As I'm not one to back down in an argument, I took some time to think of where a locked-in-combat LAS system would present no issues to a group, they wouldn't even really notice the mechanic. And I've come up with a generic one that would work quite well.
But first, a few assumption:
1. The group has some means by which they can observe the soon-to-be engaged content without pulling aggro.
2. The group has space in which to engage that content without inadvertently aggroing other content nearby.
3. If #2 is not possible, that the group has some tools by which they can mitigate or manage inadvertant aggro (mez, roots, off-tank, etc)
4. Respawn timers are set or have a minor (<5% variability) in their clock.
5. Spawn points are static in that regardless of where you kill an NPC, it has a singular specific spawn location.
So lets jump into the scenario:
A group is moving up a hallway that has a room at the end.
In this scenario the doorway is unobstructed and the group can easily observe NPC #1 and NPC #2 without entering the room. NPCs 3, 4 and 5 are unknown. Group analyzes NPC#1, adjusts loadouts and pulls NPC#1 into the hallway. Group immediately starts a stopwatch when NPC#1 dies. Group moves into position formerly held by NPC#1.
Group now can see all the NPCs in the room and estimate that NPCs 3, 4 and 5 would be within their assist aggro radius. NPC#2 is outside the assist radius of the others. Group makes loadout adjustments and pulls NPC#2. Group now moves to the locaiton formerly held by NPC #2.
Group now analyses the situation with NPCs 3, 4 and 5 and develops a plan to split NPC 3 from 4 and 5 either with roots, offtanks or mez. Loadouts adjusted and the group proceeds to engage 3, 4 and 5, pulling each to the location formerly held by NPC #2. The group, being smart, does not kill NPCs 3, 4 and 5 in rapid succession rather holding off as long as possible between kills to spread out the respawns for future cycles.
With the room now cleared, the group changes position yet again.
The group moves to the spot held by NPC #5 and now has a choice: Either wait for NPC#1 to respawn and marking the estimated respawn timer of the room or, if they move back into the hallway to see if they can pull other mobs while awaiting the respawn the NPC is spawn point 1.
For all intents and purposes, the spawn for this room is now split with, hopefully, adequate time between when when NPC 1 dies and when it respawns such that the group can engage, kill and move around the room as described.
Going on the premise put forth by Joppa that the LAS with combat locking is to support preplanning, any situation similar to what I've described above works perfectly fine with this design choice. Even with dispositions in place, the group in this scenario potentially has both the space and time to adjust loadouts even if every spawn point always respawns with a random disposition.
But if, using my scenario above, that some or all of the assumptions stated above are actually not correct, then the LAS design choice may very well prove to be detrimental to the enjoyability of the game.
I will put forth, right here, right now, that much of the content out in the world will fall under the type of scenario I've described above. Nothing I've seen lends me to believe otherwise and that true surprises, will be the exception and not the rule.
Probably just stating the obvious here but it seems that you have more of a problem with combat locking than with the LAS system in particular. And when it comes to that we just don't know if all classes are going to be combat locked or not. Joppa talked about a scenario when a rogue would use a flash bomb to get out of combat to switch loadouts to use a death from above tactic but who knows if that will be available to others. At this point we're in a position of wait and see so we should just wait and see lol.
Vandraad said:I will put forth, right here, right now, that much of the content out in the world will fall under the type of scenario I've described above. Nothing I've seen lends me to believe otherwise and that true surprises, will be the exception and not the rule.
I would assume you are right, because anything otherwise wouldn't make much sense in the context of an MMO.
We haven't seen anything to suggest that mob spawns and Disposition types will be entirely hidden or truly random or irregular in any way. If that is the case, it shouldn't take any group more than a few pulls to discover most possible Dispositions, Disposition combinations (if such a thing exists), pathing, and social aggro for the mobs they are engaging, or whether or not their group comp just isn't plausible for the content (which is an entirely valid possibility as well). It shouldn't take many more pulls to optimize the group's staging/positioning and loadouts for each pull.
That's just part of the exploration and reward cycle for MMOs; the more time and effort you put into it, the easier it gets. I'm much more weary of systems that have been implemented in other games to reduce the amount of time/effort for reward than I am of LAS vs. UAS.
I appreciate the wonderful diagram of those encounters @Vandraad! I think that if you were to watch Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Dev Play Session - December 2019 on youtube a lot of your questions about combat pacing with the LAS will be answered. It's a 2hr long video of the devs cruising through Amberfaet. It's got some funny parts in there due to the game still being in development, but there is a lot of really good info in that video. I also recommend watching the Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Shaman Abilities video on youtube. It has a lot of great info on the LAS and UI. It answers a lot of questions about LAS and synergies with other classes. I would recommend watching or rewatching a lot of the content they've put out there.
Morraak said:Probably just stating the obvious here but it seems that you have more of a problem with combat locking than with the LAS system in particular.
You are absolutely correct. I am neither for nor against LAS. I've played games with UAS and games with LAS. I've adapted to both. My issue is the choice that locks out changes while in combat.
If the rogue has some ability that allows the rogue to exit combat, that is good for the rogue, but what about the other classes? Will every class such an ability? I'd like to hear Joppa say one way or the other if all classes will have some means by which they can take themselves out of combat.
OCastitatisLilium said: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.
Lol. Exactly the point I was making, but no, it does not prove Vjek right. They share some of the same design goals, yet are utterly different. Like the LAS in Pantheon and Shroud.
Vjek implies because they shared deisgn goals they are 'essentially the same'. They are not.
