Iksar said:I am not seeing any forced rotations here...quite the opposite really. More room for teamwork/coordination to shine but with a little creativity added to make it not something routine or always optimal (or available).
That is the crude theory, yes. In practice stuff is working differently in MMOs tho. It is either so strong that people have to use it, no matter if they like it. Or it is really optional and people will not do it, since ignoring such features is usually more efficient. The first think is forcing people to do something "optional", the second means wasted developer time.
Why is the old EQ system not enough? You pull, you debuff, you slow, you CC and interrupt. All that without a shiny system behind it? Id rather have very strong class identity and functions, rather that interactions that just work if you have the perfect group setup. "Sorry bob, we may need a DD but we need one that can trigger Kevins instakill skill, so you are out!"
Iksar said:I am not seeing any forced rotations here...quite the opposite really. More room for teamwork/coordination to shine but with a little creativity added to make it not something routine or always optimal (or available).
Availability could change it up. Add cooldowns, base it on mob type, etc. Group combo A works on mob type Wraith, but not on mob type Spider. Obviously you also can't leg sweep either of those (or at least not as effectively.)
Also it doesn't have to always be optimal. What if it is actually not optimal when you have a third class stacking regular debuffs? In that situation you'd just want to use your most damaging abilities rather than waste time on a complicated maneuver.
To me this seems to be a method to make combat more strategic as well as more tactical. Rewards people for pre-planning, for effective communication, and dynamic gameplay. It gives something fun for people to do who aren't super into optimal gameplay, while also giving the min maxers a breadth of options.
Byproducts said:To me this seems to be a method to make combat more strategic as well as more tactical. Rewards people for pre-planning, for effective communication, and dynamic gameplay. It gives something fun for people to do who aren't super into optimal gameplay, while also giving the min maxers a breadth of options.
I hope you are right. And I am sure that is indeed the intention behind it. I can't honestly count how often I have read about this same system in different MMO forums. And it always ended with a trainwreck, or being ignored all together. Can Pantheon be the first game to pull it off? Sure. Do I believe it? Not for a split second.
Byproducts said:Availability could change it up. Add cooldowns, base it on mob type, etc. Group combo A works on mob type Wraith, but not on mob type Spider. Obviously you also can't leg sweep either of those (or at least not as effectively.)
Also it doesn't have to always be optimal. What if it is actually not optimal when you have a third class stacking regular debuffs? In that situation you'd just want to use your most damaging abilities rather than waste time on a complicated maneuver.
To me this seems to be a method to make combat more strategic as well as more tactical. Rewards people for pre-planning, for effective communication, and dynamic gameplay. It gives something fun for people to do who aren't super into optimal gameplay, while also giving the min maxers a breadth of options.
Bingo. That's the kind of stuff I am talking about.
@ Rattenman, Interactions that just work if you have the perfect group setup. "Sorry bob, we may need a DD but we need one that can trigger Kevins instakill skill, so you are out!"
That implies all group related combos are only a positive doesn't it? What if they aren't? An example someone casts "sticky tar" slowing the mob down, then someone casts "fireball", igniting the target on fire and dealing extra damage. This works great on mob "A" who is human, but what about mob "B" who isn't. What if that combo on mob "B" instead hardens his/her skin and thus hardens their armor amount and now we have made the mob harder to kill?
I hope the idea is that we have to find that sweat spot of what spells we all have, and how to work well with each other for the situation we are in at a given moment.
Iksar said:Byproducts said:Availability could change it up. Add cooldowns, base it on mob type, etc. Group combo A works on mob type Wraith, but not on mob type Spider. Obviously you also can't leg sweep either of those (or at least not as effectively.)
Also it doesn't have to always be optimal. What if it is actually not optimal when you have a third class stacking regular debuffs? In that situation you'd just want to use your most damaging abilities rather than waste time on a complicated maneuver.
To me this seems to be a method to make combat more strategic as well as more tactical. Rewards people for pre-planning, for effective communication, and dynamic gameplay. It gives something fun for people to do who aren't super into optimal gameplay, while also giving the min maxers a breadth of options.
Bingo. That's the kind of stuff I am talking about.
I agree with this. And it doesn't seem like this'll be a thing that's required. I imagine this as something that'll become more apparent the better you know your class, that way then you can tell your team members "I can do this if you want to do this first" and that could play into skill mastery too. But at the same time I think you'll be able to do normal combat with a lot of mobs as long as they dont have something you have to guard against, like that fire imp thing that wiped the group in one of the latest streams.
Also as a note about systems feeling "required". I think you will be incredibly surprised by the amount of people who will happily chug along without those systems, not just blissfully unaware, but also adamantly against even trying to use them.
There are many reasons, but often times people just want to chill and play the game at their own pace doing their own thing. I've joined groups before where they were playing so suboptimally it blew my socks off. I assumed it was ignorance and cheerfully tried to educate them, only for them to shrug and keep doing things exactly as they were doing. It's how they were used to doing it and it worked, why change?
