, belt, etc and 2) could pull them out pretty dang quick. Maybe an extra second or 2 to trade the other one back. Similar for casters, the idea should be that it should take time. The more "focus" a spell requires, the longer it would take to use from the spellbook. This would even allow for opportunities to "hold" a book while not actually memorizing the spell. You could just read from your book. BUT, if you got aggro, then the book would disappear and you would lose the cast.
A lot of these amazing features are removed because the game says "because I said so" instead of creating "real" rules.
Note: Most people above are arguing about 1) what is real or 2) what should or shouldn't be allowed. To be honest, I don't care about what is allowed - I'm concerned about the why. It seems like a recent MMORPG under the rug excuse to just limit the gameplay of not allowing things, specifically in combat. Again, the discontinuity between the "realism" and "just because" mentality is what concerns me.
One of my earlier suggestion was that switching out weapons should take into account the weapon delay of the item you are switching out plus the weapon delay of the item you are switching in. So lets say you are wielding a 1HS with a 2 second delay and you want to switch out to a 1HB that hits harder but has a 3 second delay. To complete the switch requires 5 seconds. You take the weapon out of your hand and put in in your bag and a 2 second timer counts down. You now equip the hammer and a 3 second time counts down. Now you can attack.
Switching out spells could work the same way. You take into account both cast time and global cooldown with the added risk that when you sit to change spells it increases your chances of pulling aggro. Risky and for those few seconds you cannot do anything.
((One of my earlier suggestion was that switching out weapons should take into account the weapon delay of the item you are switching out plus the weapon delay of the item you are switching in. So lets say you are wielding a 1HS with a 2 second delay and you want to switch out to a 1HB that hits harder but has a 3 second delay. To complete the switch requires 5 seconds. You take the weapon out of your hand and put in in your bag and a 2 second timer counts down. You now equip the hammer and a 3 second time counts down. Now you can attack.))
We are getting far more complicated here than may be desirable. Not for the players - for the developers and for the server keeping track of thousands or millions of not particularly essential elements. Not to mention that if one wants to be realistic there should be a much longer time required to switch weapons than to attack with a weapon already in your hand. Plus steep penalties for both offense and defense. Perhaps best to keep it simple for the devs and the server by either prohibiting switches or imposing one penalty for the server to keep track of.
Possibly something like a 30 second or one minute minimum time to swtich. Unrealistically long, perhaps, but in lieu of -10 to defense. -20 to critical defense, -8 to attack and -12 to damage inflicted all of which are *not* unrealistic other than the numbers being randomly made up.
dorotea said:Perhaps best to keep it simple for the devs and the server by either prohibiting switches or imposing one penalty for the server to keep track of.
That is would be expected. As for your 30 second comment that is abserdly long. Imagine something like the witcher needing 30 seconds to swap between swords. 2-5 seconds should be enough, whatever VR is feeling. This is a seasoned adventurers backup weapon, its not in a safe or something. It is equivalent to suggesting a soldier needs 30 second to a minute to switch from their rifle to their sidearm.
The idea would be Bludgeoning resist, Slashing resist, Fire resist, Lighting resist, etc are all things that matter. Any caster worth their salt wont have only a single damage type on their bar. Any meleer would have a backup weapon ready in the same way the caster has that one lighting spell to spam if something is immune to fire.
(As for your 30 second comment that is abserdly long)
Absurdly long for certain weapons not so long for others. But that isn't the point. I said myself that the idea was to have a longer than necessary time frame as a *penalty* in lieu of all the *other* penalties that a D&D or AD&D type game would have.
dorotea said:((One of my earlier suggestion was that switching out weapons should take into account the weapon delay of the item you are switching out plus the weapon delay of the item you are switching in. So lets say you are wielding a 1HS with a 2 second delay and you want to switch out to a 1HB that hits harder but has a 3 second delay. To complete the switch requires 5 seconds. You take the weapon out of your hand and put in in your bag and a 2 second timer counts down. You now equip the hammer and a 3 second time counts down. Now you can attack.))
We are getting far more complicated here than may be desirable. Not for the players - for the developers and for the server keeping track of thousands or millions of not particularly essential elements. Not to mention that if one wants to be realistic there should be a much longer time required to switch weapons than to attack with a weapon already in your hand. Plus steep penalties for both offense and defense. Perhaps best to keep it simple for the devs and the server by either prohibiting switches or imposing one penalty for the server to keep track of.
Possibly something like a 30 second or one minute minimum time to swtich. Unrealistically long, perhaps, but in lieu of -10 to defense. -20 to critical defense, -8 to attack and -12 to damage inflicted all of which are *not* unrealistic other than the numbers being randomly made up.