We still don't have any actual reasons why LAS is good for *this game*. So far the reasons are:
1. UAS is easier(absurd logical fallacy)
- Joppa continually repeats that they don't want a "one to one" key/lock solution in combat. Well, what about a 5 to 1? Do I root? Do I snare? Does the enchanter mez, or stun, or charm? Etc, etc. If the game is designed properly, more options available can INCREASE difficulty and make decision making more meaningful. You can be punished by making the wrong decision with your life on the line. Again, people can agree to disagree, but there's no way in the world to me that knowing what to do before you engage in combat and setting your loadout accordingly is more fun than having to react on the fly.
2. UAS = rotation(absurd logical fallacy)
- I already dispelled this terrible logic. It holds zero water and people should be able to come up with an actual reason. A rotation literally has NOTHING to do with what type of action set a player has. It is 100% game design. You could have a UAS game with only 5 actions. You could have a LAS game limiting the player to 50 out of 500. Neither of which dictate to the player how to engage content. The gameplay dictates, not the action set.
3. Because it will be.
- So give us an actual example in Pantheon, not WOW, not a logical fallacy. Saying that it's strategic because players will "invoke strategy" is not an answer. My favorite color is blue because it's the most blue.
4. Why not?
- Again, this isn't an answer. You can't agree to disagree with "why not?" because it's not an actual PRO/CON for any system
5. UAS = unlimited resources(absurd logical fallacy)
- This is a resource dominated game. Just because you have 50 abilities available(which, again, if you do, is on purpose designed by VR) does not mean you will be able to just spam through them at all times.
Where's an actual example of how the LAS will promote a BETTER system of fun/satisfaction, player agency, communication, strategy etc, than no LAS?
Joppa himself said he understood the need to "avoid the inevitablity of learning a combat scenario and then just going through the motions".
I can and have given detailed, in depth reasons why it won't better for any of those things.
Dismissing logical, rational concerns by saying people are focusing on "edge cases" while simultaneously being unable to give any real Pantheon reasons to rebut the concerns is insulting to a rabid, intelligent and experienced fan base.
Vandraad said:Morraak said:Probably just stating the obvious here but it seems that you have more of a problem with combat locking than with the LAS system in particular.
You are absolutely correct. I am neither for nor against LAS. I've played games with UAS and games with LAS. I've adapted to both. My issue is the choice that locks out changes while in combat.
If the rogue has some ability that allows the rogue to exit combat, that is good for the rogue, but what about the other classes? Will every class such an ability? I'd like to hear Joppa say one way or the other if all classes will have some means by which they can take themselves out of combat.
I think I'm in the camp where I could go either way, but if we are leaning LAS and I can see the vision from Joppa, I may be in the camp that I would a combat lock for changes. However, in the switching of the skills, I'd like to better understand a path that would work where it doesn't feel clunky and where it doesn't favor casters as I feel there should be risk or consequences to change skills such as sitting makes you vulnerable or it kicks in a global cooldown where no skills can be used (not tied to one way). I plan on playing a tank and i feel like changing the action set for melee based characters is difficult to accomplish as I wont have the luxury of sitting unless I have a mob mezzed or would be creating awkward combat flow where I'm having my white damage continue on, i abruptly stop, disengage and sit to change a skill.
LAS allow for giving classes group role options without becoming overpowered. This is specifically true for any class that has the ability to heal.
If you give healers the ability to Heal, Buff, Debuff and DPS at the same time why would you play anything else. Other than monk.
LAS also acts as a Max DPS to Utility slider. If all abilities have an 8x global cooldown refresh time then sloting any utility abilities would be a direct loss in max DPS. Players will need to decide what is more important, raw dps or reaction abilities. In some cases if all the reactions can be supplied by the tank healer an CC then the group DPSers can go full DPS. If you have a non optimal group setup or the encounter has a lot of required reactions then the DPS will need to dedicate some slots to reactions.
Finally a combination of refresh timers and action slots can be used to control relative maximum DPS. You can give a mage 12 different instant cast DD spells of different elements to use as bloodline counters without worrying that you gave them too much of a damage boost as they can only ever use 8 at once. The same is doubly true for Dot spells as they already have a long inherent recast if they do not stack with themselves.
There are many benefits to LAS based design and that is mostly through group role flexibility without invalidating the existence of a specific class and balancing options vs power for individual classes.
@Keno, You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the answers and explanations you *are* getting. I already had a stab at addressing your points. Joppa does address them too if you listen for the answers and not look to criticise.
I can only advise you read the thread again and watch the interview again.
Just quickly though: -
1) In both UAS and LAS planning is advantageous. In LAS a lack of planning or a surprise has more impact, since in UAS you just react and alter your rotation. Sounds like LAS might have additional challenge to me. Whether ot not you prefer the additional emphasis on prep and then on improvisation is another question.
2) Yes, UAS = rotation, but this is somewhat a semantics argument. You have a standard rotation. You have other rotations depending on the encounter type. You won't ever be using all your skills, even if they are all available. You pick rotation depending on the encounter.
In LAS, you cannot simply change your rotation on-the-fly at will. You have to improvise and rely on your group if things change. You might well pick a loadout witha favourite rotation before an encounter, but if you are surprised you cannot use the rotation you were going to. Bascially, yes, LAS has rotations too, but you will much more often have to abandon them and think outside them.
3) If you don't understand why having to improvise and synergise with your group because your action set doesn't contain every option is good for a group-based, challenging game, then *shrug* I'm stumped. You might not *like* it, but it the reasons that Joppa thinks that is better have been given multiple times in various ways.