As long as you can get through combat without having to confront any of these systems, the vast majority of players will not use them, even if they feel "required" to higher skill players. People want to use their axes even when daggers are clearly superior. They want to cast their short cast time heals even though they burn a ton of mana. They want to stack 8 different kinds of DoTs even though not all of their effects actually stack.
That's not an excuse to have boring, high skill systems in place (like rotations) but if your primary objection is "it will be required if we want to play optimally" then you're only speaking for a minority of players. The same minority of players that will usually seek out the most optimal way to play. And adding a variety of combat maneuvers adds much needed spice to "optimal" gameplay, so long as you aren't pulling off the same combinations each and every encounter.
Byproducts said:Also as a note about systems feeling "required". I think you will be incredibly surprised by the amount of people who will happily chug along without those systems, not just blissfully unaware, but also adamantly against even trying to use them.
...
As long as you can get through combat without having to confront any of these systems, the vast majority of players will not use them, even if they feel "required" to higher skill players. People want to use their axes even when daggers are clearly superior. They want to cast their short cast time heals even though they burn a ton of mana. They want to stack 8 different kinds of DoTs even though not all of their effects actually stack.
That's not an excuse to have boring, high skill systems in place (like rotations) but if your primary objection is "it will be required if we want to play optimally" then you're only speaking for a minority of players. The same minority of players that will usually seek out the most optimal way to play. And adding a variety of combat maneuvers adds much needed spice to "optimal" gameplay, so long as you aren't pulling off the same combinations each and every encounter.
Perhaps it is specific to emu servers only, but I've found that min/max is commonplace and a discussion is had if you deviate at all from the norm. On Turtle WoW my paladin was directed to use a 2hs and then a long explanation was given as it why it was superior; in global chat there were open-ended conversations about other classes as well with similar hardline advice. On Project 1999, monks are told about the OP proc dmg/dly ratio of tstaff, along with swapping it in/out for extra hand to hand swings to increase dps, and not to bother with 1hb until ToV drops are obtained. It's coming from a good place, and sometimes it is greatly appreciated, but ugh does it chip away at a world's flavor and roleplay potential.
All of that taken into account, it is reassuring that VR does want to appeal to a wider audience and diversify combat/targets, rather than cater just to the old guard. It's not that min/max itself makes playing MMOs unfun, but that it can become so prevalent that oftentimes the fun that comes from choice has already been chosen for new players by guides and peer pressure. My concern is that this will crop up in PRotF with comboing abilities. Celestial Aegis, for example, sounds very useful in capable hands, but if the cleric tries to use that instead of comboing, say, a heal with another group member, they might get criticized for trying something cute instead of being a team player, even though Celestial Aegis might have been the smarter move, if only the temporary barrier had been better placed in a narrow passageway. Those lesser forms of CC can really help towards conserving mana and spicing up gameplay for more traditional roles. It would be a shame if those types of individual acts took a back seat to combined efforts simply because of the understood advantages from synergy.
In saying this, I would still rather VR continue to be daring and try to make these ideas work now, in pre-alpha, because they can always nope out if testing reveals it to be unfun. The same applies to mounts. Game design that resorts to playing it safe isn't going to make the dangerous, unpredictable world I want to get lost in.
Leevolen said:In saying this, I would still rather VR continue to be daring and try to make these ideas work now, in pre-alpha, because they can always nope out if testing reveals it to be unfun. The same applies to mounts. Game design that resorts to playing it safe isn't going to make the dangerous, unpredictable world I want to get lost in.
That's one of the best ideas I've heard so far. Totally agree.
Have a look at the streams where they discuss synergies, (I believe one of them is where they showcase the shaman.) I'm sure someone will have a link for it.
Synergies can have several effects. It only stands to reason that if players are attuned to each other (and each others classes) defeating encounter will be executed more efficiently in comparison to a group of players who just bash their own keys without attention to the group.
It is possible that the mob will die faster if you apply your abilities and skills efficiently and most effectively. (if you want to call this synergy, fine) If VR has designed an extra feat to encourage players taking note of the groupmembers abilities and working out strats, that's just dandy then. If the final result of that feat is that the group is getting buffed or that it facilitates conquering the encounter in some way all the better for it. As long as it's not overpowering or a bottleneck mechanic.
I also think that mob and encounters will vary so that your chosen group set up is not always ideal during one session. Which makes it all the more fun in my eyes.
Byproducts said:Also as a note about systems feeling "required". I think you will be incredibly surprised by the amount of people who will happily chug along without those systems, not just blissfully unaware, but also adamantly against even trying to use them.
Devildog2008 said:@ Rattenman, Interactions that just work if you have the perfect group setup. "Sorry bob, we may need a DD but we need one that can trigger Kevins instakill skill, so you are out!"
That implies all group related combos are only a positive doesn't it? What if they aren't? An example someone casts "sticky tar" slowing the mob down, then someone casts "fireball", igniting the target on fire and dealing extra damage. This works great on mob "A" who is human, but what about mob "B" who isn't. What if that combo on mob "B" instead hardens his/her skin and thus hardens their armor amount and now we have made the mob harder to kill?
God, that would make it even worse in my eyes. "Yeah, we know it is your signature spell and biggest DPS, but Kevin over here won't stop using his Tar spell!"
