@Joppa
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to those of us that have concerns (Brad was good like that to).
You are doing a good job at being reasonable and considering the opinions of others around you but in the end please make sure you stand your ground and implement what you think is right.
We have all seen dev teams influenced by vocal communities. It usually doesnt end well in my experience.
Joppa said:
Partly why I asked if you had listened to the interview was because I further defined the difference between Action and Utility abilties. Action abilities innately modify hate on a target, Utility abilities do not.
I'll add more flesh to those bones by outlining the known Shaman abilities by their LAS type:
Shaman Action Abilities: Mantle line (HoT), Hand line (DH), Echo line (group HoT), Hurry the Past, Shackle line (Str/Sta debuff), Animus DoT line, Fang line (Animus DD), Fire DoT line, Water DoT line, Slow line, Tidal Wave, Erosion line (AC debuff), Headwinds
Shaman Utility Abilities: Gate of Forgotten Eras, Grip line (Str/Stam buff), Reptilian line (Poison/Chemical resist buff), Fireclaw line (Fire/Nature resist buff), Skymane line (Melee Haste buff), Interlocking Stones (AC buff), Wisdom buff line, Cleansing Flame, Walk the Ages, Wind Strider (Movement speed buff)
You may choose 8 of those Action abilities and 6 of those Utility abilities to have as a total of 14 active abilities in your loadout.
Here is what I"m having a bit of troubling wrapping my head around: When I see 'action', I naturally thing it is something I can actively use in combat where 'utility' is, usually, things not direclty used in combat but are used in ancillary activities.
So the things you listed in the Shaman Action Abilities, you are correct that those are action items you use in combat, either direclty against the NPC(s) or on your groupmates (heals).
But what you listed in Shaman Utility Abilities aren't actively used in combat, are they. You do not consciously decide to bring them to bear directly against the encounter. I'm not casting the Grip Line in each fight because it just stays active forever, so long as I keep that line on my utility bar. I'm not going to be actively casting Haste in a fight am I? Unless there is another class that has buffs that dupicate my own, much of my utility bar will remain locked pretty much permanently. That would include my WIS buff, Skymane line, Interlocking Stones line, Wind Strider, Primal Fury...so 5 out of 6. Not a lot of choice, really, unless my group doesn't want an AC buff so they take more damage, or I want my wisdom to not be as high as it could be thus leaving me with a reduced mana pool, or melee haste so our DPS is lower than it could be.
So you are correct that we have 14 items available to us, only 8 are actively used in a fight which is 5 less than what you can actively use in a fight in EQ1, for example, and those can be swapped in combat too.
Those utility abilities are actively used in combat though because those are buffs and such that you are using during that specific encounter. If you were to fight a different enemy with a different disposition then you would potentially want different buffs. This is as I understand it at least.
philo said:Vandraad said:8 are actively used in a fight which is 5 less than what you can actively use in a fight in EQ1
Where are you getting those numbers for EQ?
Umm...log into the game and look at your spell bar. 13 slots! But I'm guessing that you're thinking that I'm being misleading in that I did not include alll the AAs for which you can create hotkeys, the clickies with offensive effects, potions with offensive effects all of which can be put on 10 total hotbars. That's a lot of stuff that that you can actively switch around before, during and after combat. But when I look at my EQ1 shaman and the Pantheon shaman, the EQ1 shaman can put 13 combat related spells (Heals, DoTs, Roots, Debuffs, Short duration buffs), and I can switch them out in the middle of a fight if I find that I want to toss another DoT, or or swap in a buff that might be fading, or whatever else I choose.
That said, if Joppa would confirm that the Pantheon Shaman will have the ability to extricate itself from combat so it can change out items on its action/utility bars it would go a long way to alleviating much of the concern I have with the system. It would then come down to just how often that ability can be reused. Clearly using it ever fight would be overpowered, but once a minute? Once every 2 minutes I could see being actually useful.
But if the Shaman cannot do that, we're are stuck with 8 action items, not 14.
I would be very pleased if there was a deliberate disengage system in general in Pantheon. Having a tactical withdraw be part of the tool box of options (assuming you slotted your disengage abilities on the action bar) could add an entire new dimension to combat and surprise potential.
