Rallyd said: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.
Yeah, but it wasn't serious enough for me to remember it from playing my monk. I don't think it should matter what weapon you use. If you are attacking something, it should be draining some resource pool.
Beefcake said: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.
Meant EQ2. Sorry.
They mentioned several times during the podcast that this game was not for everybody. If you dont like what they are planning there are plenty of other games out there. Why not allow those few ppl who played the original EQ, to have their world as it was, recreated? That means leaving auto attack as it was.
sunstalkr said:They mentioned several times during the podcast that this game was not for everybody. If you dont like what they are planning there are plenty of other games out there. Why not allow those few ppl who played the original EQ, to have their world as it was, recreated? That means leaving auto attack as it was.
Pantheon is not a recreation of EverQuest by a long shot, it is a new game that is moving forward in the genre just like VG was an evolution to EQ back in the day, Pantheon is moving forward from both of them and others but using core mechanics and features from a range of games that worked well, while incorporating a lot of our own ideas and features to make Pantheon stand out from the crowd.
We have a community full of gamers who played EQ, VG, FF, WoW, AC, DAoC among many others and while everyone's experiences and memories are comforting to them, we intend to create a new game with new experiences and memories for everyone, so please don't disregard anyone's opinions because they are from another game, we have a vision and are sticking to it and at the end of that vision you will not see EQ or VG or any other game, you will see Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and we think you will really like what you see :)
I'm an EQ1 fan, but there are some good ideas that came later that sound interesting, borrowed from other games. Especially given the grouping nature of cooperation, make some skills compound with the rest of the group.
Different archtype can have its own flavor of pro/con automated attack option with contextual factors which render it more or less effective.
- casters have channeled, ground-target, beam and rain spells to heal, damage, buf, shield, etc. but can stopped easily by breaking their concentration (hit, stunned, silenced)
- casters have auto-attack wand but with less dps than spells can be interrupted by stun
- ranged have auto-attack bows with a dps curve (higher the further away to a point), but can only work a a minimum range from the target, and switching to melee weapon takes a second
- melee have auto-attack melee weapon but with less dps than more active opening/finishing move combinations which require active use
- melee can enable combat combinations or they occur randomly sometimes (think burglars or captains in LOTRO) which all group members watch for to participate in, the more coordinated the move the better the overall effects rewarded (imagine a rogue backstabbing a mob than the tank just short-stunned and the shaman just short-debuffed as a sequence, all within about 2 seconds)
- melee have directional shielding or push, mappable like everything else to either mouse or key combinations
I describe combat in 3 phases here:
1. Engaging the enemy (Open attack)
2. Maintaining engagement
3. Specific 'moves' (Eg shieldBash, kick, trip etc)
An 'auto-attack' embodies #2, above.
That is not to say it needs to be a 'click-once' and just stand there. To steal an example from the twitch stream.... imagine warriors with with stances :
a.) Offensive: 80% ATK, 20% DEF, Stamina loss (loss = -8)
b.) Balanced: 50% ATK, 35% DEF, Stamina gain (+4 = small)
c.) Defensive: 25% ATK, 60% DEF, Stamina gain (+8 = medium)
and for 'specials' whether class/learned...
d.) Berserker: 100 ATK, 10% DEF, Stamina loss (loss = -25)
e.) ShieldWall: 15% ATK, 80% DEF, Stamina loss (loss = -8)
This kind of simple change would change the auto-attack somewhat as 'Stamina' would be a resource that the warrior needed to conserve. It gives them a 'slant' on their abilities, but affects global 'style' which is observable by players/mobs. Thus it doesn't add massively to micro-management for melee-types, but does add a 3rd dimension to their skill-sets.
I know what I'm about to say doesn't stick to the theme of this thread, but it does stick to the topic of auto attacking and memories of EQ.
For those who didn't play EQ1, you had to converse with NPCs in order to get quests. I remember being able to target an NPC and press the H button to say "Hail, NPC_001" and if they responded with a reply that had a word or words surronded by brackets, it was giving you a quest. You then responded in text, making sure your response contained the exact word or phrase in the brackets in order to advance the quest-giving. (You could either just reply with the words in the brackets if you weren't into immersion or in a hurry, or you could answer in complete sentences, which I thought was cool.)
The only problem I had with this system was a carbon-based error on my part: Forgetting to hit Enter to type in the text I was responding with. Why was this such a problem? Because you targeted an NPC to get them to interact with you, you had to deal with the reprercussions of hitting hotkeys instead. And yes, the game defaulted to A being auto attack -- which led my goodly half-elven paladin of Karana, a humble servent who defended the farmers of the plains or Our Lord, to slaughter innocent NPCs with one blow or get utterly destroyed by an uber-buffed guard. I was only trying to be friendly and helpful by asking, "What can I do ..." but I couldn't even get the word "What" out of my mouth before I became a hardened criminal!
