Vandraad said:Krixus said:This gets back into the class balance discussion. DOTs are amazing solo and small group spells, significantly better for efficiency and leveling than DDs. Why should they stack in every situation? Imagine EQ with stacking dots, it would have been groups of 6 necros.
Umm...DoTs did stack. There were a few that didn't stack but it wasn't due to the damage component but rather some counter or other component. As a Shaman, I clearly remember stacking my own same-line DoTs when soloing.
Multiple instances of a single DoT did not.
Krixus said:Vandraad said:Krixus said:This gets back into the class balance discussion. DOTs are amazing solo and small group spells, significantly better for efficiency and leveling than DDs. Why should they stack in every situation? Imagine EQ with stacking dots, it would have been groups of 6 necros.
Umm...DoTs did stack. There were a few that didn't stack but it wasn't due to the damage component but rather some counter or other component. As a Shaman, I clearly remember stacking my own same-line DoTs when soloing.
Multiple instances of a single DoT did not.
6 Necros each casting Vexing Mordinia (Drains the life from your target, healing you for 122 hit points every six seconds for 54 secs (9 ticks)) absolutely did stack. 1 Necro casting the same spell 6 times in a row of course did not stack with itself. None of the discussion so far is about your own spells stacking ontop of themselves. It's about you and I being the same level, same class casting the same spell on a target and does the spell stack there? In the case of nearly every DoT, yes, they do indeed.
Vandraad said:Krixus said:Vandraad said:Krixus said:This gets back into the class balance discussion. DOTs are amazing solo and small group spells, significantly better for efficiency and leveling than DDs. Why should they stack in every situation? Imagine EQ with stacking dots, it would have been groups of 6 necros.
Umm...DoTs did stack. There were a few that didn't stack but it wasn't due to the damage component but rather some counter or other component. As a Shaman, I clearly remember stacking my own same-line DoTs when soloing.
Multiple instances of a single DoT did not.
6 Necros each casting Vexing Mordinia (Drains the life from your target, healing you for 122 hit points every six seconds for 54 secs (9 ticks)) absolutely did stack. 1 Necro casting the same spell 6 times in a row of course did not stack with itself. None of the discussion so far is about your own spells stacking ontop of themselves. It's about you and I being the same level, same class casting the same spell on a target and does the spell stack there? In the case of nearly every DoT, yes, they do indeed.
Chery picking? Keep in mind many of us did not play EQ during the same eras. For example, the heat blood line of spells did not stack, nor did heart flutter or darkness, instead they were insanely efficient. That's my point. Direct damage spells "stacked" because they were 1.5-2-3-4 times less efficient. Did anybody want a wizard in their leveling group? No, because they were not efficient. Why should DoTs be insanely effective soloing/leveling/small grouping and also stack in bigger situations? That would have been an absurd imbalance.
Vandraad said:I'll take bets right now that we'll see a limit on the number of buff slots. Limiting buff slots makes more sense than unlimited because it requires us to make a decision, a choice. So much of what the developers have touted comes down to us making decisions...and those decisions having consequences.
I personally like this idea. They implemented this in Horizons empire of istaria back in early 2000s. I think you had 6 or so buff slots. Different kind of buffs fell into differnet categories. You had something like 3 augmentation slots and 3 buff slots. Certain ones would boost a base stat, other one would boost whatever that stat modifies. so i could have a +60 vitality buff, and a plus 500 health buff at the same time. Now having a +40 and +60 health buff wouldnt work the higher one would trump the lower one. Other buffs like 200 health buff and +30 dex type of deal. You would have to choose, do you want the bigger health buff, or the smaller health buff and the dex.
It works really well, as long as you make sure each class has something they bring to the table thats considered best of its type. One has best health buff alone like a cleric. Then like a shaman doesnt have a pure health buff, but has a +300 health, plus 30 dex. Druid could provide best attack speed buff, and an enchanter could provide 2nd best attack speed buff, but also increases intel. This forces you to make a choice of what buffs to have and doesnt create a super OP character.
DarknessAngel said:Vandraad said:I'll take bets right now that we'll see a limit on the number of buff slots. Limiting buff slots makes more sense than unlimited because it requires us to make a decision, a choice. So much of what the developers have touted comes down to us making decisions...and those decisions having consequences.
