I am unsure if this was already addressed in the past, but, will we be able to split mobs like us monks were able to do in EQ1? I didnt like EQ2 or anyother MMO that had "linked" mobs. I like the idea that some mobs could forget about you and path back to their spot while others would linger around just a bit longer to be pullled solo.
shasta said:I am unsure if this was already addressed in the past, but, will we be able to split mobs like us monks were able to do in EQ1? I didnt like EQ2 or anyother MMO that had "linked" mobs. I like the idea that some mobs could forget about you and path back to their spot while others would linger around just a bit longer to be pullled solo.
I don't like FD splitting whatsoever as it is in EQ, as it is an unintuitive, unintended, emergent mechanic that only served to reduce the role of CC classes and trivialize pulls that should have been more challenging.
If you want to give Monks/Rogues/anyone else a mez/memblur ability to split mobs, I'm all for it. The chaining of Feign Death though was completely unintended and I never wish to see it again.
Signed,
A Monk who has played (and still plays) EQ for way too long.
i am taling from a solo point of view with the pocket shaman. Raiding is different encounter all together, but i like the challenge of seeing if i could duo to a camp and hold it, and splitting those mobs was the only way to accomplish it. Also, being older and have more responsibilities, i do not want to have to rely on finding groups if i only have a short amount of time to play.
shasta said:i am taling from a solo point of view with the pocket shaman. Raiding is different encounter all together, but i like the challenge of seeing if i could duo to a camp and hold it, and splitting those mobs was the only way to accomplish it. Also, being older and have more responsibilities, i do not want to have to rely on finding groups if i only have a short amount of time to play.
You didn't mention anything about pocket Shamans or soloing in the OP. I also didn't mention anything about raiding.
Soloing your way to a camp is fine and rewarding, but making the game easy to accomodate players with limited playtime is very far from the tenets of the game.
From official sources on the forum: There will be solo content specifically, but it will be a small portion of the game compared to everything else.
A single player handling group content should basically necessitate a very high skill level of gameplay, likely with the assistance of a bot account. Trivializing group content through splitting so it can be overcome by a single player is unacceptable to me, though. That said, you should have the ability to CC adds as a Shaman I imagine.
I would say no to FD pulling. IIRC, this was never intended to be a thing in EQ, but it worked due to how pathing worked. However, aggro reduction spells should definitely exist in my opinion to help with pulling.
As EQ went on, it became easier to easier to single pull through things like FD and Fading Memories (played a Bard for several years). While I did enjoy that role on my Bard and while it was really satisfying to single pull out of a room of 15, it certainly was boring for people to sit there while I did my work, and it really did trivialize the Enchanter's role in a group.
snrub said:I would say no to FD pulling. IIRC, this was never intended to be a thing in EQ, but it worked due to how pathing worked. However, aggro reduction spells should definitely exist in my opinion to help with pulling.
As EQ went on, it became easier to easier to single pull through things like FD and Fading Memories (played a Bard for several years). While I did enjoy that role on my Bard and while it was really satisfying to single pull out of a room of 15, it certainly was boring for people to sit there while I did my work, and it really did trivialize the Enchanter's role in a group.
Dont care about FD pulling one way or the other, just want to comment on the bolded part. There were a lot of other unintended things in EQ that worked and people would fight you tooth and nail to remove them...Its called emergent gameplay and the devs are actually really in favor of it
I'm less about making everything intentional from the developer/design standpoint and more about the devs giving the players the tools (in this case FD) and letting us figure out a way. Personally I would love to see FD and the ability to FD pull in Pantheon whether it is intentional or not. Many of these things such as quad kiting on a Wizard, fear kiting on a Necro/SK really were never intended, but more so things figured out by the players and were alot of fun. Thats not to say some things were not over power i.e. Bard swarm kiting, but I would say those things can be adjusted as the issues arrise.
Intentionally programming mechanics is quite literally the opposite of emergent. Coding emergent behavior from previous games as intentional behavior in Pantheon is fine, but I genuinely believe that FD pulling hurt EQ more than it helped.
I would sincerely hope that Pantheon's systems of managing multiple enemies is more intuitive than that.