Looking at you, Brad! (Well, not really ... I was the moron who kept forgetting to hit the Enter key.)
To swing it back to the conversation at hand, the auto attack in EQ1 only did your basic weapon attack. It wasn't like it was full-on auto pilot. As a paladin, I still had to actively hit my bash key and have my spells at the ready to cast. Warriors also had to actively control their bashes and kicks and hold their positions correctly. It was beneficial since it allowed me to concentrate on the battle as a whole instead of having to worry about pressing a key every second to make my character's arm swing. It really wasn't a bad system, and it wasn't "set it and forget it."
I will add my voice to the group stating that they really like the idea of old school auto attack as a base for damage as melee. I really dislike spamming action buttons the entire fight. You are unable to enjoy the social aspects of the game and the mechanics of the fight if all you are doing is some mind-numbing 20 button rotation. Haste needs to have a real impact for melee and auto attack is what allows that to happen.
Let us get back to socializing and not the mini game of whack-a-mole.
Prindan said:I will add my voice to the group stating that they really like the idea of old school auto attack as a base for damage as melee. I really dislike spamming action buttons the entire fight. You are unable to enjoy the social aspects of the game and the mechanics of the fight if all you are doing is some mind-numbing 20 button rotation. Haste needs to have a real impact for melee and auto attack is what allows that to happen.
Let us get back to socializing and not the mini game of whack-a-mole.
There is a middle ground to be had.
You don't need a 20 button rotation to be engaged in combat. You just shouldn't be able to hold a conversation while performing at your best in the middle of a raid. Maybe in a casual group, but not a raid.
There's another thread where people have complained about the use of macros and the potential to automate gameplay. Here, automating gameplay seems desirable. I'm so confused right now.
Liav said:Prindan said:I will add my voice to the group stating that they really like the idea of old school auto attack as a base for damage as melee. I really dislike spamming action buttons the entire fight. You are unable to enjoy the social aspects of the game and the mechanics of the fight if all you are doing is some mind-numbing 20 button rotation. Haste needs to have a real impact for melee and auto attack is what allows that to happen.
Let us get back to socializing and not the mini game of whack-a-mole.
There is a middle ground to be had.
You don't need a 20 button rotation to be engaged in combat. You just shouldn't be able to hold a conversation while performing at your best in the middle of a raid. Maybe in a casual group, but not a raid.
There's another thread where people have complained about the use of macros and the potential to automate gameplay. Here, automating gameplay seems desirable. I'm so confused right now.
I agree there is a middle ground and that is what EQ1 had. I am not sure why auto attack would diminish the experience for people that want a challenge. If you just auto attacked in EQ you may have done like 50% of the damage that you should have been doing, if that. Guild leaders would call that out after any parse.
The great thing about EQ1 is that you had a limited number of abilities that had a distinct weight to them and situational use. The alternative is the 30 random attacks that were present in games like EQ2 that just had you watching your hotbars for refresh timers.
Prindan said:I agree there is a middle ground and that is what EQ1 had. I am not sure why auto attack would diminish the experience for people that want a challenge. If you just auto attacked in EQ you may have done like 50% of the damage that you should have been doing, if that. Guild leaders would call that out after any parse.
The great thing about EQ1 is that you had a limited number of abilities that had a distinct weight to them and situational use. The alternative is the 30 random attacks that were present in games like EQ2 that just had you watching your hotbars for refresh timers.
Oh my sweet, summer child.
The "Hit" column is auto attack. 81.1% auto attack.
Kick/Strike are automated by a mouse macro. Combined 14.6%. DirDmg/DoT are procs on my weapons, triggered by auto attacks.
This is Monk gameplay in Luclin era. Planes of Power isn't much different, except we get one more DPS disc to use that (you guessed it) only serves to increase auto attack damage.
Modern EQ is a lot different, but this is still how EQ is played for the first SEVERAL expansions.
Edit: **** these forums.
Sorry. I will admit I didn't read through the entire thread to view your parses. It looks like my 50% estimate was well below your Luclin era parse. I can see how that is too much for auto attack damage. I just don't want to see auto attack dwindle to the 10% range or eliminated like most other modern games.