I personally like this idea. They implemented this in Horizons empire of istaria back in early 2000s. I think you had 6 or so buff slots. Different kind of buffs fell into differnet categories. You had something like 3 augmentation slots and 3 buff slots. Certain ones would boost a base stat, other one would boost whatever that stat modifies. so i could have a +60 vitality buff, and a plus 500 health buff at the same time. Now having a +40 and +60 health buff wouldnt work the higher one would trump the lower one. Other buffs like 200 health buff and +30 dex type of deal. You would have to choose, do you want the bigger health buff, or the smaller health buff and the dex.
It works really well, as long as you make sure each class has something they bring to the table thats considered best of its type. One has best health buff alone like a cleric. Then like a shaman doesnt have a pure health buff, but has a +300 health, plus 30 dex. Druid could provide best attack speed buff, and an enchanter could provide 2nd best attack speed buff, but also increases intel. This forces you to make a choice of what buffs to have and doesnt create a super OP character.
Agreed, that would be an interesting way to do it that doesn't cater to easy mode.
Buffs that don't stack seem to do two things:
1) In the case of same class buffs not stacking, ie cleric hp buffs with a second clerics hp buffs, it all but forces you to limit your group to only having one of those classes in each group. If this is the intent then so be it.
2) In the case of a hybrid like a paladin with a cleric, it just seems to create a very difficult balancing problem. If part of that hybrids power comes from the buffs he brings to the group but you have a cleric then why invite the guy at all?
In conclusion, buffs should stack in the vast majority of situtations. Maybe in the case of two clerics in a group one cleric has to use the lower level verision of the buff?
re: limiting buff slots. What about debuffs?
Nydan said:Buffs that don't stack seem to do two things:
1) In the case of same class buffs not stacking, ie cleric hp buffs with a second clerics hp buffs, it all but forces you to limit your group to only having one of those classes in each group. If this is the intent then so be it.
2) In the case of a hybrid like a paladin with a cleric, it just seems to create a very difficult balancing problem. If part of that hybrids power comes from the buffs he brings to the group but you have a cleric then why invite the guy at all?
In conclusion, buffs should stack in the vast majority of situtations. Maybe in the case of two clerics in a group one cleric has to use the lower level verision of the buff?
1. Imo, this is a pretty gross exaggeration. The beauty of EQ was that we made those groups work, and their dynamic was different and fun. Was it optimal to have 3 paladins in your group? No, but it was fun and had certain strengths.
2. Because they could do the little things that clerics weren't going to spend their mana on, or because you were, you know, friends. Paladins could STUN, clerics weren't going to generate that aggro unless it was more of a life or death situation. Pallies could(eventually, post hyrbid mana un-nerf) heal themselves or the necro or shaman who were sacrificing life for mana. There was a role. The ranger and SK could snare and pull and dps/tank.
Ever play in a group with 2 bards? Was it optimal? Probably not, but you were loaded up with bard songs and it was FUN and groups were effective.
People seem to be cramming balance into a one size fits all box, and it's just not the case.
Nydan said:Of course you invited that second cleric or bard when they were already your friends. Now how often did you do it when they weren't?
There was overlap because EQ had actual ROLES and dependencies. Sometimes your group was dependent on something you didn't have. Other times you just made it work.
Nydan said:Buffs that don't stack seem to do two things:
1) In the case of same class buffs not stacking, ie cleric hp buffs with a second clerics hp buffs, it all but forces you to limit your group to only having one of those classes in each group. If this is the intent then so be it.
2) In the case of a hybrid like a paladin with a cleric, it just seems to create a very difficult balancing problem. If part of that hybrids power comes from the buffs he brings to the group but you have a cleric then why invite the guy at all?
In conclusion, buffs should stack in the vast majority of situtations. Maybe in the case of two clerics in a group one cleric has to use the lower level verision of the buff?
Ok, so lets say that all buffs stack. Every single one of them. Now list off all the effects of that. I'll start you out:
All content would need to be designed as if you had every buff from every class on you at any given time.
I guarantee a dev will back me up when I say that at every level of the game, every NPC, every solo encounter, every group encounter and every raid encounter...everything in the game...is balanced against all available spells and abilities. I admit that sometimes developers forget to look at the big picture when they introduce spells and items. That said, nothing is designed as if they players are facing the content with no buffs.
The result of your desire, Nydan, would be a disaster. Instead of that orc hitting you for 30 damage every few seconds it now quad hits you for 200 because you're walking around with some unknown number of HP buffs, AC buffs, ATK buffs, HP regen buffs, Mana regen buffs and who knows what else. And if you don't have all those buffs you die...every single time. You can't level, can't do any quests, can't explore anywhere all because NPCs are insanely powerful.
