Hopefully this doesnt get too confusing...
So that thing happens in EQ when you have 2 players of the same class using DoT's or Debuffs in a group casting on one mob (and i think these 2 things need to be treated differently in this question so read on before responding) The lower level players DoT or Debuff is cancelled by the higher level once cast or alternatively the lower lvl DoT or Debuff "does not take hold" because there is already a higher lvl version of it active on the Mob. This concept makes lots of sense for debuffs and i dont think it should be changed because we dont want to be able to debuff a mob down to next to no resistance as that will end up being stupidly OP , just like we dont want to be able to buff a player with multiple cleric buffs because that will end up being OP too.
But... i think that the damage component from a DoT should be stackable with the same DoT from another player whilst (if it also contains its own debuff) at the same time the debuffing quality of that same DoT (eg Clinging Darkness snare component) is not stackable, i am guessing this concept wasnt included in EQ because it was hard to allow a DoT like Clinging Darkness to work in one way but not another, or maybe they had their reasons for not the same class to be able to damage a mob with the same DoT spell. I find it super frustrating on EQ especially as someone who has currently rolled an enchanter again and previously played a necro as main... if i was or am ever grouped with a player using the same class one of us would lose a big portion of our DPS output. As i mentioned earlier i completely agree with not allowing the debuffing component to stack but the DPS aspect of a DoT should be able to stack.
Also just as a side note and to be clear i do not mean a single player should be able to stack the same DoT on a mob multiple times, but different players should be able to stack the same DoT for damage only.
So as a way to simplify it with an alternate example... will or should Pantheon allow for 2 druids to cast stinging swarm on the same mob and enjoy the same DPS result?
a fair point, though isn't it the time delay of a DoT and the chance for it not to complete it's ticks that comparitively almost directly gives value to a DD spell (especially one with a small cooldown)? And again as a comparison 2 Wiz's can drop 2 big Direct Damage spells simultaniously, so again doesnt that in turn (without allowing stacking like i am saying) diminish the value of a dot? Also as another side note to that regarding value of DoT's based on my old necro my DoT's almost never ran their course, especially in a full group unless it was some big named mob.
In a way allowing the DoTs to stack kind of plays into the hands of the other thread up at the moment about viability of same same classes in a group and thinkng of ways to try to encourage groups to invite all sorts into the fray.
There would have to be a limit of 1 DoT per player on a mob, a player can recast and cancel/reset his own, but could not just stack his own DoT over and over.
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
Fulton said:There would have to be a limit of 1 DoT per player on a mob, a player can recast and cancel/reset his own, but could not just stack his own DoT over and over.
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
1 dot per player kind of kills classes like necro/druid who root rot mobs. 1 of each type sure but 1 dot alone is just pointless and guts the classes.
Fulton said:
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
It's not odd, it's common sense. DoTs have the highest damage to mana cost, or lowest mana to damage cost, of all spells, and by a huge margin. A wizard might spend 400 mana to do 1000 damage, while a necro can cast a 240 mana DoT that does 1900 damage AND throw up 2 other high efficiency DoTs AND have a pet.
We're talking about a collection of classes which, in EQ, could: Port, damage shield, snare, nuke, heal, haste and slow, buff speed, retrieve corpses and other utility buffs, have a badass pet, feign death, and buff buff buff. They were 3 of the most powerful classes in the game for getting things done.
If you've already got a necro in your group and another one joins, is it perhaps less than ideal? Sure, so you adjust your tactics, maybe one of the necros nukes now, or one takes over the darkness line freeing up mana for the other to lifetap more, etc, etc, etc. And how is that any different than having 2 warriors in a group? Only one is going to tank most of the time, you're better off with a Paladin or SK. What about 2 monks? Only 1 pulls, they can't taunt, you're better off with a Warrior or SK for taunts or a Rogue for DPS or a Ranger for utility. 2 Bards? Cool, except their best songs don't stack, you're better off with a true DPS class or a utility class with buffs that do stack. What about 2 ench? Clarity and haste don't stack. You're better off with a mage. What about 6 mages? Oh yeah well...bad example.
A beautiful part of EQ was adjusting your strategy to what you had, and having a blast doing it. If people were jerks about making up the PERFECT group, then to hell with them.
Enitzu said:Fulton said:There would have to be a limit of 1 DoT per player on a mob, a player can recast and cancel/reset his own, but could not just stack his own DoT over and over.
