Ranarius said:Another side note that has probably been pointed out several times, but I'll point it out again...LAS exists in one of the most popular longest lasting games out there. Dungeons and Dragons.
vjek said:disposalist said:The primary design goal of a London Bus and a Jumbo Jet is transporting people. Yeah, those are essentially the same.I was expecting this as a response, so here's the follow-up.
The reason such a design goal is bad, that is, the reason using the UI to enforce a subset of total abilities available, is, it leads to this from customers:
" I wanted to press the button, but the UI wouldn't let me "
" My character knows that ability, but I can't use it, because the UI won't let me "
" Yep, we lost because the UI prevented me from pressing the button for the ability or spell that I know "
" I spent all this time to know that ability, and now it's unavailable when I need it most "
Vjek it might help to think of LAS more as which spells/abilities you are choosing to equip at any given time. Your character may have the potential to do many different actions but if you have not dedicated adequate resources to them then they are not active. Utilizing your memorization/focus resources is just as important as which gear you have on, which consumables you use and how effectively you use your mana/energy/stamina.
I could even see an interesting argument for preparing multiple copies of the same ability so that you can use it twice per cool down period rather than once per cool down at the loss of access to other abilities.
Character potential vs Character available is a completely different mindset and does add a layer of complexity on top of UAS. Whether that level of added increase in complexity is a positive thing or a negative thing will be up to implementation and personal preference. I see the increased reliance on others LAS drives as being a good thing and I see the group role flexibility without creating overpowered characters is also a good thing. Not everyone does and not everyone believes LAS will drive those results. I suspect that real player streams of PA5 will alleviate a lot of concern or highlight major needed changes.
People keep using phrases like "fighting the UI" or "arbitrary UI restrictions" and that just isn't clicking with me. There is nothing arbitrary about it. The UI didn't just happen on it's own, it was designed that way. It has nothing to do with the UI, it has to do with the game design and philosphy. I agree with your statement that they do need to design encounters with the thought of only having 8 active threat-generating abilities per class though. That just seems like a given to me, of course they are doing that. Because there is nothing arbitrary about it. If it was arbitrary then I too would be worried.
Edit: You could argue that having an UAS with cooldowns is also arbitrary. Why should I have to wait 45 seconds to use that ability again, etc. But, it also wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be designed that way with a purpose in mind.
2nd Edit: I would enjoy either system for the record. I see good in both, as long as they are intentionally designed.
I like how long term buff placed in the non-aggro bar, will just be perma buffs for your team. I kinda hope that's how Bard will be handled, as I am getting too old to weave 5 songs at once anymore lol. Seems well thought out. Also love how that would make for instance 2 Shamans in a team viable, as they could both put different load out of buffs, or 2 Bards, so on and so on =-)
vjek said:disposalist said:The primary design goal of a London Bus and a Jumbo Jet is transporting people. Yeah, those are essentially the same.I was expecting this as a response, so here's the follow-up.
The reason such a design goal is bad, that is, the reason using the UI to enforce a subset of total abilities available, is, it leads to this from customers:
" I wanted to press the button, but the UI wouldn't let me "
" My character knows that ability, but I can't use it, because the UI won't let me "
" Yep, we lost because the UI prevented me from pressing the button for the ability or spell that I know "
" I spent all this time to know that ability, and now it's unavailable when I need it most "This is not a positive interaction with the game. It's entirely punitive and entirely negative. These systems as described and designed by both Chris Spears and Chris Perkins, regardless of how they're implemented, create yet another artificial barrier between the customer and the character. If you have too many of these artificial barriers in your UI, customers don't feel immersed in the world. Why?
Because the game is preventing them from doing what they have spent dozens or hundreds of hours doing, that is, increasing their own personal power, through progress.
They've progressed through the game world and are doing their best to perform their role, yet, the UI of the game is preventing them from doing that. It's like watching a movie through waxed paper.
They have the ability, but, through artificial barriers, they can't use that ability, at the exact moment it matters the most.
And to be clear? This is not an issue of recast timers, or positioning, or rotation timing, or global cooldowns. All of those things are within the realm of control of the customer playing the character.
An artificial barrier in the UI specifically prohibiting temporally appropriate ability use at all, is not within the relam of control of the player.
Those four pseudo quotes above? That's are the sentiments of the customers of Chris Spears felt about the system AFTER they tested it.
