So much misunderstanding, willful or not, I don't even know where to start. I'm not going to. Seems pointless.
I give up with this subject.
We will see in PA5 soon enough.
disposalist said:So much misunderstanding, willful or not, I don't even know where to start. I'm not going to. Seems pointless.
I give up with this subject.
We will see in PA5 soon enough.
Agreed. You're welcome to join me on the sidelines ... misunderstandings and expectations mixed with fears, it's all a big mess. Definitely should restart this conversation AFTER people see it in action.
disposalist said:So much misunderstanding, willful or not, I don't even know where to start. I'm not going to. Seems pointless.
I give up with this subject.
We will see in PA5 soon enough.
Agreed, trust in Pantheon. We'll see how the system works when we can actually use it.
I was on the fence before watching the interview, but now I am sold on LAS and am excited to test it. I was just catching up on these posts after watching the new Bazgrim interview for the first time, and I was going to start chiming in here but man... what a mess. It seems like a lot of the people here didn't even watch or fully comprehend the video. Oh well, I am still gonna chime a little.
To those of you who keep bringing up the "fire spec mage" example like the guy who mentions fire immune mobs... Joppa's fire spec mage example wasn't supposed to be some ultimate example and silver bullet to all LAS concerns. It was specifically highlighting how in PVP in WoW, having specs makes WoW into a kind of LAS. This was purely to show those who think of WoW as UAS, that it is actually a kind of LAS... a kind of restriction. Also, based on what Joppa said in the interview, in the "fire spec vs. immune" pontification someone posted here- if you and your group run into a mob that you all die to purely because you used fire DPS spells in EVERY one of your 8 threat slots... then you should probably reevaluate how you're playing!
To those of you saying "but 8 slots isn't enough for 30, 40, or 50 abilities!".... Joppa said 20-30 total abilities per class. Not 50. Also, this is a group-based game. Together, 6 * 14 (really, there are 14 usable and meaningful abilities, not 8!) = 84 abilities between you and your groupmates (oh, plus a "utility" belt for potions and such). You think you won't be able to tackle dynamic content with 84 abilities on the table from you and your groupmates? Especially when you consider some planning. "Hey, we are in a frozen labyrinth of ice creatures... maybe we should be ready with some anti-cold and pro-fire abilities?" This is where strategy comes in. You are not going to have a 1 to 1 solution for every encounter = more strategy involved. Just get over it already!
Overall there's too many comparisons here to games that can't be really compared. Too much assuming about things which cannot be assumed. Vjek is assuming that his "math" is correct and he just knows for certain that 8 slots (even though, it is really a lot more) is just not enough! Too many people not taking the tool-belt into account. Too many people thinking the 6 non-threat abilities are meaningless or don't play into combat significance. Too many people thinking that Joppa and the dev team haven't had these arguments internally, and that they aren't aware of the gameplay implications and nuance. Too many people assuming they know how the gameplay is going to feel and work-out when they haven't even played the game.
Trust in Pantheon. Like I said, I was on the fence about LAS before, had many the same fears as Vjek and Vandraad... but Joppa quelled my doubts and I am even more excited about this game. I especially like not having to refresh my groups regen and strength buffs every damn 12 minutes!
snocap said:To those of you saying "but 8 slots isn't enough for 30, 40, or 50 abilities!".... Joppa said 20-30 total abilities per class. Not 50. Also, this is a group-based game. Together, 6 * 14 (really, there are 14 usable and meaningful abilities, not 8!) = 84 abilities between you and your groupmates (oh, plus a "utility" belt for potions and such). You think you won't be able to tackle dynamic content with 84 abilities on the table from you and your groupmates?
Two big thumbs up to this. Haven't really thought of it like that yet, 84 abilities + belts per group per encounter should be more than enough :)
Iksar said:How many "abilities" a group has does not translate to how engaged the player is or the enjoyment one has as an individual player within a group.
Really? When you're signing up to play a social game designed around grouping?
Ok, sure, what the group can do together isn't *everything* that defines an individual's engagement and enjoyment.
But shouldn't it be a very big part? And does LAS really ruin the rest?
vjek said: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.
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"
If that's the type of system that VR publicly disclosed back in 2014, we wouldn't be having these discussions today, imo.
I won't speak for others who aren't in favor of the 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions that will be tested in PA5, but I'm not against LAS in general. I just think 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions is too few.