Exploiting z-axis to leash mobs in Vanguard was also an emergent behavior, but it had an undeniable negative effect of trivializing some things to a comical level at times.
Liav said:Intentionally programming mechanics is quite literally the opposite of emergent. Coding emergent behavior from previous games as intentional behavior in Pantheon is fine, but I genuinely believe that FD pulling hurt EQ more than it helped.
I would sincerely hope that Pantheon's systems of managing multiple enemies is more intuitive than that.
Exploiting z-axis to leash mobs in Vanguard was also an emergent behgavior, but it had an undeniable negative effect of trivializing some things to a comical level at times.
Not sure im following...FD pulling in EQ was emergent gameplay.
As I said I dont really care one way or the other
Edit: Nevermind seems you were responding to another poster and not me
Sevens said:Not sure im following...FD pulling in EQ was emergent gameplay.
I think the distinction is that FD pulling was emergent gameplay in EQ and not Pantheon.
There are two possible descriptions for emergent gameplay going forward:
1) Things that have been found as emergent gameplay in other games and are fun. These can be coded into Pantheon as intended mechanics, but are not technically speaking emergent anymore.
2) Things that we have yet to find within Pantheon that will be known as emergent gameplay. Perhaps in Terminus we will find that the best way to travel between towns is to jump onto a cart that happens to travel between those towns and go afk. This would be unintended by the devs and strictly speaking emergent gameplay.
Liav was making the distinction that FD falls into category 1 and not 2.
>but making the game easy to accomodate players with limited playtime is very far from the tenets of the game.<
Then the game will fail. This is not a desirable outcome for any of us - despite disagreements on how to make it succeeed we all share a strong desire to have it succeed.
Giving a lot of grouping/guild/social tools. Good. Having a lot of group content and encouraging grouping, good. Having leveling be a slow process and encouraging us to stop and sniff the roses - good. Especially for classes with heals so that they can do something about the swelling from bee stings.
Having nothing useful for players to do when they want to play for half an hour - bad. Having nothing for players to do when they expect interruptions that make grouping unfeasible - very bad. Having nothing for players to do while they try to get a group going and all in one place (a slow process with no maps and no fast travel - hint, hint) very bad.
Solo content should give slower progression but slower isn't even remotely the same as none. Solo content should give inferior gear but inferior isn't remotely the same as nothing useful for upgrades or to sell. At every level from level 1 to maximum level we should have *something* to do without needing others. Even games that focus heavily on dungeons and raids at maximum level have *some* reason for players that aren't going to group that day to log on and spend time in-game. Please no "it isn't a MMO if you don't group" hooey. Its a MMO if you chat in world chat, regional chat, crafting chat, guild chat, whatever even if you are playing solo at the time!
dorotea said:>but making the game easy to accomodate players with limited playtime is very far from the tenets of the game.<
Then the game will fail. This is not a desirable outcome for any of us - despite disagreements on how to make it succeeed we all share a strong desire to have it succeed.
Giving a lot of grouping/guild/social tools. Good. Having a lot of group content and encouraging grouping, good. Having leveling be a slow process and encouraging us to stop and sniff the roses - good. Especially for classes with heals so that they can do something about the swelling from bee stings.
Having nothing useful for players to do when they want to play for half an hour - bad. Having nothing for players to do when they expect interruptions that make grouping unfeasible - very bad. Having nothing for players to do while they try to get a group going and all in one place (a slow process with no maps and no fast travel - hint, hint) very bad.
Solo content should give slower progression but slower isn't even remotely the same as none. Solo content should give inferior gear but inferior isn't remotely the same as nothing useful for upgrades or to sell. At every level from level 1 to maximum level we should have *something* to do without needing others. Even games that focus heavily on dungeons and raids at maximum level have *some* reason for players that aren't going to group that day to log on and spend time in-game. Please no "it isn't a MMO if you don't group" hooey. Its a MMO if you chat in world chat, regional chat, crafting chat, guild chat, whatever even if you are playing solo at the time!
Unfortunately you're taking his quote out of context. The context is using a mechanic to allow 2 players to down content that was designed for a full group. If that is made possible through intentional game mechanics, then that content is easy. If you just read the quote as saying that players with limited time should get the shaft, than that's not the full picture.