With melees having more than 1 offensive ability besides auto attack, I expect it will not account for all of our damage and we will have plenty more to do during combat. I'm not particularly concerned with the percentage of damage from auto attack versus the damage of spells and abilities. What's matters to me is the importance of those other abilities and how engaging it is to use them. If I have to pay attention to maximize my damage and effectiveness rather than spamming a single hotkey/macro (EQ), I'd say mission accomplished.
Dullahan said:With melees having more than 1 offensive ability besides auto attack, I expect it will not account for all of our damage and we will have plenty more to do during combat. I'm not particularly concerned with the percentage of damage from auto attack versus the damage of spells and abilities. What's matters to me is the importance of those other abilities and how engaging it is to use them. If I have to pay attention to maximize my damage and effectiveness rather than spamming a single hotkey/macro (EQ), I'd say mission accomplished.
Given that the mob from the above parse was corner tanked, I probably could have gone AFK after clicking Innerflame and not lost a single point of DPS in doing so.
After playing dozens of MMOs, I've come to the inclusion that EQ's combat system is incompatible with engaging, challenging combat. Paying attention to positioning and movement is all fine and dandy but once you've mastered that, you're just staring at your screen.
Liav said:Dullahan said:With melees having more than 1 offensive ability besides auto attack, I expect it will not account for all of our damage and we will have plenty more to do during combat. I'm not particularly concerned with the percentage of damage from auto attack versus the damage of spells and abilities. What's matters to me is the importance of those other abilities and how engaging it is to use them. If I have to pay attention to maximize my damage and effectiveness rather than spamming a single hotkey/macro (EQ), I'd say mission accomplished.
Given that the mob from the above parse was corner tanked, I probably could have gone AFK after clicking Innerflame and not lost a single point of DPS in doing so.
After playing dozens of MMOs, I've come to the inclusion that EQ's combat system is incompatible with engaging, challenging combat. Paying attention to positioning and movement is all fine and dandy but once you've mastered that, you're just staring at your screen.
That's silly. Of course EQ was both challenging at engaging. Yes, the individual player experience could be improved (particularly in the case of melee), but the collective effort necessary was challenging, primarily because of the number of variables in play far exceeds that of MMOs today. Patrollers, random spell durations, resists, fizzles, threat management, buff management, respawns, rare spawns, juggling cooldowns, contending with limited resources and then various external elements like trains and shenanigans. A good player from today's MMOs, having never played EQ, would still struggle more than their "hard" modern MMOs.
Dullahan said:That's silly. Of course EQ was both challenging at engaging. Yes, the individual player experience could be improved (particularly in the case of melee), but the collective effort necessary was challenging, primarily because of the number of variables in play far exceeds that of MMOs today. Patrollers, random spell durations, resists, fizzles, threat management, buff management, respawns, rare spawns, juggling cooldowns, contending with limited resources and then various external elements like trains and shenanigans. A good player from today's MMOs, having never played EQ, would still struggle more than their "hard" modern MMOs.
Well, I can agree that EQ requires a lot of micromanaging on a larger scale. I guess I am mostly talking about the individual player experience, yes.
I disagree with your last sentence, though. I've seen new players migrate to Phinigel having never played EQ before and have picked up on it pretty well in short order. You can drop your average EQ player who's played nothing but EQ into a hardmode raid encounter from (insert X modern MMO here) and they would be equally clueless.
EQ has a very archaic interface and the way the game is interacted with would be the biggest hurdle, iny my experience. The overwhelming majority of complaints I hear about EQ from people who have never played before is how clunky and un-user-friendly the UI can be. So many functions in EQ were added after release in the form of /commands that are simply intrinsic components of modern games. While that could be considered "easier", I wouldn't consider fighting with the UI itself to be superior gameplay.
There are also dozens of emergent mechanics in EQ that simply don't exist in modern games due to quality testing. The burden of knowledge in EQ is pretty huge, but it's mostly a compendium of unintuitive emergent mechanics. With a lot of modern games, what you see is what you get, and it is generally easier to tell the result of a given action based on the input. With a game like EQ, even very simple things can have very unintuitive results.
Strykr619 said:I loved the stream today but WHY is auto attack going to still be used as a base mechanic. Please move on from this, it was good in everquest but for the love of god move towards actual engagement and not quasi afk players who do nothing but auto attack and chat half the time in groups....
LOL remembering my newbie days...auto attack the banker...hee hee
Liav said:I disagree with your last sentence, though. I've seen new players migrate to Phinigel having never played EQ before and have picked up on it pretty well in short order. You can drop your average EQ player who's played nothing but EQ into a hardmode raid encounter from (insert X modern MMO here) and they would be equally clueless.