"Complicated"? They literally had this in 1999 in EQ -- when it took time to mem spells both in combat and out of combat. This is literally textbook old school MMORPG
Counterfleche said: Realism is very important, but there's actually two kinds of realism: real-world based and game world based. For most games, their realism is based on what is realistic for their fictional world. In a high fantasy game, a spell that resurrects the dead is more realistic than an AK-47, for example. LAS has many detractors, but it's actually quite realistic, even to the real-world kind of realism. In the real world, a musician wouldn't be able to play every song they've ever learned an any time. They would remember some but have to go practice to remember others well enough to play them correctly. LAS is a lot like that. Only, because this is a game and it's not fun if it took weeks to switch abilities, we can switch immediately outside of combat.
I agree that there are levels of realism. But, I can tell you that by having 1. non-leashing mobs combined with 2. training with 3. not being able to change spells in combat and 4. not being able to rez in combat combined with 5. not being able to change certain gear (dps oriented vs tank oriented) -> will equal the absolute amount of unintentional deaths in the history of MMORPGs.
Take this a step further, you will be unable to strategize IN COMBAT (strategic to some capacity) but creating an environment where people will not be able to adjust during the situation. Imagine not being able to go to Home Depot to buy a ladder but you want to get on your roof. You'll have to wait till next Christmas. You might have to use your trash can where, almost undoubtedly, some substantial injury is likely to occur in most situations.
That applies to the real-world realism. For the game-world realism, it doesn't seem to align with Brad McQuaid's original idea of his virtual land similar to that of old school MMORPGs, at least in my opinion. These ideologies come from games like WoW where these fake limitations happen because either 1. the developer's don't care to resolve them in a traditional sense so they remove the capabilities (not allow them) and 2. the community input doesn't want to spend the quality time (due to people's attention span decreasing over the years) compared to the original EQ where you spent that time. These are things I personally, and still enjoy (active player), and am HIGHLY concerned moving forward into the world of Pantheon.
You might really enjoy this upcoming Dev roundtable.
The most basic explanation for the LAS and not being able to change abilities/weapons in combat is: tension and not always having the optimal solution/path available, real conflict and fighting with ones back to the wall weaving a richer experience. As well as a higher emphasis on teamwork.
Iksar said:You might really enjoy this upcoming Dev roundtable.
The most basic explanation for the LAS and not being able to change abilities/weapons in combat is: tension and not always having the optimal solution/path available, real conflict and fighting with ones back to the wall weaving a richer experience. As well as a higher emphasis on teamwork.
Agreed. The struggle makes it real. Limited options are more based in reality. VR has Artistic License to dictate what the physics of the world will be. Most opposing views obviously rely on past experiences. BUt Pantheon is about doing it differently really no point makeing a judgment without seeing everything is full context. VR can do what they want because of the deep lore that drive the physics of the world. The Lore and the reality of the world dictate how a player interfaces and overcomes the challages before them. They could make a LAS with 1 passive and 1 active ability and still be totally correct in doing so, if it made sense.
It will be quite an adjustment if we only have a very limited number of abilities available and once we go into combat we live or die depending on how good our selections were (as well as many other things, of course).
In theory I applaud such an approach. The more combat depends on planning and preparation and character development and character gear and the less it depends on the player's reflexes and eyesight and having cutting edge expensive internet connections the happier I am.
Evilsmaher said:I am not grasping the sense of the game style at play here.
In this recent video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfIqoNszVKc -- Joppa stated this: "An originally aquatic being ... there is one way you would look at a human adapting a macro adaptation developing gills ...". Now, I think this is a great way to think about the game, storyline, and how races/classes should be built. But, I think the gameplay should be in the same format.
As it stands, the current guideline is that you cannot trade gear or swap spells in combat. This seems to break the "realistic" gameplay. EQ, EQ2 (ehh), and Vanguard all had the idea of "Realistic Fantasy". Where you could actually immerse into the gameplay and experience it as if you were there. But, in Pantheon, it seems we are removing the "realism" sense that other games don't have, e.g. WoW. For example, you can not mem spells in combat, at this point in time. On the other hand, you are only limited to 8 spells. Realistically, you could only remember 8 spells off the top of your head. This makes sense. But, if I wasn't getting hit, I can't open my spellbook and change spells? Sure, add a delay to "remember the spell and forget the other one". But, it would be 100% feasible.
It seems that Pantheon is breaking their original gameplan of this "realistic fantasy" into a game restricted by rules "just because".
Another example is the gear. Why can't I trade weapons in combat? Sure, gear would be a bit harder - maybe have it take some time to put on a chest piece. But to pull a weapon out of a bag? I don't think this action would take much time, nor a shield. Trading between 1h+Shield and 2H should be fairly quick.
Additionally, Why can't I rez in combat? What in the game prohibits rezzing in combat? I think a function such as "if you get hit, the rez stops" is more appropriate. It aligns more with what the developers are stating instead of these bizarre rules that come out of nowhere because that is the current MMORPG standard. Pantheon, much like EQ, seemed to be the game to break the standard and be the sense of strategic fantasy that traditional MMORPG players hope to see.