I believe Aradune has already stated (can't remember where), that they're aiming for 3? hours in a play session to be viable for progression. The devs know that players don't want to or are unable to group 100% of the time and they will certainly be building in things to do on those occasions. Nobody in this thread has argued for the removal of anything but full group/raid content.
I see a lot of comments that cumulatively reflect an understandable (given the nature of the people that are active on these forums) bias towards group play over solo. As someone that likes to solo as well as group I try to reflect what I consider a more balanced viewpoint. Not that half the game should be solo content or that a soloer should be able to routinely handle group content, but that soloing should be rewarding all the way to maximum level - just not *as* rewarding. I agree my response wasn't really related to the topic of this thread.
So .... No, group content shouldn't be easily soloable. Yes I noticed the part about how there will be solo content in Pantheon I am simply arguing that it should be more rewarding than some other people think it should be. No I don't like the idea of allowing a class with feign death to solo group content. Feign death is a mechanic to allow you to often survive those "oh crap" moments not a mechanic that should let you split grouped mobs. I can see it now - two mobs standing over my motionless body arguing whether I am dead or not. One runs back and the other jumps up and down on my perceived corpse screaming in triumph. Yeah, right! Only makes sense if one of them rips my throat out first.
So on the precise point at issue I agree - have enough solo content for the person with half an hour but don't trivialize content that isn't intended to be solo.
Ainadak said:dorotea said:Unfortunately you're taking his quote out of context. The context is using a mechanic to allow 2 players to down content that was designed for a full group. If that is made possible through intentional game mechanics, then that content is easy. If you just read the quote as saying that players with limited time should get the shaft, than that's not the full picture.
i am by no means saying it shouldnt be tough. It should be very challenging. it should also be doable. druids who could root dot mobs that a solo melee class could not do, necros fear kiting, dual boxing Etc. I just hope that they don't incorporate npc summons. as a soloer who tries to do group content as a challenge and fun would take that away. When I say soloer, I am referring to me playing 2 or 3 characters at once. Everyone is different but that is my personal enjoyment. Not speaking for anyone else.
shasta said:i am by no means saying it shouldnt be tough. It should be very challenging. it should also be doable. druids who could root dot mobs that a solo melee class could not do, necros fear kiting, dual boxing Etc. I just hope that they don't incorporate npc summons. as a soloer who tries to do group content as a challenge and fun would take that away. When I say soloer, I am referring to me playing 2 or 3 characters at once. Everyone is different but that is my personal enjoyment. Not speaking for anyone else.
It is my opinion that group challenges are intended for groups. They should design content with the primary focus of allowing a full group to clear the content in a challenging way.
Should they introduce mechanics to specifically prevent 2-3 characters from clearing the content? No.
Should they introduce mechanics that actively seek to allow 2-3 characters from clearing the content? No.
All mechanics from previous games should be evaluated on how they would apply to Pantheon's intended gameplay types. If they introduce mob splitting in Pantheon because it's intended, then you win. It should be up to YOU to find ways to game the new system in Pantheon, not of having the devs include mechanics that you already know how to exploit. Where's the fun in them including content you already know how to beat?
I'm all for monk split pulls. I thought it worked well in EQ and VG. I look at monk fd pulling as a type of cc, its just ccing before the mobs are in camp instead of after. For tanking, if you can't find a warrior then you grab a Pally or SK and your good. If you can't find a cleric to heal then you grab a shammy or druid and your good. So if you can't find a chanter to cc then you should be able to look for other options and monk FD split pulling is a great alternative. I am a little bias though since monk is in my top 3 I'm looking at currently, although if they don't have FD split pulling then I guess it makes my class choice a little easier. However, I dont see any reason to omit a mechanic that works so well.
What purpose does FD on monks serve, if not for pulling? i never played a monk, so i don't know if a monk could split mobs solo (and maybe that part is what you're against?). However, I don't have a problem with a monk pulling, feigning death, the mobs walking back to their spawn at different speeds, and another player being able to tag the last mob and it coming solo.
If you are against what I just described, then what in the above scenario do you think should happen differently?
Monk FD mechanics in EQ and Vanguard are more dissimilar than similar. There was no meaningful Monk split pulling in Vanguard.