4) Not sure Joppa used "why not?" as a reason.
5) Again, I don't think Joppa said UAS = unlimited resources.
I have said many times before - and in this thread - that it is obvious why LAS is more challenging. It limits you and limits make things harder. What I have said before, because, to make it clear, I am not a fan of LAS, per se, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is 'more challenging', but is it more fun? That we will see. Maybe it would be, if it means you fight closely with a teammate that has the other arm behind his back.
An example that strikes me is a three-legging race. People don't do those because they are more skilled or even because they are more difficult. They do it because it's more fun.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to criticise or antagonise you: If you really want answers to your questions, I recommend you read back what you've read before (and watched what you've watched) and try to look for reasons that LAS might be better or at least as good. You will find them.
disposalist said:@Keno, You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the answers and explanations you *are* getting. I already had a stab at addressing your points. Joppa does address them too if you listen for the answers and not look to criticise.
I can only advise you read the thread again and watch the interview again.
Just quickly though: -
1) In both UAS and LAS planning is advantageous. In LAS a lack of planning or a surprise has more impact, since in UAS you just react and alter your rotation. Sounds like LAS might have additional challenge to me. Whether ot not you prefer the additional emphasis on prep and then on improvisation is another question.
2) Yes, UAS = rotation, but this is somewhat a semantics argument. You have a standard rotation. You have other rotations depending on the encounter type. You won't ever be using all your skills, even if they are all available. You pick rotation depending on the encounter.
In LAS, you cannot simply change your rotation on-the-fly at will. You have to improvise and rely on your group if things change. You might well pick a loadout witha favourite rotation before an encounter, but if you are surprised you cannot use the rotation you were going to. Bascially, yes, LAS has rotations too, but you will much more often have to abandon them and think outside them.3) If you don't understand why having to improvise and synergise with your group because your action set doesn't contain every option is good for a group-based, challenging game, then *shrug* I'm stumped. You might not *like* it, but it the reasons that Joppa thinks that is better have been given multiple times in various ways.
4) Not sure Joppa used "why not?" as a reason.
5) Again, I don't think Joppa said UAS = unlimited resources.
I have said many times before - and in this thread - that it is obvious why LAS is more challenging. It limits you and limits make things harder. What I have said before, because, to make it clear, I am not a fan of LAS, per se, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is 'more challenging', but is it more fun? That we will see. Maybe it would be, if it means you fight closely with a teammate that has the other arm behind his back.
An example that strikes me is a three-legging race. People don't do those because they are more skilled or even because they are more difficult. They do it because it's more fun.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to criticise or antagonise you: If you really want answers to your questions, I recommend you read back what you've read before (and watched what you've watched) and try to look for reasons that LAS might be better or at least as good. You will find them.
Again you just stack logical fallacies. This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place.
jstsunami said:Vandraad said:Morraak said:Probably just stating the obvious here but it seems that you have more of a problem with combat locking than with the LAS system in particular.
You are absolutely correct. I am neither for nor against LAS. I've played games with UAS and games with LAS. I've adapted to both. My issue is the choice that locks out changes while in combat.
If the rogue has some ability that allows the rogue to exit combat, that is good for the rogue, but what about the other classes? Will every class such an ability? I'd like to hear Joppa say one way or the other if all classes will have some means by which they can take themselves out of combat.
I think I'm in the camp where I could go either way, but if we are leaning LAS and I can see the vision from Joppa, I may be in the camp that I would a combat lock for changes. However, in the switching of the skills, I'd like to better understand a path that would work where it doesn't feel clunky and where it doesn't favor casters as I feel there should be risk or consequences to change skills such as sitting makes you vulnerable or it kicks in a global cooldown where no skills can be used (not tied to one way). I plan on playing a tank and i feel like changing the action set for melee based characters is difficult to accomplish as I wont have the luxury of sitting unless I have a mob mezzed or would be creating awkward combat flow where I'm having my white damage continue on, i abruptly stop, disengage and sit to change a skill.
I can't see why any class would be excluded from having a hate-dropper or a combat-evader like the rogue Smoke Bomb and monk Feign Death. It would seem a bit of a massive disability to not have that. It's a great question for Joppa.
For a warrior, where losing hate/taunt would be very impactful, perhaps there will be a skill like... er... Brief Intimidation: The opposite of taunt. Enemies break off combat with you momentarily (while you swap hotbars) back hate is returned afterward, so there's a brief period of danger to others as a risk-reward?
Keno Monster said:disposalist said:@Keno, You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the answers and explanations you *are* getting. I already had a stab at addressing your points. Joppa does address them too if you listen for the answers and not look to criticise.
I can only advise you read the thread again and watch the interview again.
Just quickly though: -
1) In both UAS and LAS planning is advantageous. In LAS a lack of planning or a surprise has more impact, since in UAS you just react and alter your rotation. Sounds like LAS might have additional challenge to me. Whether ot not you prefer the additional emphasis on prep and then on improvisation is another question.
2) Yes, UAS = rotation, but this is somewhat a semantics argument. You have a standard rotation. You have other rotations depending on the encounter type. You won't ever be using all your skills, even if they are all available. You pick rotation depending on the encounter.
In LAS, you cannot simply change your rotation on-the-fly at will. You have to improvise and rely on your group if things change. You might well pick a loadout witha favourite rotation before an encounter, but if you are surprised you cannot use the rotation you were going to. Bascially, yes, LAS has rotations too, but you will much more often have to abandon them and think outside them.3) If you don't understand why having to improvise and synergise with your group because your action set doesn't contain every option is good for a group-based, challenging game, then *shrug* I'm stumped. You might not *like* it, but it the reasons that Joppa thinks that is better have been given multiple times in various ways.