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
1 dot per player kind of kills classes like necro/druid who root rot mobs. 1 of each type sure but 1 dot alone is just pointless and guts the classes.
That's not what I meant, when taken in the context of the topic of multiple DoTs of the same type on a mob. What it was meant to mean if there was the ability to stack the same DoT on a mob, that there would have to be a way to limit it to only allowing a player to stack their DoT 1 time. Which I thought was explained in this line " a player can recast and cancel/reset his own, but could not just stack his own DoT over and over."
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in regards to same player different DoT, but was focused more on same player same DoT not stacking, keeping a player from stacking their Swarm 10x on a single mob.
Yea I get what you're saying. Pretty sure that wasn't what the OP was asking for. In early EQ there could be only 1 on a mob. So if you had 4 necros only 1 of them could have dots up at all. That was the reason early on the only reason you had necros in a raid was for the mana.
Krixus said:Fulton said:
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
It's not odd, it's common sense. DoTs have the highest damage to mana cost, or lowest mana to damage cost, of all spells, and by a huge margin. A wizard might spend 400 mana to do 1000 damage, while a necro can cast a 240 mana DoT that does 1900 damage AND throw up 2 other high efficiency DoTs AND have a pet.
It's common sense in the way things were done in EQ, but only because that is the mana/damage ratios that were in game. No guarantee things remain the same.
Fulton said:Krixus said:Fulton said:
But Yes, I always thought it was odd 2 casters could cast identical DD spells that land at the same time, both get credit and do damage, but DoT could not stack thier spell on another higher level.
It's not odd, it's common sense. DoTs have the highest damage to mana cost, or lowest mana to damage cost, of all spells, and by a huge margin. A wizard might spend 400 mana to do 1000 damage, while a necro can cast a 240 mana DoT that does 1900 damage AND throw up 2 other high efficiency DoTs AND have a pet.
It's common sense in the way things were done in EQ, but only because that is the mana/damage ratios that were in game. No guarantee things remain the same.
Well you said it was odd in EQ. And I did say that they would need to adjust the cost of spells compared to EQ if the change suggested is going to be implemented in this game.
This is a pretty complicated topic (but a good one!).
A lot of it comes down to us designing a great magic/ability/spell system. I think some DoTs and buffs and such should stack and other should replace. Sometimes if another player can put a better DoT on a mob that should mean that you perhaps use a different spell line or tactic. Spells that are designed to stack need to be balanced accordingly so that they are no over or underpowered when several of the stacking DoTs are on the mob. Then the really powerful ones -- they should probably replace any other DoT in the same spell family.
But again, my explanation is pretty simplistic -- it certainly gets more complex than this. I think in alpha and beta we will defintely need your feedback when it comes to the spell system in general, and spell families and such.
Krixus said:Well you said it was odd in EQ. And I did say that they would need to adjust the cost of spells compared to EQ if the change suggested is going to be implemented in this game.
You're right, I did say that, and I meant it. I always thought it was odd they would design the game to limit the ability of the players in that way. I'm sure they had their reasons, but I thought it was odd. And one of the reasons I didn't play a caster very often. :)
Fulton said:Krixus said:Well you said it was odd in EQ. And I did say that they would need to adjust the cost of spells compared to EQ if the change suggested is going to be implemented in this game.
You're right, I did say that, and I meant it. I always thought it was odd they would design the game to limit the ability of the players in that way. I'm sure they had their reasons, but I thought it was odd. And one of the reasons I didn't play a caster very often. :)
Fair enough. I think we're agreeing, haha :) The reason they did it with DoTs is because they were super efficient, and it did lead to some awkward/less perfect group/raid dynamics later on, but overall I don't think those dynamics were a heck of a lot worse than plenty of others.
Aradune said:This is a pretty complicated topic (but a good one!).
A lot of it comes down to us designing a great magic/ability/spell system. I think some DoTs and buffs and such should stack and other should replace. Sometimes if another player can put a better DoT on a mob that should mean that you perhaps use a different spell line or tactic. Spells that are designed to stack need to be balanced accordingly so that they are no over or underpowered when several of the stacking DoTs are on the mob. Then the really powerful ones -- they should probably replace any other DoT in the same spell family.
But again, my explanation is pretty simplistic -- it certainly gets more complex than this. I think in alpha and beta we will defintely need your feedback when it comes to the spell system in general, and spell families and such.