I hope this can be seriously considered once more.
Small note: I come from an EQ/EQ2/Vanguard/WoW/etc, all MMORPGs background. I understand that a game is a game but there is usually a reason for rules. The gameplay thrives on this foundation. It seems that Pantheon is obeying some rules (like the spell limit - i.e., a person couldn't remember everything at one time) but is breaking others (the inability to mem spells during combat - if I wasn't being attacked, I could definitely take the time to say "hang on, let me look up this spell" and mem it for 30 seconds similar to EQ).
The short answer is that what you are asking for completely negates the "limited action set" and "you need to plan your fights" tenet of the game that has been around since the beginning.
Wait. Before I can accept a developer's take on "realistic fantasy" I really need to know what "unrealistic fantasy" is first.
I think it's very reasonable to suggest that a warrior or wizard wanting to adorn themselves with different shoes, shoulder item or chestpiece, in mid-combat, seems rather unrealistic. Or the idea that a melee character has the time to rummage through their various bags of several or a dozen or so weapons to decide a BiS item for a current battle, also in mid-combat, just seems (at least to me) unreal and antithetical to "realism". I have to wonder if the NPCs will also have this "realism"? Just to keep it balanced of course.
I do think, melee and tank characters could have a couple of weapon choices to swap back and forth from. But there really must be a limit to ensure some "realism". Casters might be able to swap between a focus item or two while in combat. But that's it. I find myself laughing inside thinking of a Dwarven Paladin clamoring through their bags containing 3 shields, 2 short swords, 5 two-handed swords, a battleaxe, 3 maces, a halberd or two while taking hits from an enemy until they find the right item for the job. Honestly, just work with what you have until the fight is done; re-evaluate your choices made; make appropriate changes as neccessary; and then move on; etc. etc.
Also, trading items can be done during downtime as well. I don't see the issue with this.
Memming spells, if allowed in combat, should be extremely difficult to accomplish. With the combat trait and disposition system in place, if an enganged NPC sees a caster memming a spell, oh boy! what a juicy target right there! In a state of disadvantage the caster has placed themselves (and their group) in just to mem another spell might lead to at least a death, or a wipe where none was coming beforehand. If you want that much realism, then let's be fair and go "full spectrum realistic fantasy".
Changing weapons seems plausible to me... to a point. However, there must be limits on what can and cannot be swapped during a battle to remain “believable”, even in a fantasy environment.
If you were in a battle (fantasy or otherwise) and started to change armour, you would immediately become the target of anything within striking distance as you would be in effect, defenceless until re-kitted. Also, all ranged enemy who saw this action would then target you too. You would be defenceless for minutes; taking off gauntlets, undoing buckles, removing straps, removing items, putting on items, getting straps in place, re-buckling the straps, etc, etc. In a full on battle? Naaa!
Weapons are slightly different IF they are part of your kit, in their own holder or scabbard (etc.) and easily accessable; rummaging through bags is ridiculous when you are in the middle of a fight. If you have two swords on your belt, and two strapped across your back, then dropping the first two in favour of the ones on your back seems to be doable to me (with minimum disruption to your defences). Knives, spare axes, etc, all seem to be "believable" to me. Dropping a shield in favour of dual wield seems logical too.
I would argue that spells would fall into the armour category to change mid-fight. Awkward, time consuming and vulnerable for anyone doing so. If spells were “attached” to equipment (ice-ball casting staff or lightning wand, etc.) then swapping these in and out might be ok, but changing tomes, finding the required spell, reading its incantation to get it straight in your head, mid fight? Naaa!
I think I would suggest that even weapons swapping should be a skill to learn, and you need to acquire the extra "access slots" for those items to be housed on your back (or where ever), maybe even with chances to fumble and fail in the swap. This type of action should also be kept to a minimum in any single battle situation. The more you do it, the greater the chance of fumbling or getting the wrong item and (once again) becoming vulnerable.
I would also add, that anything a player could do, should also be applicable to any skillful mob or named npc. If you allow players to do something, then I think you should expect mobs to be able to do the same.
chenzeme said:If you were in a battle (fantasy or otherwise) and started to change armour, you would immediately become the target of anything within striking distance as you would be in effect, defenceless until re-kitted. Also, all ranged enemy who saw this action would then target you too.
Doing so could even put the player in a specific vulnerable state/condition.
chenzeme said:I think I would suggest that even weapons swapping should be a skill to learn, and you need to acquire the extra "access slots" for those items to be housed on your back (or where ever), maybe even with chances to fumble and fail in the swap. This type of action should also be kept to a minimum in any single battle situation. The more you do it, the greater the chance of fumbling or getting the wrong item and (once again) becoming vulnerable.