4) Not sure Joppa used "why not?" as a reason.
5) Again, I don't think Joppa said UAS = unlimited resources.
I have said many times before - and in this thread - that it is obvious why LAS is more challenging. It limits you and limits make things harder. What I have said before, because, to make it clear, I am not a fan of LAS, per se, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is 'more challenging', but is it more fun? That we will see. Maybe it would be, if it means you fight closely with a teammate that has the other arm behind his back.
An example that strikes me is a three-legging race. People don't do those because they are more skilled or even because they are more difficult. They do it because it's more fun.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to criticise or antagonise you: If you really want answers to your questions, I recommend you read back what you've read before (and watched what you've watched) and try to look for reasons that LAS might be better or at least as good. You will find them.
Again you just stack logical fallacies. This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place.
Maybe explain why what I've said is a logical fallacy, not just say it is? Also, I'm really not sure what "This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place" actually means, please explain further.
I've given my reasoning and examples several times in several posts. Perhaps referencing those might help me understand.
disposalist said:Keno Monster said:disposalist said:@Keno, You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the answers and explanations you *are* getting. I already had a stab at addressing your points. Joppa does address them too if you listen for the answers and not look to criticise.
I can only advise you read the thread again and watch the interview again.
Just quickly though: -
1) In both UAS and LAS planning is advantageous. In LAS a lack of planning or a surprise has more impact, since in UAS you just react and alter your rotation. Sounds like LAS might have additional challenge to me. Whether ot not you prefer the additional emphasis on prep and then on improvisation is another question.
2) Yes, UAS = rotation, but this is somewhat a semantics argument. You have a standard rotation. You have other rotations depending on the encounter type. You won't ever be using all your skills, even if they are all available. You pick rotation depending on the encounter.
In LAS, you cannot simply change your rotation on-the-fly at will. You have to improvise and rely on your group if things change. You might well pick a loadout witha favourite rotation before an encounter, but if you are surprised you cannot use the rotation you were going to. Bascially, yes, LAS has rotations too, but you will much more often have to abandon them and think outside them.3) If you don't understand why having to improvise and synergise with your group because your action set doesn't contain every option is good for a group-based, challenging game, then *shrug* I'm stumped. You might not *like* it, but it the reasons that Joppa thinks that is better have been given multiple times in various ways.
4) Not sure Joppa used "why not?" as a reason.
5) Again, I don't think Joppa said UAS = unlimited resources.
I have said many times before - and in this thread - that it is obvious why LAS is more challenging. It limits you and limits make things harder. What I have said before, because, to make it clear, I am not a fan of LAS, per se, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is 'more challenging', but is it more fun? That we will see. Maybe it would be, if it means you fight closely with a teammate that has the other arm behind his back.
An example that strikes me is a three-legging race. People don't do those because they are more skilled or even because they are more difficult. They do it because it's more fun.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to criticise or antagonise you: If you really want answers to your questions, I recommend you read back what you've read before (and watched what you've watched) and try to look for reasons that LAS might be better or at least as good. You will find them.
Again you just stack logical fallacies. This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place.
Maybe explain why what I've said is a logical fallacy, not just say it is? Also, I'm really not sure what "This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place" actually means, please explain further.
I've given my reasoning and examples several times in several posts. Perhaps referencing those might help me understand.
Your continued insistence that the action set, forget limited or otherwise, has anything to do with a rotation indicates that yes, you are stumped and we can go our separate ways on this one. Game design dictates every example you give, not the action set.
Keno Monster said:disposalist said:Keno Monster said:disposalist said:@Keno, You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the answers and explanations you *are* getting. I already had a stab at addressing your points. Joppa does address them too if you listen for the answers and not look to criticise.
I can only advise you read the thread again and watch the interview again.
Just quickly though: -
1) In both UAS and LAS planning is advantageous. In LAS a lack of planning or a surprise has more impact, since in UAS you just react and alter your rotation. Sounds like LAS might have additional challenge to me. Whether ot not you prefer the additional emphasis on prep and then on improvisation is another question.
2) Yes, UAS = rotation, but this is somewhat a semantics argument. You have a standard rotation. You have other rotations depending on the encounter type. You won't ever be using all your skills, even if they are all available. You pick rotation depending on the encounter.
In LAS, you cannot simply change your rotation on-the-fly at will. You have to improvise and rely on your group if things change. You might well pick a loadout witha favourite rotation before an encounter, but if you are surprised you cannot use the rotation you were going to. Bascially, yes, LAS has rotations too, but you will much more often have to abandon them and think outside them.3) If you don't understand why having to improvise and synergise with your group because your action set doesn't contain every option is good for a group-based, challenging game, then *shrug* I'm stumped. You might not *like* it, but it the reasons that Joppa thinks that is better have been given multiple times in various ways.
4) Not sure Joppa used "why not?" as a reason.
5) Again, I don't think Joppa said UAS = unlimited resources.
I have said many times before - and in this thread - that it is obvious why LAS is more challenging. It limits you and limits make things harder. What I have said before, because, to make it clear, I am not a fan of LAS, per se, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is 'more challenging', but is it more fun? That we will see. Maybe it would be, if it means you fight closely with a teammate that has the other arm behind his back.
An example that strikes me is a three-legging race. People don't do those because they are more skilled or even because they are more difficult. They do it because it's more fun.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to criticise or antagonise you: If you really want answers to your questions, I recommend you read back what you've read before (and watched what you've watched) and try to look for reasons that LAS might be better or at least as good. You will find them.