Brad I think more of the OP's point was that classes should not become useless due to their spells not being able to exist with another of the same class, ie Necro dots. In EQ necro dots simply didn't stack. If you had more than 1 using them then the other was wasting his mana. I believe what the OP is asking for is that the same spells be able to apply to the same target. In a more 1 of "Clinging Darkness" from me and 1 "Clinging Darkness" from him on the same mob type way. I agree that some should override others but if you can't have but 1 of each dot then we would once again kill most dot classes when it comes down to raiding.
Haha i knew it was going to be confusing but we are taking the discussion on a good track! I can see how this would be a tough balancing act to balance fairly! And yes Enitzu your last summary was basically bang on. Based on Brads response he has obviolusly put some good consideration into it and full faith to the team that they devise a great concept / solution if one is needed at all.
Maybe we could use this opportunity to workshop some numbers, i am sure Brad wont mind us continuing down the EQ line of thinking. Who knows maybe we can come to a good solution of some sort that may be tested in the game..
(Side note is that i know we are not trying to carbon copy EQ but i think it is a good example for the sake of discussion)
Here are a few spells to compare and discuss based on Project99 wiki, this lvl 29 series of spells and with the exception of the enchanter is a non debuff spell so it has no other action besides DPS (which in itself was a rareity for necros) so really this is about as epic as a necro DoT damage gets for the level) in the wiki info i took it from it says 16 - 21 ticks so i went for 19. ( remembering i fully believe debuffs should not stack, or if it was decided that they should to a degree they need to be heavily regulated)
Necromance - Boil Blood - Level 29 - 24 damage x 19ticks = 456damage for 150Mana - time to do stated damge - 1min 48sec
Then here is a Wiz spell from same resource Lvl 29 Inferno Shock, non debuff, never played a wiz so someone chiime in if this is a bad example.
Wizard - Inferno Shock - Level 29 250 damage for 135mana instant.
Here is an enchanter's spell (i think i got the duration right, could be wrong though...
Enchanter - Suffocate - Level 29 small DD then about 7 or 8 ticks to get maximum of 263 damage in about 48 seconds.
So straight away Krixus's and Brads point is obviously spot on that the mana to damage ratio is hugely different! so a great point and you cant have these being stacked at their full capacity by multiple necros, though for the sake of the factual application of these spells can we also consider the fact in the comparison that this discussion is based on a group formula, and yes while a group may only be 2 necros for arguments sake, even still can we consider the fact that realistically a kill in a group lasting for almost 2 minutes whilst players are focusing on assisting on one mob is pretty damn long and the likelyhood of that kill lasting for 16 - 21 ticks is almost definitely not going to happen in a standard fight (which are the majority of fights)
Consider Krixus's other point which is very true and also excellent is regarding the essentially mana free pet damage from the necro and yes very quickly we start to see the depth of the incredibly mana efficient and incredibly powerful solo class which was the necro! (no need to delve into the maddness of fear / mana regen and heal dps lol) When considering all these things i am myself convinced very quickly that multiple necros working together at maximum DoT efficiency would be just outragous! So to Krixus initial and first reply to my post i commend, if they did allow the dots to stack they would definitely have to reduce the impact of the spells once stacked.
But all this said, poor old 2nd enchanter in the group who has one Debuff DoT line of spells is casting his DoT at lvl 29 for maximum 256 damage for 100 mana and 48sec duration is also faced with the same ruleset that is designed to hold off insane necro stacking damage. So the second enchanter in the group (and whilst it is not his role specifically) has been kind of told to pull out his whacking stick, cast slow (which is great!) and wait until the mob is at 20% before he can safely unleash any sort of DD damage without taking agro for the rest of the fight. It would be a nice thing to allow some lower dps DoTing classes to stack their DoT's to a certain extent, with some sort of damage reduction sure, but to give them a bit of juice back in the fight without having to risk everyones life by going for a charm.
I know there are some other things a chanter can be doing but once again this is just an example to make a point about the fact that 2 enchanters being able to both load their fairly low damage DoTs maybe should not have been treated and if a similar situation arises in pantheon should not be treated in the same way the massively powerful necro style DoTs are treated. Personally when playing my chanter (as a reletively low lvl char at the moment )in a group i discuss with the puller that i am going to take agro just for a moment before he taunts with a VERY low agro debuff so i get hit once and in turn set my pet on the pulled target in an attempt to offer some safe DPS to a group.
I like the analysis that is being given to this. I think the stronger spell should prevail for debuffs.