I would, for example, be content to initially test a system that allowed the player to choose between 8 active threat-generating abilities and 14 active threat-generating abilities, and letting the player decide if they wanted to allocate between 0 and up to 6 non-threat-generating abilities on the same hotbar. That way, the active threat-generating ability subset would be closer to the 40% mark, rather than the 15-20% mark, of the total. That, to me, seems like a better place to start.
8-14 / 6 is Certainly better than a full UAS for those who want a cleaner/minimal interface and also gives some more flexibility for those who want more dials on the machine at once. I do believe there is some middle ground somewhere where everyone will feel more comfortable with the game over all.
At this point though its lets wait and see what it is they come up with in the end. We've all voiced our opinions on it at one point or another.
disposalist said:Iksar said:How many "abilities" a group has does not translate to how engaged the player is or the enjoyment one has as an individual player within a group.
Really? When you're signing up to play a social game designed around grouping?
Ok, sure, what the group can do together isn't *everything* that defines an individual's engagement and enjoyment.
But shouldn't it be a very big part? And does LAS really ruin the rest?
Hokanu said: That sentiment from iksar about the individuals abilities vs the wider groups abilities is at the heart of this argument I think. Joppa and we are pleading for you guys to try to alter the way you look at this system to include the groups makeup not just the individual
If I sign up to play hockey because I like hocky, but I'm not having fun with the team I'm on because someone else on the team isn't doing what they need to do; I'm not going to stay and play with the team just for the teams sake. I'm not having fun, so I'm either going to ask to be benched, or I'm going to go to a different team. I join a team in hockey, yes to play with people, but if I'm not having fun for whatever reason, I'm leaving. No one plays games based around grouping just for the sake of others, they join a team or a social game because they plan to have fun with whoever is there; if not then they stop playing and leave. They go in with the mindset that the they as the individual are going to have fun, group or otherwise.
Hokanu said: That sentiment from iksar about the individuals abilities vs the wider groups abilities is at the heart of this argument I think. Joppa and we are pleading for you guys to try to alter the way you look at this system to include the groups makeup not just the individualQFT. Some want to treat PROTF like many other games where they want to do everything themselfs, burn out, and find another game after 6 months. I ask them to give it a chance and try something different. They are here for a reason afterall. If the other games system were so much better why did they leave to come here?
Yeah, the hockey analogy isn't great in my opinion. Most athletes are tought to give their all to the team. Phrases like "there is no I in team" and "take one for the team" and "if you quit you're letting the team down" are all quite common. When my kids join a team I make sure they understand the expectation is that they give what they can to the team and they play out the entire season with the team they agreed to join whether they end up liking it or not.
But, I'll try to go with the hockey analogy anyway. You said "...but I'm not having fun with the team I'm on because soemone else on the team isn't doing what they need to do..." All that really has to do with is the ability of your groupmates given whatever paramaters we have. So yes, if a groupmate is just sitting there with his head up his butt while the rest of the group is trying to accomplish something...kick him out and get someone else. But their ability to pull their weight on the team is not a matter of LAS vs UAS at all.
P.s. I play hockey too, great sport!
The argument I'm hearing from quite a few is that 14 slots are more than 8, and while the number 14 is larger than the number 8, in the context of Pantheon with this new LAS (8+6), the 14 slots are, in my opinion, fewer in number than the original Pantheon choice of 12....and here's why.
As we've seen on the streams, you could place any 12 spells/abilities on that hotbar and rotate them in/out as needed (just not in combat as it has been locked during combat since the earliest days if you watch the streams). Buffs back then were not required to remain on the hotbar, but were loaded in only when needed, about every 36 minutes or so. Now, however, you're required to keep those buffs on the bar, locking that slot in or out of combat. So the original Pantheon action bar allowed you to bring 12 active spells/abilities to bear in a fight while the new LAS reduces that to 8. The 12 oiriginal slots are greater than 14 new ones in this way.
Vandraad said:The argument I'm hearing from quite a few is that 14 slots are more than 8, and while the number 14 is larger than the number 8, in the context of Pantheon with this new LAS (8+6), the 14 slots are, in my opinion, fewer in number than the original Pantheon choice of 12....and here's why.
As we've seen on the streams, you could place any 12 spells/abilities on that hotbar and rotate them in/out as needed (just not in combat as it has been locked during combat since the earliest days if you watch the streams). Buffs back then were not required to remain on the hotbar, but were loaded in only when needed, about every 36 minutes or so. Now, however, you're required to keep those buffs on the bar, locking that slot in or out of combat. So the original Pantheon action bar allowed you to bring 12 active spells/abilities to bear in a fight while the new LAS reduces that to 8. The 12 oiriginal slots are greater than 14 new ones in this way.