Again you just stack logical fallacies. This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place.
Maybe explain why what I've said is a logical fallacy, not just say it is? Also, I'm really not sure what "This is all dictated by game design, not whatever action set is in place" actually means, please explain further.
I've given my reasoning and examples several times in several posts. Perhaps referencing those might help me understand.
Your continued insistence that the action set, forget limited or otherwise, has anything to do with a rotation indicates that yes, you are stumped and we can go our separate ways on this one. Game design dictates every example you give, not the action set.
Maybe this is a semantics thing. Maybe my understanding of 'rotation' is different.
A rotation, to me, is an ideal set of skills that you 'rotate' around, clicking in turn, to defeat an ancounter.
In UAS, you will always have access to the skills in that ideal rotation.
In LAS, you might not.
That is how I understand that UAS is more 'friendly' to simple rotation and LAS will often force ideal skill rotations to be abandoned.
How does your understanding differ?
Also, only one part of your post and my response was anything to do with rotations. What about the rest?
disposalist said:I can't see why any class would be excluded from having a hate-dropper or a combat-evader like the rogue Smoke Bomb and monk Feign Death. It would seem a bit of a massive disability to not have that.
This seems unlikely to me. If combat mechanics are heavily predicated on threat management, classes having these sorts of 'get out of jail free' cards are likely to be pretty limited. This is a concern I have about how LAS's are being implemented in Pantheon. It seems like a burden that a handful of classes are going to be exempt from.
Elrandir said:disposalist said:I can't see why any class would be excluded from having a hate-dropper or a combat-evader like the rogue Smoke Bomb and monk Feign Death. It would seem a bit of a massive disability to not have that.
This seems unlikely to me. If combat mechanics are heavily predicated on threat management, classes having these sorts of 'get out of jail free' cards are likely to be pretty limited. This is a concern I have about how LAS's are being implemented in Pantheon. It seems like a burden that a handful of classes are going to be exempt from.
Or those get-out-of-jail-free cards aren't really. They might have long cooldowns or high risk-vs-reward or be circumstantial or or or.
All I'm saying are there are lots of ways to mitigate any frustration that might be felt from being locked into an action set in combat *IF* it does prove frustrating.
disposalist said:Or those get-out-of-jail-free cards aren't really.
That's what I was thinking. A mechanic that lets you leave combat for a moment does not have to be a get out of jail free card. It can be a "state of being" like many other combat related things they're designing for. "In combat" and "out of combat" might not even have to relate to the hate list of a mob. You could be the 2nd highest on the hate list and be "out of combat" for example.
Welcome to the conversation Keno.
Keno Monster said:We still don't have any actual reasons why LAS is good for *this game*. So far the reasons are:
1. UAS is easier(absurd logical fallacy)
- Joppa continually repeats that they don't want a "one to one" key/lock solution in combat. Well, what about a 5 to 1? Do I root? Do I snare? Does the enchanter mez, or stun, or charm? Etc, etc. If the game is designed properly, more options available can INCREASE difficulty and make decision making more meaningful. You can be punished by making the wrong decision with your life on the line. Again, people can agree to disagree, but there's no way in the world to me that knowing what to do before you engage in combat and setting your loadout accordingly is more fun than having to react on the fly.
There absolutely needs to be 1 to 1 solutions. My statements have always been that that LAS introduces the possibiliy of not having the solution you need available to you in every case. In those cases you will need to rely on other members of your group to compensate, or improvise by leaning more heavily into a different approach, utilizing the abilities you have available and your overall knowledge of the game (the example I gave in the interview: I just realize this NPC enrages and I don't have Tranq shot loaded... but I do have Snare. I know after Enrage wears off it will be in an Exhausted state, so we can burn it down quickly. I will try to keep it Snared while we keep our distance and stay away from adds. After this fight, our Rogue needs to load their Sedating Toxin in case we get another one of these).
When you have an abundance of 1 to 1 solutions readily available to an individual player through UAS, how do you ramp challenge? I know how I've seen it ramped in past games, but I would be very curious to hear your answer to that question.
Ultimately, as you said above, "If the game is designed properly, more options available can INCREASE difficulty and make decision making more meaningful." I completely agree - and everything I've said aligns with that belief. The main difference in our mindsets is that I think this holds true whether the individual player or the group as a whole has X to 1 solutions, while also maintaining that victory without a 1 to 1 solution is not only viable, but fun.
Keno Monster said:2. UAS = rotation(absurd logical fallacy)
- I already dispelled this terrible logic. It holds zero water and people should be able to come up with an actual reason. A rotation literally has NOTHING to do with what type of action set a player has. It is 100% game design. You could have a UAS game with only 5 actions. You could have a LAS game limiting the player to 50 out of 500. Neither of which dictate to the player how to engage content. The gameplay dictates, not the action set.
What I said in the interview (52:48):
"In games like WoW, is it not the case that when you reach max level and go look at a character/class guide, are you not looking up 'what's my rotation'? What buttons do I hit every time, in the same order, to maximize my output? And I think sometimes pushback on something like LAS tends to try and hold up the superiority of having all my abilities available to me. And in reality, not saying there aren't exceptions to this, but for the most part what you grow into, the skill-ceiling you grow into - unless we're talking about PvP which is a little bit of a different story, and ends up being closer to LAS even within a UAS - the end result is rotation, and that is not super compelling to me. And I don't think it does a lot for the argument of the skill-ceiling or the superiority of the skill involved in an unlimited action set."