Or to put it in terms you prefer, disposalist, nobody enjoys traveling by bus or plane. They both suck, for equally good reasons, because the negative customer experience is the same. :)
I do get you and I don't entirely disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't really saying Shroud and Pantheon LAS is "the same", you are saying the thing you dislike about LAS is the same in both Shroud and Pantheon (and any game using LAS)?
You are picking out one aspect and saying "this is negative". Well, yes, but isn't that like saying the XP loss of the death penalty is 'negative'?
The point Joppa made (and I have made) is that the specific detail of limiting your set of actions can't be assessed in isolation from all the other surrounding systems and sub-systems and the effects it and they have. It's not that simple. You won't come up with a fair assessment or a reasonable answer and to suggest because it didn't work in Shroud, so it won't in Pantheon is a wild leap.
As for your other points, I believe I've addressed them before in this thread and I won't say your opinions are 'wrong', because subjective opinions can't really *be* wrong, but I have, I believe, come up with reasonable counter-opinions, so I hope you will at least accept that others aren't 'wrong' just because they don't agree?
The UI isn't stopping players using skills any more than it is stopping them flying about when they want. It's a limitation of the game that you cannot do anything you want at any time you want. It's there for valid reasons.
Players are still progressing and becoming powerful, they just must think and plan which of those powerful skills are available in any particular combat.
You don't like that idea. Fine. I understand why. I even agree with some. But you appear to suggest it is simply 'wrong', which is a big step further than disagreeing or not liking it.
Ranarius said:People keep using phrases like "fighting the UI" or "arbitrary UI restrictions" and that just isn't clicking with me. There is nothing arbitrary about it. The UI didn't just happen on it's own, it was designed that way. It has nothing to do with the UI, it has to do with the game design and philosphy. I agree with your statement that they do need to design encounters with the thought of only having 8 active threat-generating abilities per class though. That just seems like a given to me, of course they are doing that. Because there is nothing arbitrary about it. If it was arbitrary then I too would be worried.
Edit: You could argue that having an UAS with cooldowns is also arbitrary. Why should I have to wait 45 seconds to use that ability again, etc. But, it also wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be designed that way with a purpose in mind.
2nd Edit: I would enjoy either system for the record. I see good in both, as long as they are intentionally designed.
Exactly. I believe I can see the pros and cons in both. Joppa says his implementation of LAS will accentuate the tactical planning, the improvisation challenge and the group dynamic. That sounds good and I believe I understand how it would do that. Let's try it.
I dont get, getting our noses out of joint. I would not be playing this game if it was EQ1 with a new skin and different world to explore. VR needs to build on top of what made EQ1 great and modernize it. How long would we all get board if they didnt? Why not just go back to EQ1 if they did? We have to trust their vision of Pantheon.
Nanfoodle said:I dont get, getting our noses out of joint. I would not be playing this game if it was EQ1 with a new skin and different world to explore. VR needs to build on top of what made EQ1 great and modernize it. How long would we all get board if they didnt? Why not just go back to EQ1 if they did? We have to trust their vision of Pantheon.
Roll on PA5. It will stop a lot of this theory-crafting fueled fear and we'll be too busy enjoying the game together to be bickering with each other ;^)
*HUGS EVERYONE* (especially Vandraad. He needs them. EVERYONE HUG VANDRAAD!)
disposalist said:Roll on PA5. It will stop a lot of this theory-crafting fueled fear and we'll be too busy enjoying the game together to be bickering with each other ;^)
I really hope you're right, but if past alpha/beta experiences are any indication, that more than likely won't be the case. The ones that can't grow passed their petty indignation will just find something else to ***** about, as they put 2,000+ hours into the retail game.
disposalist said:Nanfoodle said:I dont get, getting our noses out of joint. I would not be playing this game if it was EQ1 with a new skin and different world to explore. VR needs to build on top of what made EQ1 great and modernize it. How long would we all get board if they didnt? Why not just go back to EQ1 if they did? We have to trust their vision of Pantheon.
Roll on PA5. It will stop a lot of this theory-crafting fueled fear and we'll be too busy enjoying the game together to be bickering with each other ;^)
*HUGS EVERYONE* (especially Vandraad. He needs them. EVERYONE HUG VANDRAAD!)