Mark my words, not all buffs will stack. Classes will have buffs that are overwritten by buffs from other classes. That is called balance.
I also fully expect that debuffs will have the same issues. Some will be overwritten by others becauses, again, it is necessary for balance and good content design.
Vandraad said:The result of your desire, Nydan, would be a disaster.
First off, I didn't say all, I said the majority. Secondly can you really not think of any other mechanics to limit the extreme example you just used? Perhaps a max number of buffs? Perhaps buffs that can only be cast on group members that drop when you leave the group? Perhaps you can only have X number from a buff group forceing you to pick and choose? You're letting your thinking be limited by old game mechanics.
Nydan said:Vandraad said:The result of your desire, Nydan, would be a disaster.
First off, I didn't say all, I said the majority. Secondly can you really not think of any other mechanics to limit the extreme example you just used? Perhaps a max number of buffs? Perhaps buffs that can only be cast on group members that drop when you leave the group? Perhaps you can only have X number from a buff group forceing you to pick and choose? You're letting your thinking be limited by old game mechanics.
I'm already saying there will be a limit on the number of buffs. Buffs only work when in group? Well now you've lost out on the social aspect of friendly 'drive-by' buffing. Or mass group buffs. How would buffing for a raid work? If you limit buffs only to those in a group, players will quickly decide which buffs are "the best" and ignore everything else, creating the new version of 'the holy trinity'.
Having "x number from a buff group forcing you to pick" is fundamentally no different than having one buff overwrite another becasue it is a better version. The difference being the game chooses for you which one you get.
EDIT: I think I've got something...gimme a few.
Vandraad said:I'm already saying there will be a limit on the number of buffs. Buffs only work when in group? Well now you've lost out on the social aspect of friendly 'drive-by' buffing. Or mass group buffs.
In Everquest drive by buffing largely lead to the alienation of entire classes. In many areas the most powerful thing an enchanter brings to the table is the clarity line of buffs. When I have a "pocket" enchanter why invite one to my group when I can have clarity and invite a dpser in the enchanters place? There is a place for "drive-by" buffing but the most powerful buffs should be group or raid only.
I agree that the drive by buffs were awesome. They felt good to give and to recieve. However, that time in gaming history cannot be replicated. Gamers are too good now. Gamers understand the mechanics of MMOs. They do and will exploit them to the max alienating entire classes. The first year or so of EQ that didn't happen because MMOs were new.
Vandraad said:How would buffing for a raid work? If you limit buffs only to those in a group, players will quickly decide which buffs are "the best" and ignore everything else, creating the new version of 'the holy trinity'.
No reason you cannot also have raid only spells or a group only, raid only or "drive by" version of the same spell. With the most powerful version being group only of course. You could even extend it further with a self only version that is the most powerful but if you are using that version you cannot cast the group version. Obviosuly none of these should stack from the same caster.
Vandraad said:Having "x number from a buff group forcing you to pick" is fundamentally no different than having one buff overwrite another becasue it is a better version. The difference being the game chooses for you which one youT get.
Sure it is different. I am not limiting a "group" to one spell line. The "group" could be multiple spell lines that have totally different effects. (EDIT: Maybe the "group" is the color of mana used?)
There is no reason that one mechanic has to be choosen in this day and age. There is room in the game for "self-only", "group-only", "raid-only", or all. There is room for buffs that stack and buffs that do not. If buffs are to matter in this game then you have to have a way to limit there power or the "disaster" scenario you said will play out with stacking buffs will play out without stacking buffs because everyone will have pocket enchanter and cleric type classes.
Nydan said:In Everquest drive by buffing largely lead to the alienation of entire classes. In many areas the most powerful thing an enchanter brings to the table is the clarity line of buffs. When I have a "pocket" enchanter why invite one to my group when I can have clarity and invite a dpser in the enchanters place? There is a place for "drive-by" buffing but the most powerful buffs should be group or raid only.
It wasn't drive by buffing that alienated classes, it was the design of the content combined with the approach to content by the average player. Enchanters weren't, in many cases, needed in groups because the way players appraoched content didn't require an enchanter. You have to admit that the much of the playerbase was risk averse. They wouldn't push until they found their limits but rather would sit in 'easy' xp spots and single pull for hours. The only someowhat difficult spot was breaking a camp. Once the spawns were timed properly, there was no need for an enchanter.