I believe this is what you are referring to here. Admittedly, listening back to it I could have been clearer in the point I was trying to make. However, at no point did I say UAS = Rotation. To reiterate, what I said is that typically the end result within UAS is a rotation. And to emphasize my point - for all of the concern about not having all of my abilities available to me at all times, the reality is that in the end, you are typically using a rotation of a small subset of abilities.
This is why I referenced PvP in relation to this, because PvP is the main place you see players deviating from a set rotation in combat. Instead, they utilize their abilities in a smaller-form focus, to affect a specific target(s) in a specific way(s) to achieve specific goals, with a variety of shorter or longer term pre-planning depending on a host of different criteria.
Keno Monster said:3. Because it will be.
- So give us an actual example in Pantheon, not WOW, not a logical fallacy. Saying that it's strategic because players will "invoke strategy" is not an answer. My favorite color is blue because it's the most blue.
Blue is my favorite color as well.
I outlined the reasons I believe the LAS to be highly strategic in the interview. It would be helpful for you to reference specific reasons I give there and why you disagree with them.
None of this should be a surprise, given the definition of the word itself, and the fact that this has been in our FAQ since 2016ish:
2.2 Will there be a limitation to the number of abilities we can use at a given time? You may be limited to a subset of your abilities for the next encounter, causing you to have to intelligently plan ahead and memorize the spells most effective against the upcoming enemy. Likewise, you'll want to memorize spells that counter the upcoming mob’s abilities. Lastly, you may have some abilities that work synergistically with others in your group. But the key point here is that these tactical decisions can be made right before the actual encounter. Then, say you move on deeper into the dungeon and are about to confront a different boss with different abilities and a different disposition, it may make tactical sense to prep different abilities. So yes, you are limited to that extent because planning for the battle ahead and doing so effectively is key to Pantheon. The exact number of spells, abilities, feats and actions one can prep is TBD and won’t likely be finalized until Beta. What’s depicted in screenshots showing the UI is not final.
Keno Monster said:4. Why not?
I don't recall my answer to anything related to this being, "Hey, why not?"
Keno Monster said:5. UAS = unlimited resources(absurd logical fallacy)
I don't recall saying this either, nor do I understand its premise.
---
In the end Keno, you are free to disagree. But when you present your personal disagreements as wholesale condemnation, it can alienate would-be participants, which is disappointing because of how much I believe you have to offer this community.
@Keno
We agree on 99% of items, but I think this system if implemented correctly is more just a matter of preference. More importantly to me is resource management/slow out of combat regeneration. If you have nearly instantaneous regeneration like most MMOs today, skills will be on a fast rotation regardless of the system used, and most likely, not in a greater number the LAS would provide - it is the finite resources that cause/force the strategy in combat and choice of what ability to use or not more than the loaded set (and the ability to differentiate a skilled/knowledgeable player).
So, with that said, as you say, game design (resource management in my opinion) still will account for most the strategy. Could you ideally accomplish most the same level of strategy with the UAS as the LAS? Yes, as long as the resource management is punishing enough to penalize you for using the wrong ability at the wrong time.
However, I do think that the LAS could add an additional layer of depth to combat past that. The way I look at it is its similar to a game like Chess versus a real-time strategy game. The LAS does add another layer of depth to "think about" prior to combat. And, yes, you may choose the wrong load out, but ideally, that is when you would need to think on your feet with your group and adapt to the situation versus being able to have all abilities at your fingertips.
I would rather have times that I have the wrong skills loaded, or spells loaded - I always preferred the less than ideal groups, or make-ups and figuring it out - to me this would force that style of gameplay.
And, I'll echo Joppa's ending statement - your introduction post is still one of if not my favorite post on this forum - I'd say give a chance to test before completely dismissing any counter - if it's terrible during testing and they refuse to change, then, have at it and I'm sure I'll be right there with you.
Joppa said:There absolutely needs to be 1 to 1 solutions. My statements have always been that that LAS introduces the possibiliy of not having the solution you need available to you in every case. In those cases you will need to rely on other members of your group to compensate, or improvise by leaning more heavily into a different approach, utilizing the abilities you have available and your overall knowledge of the game (the example I gave in the interview: I just realize this NPC enrages and I don't have Tranq shot loaded... but I do have Snare. I know after Enrage wears off it will be in an Exhausted state, so we can burn it down quickly. I will try to keep it Snared while we keep our distance and stay away from adds. After this fight, our Rogue needs to load their Sedating Toxin in case we get another one of these).
When you have an abundance of 1 to 1 solutions readily available to an individual player through UAS, how do you ramp challenge? I know how I've seen it ramped in past games, but I would be very curious to hear your answer to that question.
I know you asked for his answer but I would like to take a crack at this. If we were going UAS you can control how this flows and the challenge in a number of ways:
1.) The solutions that each individual member might have for any particular situation can be made to only be a piece of the solution, such that group play is still required to overcome whatever problem arises. So to go with the enraged creature example - instead of someone possibly having a tranq shot you need multiple members coordinating/timing using class resources/cooldowns to shave seconds off how long the creature is enraged until it is either soothed or they run out of group members/classes that even have a direct solution at all (at which point maybe they would try the snare or whatnot).