Ya it much easier to understand a product when you can experince it as a whole package. As Joppa said in the video, they are more open to feed back when you can express what game mechanics are negitivly impacting game play. Thats the real feedback they are looking for. Right now its judging a cook for putting a spice in a dish that you have not tried that way and getting upset before you experince it.
Planning isn't as fun as doing and having fewer things to do isn't as fun as having more options, to me. Take a tank or healer with this LAS, their action bars will likely be mostly static with maybe 2-3 abilities that are open to small (and predictable) changes here and there. Making different loadouts for different areas or mob to mob for different dispositions does not sound fun to me, and if dispositions are unthreatening enough that groups can often skirt them without having much if any direct response to them then I would say they are likely wasted potential.
The idea that somehow this will all make grouping more fun or combat more tense just doesn't land for me, not that I am not willing to see how it pans out. Lowering the individual input into a group does not make it more fun for the individual/me, when my answer to situations that come up is the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" it does not instill a sense of tension or thrill. In the example of a group having a rogue who tranq shots the enrage off a mob, that is a big yawn to me on its own and doesn't speak to me of any increased group coordination or teamwork or even communication beyond assigning group members disposition counter roles.
To those of you actively against Pantheon's LAS, please read the statement below and answer the following question as succinctly as you can. The responses will be insightful to better understand the underlying perspectives at play here.
The most successful commercial MMORPG of all time (WoW) was designed with LAS in the form of talent-based specializations. As a Mage, I can be a Fire Mage, a Frost Mage or an Arcane Mage. Based on that decision I will have a subset of abilities and gameplay-defining ability effects available to me. Again, the subset is defined not only by discrete abilities unique to that spec (Arcane = Arcane Power, Presence of Mind, etc. while Frost = Cold Snap, Ice Block, etc.), but also specialization-specific modifications and secondary effects added to a host of abilities based on spec (Fire = Master of Elements, Critical Mass, etc. while Frost = Improved Blizzard, Shatter, etc.).
If I am a Fire Mage and I go up against an Elite, Fire Immune target, I cannot alter my spec in combat to deal with that situation. I am forced to revert to sub-optimal abilities that my specialization choice does not support, which in a solo situation will rarely do more than allow me to run away (which according to the current logic, this would be defined as fighting with the UI - because the ability to deal with this Fire Immune target is just a few clicks and a respec away, but I am arbitrarily and artificially denied the ability to do that). It's interesting because you don't hear a lot of people complaining in WoW that you can't have everything that each spec offers available to you at all times. No one complains because that's simply the way the game is designed.
With Pantheon, yes you have fewer abilities overall and fewer slots available to you. This is the tradeoff for having full freedom to alter your loadouts with access to all of your abilities (not spec-defined ones) instead of being limited to the offerings of the pre-determined 3.
Because of WoW's LAS, there is a meaningful difference between a Restoration Shaman and an Enhancement Shaman. But two Restoration Shaman will be essentially identical. In Pantheon, two Shaman in a group do not have to be identical, even if they are both focused on healing. This is a massive win for addressing the longstanding issue of class redundancy in these games.
In light of this simple explanation, drawing very clear lines of continuity between the form of LAS in the most successful MMORPG to date and Pantheon's, you could visit this thread and gather from some posts here that our combat system will ensure Pantheon is the biggest MMO shipwreck the world has ever seen.
So here's the question: please explain, using the information I've provided in the statement above, why you think WoW's LAS works and has led the game to become the gold standard of MMORPG success, but Pantheon's LAS is an inevitable and absurd failure.
vjek said:It also allows designers vastly more freedom in encounter design, versus "remember, they only have 8 active threat-generating abilities, per class"
Could you also explain to me why the 8 active, threat-generating abilities are the only ones worth considering in this discussion?
Long duration buffs are also active in Pantheon. Do you want a Strength & Stamina buff? Well, a Shaman needs to make a decision to actively use and maintain that ability.
Does a Shaman want to use one of their most important abilities in their Healing arsenal - Gate of Forgotten Eras? That's a Utility ability the Shaman must actively use.
Does a Shaman want to set up a short-range evac location using Walk the Ages? That's a Utility ability the Shaman must actively use.
Before we go further, please explain why some insist on speaking of Pantheon's LAS as if there were only 8 abilities that mattered to the discussion.
