Vandraad said:Saicred said:A neat take on the perception system. A fun read, thanks 1AD7.
Yeah, quite a few of us pointed out back when we were first told that dispositions would automatically appear on the namecard of the NPC that tying it to perception and the investigate skill would be far more interesting but people lost their effing marbles over even the thought of that.
I was one of those pointing it out as well. :) - Just letting 1AD7 I appreciate the read.
BTW nice to see Joppa chime in :) - wayyyy back there.
about 4 years ago a poster with cartoon frog avatar said- well me and my 200 friends dont like this- I forget what they were talking about. I didn't like that tone, I thought it was an overt attempt at trying to be wretchedly influential, almost bombastically so (I am trying to think of the word, opposite of gregarious. not a good thing)
phrases as "me and mine" sound similar to me. How many are "mine", but this is not a democracy. Well, You and Your'n can go- wait a minute, say that fast. That sounds appropriate. Let alone a scatalogically chuckle-worthy line heard on a Fess Parkers "Daniel Boone" episode when a character asked "are these children your'n?" Me and mine, Sounds like Hatfields and McCoys.
Saicred said:A neat take on the perception system. A fun read, thanks 1AD7.
Cheers!
philo said:Lets just be sure that the perception system ends up actually being optional as advertised. Some of the ideas presented here make it not optional.
It's possible that the idea behind tying in the insight/investigate skills from perception could be realized in other ways. Certain classes could have scan/analyze (investigate) type abilities that could identify any "active traits." Certain races/classes could have passive skills that help them discern whether or not an NPC might have a disposition or property (insight) without revealing what they might be. The same underlying concept could be realized without being attached to perception if necessary.
I think this excerpt from the "Behind the Design: Dispositions" feature is worthy of consideration, in this context:
"These Dispositions will typically be portrayed by an adjective at the beginning of the NPC’s name, though there will be Dispositions only identifiable through the Perception system and rare, vision-altering Artifacts."
I have seen plenty of feedback from people who would prefer that dispositions are not notated as an adjective in the nameplate.
To me when it comes to the disposition system, the more meaningful the better, if that mean adding a bit of preception into the mix, or simply fighting enough of the same type of monster in yhat specific area (meaning fighting one species of wilves in one area wont affect wolves in another area) and gradually know the difference or anything like that brings a pretty good feel to disposition in my eyes.
The importance of resource management in a game has no correlation with UAS or LAS. Resource management can mean a lot, or little, regardless of which system is chosen.
I will also qualify this statement by saying that EQ's resource management is pretty terrible and not at all how I hope to see things in Pantheon. Having half the classes in the game sitting during combat is laughable.
Imo, in-combat regen of both HP and mana should be so neutered that it isn't viable to do so anyway. Maybe just disable the ability to sit altogether while in a combat state.
Liav said:The importance of resource management in a game has no correlation with UAS or LAS. Resource management can mean a lot, or little, regardless of which system is chosen.
I will also qualify this statement by saying that EQ's resource management is pretty terrible and not at all how I hope to see things in Pantheon. Having half the classes in the game sitting during combat is laughable.
Imo, in-combat regen of both HP and mana should be so neutered that it isn't viable to do so anyway. Maybe just disable the ability to sit altogether while in a combat state.
This could technically be true, but it's also been proven that usually games that are UAS usually used less mana per spell to bring that feature to life than LAS, which are usually stronger spells to compensate.
Riahuf22 said:This could technically be true, but it's also been proven that usually games that are UAS usually used less mana per spell to bring that feature to life than LAS, which are usually stronger spells to compensate.
Just to clarify, are you saying that spells under UAS or LAS are stronger or weaker and cost more or less?
I don't think it's true either way, but I just want clarification.
Liav said:Riahuf22 said:This could technically be true, but it's also been proven that usually games that are UAS usually used less mana per spell to bring that feature to life than LAS, which are usually stronger spells to compensate.
Just to clarify, are you saying that spells under UAS or LAS are stronger or weaker and cost more or less?
I don't think it's true either way, but I just want clarification.
LAS more mana, stronger
UAS less mana, weaker
And it pretty much is true, DnD and eq spells are far more devastating than spells on wow, or pretty much any other game I can think of.
I don't really agree at all.
EQ doesn't really have an LAS anyway, it has a weird hybrid. You aren't locked into a set of spells, like Pantheon will as the devs have already established with their vision for the system.
Not only that, but I can list numerous counter examples:
EQ2 - Assassinate/Sniper Shot - Hardest hitting abilities in the entire game on a 15 minute reuse.
EQ2 - Harm Touch, not as devastating as EQ's Harm Touch, but EQ's Harm Touch isn't subject to EQ's limited spell slots anyway as it is a skill as opposed to a spell.
Dark Age of Camelot - Every single class has several 10 minute + reuse abilities, and they are all extreme devastating when applied correctly.
What do these games have in common? They balance their spells with reuse timers. You can spam most spells in EQ over and over again until you run out of mana.
Liav said:I don't really agree at all.
EQ doesn't really have an LAS anyway, it has a weird hybrid. You aren't locked into a set of spells, like Pantheon will as the devs have already established with their vision for the system.
Not only that, but I can list numerous counter examples:
EQ2 - Assassinate/Sniper Shot - Hardest hitting abilities in the entire game on a 15 minute reuse.
EQ2 - Harm Touch, not as devastating as EQ's Harm Touch, but EQ's Harm Touch isn't subject to EQ's limited spell slots anyway as it is a skill as opposed to a spell.
Dark Age of Camelot - Every single class has several 10 minute + reuse abilities, and they are all extreme devastating when applied correctly.
What do these games have in common? They balance their spells with reuse timers. You can spam most spells in EQ over and over again until you run out of mana.