But, stacking DoT's may be unfair to the monster, I mean if a druid or Necro could cast ALL of their Dots- like through the levels, if they all stacked that could be...exponential (?) if I am thinking about it right and because of that may be a bit too unbalancing.
Or just get a mage and not have to worry about anything. Even 2 mages if the group needed to be filled.
Mages don't interfere with any other Dots, They are consistent: you wont find one sitting down in the middle of a fight, like some powerful casters with root ability *ahem*, they are not clearly overpowered or unbalanced from the start like some classes that fiddle with the undead or "artists", and with the Malo lines of debuffs, Chanters, shamans free up a spell slot for something else because the mage will cast it.
Plus they can buy some time if things go to pot and if they do -once mages pop their cork- that decision to fight or flight needs to be made in 30 secs and if anyone is sitting on their hands and not doing what they can? we're gating, sayonarra- and that will be the only time we sit for a second to mem gate because we know where it is in our spell book.
We'll start running back and CoTH you up once you appear in zone- save you some time. Heck we will be half way there- no matter how far away it is- by the time the someone asks "what do we do now?"
So after crunching numbers all morning here is something we have to consider. Class interdependency. I think everyone agrees that debuffs should NOT stack. That being said, I don't think having DoTs not stack or scale down if the same one is added by someone else is a good idea. And let me explain why.
I am using numbers and spells for the level 50 range in EQ and maximizing the DPS for each spell (minus crits and AAs and blah blah) Base DPS. The Necro's Base DPS, if getting all of his DoTs on and nuking at opportune times is 256.388. Now that consists of 4 different class DoTs and the highest DPS nuke.
This DPS will take time to ramp up but should be relatively easy to maintain. Now let's look at the Wizard. You spam one spell and get 320 Base DPS. That is sustained DPS too btw. Now I also understand that there are mana costs to all of this and I have those numbers too but will save them for later.
Based on this information alone, if DoTs do NOT stack, then like Enitzu said, you would be killing DoT classes in groups and raids. Now back to my original point of Class Interdependency. Look at the utility of both classes, and this is where the real balancing begins. A necro has lower Base DPS but can: FD, summon corpses, debuff, snare, life tap and redistribute mana. The wizard on the other hand can root, teleport and cast some self shields. So the question about balance comes down to the utility aspect of the classes more so than the DPS factor (even tho DPS is still a factor).
Also in response to Krixus the DPS/Mana costs in these calculations for the Necro are 1.183 DPS/Mana point whereas 1.28 DPS/Mana for the Wizard. Pretty darn close if you ask me
I think we need separate the 'what was' due to technical limitations and lack of a "meta".. mmorpg knowledge (at the time, how could there be one) with what is the spirit/idea behind DoTs and Debuffs.
We no longer need to worry about a server side being overwhelmed with multiple calculations, so that's out.
And (i dare think) we no longer need to invent the wheel, as we have a plethora of examples already employing it.
So in as far as the spirit behind DoTs and Debuffs? Extra layer of depth on a strategical level, extra layer of depth on the gameplay level. And variety. In ways of approach (per combat scenario), in playstyle, in actual combat. Support classes, tactics, inter dependency, choices and their consequences. Depth.
You don't go designing an entire MMO with depth in mind only so as to then provide a gameplay that only alludes to said depth, since some of the above "stack", or "override" each other.
You don't represent variety in a positive light if, and in advance, you have people guessing whether 'x' or 'z' spell will be overriden by another player's. Why give it to them then?
- DoTs stacking means classes "pairing". Means "optimal". Which in turn signifies a 'forced' player mentality (ie externally, from the dev team). This can have unwanted consequences, both in all kinds of grouping and in guild formations or rosters. Yes, we need class and group "combos", that's inter-dependancy. No, we do not need "take him or her, it's better with my class", no, we do not need half the DoTs you are comfy with being useless in this guild role, learn to play our way because Johnny or Mary (who leads) has this specialisation.
If VR (and i applaud them for it) want to do this the complicated, in-depth way (again, i want this too), then it is up to them to provide equal bonuses to all class combinations within a group. Why take the manhours to produce such a system only so as to then have some of your spell effects 'stack'? Or be entirely overriden? Superfluous. And potentially problematic due to what i mention above.