I realize I may be looking for beans where are not any, which then lead me into speculation only,
However, In reading some of the now refined arguments over LAS/UAS and the given scenarios, plus the adage that the intent is to be "group" focused, I got hung up on one thing from the interview- specifically about the rogue ability where they can poof-of-smoke out of combat for a bit to switch abilities.
It got me thinking.
If everyone is prepared for fire and the encounter ends up being cold- and everyone has a LAS... some will throw their hands up in the air and complain needing a UAS.
However I think I see the beans in that the rogue can step out of combat and- being group oriented- change his tactics mabe applying a fire resist poison to his daggers to allow the group to use their fire to beat the cold and win- and everyone keeps the LAS. Likewise other members may have similar tricks and small abilities like that to use on the fly; the warrior has those shields in his heads-up display that build up over time in battle , that he can use for a melee ability. Then once suprised, and the group improvises and overcomes, and they have a jittery adrenaline moment after battle to do some "wtf was that" discussions and adjust until the next, where you may get that nice necro fear/druid snare because no one has root example that sopmene posted earlier with the monster slowly running away while the group again changes tactics, hurries to kill the one monster to get that slowly running away alarmist.
In those scenarios it does not count on the players having all their abilities available to them but rather on the ability of the player playing their class to improvise with what they have in the given situation. Based on the limited or current knowledge they have of the "disposition" of the monster which, if I am not mistaken, can change. You could not look up online and see that Fion has a disposition to cast fire and sapwns in the kitchen, as she may have once, but everyone reports back that she uses lightning and spawns in the yard. Along with their spawn points and loot tables and disposition changing makeing the adventure and the people the thing and not the task. The task/game being a framework to experience the adventure/people.
Thats why imagine there are beans there, id the rogue has that ability, and the warrior has that shield ability, what other abilities do othr classes have that can be used in clutch situations? if there are 6? I would think that is more than enough .
Ranarius said:Another side note that has probably been pointed out several times, but I'll point it out again...LAS exists in one of the most popular longest lasting games out there. Dungeons and Dragons. You ever had to choose which spells to memorize in that game? That's an example of LAS. If LAS was inherintly WRONG then it would have been changed in DnD years ago as well. But it works because the game is designed with that philosophy in mind. That's why I just roll my eyes when people make arguments that it is RIGHT or WRONG as a blanket statement. It's obviously an opinion and not a fact.
This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed, especially in the development of a new game. But it is certainly difficult to discuss when people state opinions as facts.
Thought bottle was their answer to the constraints of the LAS in D&D.
Thought Bottle: A flask of thick green glass, a thought bottle can be used to store thoughts, memories, experience, or spells. A single bottle can hold five thoughts or memories at a time, or a single creature’s current experience, or a single spellcaster’s collection of prepared spells. Any individual that touches the bottle and speaks the command word instantly gains a general knowledge of the bottle’s contents, but doesn’t actually access the thoughts, memories, or spells within until she consciously decides to do so.
Spells: An owner who prepares spells can store some or all of her memorized spells in a thought bottle. Any spell she puts into the thought bottle is expended as if she had cast it, but the spells in the bottle can then be retrieved at any later date to be prepared as normal.
vjek said:Yep, and if they were going with temporal limits per day, or per hour, or per encounter, or per character use? I wouldn't be worried in the slightest, because those aren't UI restrictions.
That may be unclear, so I'll be specific:
If their approach to LAS was the DnD approach, that is, you can use a certain number of spells/abilities per day, per fight, or something else like per target per fight, or overall, the duty cycle of offensive or defensive abilities was temporally or in some other way throttled, I would be completely fine with that approach.
It's difficult to tune, but it could be done. Yet, it doesn't limit artificially limit all classes to 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions.
There's a surgical elegance to action throttling, or actions per minute, or actions per unit time, or even effect limits on targets.
It also allows designers vastly more freedom in encounter design, versus "remember, they only have 8 active threat-generating abilities, per class"
Two more questions for you vjek:
1. Give me an example of an MMO with no UI restrictions.
2. Related to the first, I'm having a difficult time marking your definition of "abritrary UI restrictions". From this post I gather that, if you are unable to have an ability on your bar, that's an "arbitrary UI restriction". However, if it's on your bar but you can't click it b/c you can only use it once a day, that is not an "arbitrary UI restriction" (ala WoW talent system) but rather an "arbitrary design restriction" (ala DDO ability use-criteria), and you are only comfortable with the latter. Is that a correct understanding?
