Beefcake said:I cannot say what the appropriate % is. I agree that combat should be engaging. I definitely feel it should be so engaging that you cannot effectively play more than one toon at a time. Some people will try and some will succeed.
On the reverse side, I don't want it so twitchy that I have to be concerned with every swing I do that I cannot concentrate on strategy, movement, the fun of the fight.
I want my abilities to be useful and effective, not just spamming them to do damage. In order for that to work, auto attack needs to fill the voids between actions.
However, I will leave it to the more math-inclined to determine the appropriate amount.
I feel the same way you do on this topic. Not twitchy, but engaging enough to actually have a skill ceiling significatly above the skill floor.
Yeah, ranged should get an auto-attack also. Ability when using a wand, rod or staff to cast a 'spell bolt' or the like, that does some minor amount of damage. Rangers and Bards could/should get dagger to toss maybe?
Either way, I agree it should encompass all classes and the damage, while not insignificant, should be minimal.
I believe auto-attack will definitely be in Pantheon. It will probably take our testing to get the weapon delay / dps adjusted correctly on all weapons. Cohh was doing a LOT of standing around in his stream which might have contributed to concerns of slow combat skills. I am thinking as we get into Alpha testing classes will have multiple cooldown skills to use during combat.
I am also hoping mob AI (even for the majority of trash) requires the group to add in unique skills to counter heavier damage they could cause. So if players stood around too much it would slow down play due to extra recovert time.
Concur with all the suggestions regarding ranged auto attack. It only makes sense that casters and Rangers should have that luxury. It was sad how late in EQ autofire finally made its debut, and even then, only after the widespread use of MQ2 permeated the playerbase so much that they added autofire as a game feature to sever the dependence on third party programs.
EQ2 added ranged attacks for casters way late into the game as well, as in in the past 3-4 years or so. It's also unique in that, unlike melee/ranged, it is a separate type that can trigger during the casting of the spell. In EQ2, as a melee, you generally optimize DPS by using your abilities between auto attacks. Casters don't have to worry about that.
On the flip side, EQ2 is a horrible reference for auto attack because of how unbalanced it is. One expansion, auto attack barely matters. Next expansion, auto attack is practically all of your DPS. Daybreak pls.
Beefcake said:I have always felt that it was wrong that EQ2 caster's auto attacks were not interrupted by abilities, while melee auto-attack was.
I concur, although when I last played (Chains of Eternity era), caster/wand auto attack contributed so little to a parse that I often wondered why they wasted developer time adding it in the first place.
Beefcake said:I assumed there was both melee, ranged, and caster auto attack, but I could be wrong.
When I say caster auto attack, I don't mean the caster swinging their weapon. Melee damage is calculated with melee skills and particular statistics neglected by a caster like strength, attack power or dexterity. That means it will be ineffectual for most casters to rely on it.
When I say caster auto attack, I mean some sort of channeled magical ranged auto attack.
Beefcake said:On the EQ2 TLE server, my Illy could outparse all but summoners and over 50% of my DPS was from auto attack. It was ridiculous how mages were stacking DPS, attack speed, and double attack over casting stats.
Damn, wasn't aware of that. Did you play on Stormhold? I played on Deathtoll and iirc it was pretty irrelevant in PvP.
Even so, that's silly and just an example of how unbalanced and broken everything DBG touches is. #***daybreak
Liav said:Beefcake said:On the EQ2 TLE server, my Illy could outparse all but summoners and over 50% of my DPS was from auto attack. It was ridiculous how mages were stacking DPS, attack speed, and double attack over casting stats.
Damn, wasn't aware of that. Did you play on Stormhold? I played on Deathtoll and iirc it was pretty irrelevant in PvP.
Even so, that's silly and just an example of how unbalanced and broken everything DBG touches is. #***daybreak
Yes, Stormhold. It became much more power in KoS and EoF.
Dullahan said:Beefcake said:I assumed there was both melee, ranged, and caster auto attack, but I could be wrong.
When I say caster auto attack, I don't mean the caster swinging their weapon. Melee damage is calculated with melee skills and particular statistics neglected by a caster like strength, attack power or dexterity. That means it will be ineffectual for most casters to rely on it.
When I say caster auto attack, I mean some sort of channeled magical ranged auto attack.
Yes, I was also referring to ranged auto attack. But in EQ2, it wasn't based on primary stats like strength or such, even fighters. It was based on special stats like double attack, attack speed, and DPS (extra damage).
It did not matter if you used a wand for ranged auto, knife, or bow. It wasn't class based, but weapon based. Same stats applied to melee, ranged or wand.
Casters could melee or use wand for ranged.
Beefcake said:Dullahan said:Beefcake said:I assumed there was both melee, ranged, and caster auto attack, but I could be wrong.