- Likewise with the debuffs. There are multiple systems, ready-made, that help a team (internally) calculate over fixed or non-fixed periods of time the effect of multiple 'negative' spells. Usually, an empirical threshold measured in 'x' time units is decided, upon which the actual effects of all possible debuff combinations is tested. They can always start with the threshold, and add accordingly. To go the opposite way would yet again be superfluous as mentioned above; why design debuffs only so as to merge them afterwards? And, once more, potentially problematic. Again for the same reasons.
- And this encompassing both; "meta" knowledge. Again. The formulas will get severely complicated and only worsen as time goes by. Most of the problems (all the way 'up' to balance) stem from this: What formulas are used, how much they allow for future expansions, tweaking and so on. Don't start with straight numbers, start with percentages. And keep it so. Much easier to calculate the effects of all possible armor reducing debuffs when they cause (on a sum total) 25% armor reduction, than it is to do the exact same when they cause a 48365228 armor reduction.
And again on the general.. Variety is extremely important. But there is a second factor at play here, and many of the 'old' MMOs failed to take it under equal consideration. If one is taught that their class plays 'this' way, one expects it to continue to. If one is happy with said class AND said variety of spells at their disposal, one very much wishes it to remain so. Giving them things only so as to have to "re train" them later on is pointless and devaluing of their thus far positive experience with said class. How many players have i met, myself included, that loved their class, until things got "serious", upon which time they found out that actually? Maybe this wasn't the class for them after all? That, how they expected them to play and how they were meant to were two different things? May sound too broad, but the above does fit right into it. You are going for depth, do that. Don't allude as to depth only so as to go for stacking and overriding and.. overall consolidating afterwards.
Same with the psychological level of the equation.. it is something watching your DoTs landing, lol.. pop pop pop! It's why you play a DoT class. Why limit that enjoyment? Work your bosses so that all Debuffs are equally useful against them. Don't work them so as for some classes to feel shrunken. You are starting from scratch, so i really don't see why that would be an issue :)
I am actually semi convinced now that you can have some things stacking and some things replacing or blocking, as long as SOME things can stack, i think having a flat out rule that all things DoT SHALL NOT STACK is definitely not a good idea because there are some classes that may well require DoT / Debuff spells to be viable in a agroup and if they cant cast them because they have another member in the group that is also casting these skills its really crappy to be that player. I think there could be a compromise found, where stacking spells have reduced damage, or some dot's are in stackable criteria and some are not. As EQ's system stands there is no middle ground and i think that could be improved on with some thought.
By discussing figures earlier i wasnt hoping to show how one class is better than another, i wanted to try and show that Necro DoT's could fairly be stacked and you know what i totally debunked my argument in the process for myself!! I am definitely the type of person who is very happy to be wrong, but workshopping concepts is what part of this forum is about and being wrong leads to getting it right.
A group of necros dropping boil blood and fear would be absolutely devistating and it would be game over for all mobs, that could never have happened in EQ so thankfully it didnt, but the low dps classes who rely on one or 2 dps skill lines to help out when there is not a lot of need for debuffs or mez's or anything would probably be greatly helped by the capacity to a degree or fully (what ever ends up being fairer) stack a DoT and it wouldnt cause too much issue to the game.
The only issue i see with balance in any argument is the OP nature of the Necro and it being able to stack, so good on the EQ team for realising this early on!
Class interdependency is absoilutely critical to the game and grouping, low dps classes have to play their role and play to their strengths, i love this fact as much as anyone, but removing almost all viable modes of their DPS because their same class is in the group is not a good system for these classes i think.
Krixus said:Equal bonuses to all class combinations seems #1 highly difficult to achieve, and #2 contrary to class interdependcy.
I am not sure you understood me correctly, or that in any case, we're even addressing the same issue. Not sure why you'd think of a class's combat skills as "bonuses". My skills are not a bonus. They are the core of who i am, how i perform and ultimately? Why i chose my class in the first place. At the least, i'd think of them as my means to a end (variety = choice = tactics). Again, you do not introduce an illusion of variety only so as to eschew its use (stacking and/or overriding) when dealing with grouped combat. Or force "rules" whereby you may have a so-called variety, but actual factors force you to pre-defined tactics.
Can you not see how this is backwards? The only time this makes sense (excluding the limitations and lack of experience back in 99, none of which apply now), is if someone else added the mobs in, and forced Brad to make a whole game around them. You get me? :)
As to the latter, you do not need to make skills/spells obsolete or overriden so that two classes can have synergy or interweaved combos, sorry to break it to you. You add these afterwards, and in ways that allow for no one having 'favourites' or worse, 'optimal group formations'.