Joppa said:To those of you actively against Pantheon's LAS, please read the statement below and answer the following question as succinctly as you can. The responses will be insightful to better understand the underlying perspectives at play here.
The most successful commercial MMORPG of all time (WoW) was designed with LAS in the form of talent-based specializations. As a Mage, I can be a Fire Mage, a Frost Mage or an Arcane Mage. Based on that decision I will have a subset of abilities and gameplay-defining ability effects available to me. Again, the subset is defined not only by discrete abilities unique to that spec (Arcane = Arcane Power, Presence of Mind, etc. while Frost = Cold Snap, Ice Block, etc.), but also specialization-specific modifications and secondary effects added to a host of abilities based on spec (Fire = Master of Elements, Critical Mass, etc. while Frost = Improved Blizzard, Shatter, etc.).
If I am a Fire Mage and I go up against an Elite, Fire Immune target, I cannot alter my spec in combat to deal with that situation. I am forced to revert to sub-optimal abilities that my specialization choice does not support, which in a solo situation will rarely do more than allow me to run away (which according to the current logic, this would be defined as fighting with the UI - because the ability to deal with this Fire Immune target is just a few clicks and a respec away, but I am arbitrarily and artificially denied the ability to do that). It's interesting because you don't hear a lot of people complaining in WoW that you can't have everything that each spec offers available to you at all times. No one complains because that's simply the way the game is designed.
With Pantheon, yes you have fewer abilities overall and fewer slots available to you. This is the tradeoff for having full freedom to alter your loadouts with access to all of your abilities (not spec-defined ones) instead of being limited to the offerings of the pre-determined 3.
Because of WoW's LAS, there is a meaningful difference between a Restoration Shaman and an Enhancement Shaman. But two Restoration Shaman will be essentially identical. In Pantheon, two Shaman in a group do not have to be identical, even if they are both focused on healing. This is a massive win for addressing the longstanding issue of class redundancy in these games.
In light of this simple explanation, drawing very clear lines of continuity between the form of LAS in the most successful MMORPG to date and Pantheon's, you could visit this thread and gather from some posts here that our combat system will ensure Pantheon is the biggest MMO shipwreck the world has ever seen.
So here's the question: please explain, using the information I've provided in the statement above, why you think WoW's LAS works and has led the game to become the gold standard of MMORPG success, but Pantheon's LAS is an inevitable and absurd failure.
1. I always felt that the LAS argument ONLY implied to having a limited number of hotbar slots that I could use at once without having to swap them out when battle ended. I'm ok with this concept, but having 6 or 8 abilities are too few. My discrepancy is based more about UI and convenience. I don't want to constantly swap out buffs every few battles to make sure everyone is fresh. That's a pain in the rear, and honestly 6-8 combat abilities seems too slow for me. I very much prefer old-school EQ combat pacing with a few hotbars of abilities rather than the nonsense EQ or WoW have today with 10+ hotbars of items, but 6-8 abilities seems too few.
My solution: 2 full hot bars (24 slots) for combat. These cannot be swapped, added, removed, etc. during battle. Outside of battle, you then have another 2 hotbars for non-combat effects like long term buffs, mounts, clickies, illusions, etc. If it's something that can be allowed to be cast in battle, it needs to be dragged to the "combat" hotbars in advance. Otherwise, those abilities can only be used outside of combat. The additional bars give you the convenience of not having to constantly drag abilities from your book and over to your active hotbar, which is just a time sink and inconvenience.
Personally, I'm picking 2 combat hotbars because that has felt "right" to me across all of the games I've played. I've played games that had a single hotbar, sometimes even just 6 or 8 abilities, and everything either felt very spammy or boring. Games like modern day EQ with excessive macros, clickies, spells, combat disciplines, and AAs take up waaaaay too many slots, and it just becomes overwhelming (Same with modern day WoW). Even my disciple in Vanguard had 4 hotbars of abilities just for combat with all of those counter-attacks, and I felt it was too "busy." I personally want to play a game and enjoy it without having to "work" the entire time, but having 6-10 abilities seems far too simplistic and spammy to me.