Also should not that Joppa is showing the list of Known shaman abilities. There are 23 abilities listed there and Joppa said there will be closer to 30 + epic abilities total so maybe as many as 8-15 more.
Heal+Debuff
Mantle line (HoT), Hand line (DH), Echo line (group HoT), Hurry the Past, Shackle line (Str/Sta debuff), Slow line, Tidal Wave, Erosion line (AC debuff),
Heal + Damage
Mantle line (HoT), Hand line (DH), Echo line (group HoT), Animus DoT line, Fang line (Animus DD), Fire DoT line, Water DoT line, Headwinds
Damage + Debuff
Shackle line (Str/Sta debuff), Animus DoT line, Fang line (Animus DD), Fire DoT line, Water DoT line, Slow line, Erosion line (AC debuff), Headwinds
All round Solo
Mantle line (HoT), Hand line (DH), Shackle line (Str/Sta debuff), Animus DoT line, Fang line (Animus DD), Fire DoT line, Water DoT line, Slow line
I see four different LAS sets that lead to 3 different group play options and one for general soloing should that be an option. If all classes have this general level of options then I think they are on the right track.
@ vandraad
Is that a new EQ thing? Are you referencing EQ after its prime lol? I dont think that is something you want to use as a comparison...
philo said:@ vandraad
Is that a new EQ thing? Are you referencing EQ after its prime lol? I dont think that is something you want to use as a comparison...
New in that its been around for quite a few years, so...no? But let us intead compare original EQ to release Pantheon. Of spells that I can actively bring to bear in an engagement both EQ1 and Pantheon sit at 8. But with EQ1 I could still take the risk to sit down, switch out a spell and continue with the fight. I could choose to take the risk. VR is telling me I cannot take that risk.
Where EQ1 allows for pro-active (before the fight) as well as reactive (during the fight) changes to your spell bar and ability load, Pantheon is, apparently, only allowing for pro-active changes. The assumption is that you will always, or nearly always, take the time to look at a mob, take the time to discuss your approach based upon whatever informaiton you have at hand, then engage. It provides no place for player skill in adjusting your strategy mid-fight or for those time when a mob spawns right on top of you or when planning is just not possible. You're locked in to whatever you had loaded at that moment.
EQ1 promotes critical thinking, quickly analysing a situation and through indepth knowledge of your class, adjust those things you are using in the fight. Pantheon, not so much.
Hmm I think you are over reacting. Buffs and non aggro spells had to fill those 8 slots in EQ. Also you are failing to leave out the part about added consumables, clickies etc.
Eq didnt have hotbar swapping abilities until...maybe luclin (off the top of my head...that could be off.)
So for years it was mem 1 spell at a time with a multisecond mem time.
Why dont you give it a chance before you complain to much?
Its not like you are being forced to stare at your spellbook to regain mana...pick and choose your battles. This might not end up being horrible.
philo said:Hmm I think you are over reacting. Buffs and non aggro spells had to fill those 8 slots in EQ.
Yes, but only for enough time in which it took to cast them, then you replaced it with something else. Unless Pantheon where if I want the buff, I have to keep it there, preventing me from having anything else possibly useful to be brought to bear.
Also, I'm not complaining, I'm engaging in a debate on an issue where I'm taking a particular point of view that is, apparently, counter to that of others. If that's considered complaining that isn't my fault.
Vandraad said:Also, I'm not complaining, I'm engaging in a debate on an issue where I'm taking a particular point of view that is, apparently, counter to that of others. If that's considered complaining that isn't my fault.
It is your fault. You need to work on your bedside manner. It's possible to have a discussion without others thinking you are complaining. It's all in how your present it. I can smell my own. I do the same thing sometimes. I think you have been around fragile to much.
Hah, that's the bedside manner I'm talking about lol
...and you wonder why people dont take you seriously ...im cracking up.
philo said:Hah, that's the bedside manner I'm talking about lol
...and you wonder why people dont take you seriously ...im cracking up.
You don't take him seriously because he's rational and intelligent.