You also do not need to have spells or skills deemed redundant when in the presence of others so as to have 'strategy'. This is (by definition) antithetic. Qualitative strategy, not your cookie cutter blindly obey "do this when with him" type, actually entails the opposite. Having the skills, and choosing what's best. Consolidation implies someone has already decided that for you. Back to cookie cutter. It's really that simple to me.
VattoLoco said:Based on this information alone, if DoTs do NOT stack, then like Enitzu said, you would be killing DoT classes in groups and raids. Now back to my original point of Class Interdependency. Look at the utility of both classes, and this is where the real balancing begins. A necro has lower Base DPS but can: FD, summon corpses, debuff, snare, life tap and redistribute mana. The wizard on the other hand can root, teleport and cast some self shields. So the question about balance comes down to the utility aspect of the classes more so than the DPS factor (even tho DPS is still a factor).
Also in response to Krixus the DPS/Mana costs in these calculations for the Necro are 1.183 DPS/Mana point whereas 1.28 DPS/Mana for the Wizard. Pretty darn close if you ask me
Appreciate the number crunching to back it up Vatto!
While the necro can still offer some more utility than the wiz the problem comes down to how useful is it in a group/raid setting. If the necro is FD pulling then he becomes a lot more valuable to the group. But then why would you have a 2nd? Without dot stacking then there would be no reason to. Their nukes are not very viable when compared to mage or wiz without the dots. So this is a limiting factor to group composition. Now if you have a monk pulling with an SK tank that necro becomes even less of a want because you want your tank to be able to use his spells to keep threat, snare, etc. The wiz becomes a much better person to put into the group. Even if you end up with 2 wizards it is still better than having a necro because you don't have to worry about the dps.
Also taking into account the ramp up time, Wizard offers much bigger direct burst dmg for the times when it is needed. Add that into snaring and that is all you really need from your dps in a group setting. In a raid setting, stacking wizards is better than stacking necros in almost every case provided they are balanced or close to it. If necros can't dot stack then their viability boils completely down to "Do we have enough mana to last through the fight?" if not bring a couple necros to feed the healers. If so then maybe 1 necro for dots.
Class interdependancy needs to remain but forcably shutting out classes because you already have 1 should not. I always hated looking for 1 more dps and having to ignore the necros lfg because we already had 1.
Just think out loud here.
It could be something as simple as Caster01 casts DoT for full effect, Caster02 casts same DoT which adds 50% (of the base) more damage to the one already existing, and Caster03 adds an addition 25%(of the base), and have a limit of how many of the DoT can stack (I would say no more than 3). The time a DoT lasts is based on the first cast, and is not affected by the additional casts.
Couple thing hapening in this scenario.
1) The spell effect still stick, but it's full potential is lessened with each caster (at full mana cost, although this could be review for it's function).
2) The original DoT sets the timer, so the other 2 casters only add addition damage, not time. This forces some semblence of teamwork to get full effect from castings.
3) The group now has to determine if the cost to cast this 3x is worth it on the mob at hand, or if 1 or both the other players would be better used to perform other tasks.
The same could be put in effect for snare/slow spells where the first takes hold, a second cast slows them down a percentage more (Although here I would make that a lower percentage) thus allowing a group to perceive a faster moving mob needs double snare/slow and or use such a tactic in pulling. IE: pull 1 no slow, add1 get 1 snare, add2 gets double, which spaces them out as they approach the group.
- DoTs stacking means classes "pairing". Means "optimal". Which in turn signifies a 'forced' player mentality (ie externally, from the dev team). This can have unwanted consequences, both in all kinds of grouping and in guild formations or rosters. Yes, we need class and group "combos", that's inter-dependancy. No, we do not need "take him or her, it's better with my class", no, we do not need half the DoTs you are comfy with being useless in this guild role, learn to play our way because Johnny or Mary (who leads) has this specialisation.
If VR (and i applaud them for it) want to do this the complicated, in-depth way (again, i want this too), then it is up to them to provide equal bonuses to all class combinations within a group. Why take the manhours to produce such a system only so as to then have some of your spell effects 'stack'? Or be entirely overriden? Superfluous. And potentially problematic due to what i mention above.
This statement needs some serious attention. Not only did you hit it on the head this covers so many issues plaguing the MMO releases out there. The Dev’s have a great opportunity to create the better of the solutions for great depth of game play. Well said!! I am hopeful the Dev’s caught that gem!
Ox