That was also presumably before they decided to get rid of multiple spell ranks. It's entirely possible that one decision informed the other.
Vandraad said:... So the original Pantheon action bar allowed you to bring 12 active spells/abilities to bear in a fight while the new LAS reduces that to 8. The 12 oiriginal slots are greater than 14 new ones in this way.
disposalist said:Iksar said:How many "abilities" a group has does not translate to how engaged the player is or the enjoyment one has as an individual player within a group.
Really? When you're signing up to play a social game designed around grouping?
Ok, sure, what the group can do together isn't *everything* that defines an individual's engagement and enjoyment.
But shouldn't it be a very big part? And does LAS really ruin the rest?
Hokanu said: That sentiment from iksar about the individuals abilities vs the wider groups abilities is at the heart of this argument I think. Joppa and we are pleading for you guys to try to alter the way you look at this system to include the groups makeup not just the individual
That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying it is far more enjoyable to be an active part of a team, actively communicating and coordinating to overcome challenges together as they arise, rather than planning out our loadouts to account for as many possible situations as our group makeup can and everyone knowing their role. "If enrage happens the rogue has tranq, if x then so and so has y" is so boring and the opposite of active teamwork/communication/coordination and it really isn't very fun to me in general.
Likewise I don't feel like there is increased excitement or tension on the offchance some problem arises that I have nothing new to contribute to other than to keep doing what I was doing before because that's all I have loaded up. It's not like things are going to be wildly new and unknown throwing groups into chaos when their LAS doesn't have any particular direct responses.
Can I just be skeptical about LAS and feel like it will hold back challenge and active group coordination rather than promote it?
arazons said:vjek said: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.
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"
If that's the type of system that VR publicly disclosed back in 2014, we wouldn't be having these discussions today, imo.
I won't speak for others who aren't in favor of the 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions that will be tested in PA5, but I'm not against LAS in general. I just think 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions is too few.
I would, for example, be content to initially test a system that allowed the player to choose between 8 active threat-generating abilities and 14 active threat-generating abilities, and letting the player decide if they wanted to allocate between 0 and up to 6 non-threat-generating abilities on the same hotbar. That way, the active threat-generating ability subset would be closer to the 40% mark, rather than the 15-20% mark, of the total. That, to me, seems like a better place to start.
8-14 / 6 is Certainly better than a full UAS for those who want a cleaner/minimal interface and also gives some more flexibility for those who want more dials on the machine at once. I do believe there is some middle ground somewhere where everyone will feel more comfortable with the game over all.
At this point though its lets wait and see what it is they come up with in the end. We've all voiced our opinions on it at one point or another.
What if there were only 20 abilities available, period? Would that be clutter in the UI with an unlimited set? Again, this is an argument against UAS that has NOTHING to do with UAS. You can have UAS and only have 10 abilities. You can have LAS and have 459 abilities. That is 100% game design and I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. This argument is beyond hollow as it literally has nothing to do with the actual question at hand. You could have a severe LAS and still have 40 chat and trade skill macro buttons in your UI. Get it?
Fragile said:@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.
I'm fine with the current LAS decision and reasoning by Joppa, or at least willing to try it out, but I also would like to hear what was wrong with EQ1's approach as well. Seems to me that the compromise between all sides remains to keep the LAS but allow for extremely limited/risky/expensive in-combat ability swapping. Is this compromise still potentially on the table Joppa?
*nothing to do with Mathirs post this just happens to be under it*
Like Dispo, I am hanging up the gloves on this one, i'll respond to a quoted question if someone wants to discuss it further with me in particular (i'm sure they dont) but, i feel like the whole argument against is falling into pieces in this thread. I guess it is because many in the against side have their own nuanced differences of what they want indivudually, it is hard to keep up and understand these points being made.
I hope people can find it in their hearts to continue following the game and try it when they have access at their pledge level.
I feel like we will have substance to discuss at that point, but at the moment i feel lost in a sea of opinions.