Vandraad said:Where EQ1 allows for pro-active (before the fight) as well as reactive (during the fight) changes to your spell bar and ability load, Pantheon is, apparently, only allowing for pro-active changes. The assumption is that you will always, or nearly always, take the time to look at a mob, take the time to discuss your approach based upon whatever informaiton you have at hand, then engage. It provides no place for player skill in adjusting your strategy mid-fight or for those time when a mob spawns right on top of you or when planning is just not possible. You're locked in to whatever you had loaded at that moment.
EQ1 promotes critical thinking, quickly analysing a situation and through indepth knowledge of your class, adjust those things you are using in the fight. Pantheon, not so much.
I agree with this assessment. But I guess we'll see how things play out in Pantheon when we get to try it out.
Another thing to add about "modern" EQ: Yes, you have more spell slots these days. But you also have tons of AA abilities which go in your general hotbar slots. Playing a caster in early EQ vs. modern EQ is very different...in the former case, you pretty much only have your spells to interact with your group/target. In the latter case you also use a lot of AA abilities in addition to your spells. So you could say that in modern EQ the limitation of the spell slots is far less not only because there are more spell slots, but also because the main general hotbar slots are used for every fight as well.
Game design dictates whether or not there will be rotations and Joppa should be able to defend the reasoning behind his decision making beyond the extremely weak logical fallacy that UAS = Rotation.
Monks and rogues in EQ literally had 1 combat ability every 10 seconds. Not 20 they had to choose from but only used 1, actually just 1. Talk about limited. What would bards do? They'd literally have a song rotation. Clerics? Are you kidding me, we set up macros for 6 people to chain cast CH over and over in raids. A CH...ROTATION. Does that mean that a limited action set of 8 = rotation? Of course not. The class and game design dictated it.
Mages in classic wow had 80 different spells at all times and would literally set their mouse wheel to cast frost bolt until a pack of imps got pulled and they had to wake up and cast a blizzard. A warlock would do the same with shadow bolt until they needed to banish the occassional elemental. And why did they need to break their rotation? Game design. Why were they in a rotation in the first place? Game design.
If a classic wow shaman had 256 abilities or 5, their rotation would still be totem totem totem chain heal chain heal chain heal. Does that mean the unlimited action set = rotation? Of course not. So why do we insist on trotting this nonsense argument out over and over?
Tell us how the system in Pantheon specifically will avoid it instead of leaning on the logical fallacy crutch of UAS = rotation.
Personally I like the idea of limited sets that can be changed for each encounter. PRotF has always said that they wanted people to think about their actions, and as I see it, this is another case where you have to look at what you are attacking and plan for it.
I want to see it in action to see if it makes a big difference or whether people will just stick to a general configuration which works for most situations (which I think will happen) then change on the mobs where you have to. But I do think it could bring some pre-planning into general game play that is mostly missing from mmos.
99% of the time we just blitz through the grind and dont even con the mobs. If you are forced to slow down and plan, then it will be a different experience and could be better for it. There are plenty of grind-fests/blast fests out there, I think it could be refreshing if we are forced to slow down and look around.
I also want to re-iterate the point that even though we will have limited action bars, all games limit actions in some ways or other. This is not a new concept, it is just applied differently. I'm up for it.
Prior to the interview, I was concerned about the current LAS system as I understood it. I want enough abilities that I have room for a few "oh s**t" abilities that have longer cool-downs but can stop things from going south as well as a couple less commonly used abilities. I don't want a full UAS because then all members of the same class start to feel the same. The interview caused me to rethink my position and now become in favor of the current LAS. Without knowing the casting times and cooldowns on each ability, it's hard to know for sure how many slots I would find optimal while still having a couple in reserve, but possibly adding or subtracting a slot is a far cry from switching to UAS. I really like the idea of having different configurations and being meaningfully different from others of the same class.
We will have a decent-sized aggro bar plus a good sized buff bar plus a few consumables and then unlimited space for macros and things like that. This isn't us trying to squeeze everything into 8 slots. I really like how buffs are being handled now--no need to recast or worry about it dropping mid-combat. Also, they're not going to be too overpowered when used on lowbies, so they won't be abuses so much for powerleveling.
I know some people are worried that not having the correct hotbar configuration will mean you don't have the solution to a problem, but I don't think this game is going to be so binary. I can't imagine that there will be some uber-powerful abilities that require one specific counter ability or you're screwed. That's bad game design and isn't fun or challenging and I've seen too much good, well-thought-out game descisions from the developers to think they would do something so obviously broken.