2. After reading Joppa's post, I realize there's actually a 2nd issue going on here: specs per character. In the example Joppa gives, a fire mage is limited in the Talent Tree by what abilities he can use. I am 100% in agreement with this, and I actually love the mastery system for customization as Joppa indicates 2 different healing shamans could be healing you in totally different ways. Maybe one has stronger HoTs, or an added effect to the Hot. Maybe one has better cannibilization which is greater for mana management during long fights. Maybe one still has basic HoTs but also buffed up direct heals for the "oh crap moments" to keep him closer to a cleric. I absolutely love the idea of having to pick and cannot maximize or utilize everything. You get to direct the style and flow of your character.
That being said, my gripe was always about HOW limited the action bars were (at least 1 full 12 slot for combat, but there would be 2 combat hotbars of 12 each in my world), and the need for having non-combat action bars for mounts, long duration buffs, out of combat rezzes, clickies, etc.
X
Thanks for the enlightment Joppa, Wow is often referred, even as myself, as a UAS while specialization is completely forgotten.
I'm however not a big fan of rogue trick&change abilities mid fight, the same I would not be fan of it for a monk as I fear it breaks the idea of LAS and also might be considered mandatory over time by players to "fully exploit the class potential".
/Agree with dev team
LAS rewards planning and improvisation, UAS rewards UI organisation, good eyesight and manual dexterity.
For us mere mortals (perhaps with aging hands and eyes) cluttering the screen with UI and weaving a constantly changing sequence of 40 abilities is beyond us. If I need to do this to play at a reasonably effective level, I wont play.
I want a game focused on planning, timing and positioning where meaningful actions win.
This isnt to say I want the game to be slow, I fully expect when there is a Panic I have to react fast - I would just rather that reaction was:
I'm glad to see Joppa make this argument. Limiting your options is not bad game design, it's just game design. If you can't make a game fun with 14 abilities, then you aren't designing those abilities right. As Joppa said in the interview, LAS allows you to take the gloves off and design abilities that are more powerful as a result.
In most MMO's I've played there are a small subset of abilities that require good timing, attention, and patience, while the majority are just fluff fillers. Please, take away the fluff and focus on the interactive, compelling, and well-balanced abilities. I have never played through a single MMO fight where the abilities I used couldn't be condensed to 14 buttons by just cutting the fluff.
That said, I have always disagreed with out-of-combat versus in-combat as a mechanic for determining... basically anything. It is just so blatantly artificial. The example Joppa used of a rogue using smoke bomb to LAS swap to excellent effect just makes me think that it's a player wrestling with artificial game mechanics. I don't think that is an immediately disqualifying statement, but why use an artificial mechanic when you don't have to?
Example for Rogue: You can only swap LAS at full stamina. Swapping drains all stamina and prevents stamina recovery for 20s.
Example for Wizard: LAS swap drains all your remaining mana, but you get a buff to recover that mana over 30s. Standing or taking damage reduces the mana recovered.
Wouldn't such an approach still encourage people to try and solve problems with the ability set the have up, allow a pressure relief valve for getting truly stuck in the wrong setup, and cause no hinderance to players looking to LAS swap in their between-fight downtime?
@Joppa
WoW's talent trees (especially highlighted in later expansions) always made it feel as though the talent spec wasn't just an LAS sub-spec, but it was basically it's own (full) class. ie: Resto shaman was it's own entire thing because it was completely different than an Enhancement Shaman, yes you have some spell overlap but the playstyle is completely different (and gear progression). Also, when you have picked your talent set - you have access to ALL of that class/specs spells and abilities. With a real LAS in WoW, it would be like a enhancement shaman or ret paladin never being able to put any heals on their bar because they need to use those slots for dps.
I'd like to know what is wrong with the way EQ did it as opposed to this "locking" non-sense, if you are dead set on wanting to go a route with limiting the number of spells active at one time. I still fail to see the issue with swapping in combat. One, there’s no guarantee you’ll even be able to switch based on aggro (party members already dead, etc). Two, even successfully switching does not assure success. Three, there was spell memorization time to consider and gem refresh. For those 3 reasons alone, it was much more risky and strategic to sit and swap spells mid-combat than swapping spells out of combat ahead of time as preperation.
As Vandraad said previously, I want to play the game not my loadouts.
Joppa said:To those of you actively against Pantheon's LAS, please read the statement below and answer the following question as succinctly as you can. The responses will be insightful to better understand the underlying perspectives at play here.