2.) Another way could be that many utility spells have much longer cooldowns than other MMOs. If the average target fight length in Pantheon is 45-60 seconds per mob, then the tranq shot might have a 2-3 or maybe even up to 5 minute cooldown. Mend in EQ had a 6 minute cooldown and cooldowns as a resource should matter which most UAS systems ignore save for the often less than balanced "oh sh*t" buttons. This means it cannot be relied upon every fight or necessarily every other fight when needed. A poor read of a situation or otherwise a wasted cooldown is very meaningful in this way, your button presses matter more and teamwork/coordination becomes paramount as two members both using their stuns (or tranq) at the same time holds weight. In this way encounters would be stripping players of their options as they attempt to chain mobs, and the disposition system (which is key to all of this) would stand to really be able to push players both individually and their groups to their limits.
With the second (or perhaps either of these) option, disposition/manifestation usage could really be taken to great heights when tuning how challenging the game or specific areas/encounters are is supposed to be. You could even account for having some dispositions that might be able to stack upon others (I know that was ruled out recently, at least for the time being). The skill ceiling would be respectably high on the individual level and especially at the group level where the required coordination and teamwork can take the spotlight as difficulty increases.
Joppa said:To reiterate, what I said is that typically the end result within UAS is a rotation. And to emphasize my point - for all of the concern about not having all of my abilities available to me at all times, the reality is that in the end, you are typically using a rotation of a small subset of abilities.
This is why I referenced PvP in relation to this, because PvP is the main place you see players deviating from a set rotation in combat. Instead, they utilize their abilities in a smaller-form focus, to affect a specific target(s) in a specific way(s) to achieve specific goals, with a variety of shorter or longer term pre-planning depending on a host of different criteria.
The side effect of the above would be that all classes would get to live their full class fantasy more often and use the breadth of their abilities with greater consistency as the kitchen sink is thrown at them. The real stand out for Pantheon would be, again, dispositions/manifestations. You can really ramp up the opportunities given to players to use all their abilities by ramping up the frequency and severity of this system, especially when some of those might require entirely different approaches ability-wise to overcome. Much like your PvP example running into dispositions can shatter any notion of set rotations as fight to fight can require dramatically different approachs.
Finally had a chance to listen to this interview. Was a great interview and I'm happy Baz and Joppa took the time to have a conversation about LAS.
My takeaways are that LAS in some form or another is still the right move for Pantheon. If there were ever to be a change to LAS, I would much rather they just allow you to swap out abilities (if you can avoid being hit by mobs) rather than have more toolbars.
Regarding buffs, I agree that buff scaling needs to happen or at least make it so that say you can’t cast a buff on a character that is 20 or more levels lower than the buff, or some other arbitrary level range. High level, full potency buffs are always too powerful and make power leveling too easy.
Regarding buffs not wearing off if they are on the utility bar, was that only for group buffs and not single buffs? I think about items like clickies. I imagine you would allow players to click a buff on themselves without having to keep the item equipped, so it would seem odd that a player would also have to keep the spell up. If they remove it from the utility slot will the buff timer just take over? If you have a clicky that you equip and keep equipped will that buff always stay on as well?
Finally, I really like that VR is not going to make major game changes just because the vocal minority are screaming about changes in the forums. I think changes due to listening to the few people making the most noise is partially to blame for ruining EQ. Stick to your vision.
I am going to reply in parts to make sure the quotes don't get all messed up.
Joppa said:Welcome to the conversation Keno.
Keno Monster said:We still don't have any actual reasons why LAS is good for *this game*. So far the reasons are:
1. UAS is easier(absurd logical fallacy)
- Joppa continually repeats that they don't want a "one to one" key/lock solution in combat. Well, what about a 5 to 1? Do I root? Do I snare? Does the enchanter mez, or stun, or charm? Etc, etc. If the game is designed properly, more options available can INCREASE difficulty and make decision making more meaningful. You can be punished by making the wrong decision with your life on the line. Again, people can agree to disagree, but there's no way in the world to me that knowing what to do before you engage in combat and setting your loadout accordingly is more fun than having to react on the fly.
There absolutely needs to be 1 to 1 solutions. My statements have always been that that LAS introduces the possibiliy of not having the solution you need available to you in every case. In those cases you will need to rely on other members of your group to compensate, or improvise by leaning more heavily into a different approach, utilizing the abilities you have available and your overall knowledge of the game (the example I gave in the interview: I just realize this NPC enrages and I don't have Tranq shot loaded... but I do have Snare. I know after Enrage wears off it will be in an Exhausted state, so we can burn it down quickly. I will try to keep it Snared while we keep our distance and stay away from adds. After this fight, our Rogue needs to load their Sedating Toxin in case we get another one of these).
When you have an abundance of 1 to 1 solutions readily available to an individual player through UAS, how do you ramp challenge? I know how I've seen it ramped in past games, but I would be very curious to hear your answer to that question.
I have been a part of this exact conversation for months.
I appreciate the response, but I honestly don't believe you care what we have to say, or you'd have more than 222 posts here.
It's a logical fallacy to suggest that a UAS means having the solution available in every case. You keep stating this and it's simply untrue. You seem to be acting like every encounter will be faced by a perfectly balanced full group when in reality a huge portion of gameplay will be done solo, or in duos or other small groups, and/or with less than ideal group compositions. Those are not to be dismissed as edge cases.
You're the designer, you choose what classes get what, how much overlap there is, what kinds of dispositions and other basic gameplay mechanics will be in place. You're in control of whether or not the action set, limited or otherwise, is hard/fun/simple/tedious/etc.