At first, I had a hard time getting the argument that LAS made combat more creative (since a LAS seems limiting). But the interview helped me to see the creativity in setting up the many different configurations my character will have as well as how each one will interact with each different configuration of my teammates. This will add greatly to the the diversity of combat and make it more interesting. And limitations can be very creative--Day[9] has a whole series of old StarCraft "Team Monobattle" videos where one team purposfully limited themselves to one unit each and it made for some of the most interesting and creative video game action I've ever seen (go watch it on YouTube if you get a chance).
Keno Monster said:Tell us how the system in Pantheon specifically will avoid it instead of leaning on the logical fallacy crutch of UAS = rotation.
I think the problem with the UAS is that it's almost always the same rotation, while if you have a LAS, you will have a different rotation for each configuration. I personally hate rotations--I find them quite boring and I would love to see games disrupt rotations as much as possible. They could do this by varying the cooldown time of the powers based on things like if they hit, if they critted, as well as by varying which ability you would want to do next based on what the mob is doing or how it's positioned.
Keno Monster said:If a classic wow shaman had 256 abilities or 5, their rotation would still be totem totem totem chain heal chain heal chain heal. Does that mean the unlimited action set = rotation? Of course not. So why do we insist on trotting this nonsense argument out over and over?
To be clear, I do understand your view and I don't *disagree* BUT your example there actually *does* show how UAS = rotations and LAS has advantages, even though you use it to assert the opposite...
If someone has 256 skills splattered all over their screen, but still pick their regular rotation of 5, then that's an argument to *not* have the UAS mess with 251 skills largely unused taking up space.
If someone has an LAS of 5 and can still do what they usually did in UAS, that means LAS is fine, no?
BUT in the situation where something unusual comes up, the LAS guy will have to improvise and lean on his group more, because he picked his general, normal rotation, instead of something more appropriate to the encounter.
The difference in the unexpected situation between the UAS and LAS is, of course, that the UAS guy will throw in a few lesser used skills to his rotation. He will pick a slightly different rotation on-the-fly.
So, what it comes down to is: Do you prefer the system where you do some thinking up front and possibly improvising and synergising down-stream, or do you prefer the system where you have multiple hotbars of things you hardly use, but can change your tactics at the drop of a hat to match whatever dynamic change occurs?
That's it. Do you want the added challenge of fore-thought and more improvising/synergising or do you want the freedom/complexity of all skill any time?
Again, to be clear, I do share your concerns! I am *not sure* that the emphasis on planning and improvising is more 'fun' that the freedom and complexity of UAS.
The difference between us is, I think, I understand where Joppa is coming from and I am willing to give it a go because A) I have played games where it wasn't very different and wasn't a problem and B) I don't think Pantheon's LAS is as restrictive or simplistic as some games where LAS *was* a problem.
Vandraad said:philo said:@ vandraad
Is that a new EQ thing? Are you referencing EQ after its prime lol? I dont think that is something you want to use as a comparison...
New in that its been around for quite a few years, so...no? But let us intead compare original EQ to release Pantheon. Of spells that I can actively bring to bear in an engagement both EQ1 and Pantheon sit at 8. But with EQ1 I could still take the risk to sit down, switch out a spell and continue with the fight. I could choose to take the risk. VR is telling me I cannot take that risk.
Where EQ1 allows for pro-active (before the fight) as well as reactive (during the fight) changes to your spell bar and ability load, Pantheon is, apparently, only allowing for pro-active changes. The assumption is that you will always, or nearly always, take the time to look at a mob, take the time to discuss your approach based upon whatever informaiton you have at hand, then engage. It provides no place for player skill in adjusting your strategy mid-fight or for those time when a mob spawns right on top of you or when planning is just not possible. You're locked in to whatever you had loaded at that moment.
EQ1 promotes critical thinking, quickly analysing a situation and through indepth knowledge of your class, adjust those things you are using in the fight. Pantheon, not so much.
I do not disagree and I think you have identified the crux of the argument, but the dismissive "Pantheon, not so much" indicates something you are perhaps not appreciating, or possibly just do not like?