When I say caster auto attack, I don't mean the caster swinging their weapon. Melee damage is calculated with melee skills and particular statistics neglected by a caster like strength, attack power or dexterity. That means it will be ineffectual for most casters to rely on it.
When I say caster auto attack, I mean some sort of channeled magical ranged auto attack.
Yes, I was also referring to ranged auto attack. But in EQ2, it wasn't based on primary stats like strength or such, even fighters. It was based on special stats like double attack, attack speed, and DPS (extra damage).
It did not matter if you used a wand for ranged auto, knife, or bow. It wasn't class based, but weapon based. Same stats applied to melee, ranged or wand.
Casters could melee or use wand for ranged.
The only problem I see with this, just to brainstorm it further, is that with things like double attack, triple attack or other mechanics, is that you will end up having to at least duplicate some of it for both casters and melee. Not everyone is will or should have the same abilities as everyone else, and of course we don't want everything to become hemogonized or sanitized for the sake of balance. That shouldn't be the end goal, but allowing melee to do even greater damage via double attack will continue to increase damage provided via auto attack, and continue to make them more efficient versus casters without such auto attack mechanics.
The other issue is damage types. With melee auto attack, they plan to have a weapon and mob type system. Like using a crushing weapon against undead rather than a piercing and so forth. That will account for part of the damage of auto attacks.
You would have to have a similar system for wands or staves that would almost mirror that type of system. You could say it already exists in a way with magical affinities or resistances with particular lines of spells like an ice on a fire elemental. The issue is that it would have to be translated over to the weapons themselves. Whereas a melee weapon might be a mace with crushing, a wand would have have a certain element so that it's more or less effective depending on the mob.
In other words, all of that line of thinking would be highly problematic.
The other way to deal with all of that more simply, without having an auto attack for everyone would be by simply making melee auto attack drain resources. If they continually lose stamina or what have you just for swinging their weapons, then they too will be subject to resting as casters and would not create an efficiency imbalance.
I actually think the resource route would be simpler, and probably make more sense.
Dullahan said:Beefcake said:Dullahan said:Beefcake said:I assumed there was both melee, ranged, and caster auto attack, but I could be wrong.
When I say caster auto attack, I don't mean the caster swinging their weapon. Melee damage is calculated with melee skills and particular statistics neglected by a caster like strength, attack power or dexterity. That means it will be ineffectual for most casters to rely on it.
When I say caster auto attack, I mean some sort of channeled magical ranged auto attack.
Yes, I was also referring to ranged auto attack. But in EQ2, it wasn't based on primary stats like strength or such, even fighters. It was based on special stats like double attack, attack speed, and DPS (extra damage).
It did not matter if you used a wand for ranged auto, knife, or bow. It wasn't class based, but weapon based. Same stats applied to melee, ranged or wand.
Casters could melee or use wand for ranged.
The only problem I see with this, just to brainstorm it further, is that with things like double attack, triple attack or other mechanics, is that you will end up having to at least duplicate some of it for both casters and melee. Not everyone is will or should have the same abilities as everyone else, and of course we don't want everything to become hemogonized or sanitized for the sake of balance. That shouldn't be the end goal, but allowing melee to do even greater damage via double attack will continue to increase damage provided via auto attack, and continue to make them more efficient versus casters without such auto attack mechanics.
The other issue is damage types. With melee auto attack, they plan to have a weapon and mob type system. Like using a crushing weapon against undead rather than a piercing and so forth. That will account for part of the damage of auto attacks.
You would have to have a similar system for wands or staves that would almost mirror that type of system. You could say it already exists in a way with magical affinities or resistances with particular lines of spells like an ice on a fire elemental. The issue is that it would have to be translated over to the weapons themselves. Whereas a melee weapon might be a mace with crushing, a wand would have have a certain element so that it's more or less effective depending on the mob.
In other words, all of that line of thinking would be highly problematic.
The other way to deal with all of that more simply, without having an auto attack for everyone would be by simply making melee auto attack drain resources. If they continually lose stamina or what have you just for swinging their weapons, then they too will be subject to resting as casters and would not create an efficiency imbalance.
I actually think the resource route would be simpler, and probably make more sense.
EQ2 solved it by simply using the same stats for everyone, casters and melee. The stars were not class-specific.
Beefcake said:EQ2 solved it by simply using the same stats for everyone, casters and melee. The stars were not class-specific.
Maybe you mean the way they originally did them. Now they've become so streamlined, every class has what? two relevant stats and it's removed any real decision process regarding specific class builds or playstyles.
I think every stat should truly effect every class. In my perfect game, a warrior that pumps intelligence would be given better perception to riposte, parry or dodge attacks. A high int, high agi, warrior would become the best defensive, while other warriors could go the traditional agi and dex or agi and str. This would create diversity of builds. Likewise, every stat should be potentially powerful boon for each class. It's also just one more way to upset the whole concept of best in slot, because players will favor particular stats to enhance a particular skillset or playstyle.