Honestly, this almost sounds like an option for the mastery system. With enough points one could unlock the ability to swap between weapon types, then upgrade with additional points to decrease the time requirement involved during, along with the cooldown after. If a paladin favors maces and war hammers, they can choose to become better at handling both, all the while still being at risk of losing their grip and having both items drop into the bag. Any player with the weapon swap mastery could choose from whichever weapon types were available to their class, but must choose one to be swapped with one other and no more. This could be applied to an armor slot as well or in lieu of weapons, though admittedly it does seem awkward being able to change clothes during a fight.
But in terms of weapon swapping, the warrior and monk class could even have access to that mastery earlier, being the physical combatants that they are, with the possible addition of the rogue. This however raises the question of whether disarmed players will be able to re-equip weapons during combat. If not, than the immunity to disarm racial that dwarves receive will be a strong selling point for tanks. Better than that though, monks being able to use their fists as an alternative after disarm would give them an edge over other classes that are dependent on weapon damage. Monk pulls aggro, gets disarmed, and presto...ghetto weapon swap.
chenzeme said:Weapons are slightly different IF they are part of your kit, in their own holder or scabbard (etc.) and easily accessable; rummaging through bags is ridiculous when you are in the middle of a fight. If you have two swords on your belt, and two strapped across your back, then dropping the first two in favour of the ones on your back seems to be doable to me (with minimum disruption to your defences). Knives, spare axes, etc, all seem to be "believable" to me. Dropping a shield in favour of dual wield seems logical too.
Couldn't agree more with the idea of dropping one's shield in order to grasp an offhand weapon. Also, given that players will be able to attach lanterns to their belts, this would seem like the perfect place for a backup weapon. Nothing big—perhaps a dagger, blackjack, or whip—but something within reach to use at a moment's notice to fend off attackers. Basically the equivalent of pocket sand.
chenzeme said:I would argue that spells would fall into the armour category to change mid-fight. Awkward, time consuming and vulnerable for anyone doing so. If spells were “attached” to equipment (ice-ball casting staff or lightning wand, etc.) then swapping these in and out might be ok, but changing tomes, finding the required spell, reading its incantation to get it straight in your head, mid fight? Naaa!
Again, perhaps the mastery system could allow for players to choose one or two spells that they would become more attuned to, granting them the swap ability even during intense raid combat which would otherwise distract the mind from medding/memming.
chenzeme said: If you were in a battle (fantasy or otherwise) and started to change armour, you would immediately become the target of anything within striking distance as you would be in effect, defenceless until re-kitted. Also, all ranged enemy who saw this action would then target you too.
Leevolen: Doing so could even put the player in a specific vulnerable state/condition.
My main point (which is missng from the quote above) is the length of time that it would take to change a full set of armour (also remember, knights of old had help to don plate before battle commenced). I don't think that players would put up with delay in changing their kit if it took over a few seconds and they were overly vulnerable whilst in this state. The time to change armour mid fight and still be playable and acceptable to players would make it "unrealistic".
I would argue that spells would encounter the same type of delay in getting a new set ready, mid fight. I do think weapons could be swapped, but only if they were in dedicated slots with dedicated skill lines.
Given that VR have already stated several times that battles should be planned before engagement, changing armour partway through a fight is reactive and not proactive. With a limited skill set that had shield bash (for example) swapping it out for a weapon would disable it or you have to swap that skill for something a little more appropriate, but you are in effect extending the skill bars.
However, you will need this kind of function if you expect classes to move between range and melee and be effective at both stances in a single fight. I believe swapping weapons should be a skill line to master. I dont think it is "realsitic" for anything else though.
However, you will need this kind of function if you expect classes to move between range and melee and be effective at both stances in a single fight. I believe swapping weapons should be a skill line to master. I dont think it is "realsitic" for anything else though.
If I remember correctly, the Ranger is supposed to have this functionality built into their combat style. So, there's that.
I skimmed the comments, but I plan on going back and thoroughly reading but gleaning spell rituals and 30second backpacks had me flash on possible practical in-game things like: A double sword harness (a la The Witcher) would be a very valuable thing, maybe even uncommon? or gear dependent on skill? Like can't have one unless you have dual wield skill mastery or some magic blade defence mastery. Choice is: this harness or shield/buckler but cannot have both or something like that. Or for casters, making the spell book a big deal. Being able to write down spells and refer to them with a flip of a page instead of needing to set up acoutrements so instead of a box backpack full of tiny drawers, its a book that takes up a hand slot but frees up a bag carry slot. The box backpack canbe limited and easy to get when small one with more drawers the more rare and prized.
I was just thinking that casters could have a talisman or an artifact or other offhand item that they can imbue spells into. The caster can then use the item as single cast clicky effecs that has to be imbued again before reuse. But it's been claimed that there will be clicky effect items anyway. Meh.