Nydan said:I agree that the drive by buffs were awesome. They felt good to give and to recieve. However, that time in gaming history cannot be replicated. Gamers are too good now. Gamers understand the mechanics of MMOs. They do and will exploit them to the max alienating entire classes. The first year or so of EQ that didn't happen because MMOs were new.
Again I think later on it was far more an issue of power creep that alienated classes, but there is some truth to what you say. We do pickup an understanding of underlying mechanics far faster now than before and Pantheon will be no different. Can you agree with me that early on in EQ the developers didn't have a complete idea of what some classes should do? Early rogues (pre-Velious) were pretty terrible as were Rangers. Their designs were just incomplete, almost an afterthought. It took many expansions to bring them up to being desirable in groups. We can only hope that those mistakes won't be repeated.
Nydan said:No reason you cannot also have raid only spells or a group only, raid only or "drive by" version of the same spell. With the most powerful version being group only of course. You could even extend it further with a self only version that is the most powerful but if you are using that version you cannot cast the group version. Obviosuly none of these should stack from the same caster.
Sure it is different. I am not limiting a "group" to one spell line. The "group" could be multiple spell lines that have totally different effects.
There is no reason that one mechanic has to be choosen in this day and age. There is room in the game for "self-only", "group-only", "raid-only", or all. There is room for buffs that stack and buffs that do not. If buffs are to matter in this game then you have to have a way to limit there power or the "disaster" scenario you said will play out with stacking buffs will play out without stacking buffs because everyone will have pocket enchanter and cleric type classes.
If your concern is alienating classes, could you imagine the level of individual alienation that would happen when you want to join a group and they ask "do you have the group version of spells A, B, C, D, E and F" and the raid version of "H, M and P"? The assumption, naturally, is that no all spells will be sold by vendors so at any given time you could have swaths of empty space in your spellbook and if those missing spells are deemed by the playerbase as critical, well, better hope you have a lot of coin because critical spells will be expensive.
Nydan said:Well, I wrote a nice long reply addressing all your points and then got the dreaded time out when I hit post...
Let me just ask you this; do you have an issue with self only buffs and if not why do you have an issue with group only or raid only buffs?
Oh, I've had that happen far too many times! I feel your pain.
I have no issues with self-only buffs. Far more often than not the self-only buffs are overwritten by better buffs from other classes. EQ1 wizards had a self-only damage shield which wasn't great in and of itself and it was overwritten by Druid damage shields. I think their Elemental Armor (FR and CR buff) was overwritten by other class buffs which had better bonuses. It wasn't bad it was overwritten because sometimes, in a raid situation especially, having that self-only available was nice when a raid mob cast an AE dispell and you lost buffs, having the self buff handy meant not having to turn and ask someone else to give you a better one. It worked in a pinch.
Now, why would I not want group version of spells and raid versions? Simple: If there is a choice between a better quality group buff and a lesser quality raid buff, raids will form based on the group buffs limiting or outright eliminating any class (or classes) which are perceived to be substandard. I'll take the stance right now it would be the caster DPS classes eliminated as they are too fragile; buffs do not return as good of results as for melee and caster DPS drops faster than melee when facing higher level NPCs.
Any spell, either single target or group that can be applied to other individuals or groups is a better mechanic than having to create self-group only and raid-only versions of every spell that positively affects players.
Nydan said:Of course you invited that second cleric or bard when they were already your friends. Now how often did you do it when they weren't?
Often in EQ, especially in undead zones for clerics. Much like any group, if I couldn't find members to fill a group, I wasn't going to wait around for hours for the perfect group. I formed them and got to killing mobs.
Two bards - I've done that as well, you just have them twist different songs, or one was on crowd control and the other on group buffs.
Very similar to my other too long post in this thread, most of EQ's classes had a dual or secondary role that wasn't as good as the primary. So, the first or "best" cleric in the group would take on the healing role, with all others taking a supporting. I'd grouped in Unrest with 3 clerics before and we destroyed things.
Were the groups optimal or the perfect trinity groups? Of course not, but some of the random, unique group combinations and figuring out how to tackle the content with different strategies were some of the most fun groups in EQ.
I'm with Krixus here
Rallyd said: Don't fix what isn't broken. Everquest did a great job with buffs and there was only a few minor problems. Dots stacking is perfectly fine if their efficiency is on par with nukes, or if not then there must be a maximum debuff limit. Just because having 2 of the same class means their buffs wouldn't stack doesnt make having a second useless, it just frees up some resources to be used in other ways.