On point though, as much as I'd like all classes to utilize ranged attacks, I can see it being kind of pointless if they don't also get things like double attack or weapons that proc. Again though, all of that could be balanced out by making any form of attack drain mana, energy or stamina. That should be the most important takeaway here. We should not see another situation like EQ1 where a particular classes' primary or even significant damage source is inexhaustible. Everyone and everything should be subject to those limitations, including auto attack.
Dullahan said:Beefcake said:EQ2 solved it by simply using the same stats for everyone, casters and melee. The stars were not class-specific.
Maybe you mean the way they originally did them. Now they've become so streamlined, every class has what? two relevant stats and it's removed any real decision process regarding specific class builds or playstyles.
I think every stat should truly effect every class. In my perfect game, a warrior that pumps intelligence would be given better perception to riposte, parry or dodge attacks. A high int, high agi, warrior would become the best defensive, while other warriors could go the traditional agi and dex or agi and str. This would create diversity of builds. Likewise, every stat should be potentially powerful boon for each class. It's also just one more way to upset the whole concept of best in slot, because players will favor particular stats to enhance a particular skillset or playstyle.
On point though, as much as I'd like all classes to utilize ranged attacks, I can see it being kind of pointless if they don't also get things like double attack or weapons that proc. Again though, all of that could be balanced out by making any form of attack drain mana, energy or stamina. That should be the most important takeaway here. We should not see another situation like EQ1 where a particular classes' primary or even significant damage source is inexhaustible. Everyone and everything should be subject to those limitations, including auto attack.
You are thinking of primary stats like Strength, wisdom, etc. Those were streamlined. However, those have nothing to do with auto attack damage in EQ2. There, auto attack damage is determined by your weapon and "blue stats", such as multi attack, attack speed, and DPS. Auto attack damage is not effected by your class, primary stats or anything else. The blue stats work the same for all auto attacks, whether it's melee, ranged, or spell (wand).
Beefcake said:You are thinking of primary stats like Strength, wisdom, etc. Those were streamlined. However, those have nothing to do with auto attack damage in EQ2. There, auto attack damage is determined by your weapon and "blue stats", such as multi attack, attack speed, and DPS. Auto attack damage is not effected by your class, primary stats or anything else. The blue stats work the same for all auto attacks, whether it's melee, ranged, or spell (wand).
Strange, I don't remember that but it's been a while since I played. That's one way of balancing it, but that really seems like a bit of a dramatic baby with the bathwater type of approach. The idea that everyone just get normalized damage that isn't enhanced by your other statistics seems pretty broken, and increasingly so depending on how much damage auto attack accounts for of your total damage.
Primary stats in EQ2 always affected auto attack damage to my knowledge. Potency doesn't, Crit Bonus does.
I could log in to EQ2 and look at the tooltip, but I'm already 99% certain so not going to waste the effort.
Dullahan said:Beefcake said:EQ2 solved it by simply using the same stats for everyone, casters and melee. The stars were not class-specific.
Maybe you mean the way they originally did them. Now they've become so streamlined, every class has what? two relevant stats and it's removed any real decision process regarding specific class builds or playstyles.
I think every stat should truly effect every class. In my perfect game, a warrior that pumps intelligence would be given better perception to riposte, parry or dodge attacks. A high int, high agi, warrior would become the best defensive, while other warriors could go the traditional agi and dex or agi and str. This would create diversity of builds. Likewise, every stat should be potentially powerful boon for each class. It's also just one more way to upset the whole concept of best in slot, because players will favor particular stats to enhance a particular skillset or playstyle.
On point though, as much as I'd like all classes to utilize ranged attacks, I can see it being kind of pointless if they don't also get things like double attack or weapons that proc. Again though, all of that could be balanced out by making any form of attack drain mana, energy or stamina. That should be the most important takeaway here. We should not see another situation like EQ1 where a particular classes' primary or even significant damage source is inexhaustible. Everyone and everything should be subject to those limitations, including auto attack.
Let's not forget however that in original Everquest, melee autoattacks drained stamina based on the weight of weapon in hand, and we required "Zings" or stamina regeneration spells to keep going, when you ran out of stamina you had a massively reduced chance to hit. This has not been translated through to Project1999 so most people forget about it. Melee were not so dominant on live Everquest in 1999-2000. That being said, they were still much stronger than casters in long term fights, because the regeneration spells provided took care of most of the stamina drain effect later on in levels. Acumen and Speed of the Shissar from Enchanter epic were enough to completely eliminate the mechanic.
Liav said:Primary stats in EQ always affected auto attack damage to my knowledge. Potency doesn't, Crit Bonus does.
I could log in to EQ2 and look at the tooltip, but I'm already 99% certain so not going to waste the effort.
Not sure about EQ, haven't played in many years. However, EQ2 is quite different.