The most successful commercial MMORPG of all time (WoW) was designed with LAS in the form of talent-based specializations. As a Mage, I can be a Fire Mage, a Frost Mage or an Arcane Mage. Based on that decision I will have a subset of abilities and gameplay-defining ability effects available to me. Again, the subset is defined not only by discrete abilities unique to that spec (Arcane = Arcane Power, Presence of Mind, etc. while Frost = Cold Snap, Ice Block, etc.), but also specialization-specific modifications and secondary effects added to a host of abilities based on spec (Fire = Master of Elements, Critical Mass, etc. while Frost = Improved Blizzard, Shatter, etc.).
If I am a Fire Mage and I go up against an Elite, Fire Immune target, I cannot alter my spec in combat to deal with that situation. I am forced to revert to sub-optimal abilities that my specialization choice does not support, which in a solo situation will rarely do more than allow me to run away (which according to the current logic, this would be defined as fighting with the UI - because the ability to deal with this Fire Immune target is just a few clicks and a respec away, but I am arbitrarily and artificially denied the ability to do that). It's interesting because you don't hear a lot of people complaining in WoW that you can't have everything that each spec offers available to you at all times. No one complains because that's simply the way the game is designed.
With Pantheon, yes you have fewer abilities overall and fewer slots available to you. This is the tradeoff for having full freedom to alter your loadouts with access to all of your abilities (not spec-defined ones) instead of being limited to the offerings of the pre-determined 3.
Because of WoW's LAS, there is a meaningful difference between a Restoration Shaman and an Enhancement Shaman. But two Restoration Shaman will be essentially identical. In Pantheon, two Shaman in a group do not have to be identical, even if they are both focused on healing. This is a massive win for addressing the longstanding issue of class redundancy in these games.
In light of this simple explanation, drawing very clear lines of continuity between the form of LAS in the most successful MMORPG to date and Pantheon's, you could visit this thread and gather from some posts here that our combat system will ensure Pantheon is the biggest MMO shipwreck the world has ever seen.
So here's the question: please explain, using the information I've provided in the statement above, why you think WoW's LAS works and has led the game to become the gold standard of MMORPG success, but Pantheon's LAS is an inevitable and absurd failure.
Let me start off by saying I'm not against the LAS per se, I'm against not being able to use my skills and react accordingly during combat. If they kept the amount of bars and slots as is, but allowed spell swapping during combat ala EQ, I'd be fine. However, I am against having an LAS and then being further gimped by not being able to use spells I own just because. Since you asked, here is my counter and I hope it explains my interpretation.
In your WoW example, if you talent spec fire mage, come across a fire immune mob, yes you will do less damage. The caveat here though is that you still have access to all your spells, reduced efficiency notwithstanding and you still have access to some lower level frost spells you could change over and use. As I'm understanding Pantheon's direction, I could spec fire mage so to speak via mastery choices, come up against a fire immune mob and do less damage. The big difference is, not only am I currently not as efficient due to my quote on quote spec, I'm even further gimped because I only have 8 active threat spells. What if I had a different spell in my spellbook, that while still not the most efficient due to the mob being fire resistant, was still a better option than what I currently have memmed? I have to wait until we either 1) die and wipe to try again to swap them out or 2) wait until next time around to have that particular loudout ready. Where is the skill, innovation, improvisation of changing your strategy mid combat to try and will your group to victory? There's not, you're hoping someone else can carry you and they have the proper spells loaded. While I can acknowledge that does go into the group play aspect, I'd much prefer everyone trying to accomplish their own personal success by adapting while also furthering the success chances of the group.
In EQ, even though you could swap spells mid combat, it didn't guarantee victory. Maybe you sat to mem that root spell, but you had to wait for the spell timer to refresh as well as sit a few extra seconds to get those last ticks of mana to cast it. Those are all small, but very consequential choices being made and it's getting overlooked. If you sat to mem that spell you had increased hate. You could pull aggro and get stomped. If you're a shaman, the time you're sitting memming that root is also time not spent helping off heal. Another example is that I mained a necro. I would almost never have my heal spell up on my hotbar. It was a wasted spell slot about 95% of the time. However, if all hell broke loose and the healer died, I could attempt to sit and mem it and use it to try and help keep the tank alive. I was able to use that to prevent many wipes over the years, but there were also plenty of times where that wasn't enough either. The difference is at least I knew I tried everything at my disposal to try and help the group succeed as opposed to sitting there feeling bad knowing I might have been able to do something, but I couldn't due to restrictions. These are all very real choices having to be made in real time. Not sitting around thinking about it before or after the fact, although you can still do that as well.