But oil and vinegar dont mix! and you got Chocolate in my peanut butter!
However oil & vinegar do mix, if an emulsifier is used like a small bit of mustard- the secret behind vinagrette's as I understand it and.....perhaps a game mechanic for preconcived "weak" characters, until the emulsifying power of their "lame/I dont know what this does" spells are discovered and become like unto the gods themselves in adoration from those who thought themselves noble, and now are humbled on one knee by their mere pressense allowing oil and vinegar TO mix, and doesn't chocolate go very well with peanut butter, and those buffs...do now stack, a little now that they are here.
(mustard, peanut butter and bacon sandwich in that order, on toast. I dare you :). But don't tell anyone)
I'm fine if buffs don't stack but there needs to be a way to communicate that to players so we know what will and won't work together. For example, you can only have 1 HP buff at a time, 1 haste buff at a time, etc.
However, I'd rather that all buffs stack (in a balanced way).
Overall I look at buffs as bonuses. The game should be balanced without buffs so that when you do have them, you have a bonus. However, that means we need to keep in mind what buffs are available so players do not become overpowered.
But the first thing you may think of is that buffs are an exponentially growing thing. The new buff always has more HP or more haste or a better slow than the previous. What about using buffs and debuffs based on levels instead. Say, a level 1 buff only works on players up to level 5 and level 1 debuffs only work on creatures up to level 5.You could also allow buffs to buff a % of stat rather than a set amount. Players just need to get upgraded buffs that work on higher level players and creatures, rather than buffs that have a higher impact. Wouldn't this make balancing easier long term?
This system works well for things like debuffs (think slow). Rather than exponentially increasing the slow %, a level 20 player may slow 50% but their spells won't work on a level 50 mob. A level 50 player needs to have the upgraded slow spell that still slows 50% but you need the new spell to attack higher level mobs.
Arksien said: I can't speak for everyone in the thread who is more for stacking than not, but I want to clear a few things up:I don't think the same spell should re-stack. As in, 4 clerics shouldn't be able to buff you with the same buff 4 times. However, if a shaman has a buff that gives sta, dex, and hp, it shouldn't be blocked by a cleric hp spell. At the very least, only the hp part should be blocked.
As to dps, I don't think dots should ever have issues. One shaman shouldn't stack their same dot 4 times, but a group with three shamans absolutely should be able to stack dots. If it's part of their utility, they should be able to use it. To me, it would be no different than saying only 1 rogue can use backstabbing on the same mob, or only one ranger can use archery at a time. If it's part of their dps, they should use it.
I do like the idea of max buff slots. I also wouldn't mind shorter buff duration than EQ. Maybe raid buffs can have extensions on them, but if a buff lasts 2 hours, there's nothino stopping players from grabbing a buff before a group, then excluding certain classes. 15 minutes per buff in a group sounds reasonable to me, 30 max. Want the buffs? Invite the player.
Also, this bleeds into balancing, but this is another reason I think buffs should be the icing on the cake of a class, not their core function. Every class needs to fall into Tank, Dps, heal, or CC first and foremost. Maybe CC classes get most of the buffs, and healers some, dps and tanks get none. That way if you fail to bring CC, you're out both buffs and CC. If buffs are 80% of what a class does, and buffs last 2-3 hours, you're just begging for certain classes to be left at home since their main purpose can be gained in 1 second every 2 hours and they don't even need to be in the group.
You've got it right for the most part, Arksien for same-line buffs and for the partial blocking if one component of a multi-stat buff is considered same-line with another buff.
And other than a few necro spells (which for clarity sake were DoTs with a secondary component (snare being one) that prevented stacking) the same straight DoT spell cast by 4 players always stacked. I really hate to use term stack when it comes to DoTs. With the necro example, the 2nd component was actually a DEBUFF and it's debuffs that follow stacking rules.
I'd want buffs to be taken into account when designing content because I want NPCs to have the same buffs that we do. Any caster NPC should have the full repertoire of spells available to it for it's given level. How NPCs decide to utilize their spells adds more flavor to the encounters we'll face.
Between all the magic using classes (cleric, enchanter, shaman, druid, summoner, wizard, ranger, crusader and direlord) there are enough buffs AND debuffs to go around so that 1 class isn't just a buff-bot.