It all sounds nice and engaging and realistic,... but I just can't see it actually being FUN in a MMO setting. Those interactions are great for a single player RPG, maybe like Divinity or Baldurs gate 3,.... but a MMO? Ugh. I just can't think about a version that would be fun at all.
I pray I am wrong, since we will be getting it, no matter what from what is known. I am fully open for a surprise, don't get me wrong. Just heard this stuff so many times and it sucked each and every time.
Rattenmann said:
Iksar said:
I am not seeing any forced rotations here...quite the opposite really. More room for teamwork/coordination to shine but with a little creativity added to make it not something routine or always optimal (or available).
That is the crude theory, yes. In practice stuff is working differently in MMOs tho. It is either so strong that people have to use it, no matter if they like it. Or it is really optional and people will not do it, since ignoring such features is usually more efficient. The first think is forcing people to do something "optional", the second means wasted developer time.
Why is the old EQ system not enough? You pull, you debuff, you slow, you CC and interrupt. All that without a shiny system behind it? Id rather have very strong class identity and functions, rather that interactions that just work if you have the perfect group setup. "Sorry bob, we may need a DD but we need one that can trigger Kevins instakill skill, so you are out!"
I'm in agreement. The old quaternity already works as a solid tactical, group-based combat system. No reason to reinvent the wheel here. Being forced to use an ability so someone else can use their ability is just another type of rotational system.
Morraak said:I believe it stands for limited action set. Basically having a fixed number of abilities that you can do in an encounter compared to if you had every ability you own available to you. I think as it is at the moment there's 14 abilities you'll be able to use.
To add to the description: We are talking about LOCKED 14 slots the moment you enter combat (as far as we know). So no changing skills like EQ did. It is also highly likely that you can't just pick the 14 skills, but get auto awarded some of them due to your weapon / whatever.
Basically think like EQ did, just more restricted. Unless you know the fight in advance, you will likely screw up the skills. Look up guides beforehand to cookie cutter into the optimal skills for each encounter.
Rattenmann said:To add to the description: We are talking about LOCKED 14 slots the moment you enter combat (as far as we know). So no changing skills like EQ did. It is also highly likely that you can't just pick the 14 skills, but get auto awarded some of them due to your weapon / whatever.
Basically think like EQ did, just more restricted. Unless you know the fight in advance, you will likely screw up the skills. Look up guides beforehand to cookie cutter into the optimal skills for each encounter.
To be even more accurate, 6 of those slots for several classes are not combat-related at all, so for them it is really only 8 combat related spells/skills that you're locked into.
I mean, WoW is the perfect example of tedious. If you think having complicated verbage into knowing about a certain spell or ability is the way to go. then, I feel that, that's kind of selfish and really don't care about the fan base. I get the idea about what this Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen company is trying to achieve as a company and I think they have the right mind set to appease to everyone and not just one specific group. But, what good is complicated verbage when you have a vast demographic of players that don't have the ideal language skills or education everyone else has or has gotten? Should all players be punished to not enjoy this game because of educational and language barriers? I mean, isn't it better to actually have players playing the game and be able to dodge incoming damage or mechanics happening in a game setting? Who actually looks at their spells while actually playing the game? Don't you think it would be fun if a lot more players were able to have fun and actually become players that can keep up the pace?
Duderino said:
Rattenmann said:It is also highly likely that you can't just pick the 14 skills, but get auto awarded some of them due to your weapon / whatever.
Where did you get this from and how did you come to this conclusion? I haven't seen anything that suggests this.
Just a guess for now, based on other features they are copying from games. Hearing that 6 of the 14 skills are even non combat related, kind of falls into the same category to be honest. Even less choice and more lookup / cookie cutter builds. Really not a fan of that system.
Rattenmann said:Duderino said:
Rattenmann said:It is also highly likely that you can't just pick the 14 skills, but get auto awarded some of them due to your weapon / whatever.
Where did you get this from and how did you come to this conclusion? I haven't seen anything that suggests this.
Just a guess for now, based on other features they are copying from games. Hearing that 6 of the 14 skills are even non combat related, kind of falls into the same category to be honest. Even less choice and more lookup / cookie cutter builds. Really not a fan of that system.
It is not how it works in regards to weapons/auto-picked skills.
As for 6 of the 14, that is not exactly how it is either. Those six slots can have combat abilities but it is reserved for abilities that do not generate threat.
Iksar said: ... As for 6 of the 14, that is not exactly how it is either. Those six slots can have combat abilities but it is reserved for abilities that do not generate threat.
What abilities can you imagine that would be useful in combat would not generate threat ?
IMO:
To me, all abilities that hea/buff you and/or your allies, and/or debuff/harm your enemies would, should or must all generate threat, when used in combat.
vjek said:
Iksar said: ... As for 6 of the 14, that is not exactly how it is either. Those six slots can have combat abilities but it is reserved for abilities that do not generate threat.
What abilities can you imagine that would be useful in combat would not generate threat ?
Rogue's Shadow Walk, Caltrops, Vapor Trap, Flash Trap are all on the 6 slot bar to name a few for example.