Pantheon isn't eradicating critical thinking, quick analysis, thorough knowledge of your class or any of those things, it is changing how you express them, altering the emphasis on them and maybe even adding to them.
In EQ, you very rarely changed loadout (in my experience). Prep was buffing, not redefining loadout.
In Pantheon, you will likely need to change loadout more often in response to consideration of the encounter you are about to engage. That may not be critical thinking you enjoy, but it *is* *more* challenge and thinking.
In EQ, you very, very rarely needed to re-mem mid-combat. If you truly *had* to use an un-memmed spell or your group would die, generally that meant your group would die. Some classes (melee mostly) never had to do either. It was pretty much UAS.
In Pantheon, you will likely more often feel the need to access an un-loaded spell. There will be ways to do that, but for all classes and how often? We don't know. We do know that it means loading a differently limited loadout, so it's a tactical decision. Another challenge. Another activity. Not unlike the re-memming, though hopefully less UI-painful.
Here's the big difference, though: In Pantheon, if you *can't* access the unloaded skill, you will have to improvise with your existing skills and with your group to compensate for the 'lack' of the unloaded skill.
What VR and Joppa are betting on, is this emphasis on improvising and cooperating more than makes up for the lack of personal freedom and individual choice. Whether you *like* that emphasis or not is another matter, but surely you can appreciate it?
An additional point is this: In EQ, we did this too. Not all classes could do all things. We would come up against encounter particulars to which we didn't have the answer. We improvised and/or the group would compensate.
In Pantheon we will do this more, is all.
The question is (and it's a question I still have, to be clear) will we enjoy the emphasis on planning and group improvisation as much or more than the emphasis on individual freedom and choice? Will we find it frustrating to be limited, or appreciate the extra challenge?
Vandraad said:philo said:Hmm I think you are over reacting. Buffs and non aggro spells had to fill those 8 slots in EQ.
Yes, but only for enough time in which it took to cast them, then you replaced it with something else. Unless Pantheon where if I want the buff, I have to keep it there, preventing me from having anything else possibly useful to be brought to bear.
I guess the "preventing you from having anything else possibly useful" is as described by Joppa the reason for the system. Its all about choices regarding not leaving yourself in a bad spot. Its also about creating another level of fear in the general world i'd imagine, having to be careful about your loadout adds some nice tension to a world that is supposed to be very dangerous to us.
Vandraad said:Also, I'm not complaining, I'm engaging in a debate on an issue where I'm taking a particular point of view that is, apparently, counter to that of others. If that's considered complaining that isn't my fault.
The only reason it may be seen as complaining is that the system is said to be decided upon, i think that was a large purpose of Joppa doing the interview, to make everyone aware of the decision and that he believes wholey that it is fundamental to their vision.
Joppa said:... Maybe you could point me to the source interview/stream/article etc. that led you to interpret the two systems as being essentially the same?No need. The primary design goal of both systems is to limit the player to a subset of their total spells/skills. That's how they're essentially the same.
vjek said:Joppa said:... Maybe you could point me to the source interview/stream/article etc. that led you to interpret the two systems as being essentially the same?No need. The primary design goal of both systems is to limit the player to a subset of their total spells/skills. That's how they're essentially the same.
And as Vandraad has already pointed out, many, some or all of the 6 utility abilities you have enumerated are not all active, action, or what any 'reasonable man' would consider active.
The primary design goal of a London Bus and a Jumbo Jet is transporting people. Yeah, those are essentially the same.
disposalist said:vjek said:No need. The primary design goal of both systems is to limit the player to a subset of their total spells/skills. That's how they're essentially the same.
And as Vandraad has already pointed out, many, some or all of the 6 utility abilities you have enumerated are not all active, action, or what any 'reasonable man' would consider active.The primary design goal of a London Bus and a Jumbo Jet is transporting people. Yeah, those are essentially the same.
They are, they are both called transportaiotn vehicles for a reason. They teach this in kindergarten. They take people from place to place, so their primary design goal is to take people from point A to point B, so that sarcastic answer is only proving him right. Just because two things don't look anything alike, doesn't mean they don't follow the same basic design goals or philosophies.