Agree with the other stuff, but just wanted to focus this. Granted, new MMOs have changed, but regarding the above, this was just not the case. I find new MMOs to be easy across the board, as do (and did) my old EQ guilds. I found WoW to be totally trivial. When I moved to it with one of the communities I played EQ with during TBC, it took us about 3 months to reach the final tier of raiding starting brand new characters.
When my p99 EQ guild went to ArcheAge, we pretty much dominated even as a smaller group, both PvE and PvP aspects. This was the case for just about every game we played. We always had a considerable advantage when it came to mechanical understanding, situational awareness, cooperative play, and our ability to communicate.
Dullahan said:Agree with the other stuff, but just wanted to focus this. Granted, new MMOs have changed, but regarding the above, this was just not the case. I find new MMOs to be easy across the board, as do (and did) my old EQ guilds. I found WoW to be totally trivial. When I moved to it with one of the communities I played EQ with during TBC, it took us about 3 months to reach the final tier of raiding starting brand new characters.
When my p99 EQ guild went to ArcheAge, we pretty much dominated even as a smaller group, both PvE and PvP aspects. This was the case for just about every game we played. We always had a considerable advantage when it came to mechanical understanding, situational awareness, cooperative play, and our ability to communicate.
Yeah, I can see how the more demanding interplay between players of EQ in general requires more awareness than a lot of newer games.
I guess the thing is that EQ is just such a different beast. It's such a simple game on paper, but the unintuitive deeper mechanics are where the excellent players shine. In more modern games, the burden of knowledge is a lot lower instead depending a lot more on executing patterns. Perhaps my opinion on this subject has changed slightly.
Either way it goes, I want the combat system specifically and the individual experience specifically to be more demanding than EQ. Showing up to raid, asking for buffs, and auto attacking things to death is not doing it for me anymore. I play EQ now out of familiarity more than anything else. I'm looking forward to reliving PoP in Phinigel, but beyond that, I want something new.
Modern games offer better combat systems than EQ, by far. Dark Age of Camelot is an example of a game with a much more interesting combat system than EQ from the same era. Granted it's a PvP game, mostly. Vanguard was great, but used global cooldown which was a drawback. My favorite combat system of all time has been EQ2, but it is too bloated now with too many separate abilities.
Liav said:Modern games offer better combat systems than EQ, by far. Dark Age of Camelot is an example of a game with a much more interesting combat system than EQ from the same era. Granted it's a PvP game, mostly. Vanguard was great, but used global cooldown which was a drawback. My favorite combat system of all time has been EQ2, but it is too bloated now with too many separate abilities.
Even DAoC, the more interesting combat system basically = melee had more abilities and usefulness other than pure dps. The combat system as a whole was totally inferior when you take into account that list of variables above. Just comparing EQ casters to DAOC casters was really no contest IMO. EQ wins easily afaic, including in the pvp aspect.
If there's one thing we have established, it's that auto attack shouldn't be overly relied on as it applies to melees. It's important that the level of activity and usefulness of melees extends beyond initiating auto attack and then watching. Melees need to be moving, responding much like the situational and positional attacks in DAOC. The difference between a skilled melee that pays attention and one who stands still spamming a hotkey/macro should be night and day, much like it was for casters in EQ.
Dullahan said:Even DAoC, the more interesting combat system basically = melee had more abilities and usefulness other than pure dps. The combat system as a whole was totally inferior when you take into account that list of variables above. Just comparing EQ casters to DAOC casters was really no contest IMO. EQ wins easily afaic, including in the pvp aspect.
If there's one thing we have established, it's that auto attack shouldn't be overly relied on as it applies to melees. It's important that the level of activity and usefulness of melees extends beyond initiating auto attack and then watching. Melees need to be moving, responding much like the situational and positional attacks in DAOC. The difference between a skilled melee that pays attention and one who stands still spamming a hotkey/macro should be night and day, much like it was for casters in EQ.
That's actually painfully true. Casters in DAoC were utterly terrible to play. I have no experience with the PvP aspect of EQ. Granted, this thread is about auto attack so I guess I was kind of leaning towards melee gameplay. I find DAoC's melee gamplay very compelling, often even more compelling than modern games. For instance, the heavy reliance on positional abilities. Backstab was about the only positional melee that mattered in EQ.
I think we're on the same page here, which is new.
To the DEVS:
The solution to this whole problem is to give us something else to argue about. Between this thread and the tagging/ksing one, people are getting cranky.
Give us something meaty to argue about and you wont have to hear about this topic until pre-alpha release.