Yeah and in EQ rangers can kill something with 2 auto attacks, wizards can become a punching bag and do massive reflect damage for a duration that will kill anything cept raid targets, mages get pet that basically almost become unkillabke, and if it does die you can simply resummonn it instantly with no fear anymore, your right it might be a weird hybrid, but EQ abilities/skills are stronger regardless
We're not talking about game balance. EQ2 has content balanced around solo, small-man groups, full groups, x2 raids, and x4 raids. EQ does not really present its content in this way. Everything takes forever to kill in EQ because nothing is balanced around solo play.
I assure you that a Ranger can not kill a triple-up in 2 auto attacks, that is ridiculous. Triple-ups in EQ2 take as long or longer to kill than an average mob in EQ.
My point is that EQ2 has numerous absolutely devastating abilities on long cooldowns. EQ2's ability balance is shifted more in favor of cooldowns than resource management, but resource management is still quite relevant in the early eras of the game,. You can absolutely run out of power and die, especially in raids.
Liav said:We're not talking about game balance. EQ2 has content balanced around solo, small-man groups, full groups, x2 raids, and x4 raids. EQ does not really present its content in this way. Everything takes forever to kill in EQ because nothing is balanced around solo play.
I assure you that a Ranger can not kill a triple-up in 2 auto attacks, that is ridiculous. Triple-ups in EQ2 take as long or longer to kill than an average mob in EQ.
My point is that EQ2 has numerous absolutely devastating abilities on long cooldowns. EQ2's ability balance is shifted more in favor of cooldowns than resource management, but resource management is still quite relevant in the early eras of the game,. You can absolutely run out of power and die, especially in raids.
Lol, well with a named mob and the ranger can get their ability to work they could probably kill it I like 4 or 5 auto attacks, it's called headshots and can do well over 1 million damage, or yeah they actually can.
I'm confused about which game you're talking about, and which era of which game you're talking about.
For clarity, I just assume when people talk about EQ that they're talking about the classic trilogy (classic-Velious). Similarly, I don't really expect people to talk about the ridiculousness of modern inflated EQ2 as a reference point. The classic eras of both games should suffice to find common ground, and for EQ2 this usually means classic-EoF or RoK if you want to be brave.
That aside, headshot doesn't work that way in EQ anymore and hasn't for quite a while. The proc rate on headshot is now normalized to like 2ppm if memory serves.
I mean that's fair, if we're going to compare early eras only EQ's cc was through the roof stronger than wow was, like basically every form of it was, and also yes they did nerf headshot, but they buffed the level gap you can get it to proc, and also the proc rate was only low if you were rocking like 700 Dex or so but if you were raid geared at the time of the patch the nerf wasn't really noticed, only to the new rangers was it really noticed.
The strength of CC in EQ doesn't really have anything to do with LAS vs. UAS. Dark Age of Camelot has the longest duration CC I have ever seen in a game, with some mezzes literally lasting 2 minutes if you don't have Purge available.
The strength of an ability in a vacuum doesn't have anything to do with LAS vs. UAS. We can probably provide counterexamples all day long.
UAS dumbs the game down, because you always have everything your class can possibly have available to you to immediately deal with and hard counter whatever the world throws at you.
In a UAS system with unlimited hotbars the Dispositions system is utterly pointless if for example there are going to be several abilities available to deal with Dispositions for every class, you'd have them all available all the time...
Oh no that's a Bloodthirsty mob, what can I or we use to deal with it? Just becomes 'push X to counter Bloodthirsty' 'push Y to counter Playful' 'push H to counter Predatory'.
What's the point of the game having poisons, diseases, cold, fire and magic etc based attacks that must be cured quickly or intended to present any kind of challenge if every healer always has several abilities to cure each specific thing available all the time. It's just another request to 'push X now'.
Suddenly a melee mob that starts to cast spells isn't as much of a challenge if you can easily scroll along your 96 abilities and just click the spell to silence them.
LAS is more skill based because you have to select fewer options compared to everything your class can possibly do. It necessitates more synergy with your group mates and the different class make ups each time you adventure. It promotes more creative use of abilities with fewer available at the same time. It advoctaes for ingenuity, a deeper understanding of your class and also of the other classes in your group and what they bring to the table.
The best stories and memories are ones of triumph in the face of overwhelming odds, of the underdog overcoming the mighty. The group with no Enchanter that accidentally pulled 5 adds and somehow managed to live through it and kill them all just as the healer went OOM.
Not stories of just clicking all the buttons and always having everything available to counter whatever the game has, where's the fun and challenge in a game where you're just always fully prepared to take on anything instantly?
Seems like most people don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics.
Strategy is the goal, where you want to go.
Tactics are the actions that get you to that goal.
A limited action set supports strategic gameplay. You have to gather information before you engage and think about how you are going to approach it.
Unlimited action sets supports tactical gameplay. If you already have everything in your arsenal available to you, you no longer have to think about each encounter, you only have to react to what you experience.
That's not to say one type of gameplay is easier or more difficult, or better than the other, people just have their preferences.
Strategy forces players to rely more on each other to achieve their goals, which is part and parcel to what Pantheon is supposed to be. Time and time again Joppa and VR have said they want the game to be slower paced, they want players to have to work together, they want those moments that force player socialization, interaction, and cooperation. Limited action sets support this- because even if you have all the tools in your spellbook necessary to defeat a certain encounter, with a limited action bar you will never have all of them available to you at any given time. This forces players to seek out others to supplement their action sets- their tactics.
I'm just as sure they could design Pantheon with an unlimited action bar, and it would probably be a fine game, but it would be a much more tactical game than a strategic game, and in that case it wouldn't really be much different than the other MMOs out right now that all have unlimited action bars and more tactical gameplay and encounters.