Regret is just a bad feeling. While this is in the context of a video game, it will still be a feel bad moment. Instead of the rush of adrenaline and possible thrill of victory, you will have this sunk feeling waiting for the inevitable wipe because you are helpless. In Pantheon, your choice is already made and you live or die with it. That doesn't sound engaging to me. I'm still willing to give it a try whenever Alpha finally rolls around, but the way it's currently being presented just doesn't sound intriguing or fun for that matter.
Joppa said:To those of you actively against Pantheon's LAS, please read the statement below and answer the following question as succinctly as you can. The responses will be insightful to better understand the underlying perspectives at play here.
The most successful commercial MMORPG of all time (WoW) was designed with LAS in the form of talent-based specializations. As a Mage, I can be a Fire Mage, a Frost Mage or an Arcane Mage. Based on that decision I will have a subset of abilities and gameplay-defining ability effects available to me. Again, the subset is defined not only by discrete abilities unique to that spec (Arcane = Arcane Power, Presence of Mind, etc. while Frost = Cold Snap, Ice Block, etc.), but also specialization-specific modifications and secondary effects added to a host of abilities based on spec (Fire = Master of Elements, Critical Mass, etc. while Frost = Improved Blizzard, Shatter, etc.).
If I am a Fire Mage and I go up against an Elite, Fire Immune target, I cannot alter my spec in combat to deal with that situation. I am forced to revert to sub-optimal abilities that my specialization choice does not support, which in a solo situation will rarely do more than allow me to run away (which according to the current logic, this would be defined as fighting with the UI - because the ability to deal with this Fire Immune target is just a few clicks and a respec away, but I am arbitrarily and artificially denied the ability to do that). It's interesting because you don't hear a lot of people complaining in WoW that you can't have everything that each spec offers available to you at all times. No one complains because that's simply the way the game is designed.
With Pantheon, yes you have fewer abilities overall and fewer slots available to you. This is the tradeoff for having full freedom to alter your loadouts with access to all of your abilities (not spec-defined ones) instead of being limited to the offerings of the pre-determined 3.
Because of WoW's LAS, there is a meaningful difference between a Restoration Shaman and an Enhancement Shaman. But two Restoration Shaman will be essentially identical. In Pantheon, two Shaman in a group do not have to be identical, even if they are both focused on healing. This is a massive win for addressing the longstanding issue of class redundancy in these games.
In light of this simple explanation, drawing very clear lines of continuity between the form of LAS in the most successful MMORPG to date and Pantheon's, you could visit this thread and gather from some posts here that our combat system will ensure Pantheon is the biggest MMO shipwreck the world has ever seen.
So here's the question: please explain, using the information I've provided in the statement above, why you think WoW's LAS works and has led the game to become the gold standard of MMORPG success, but Pantheon's LAS is an inevitable and absurd failure.
This is somewhat of a niche case within WoW (the mage and their talents/lack of role diversity) is it not? The game also wasn't designed (and further strayed as time went on) around strong central class roles, for most classes different specs were entirely different playstyles and even roles. And in those roles you still had the vast majority of the class abilities open to you for use even if they weren't enhanced; no matter what mage spec someone had going into a group they could still poly, frost nova, frostbolt snare, slow fall, use evocation, teleport, blink, and use most all of their potential arsenal. Very few abilities were locked entirely behind talents. In other class cases it makes evem more sense and felt okay the way things worked because you were literally taking on an entirely different role (with parity to most any other class who did the same role).
My understanding of Pantheon and the design goals is not for the same to be the case, such that a warrior or druid can "spec" or have a DPS loadout that is on par or near a DPS role class. So the idea that a second druid in a group with a LAS centered on damage is somehow similar to how WoW handled specs doesn't add up. Even with a UAS you can have two druid in a group, designate one to focus on DPS, and then they would be using very different abilities than the healer druid anyway so this isn't something LAS brings. As for the idea of two shaman healers in a group and reducing class redundancy...I don't have the information about the class in Pantheon to dispute this, I just have a hard time seeing how the two would be healing any differently. Mathematically there will be optimal heal spells and I can't imagine their selection of healing spells will be massive and equally valuable.