LAS seems like an artificial way of increasing difficulty by making players weaker, instead of giving us all of our powers and scaling the difficulty and sophistication of the content. In a fighting game you might have 25 moves available at all times, but making the right decision at the right time is often the difference between winning and losing. Having more options means more opportunity to fail, and it also means more opportunity to design sophisticated enounters. Again, choosing a loadout over and over before combat is pretty cheesey to me. It promotes a "don't engage unless you already know the outcome of the fight" mentality. It is my opinion that swapping in and out of loadouts is tedious and not at all fun. I don't want to play my loadout hot keys, I want to play the game. It is dissatisfying for a player to put points into a mastery, for example, and then not have it available to them. You have gained something, but not really, you are always less than. I want to know how it will be fun in Pantheon, what is being done differently?
Additionally, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you described the unlimited buff durations, we're going to see loadouts with 90%(or whatever) of the same abilities so that people don't drop their sustained buffs. That means for certain classes there will be a huge number of the exact same spells and abilities in every single loadout, how is that creative?
You said "when you have every ability available on your bar there's really no creativity on how you approach the situation", and I think that's absurd.
Joppa said:
What I said in the interview (52:48):"In games like WoW, is it not the case that when you reach max level and go look at a character/class guide, are you not looking up 'what's my rotation'? What buttons do I hit every time, in the same order, to maximize my output? And I think sometimes pushback on something like LAS tends to try and hold up the superiority of having all my abilities available to me. And in reality, not saying there aren't exceptions to this, but for the most part what you grow into, the skill-ceiling you grow into - unless we're talking about PvP which is a little bit of a different story, and ends up being closer to LAS even within a UAS - the end result is rotation, and that is not super compelling to me. And I don't think it does a lot for the argument of the skill-ceiling or the superiority of the skill involved in an unlimited action set."
I believe this is what you are referring to here. Admittedly, listening back to it I could have been clearer in the point I was trying to make. However, at no point did I say UAS = Rotation. To reiterate, what I said is that typically the end result within UAS is a rotation. And to emphasize my point - for all of the concern about not having all of my abilities available to me at all times, the reality is that in the end, you are typically using a rotation of a small subset of abilities.
This is why I referenced PvP in relation to this, because PvP is the main place you see players deviating from a set rotation in combat. Instead, they utilize their abilities in a smaller-form focus, to affect a specific target(s) in a specific way(s) to achieve specific goals, with a variety of shorter or longer term pre-planning depending on a host of different criteria.
And how does the LAS not devolve into a rotation? The point is that games do(or do not) regardless of the action set. The gameplay dictates what players do, and how often they deviate. Creating opportunities for deviation from a rotation while limiting the players loadout doesn't seem like a logical pairing. The more options, the more deviations can be taken advantage of. Just because WOW sucked at providing opportunities for deviation with their action set doesn't mean the action set is the reason for the lack of deviation. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that UAS promotes a rotation while LAS does not, when in reality it's 100% in your control as a designer regardless of the system in place. You're the one who controls how many keys we have and how how many locks they fit into.
The narrative that UAS = rotation is not one coming just from you, but is repeated ad nauseum on these boards and other places.
Joppa said:Keno Monster said:4. Why not?
I don't recall my answer to anything related to this being, "Hey, why not?"
This was in response to someone in this thread who said just that.
Joppa said:
Keno Monster said:5. UAS = unlimited resources(absurd logical fallacy)
I don't recall saying this either, nor do I understand its premise.
This is a common sentiment, people conflate UAS with the ability to be able to do whatever you want whenever you want without limitation. This "UAS is bad" reason has been bandied about many times, ignoring that cooldowns and resources have nothing to do with the action set.
Joppa said:
In the end Keno, you are free to disagree. But when you present your personal disagreements as wholesale condemnation, it can alienate would-be participants, which is disappointing because of how much I believe you have to offer this community.
My point is that there needs to be something concrete to actually disagree with, not a philosophy about what you want to have happen, but how you are actually doing it. 6 years in the why you're doing something should become how you're doing it. You made a statement at one point about "permutations of dispositions" and then didn't follow up on that at all. That's a "how". You said you recognized the need to "avoid the inevitablity of learning a combat scenario and then just going through the motions" and that was it, you didn't say how that would be accomplished.
I'm sure we can count on you to call out everyone who dismisses what people like me have to say without any rational rebuttal(see post immediately below this one).
Keno Monster said:...when in reality a huge portion of gameplay will be done solo, or in duos or other small groups, and/or with less than ideal group compositions
I stopped reading here. You're basing an argument on something that can not be true so no point reading further. The game is designed for full group content so how can a huge portion of gamplay be done solo, or in duos, or in small groups? You can't bundle all those together in one statement with "or" because they are totally different things. If you edit your statement to only include "full groups that are less than ideal group compositions" then I'll continue reading the argument.
Ok, I actually did read it all. I don't take back what I said above, the game is certainly being designed with full group content in mind. I'll just add that I'm not sure what's wrong with the "don't engage until you're prepared" mentality. Isn't that the point of any battle? Know what you can about your opponent and then prepare for the fight? I'm just not following the argument. I'm assuming you'd rather be able to go into any fight without knowing anything about the enemy and just adapt as needed during the fight...which is fine and maybe even equally as fun in a game. But really, preparing for the fight is part of the game so...I guess it's just a difference in philosophy?
Keno Monster said:
Again, choosing a loadout over and over before combat is pretty cheesey to me. It promotes a "don't engage unless you already know the outcome of the fight" mentality. It is my opinion that swapping in and out of loadouts is tedious and not at all fun. I don't want to play my loadout hot keys, I want to play the game. It is dissatisfying for a player to put points into a mastery, for example, and then not have it available to them. You have gained something, but not really, you are always less than.
Nail on head.