Love you guys, even the ones I butt heads with :)
I love how Joppa has carefully and kindly tried to express how the LAS can work, and we got a bunch of people trying to say the way he is doing it is simply wrong or can't work, it's honestly kind of sickening. @Vjek he only brought out WoW as a reference to how WoW has LAS designs built into their game while having UAS capabilities, not that they had the same focus has WoW in anyway you nut. Pantheon is litterally doing it the opposite way, instead of using something like a talent system they are doing a mastery system where it still aloows you to litterally use every single ability you have in your arsenal, but are limiting on how many you can have on your bar. Which to me is way better than oh let's say being a Mage but if i Pick a Fire Mage at lvl 10 i lose out on all of the passives, bonuses of frost, and arcane and can only use fire spells.
Which ultimately makes WoW far more stricter in terms of a LAS standpoint than Pantheon is trying to be in the long run. But of course some people want to simply have everything with no limitation anywhere, but when you truly think about it every single game has limited you in one way or another, they have to or the game would become simply to simple and the devs would be fighting an impossible battle of making challenging combat if you could actually have access to all of your abilities and be able to put them all of your bar, that is litterally impossible to do, but some people don't care if it is impossible for as long as it is UAS, and it is that simple, for some people anyway, but for the devs it would be a distaster trying to build a game challenging that allows both access to all abilities and for them all to be on action bars, that world litterally doesn't exsist in any game for a reason, it doesn't work.
Keno Monster said:arazons said:vjek said: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.
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"
If that's the type of system that VR publicly disclosed back in 2014, we wouldn't be having these discussions today, imo.
I won't speak for others who aren't in favor of the 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions that will be tested in PA5, but I'm not against LAS in general. I just think 8 active threat-generating abilities via an arbitrary UI restrictions is too few.
I would, for example, be content to initially test a system that allowed the player to choose between 8 active threat-generating abilities and 14 active threat-generating abilities, and letting the player decide if they wanted to allocate between 0 and up to 6 non-threat-generating abilities on the same hotbar. That way, the active threat-generating ability subset would be closer to the 40% mark, rather than the 15-20% mark, of the total. That, to me, seems like a better place to start.
8-14 / 6 is Certainly better than a full UAS for those who want a cleaner/minimal interface and also gives some more flexibility for those who want more dials on the machine at once. I do believe there is some middle ground somewhere where everyone will feel more comfortable with the game over all.
At this point though its lets wait and see what it is they come up with in the end. We've all voiced our opinions on it at one point or another.
What if there were only 20 abilities available, period? Would that be clutter in the UI with an unlimited set? Again, this is an argument against UAS that has NOTHING to do with UAS. You can have UAS and only have 10 abilities. You can have LAS and have 459 abilities. That is 100% game design and I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. This argument is beyond hollow as it literally has nothing to do with the actual question at hand. You could have a severe LAS and still have 40 chat and trade skill macro buttons in your UI. Get it?
It is not that I or other people do not understand. We just dont agree with your position. There is a difference. And that is something lost on society these days. People demand not only that you agree with them, but that you believe in everything they believe.
What I dont understand why anyone would want that many hotbars and that many abilities available at once. It detracts from the game world and forces you to play button whack-a-mole.
They (VR) have been pretty honest on their intent from the beginning on LAS. And their intent that you would not have access to a signifigant number of your abilities at any given time. Like it or not thats what they are going for. Get it?
Fragile said:@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.
The biggest thing here is that you're just admitting that you just looked past WoW's LAS design and just accepting it for what it was, but that doesn't make it less LAS. No you didn't have access to everything it had to offer unless you litterally put every point into that talent tree, and even if you did you still lost passives in other talent trees that could of helped with your healing if you did, and all kinds of other things, like you couldn't pick healer in WoW Classic as a shaman, and beat the crap out of a mob as elemental, but in Pantheon you actually have more flexibility to do so. you litterally sacraficed so much to be that healer. And even in today's WoW you do it and not even that but you also pick a Spec like healing and impossible to get all your Talents inside that spec as well which even further restricts what you can do as that class/spec.
And i find it funny how like 2-3 months ago everyone was saying "sitting while medding new spells wasn't dangerous." But now are saying it like it is something to be afraid of, look it did have it's times to be dangerous but that was basically at the beginning of the pull after that it was a nonissue, plus just to make it quite realistic i think just to counter sitting even for medding inbetween fights i think if you sit to even gain a bit of mana back to get another nuke off should auto trigger mobs to attack you for being dumb to sit during a fight, like really think about it, your in a fight and your tank is fending off the monsters and your healer is making sure everyone is alive and you got your homie wizard just sitting their saying basically give me a minute lso i can recharge my battery so i can cast this lightning spell real quick, ok now im good to go....... yeah that sound like something he should be doing.......