If you pull multiple things, you should either be forced to abandon the pull or use a hard form of CC to handle it (snare, root, mez, charm, etc.). Monks splitting solo mobs out of large pulls is the epitome of trivializing content. It takes a significant portion of the risk out of things and reduces reliance on actual forms of crowd control.
I don't know what the developer's original intent for FD was, but FD is still incredibly useful as a corpse recovery tool and infiltrating places you'd never be able to go on a non-FD class by handling any unwanted aggro.
Honestly I wouldn't be offended if FD is just excluded from the game altogether (as it was in EQOA) and we can just see Monks take on a more pure melee DPS role, maybe with some unique form of utility.
I dunno. I feel like if Feign Death is implemented, it should probably be implemented in a different way than it was in EverQuest. It really doesn't even make sense there. Someone else on these boards said something like this somewhere, but I can't remember exactly who or where: You're running away from a pack of mobs and you just fall down and die without being hit. The mobs are all just like, "Nice! We scared another one to death. No point in making sure he's dead, boys. I know a dead guy when I see one. Let's just leave his corpse exactly where it is and not steal any of his stuff or anything. Supper's waiting at home and I've gotta get to it."
I guess you could argue that when you split a pull and the mobs leave at different times it's because some mobs are more convinced that you are dead than others, but it still seems kind of hokey. They wouldn't just stand there watching you. They'd put a spear through your eye and be sure about it. If there -is- going to be split pulling, I'd rather it be based on knocking adds out and/or creating distractions. Maybe it's the monks that do that, or maybe it's rogues...or rangers. I dunno. I do mostly agree that having solo pullers is harmful to the true crowd control classes...so, maybe if you are going to have solo pullers they should actually be a crowd control class, and rather than waiting until they have six mobs running around their camp to get things in order (although they might still have the ability to do this), they generally prefer to go out and bring back one at a time. If you do have a class like that, they obviously shouldn't still do the same amount of DPS that those classes traditionally do.
Splitting mobs with feign death is not an easy task in a game like EQ. You have to take into account threat and spawn timers. First you pull mobs, then you feign death, then you wait and hope most mobs wander away, then you kill the one that remains, then you start the process a second time. You have to consider that it takes time for mobs to lose their aggro after you feign death, time to kill the mob, etc. In this time it's possible the mobs you killed will be respawning preventing you from completely killing all the mobs in the area. Spells like mezz and lull were usually more effective. Feign death was better for saving yourself from death than it was for splitting mobs. That's why most classes who had it were good pullers. They could feign death on a bad pull instead of having to die or wipe the party. Hopefully we will see things like mezz, lull, and feign death remain in the game as it requires a lot of skill to utilize them (especially solo).
UnknownQuantity said:Splitting mobs with feign death is not an easy task in a game like EQ. You have to take into account threat and spawn timers. First you pull mobs, then you feign death, then you wait and hope most mobs wander away, then you kill the one that remains, then you start the process a second time. You have to consider that it takes time for mobs to lose their aggro after you feign death, time to kill the mob, etc. In this time it's possible the mobs you killed will be respawning preventing you from completely killing all the mobs in the area. Spells like mezz and lull were usually more effective. Feign death was better for saving yourself from death than it was for splitting mobs. That's why most classes who had it were good pullers. They could feign death on a bad pull instead of having to die or wipe the party. Hopefully we will see things like mezz, lull, and feign death remain in the game as it requires a lot of skill to utilize them (especially solo).
I've played a Monk in EQ for almost two decades. Feign Death splitting is very simple to do.
I just think it's very unintuitive, nonsensical gameplay, and I'd rather not see it again, personally.
I personally believe that FD mechanics are a critical part to why I loved EQ so much. I played a Monk as well for quite some time, and although I do agree with Liav in some respects, mostly that it trivialized things that were not meant to be trivial.
I would also say that between Kunark and Velious, they had been developing content with the understanding that FD pulling would be used, and the difficulty bump reflected this. Previous to AA's and luclin and beyond, FD pulling created a real skill gap between good monks and great monks. It basically became a large part of the class meta, and without it monks would have rarely been played.
I definitely want FD pulling in Pantheon, and would be QUITE disappointed if it were not, that being said, I do not want to see it trivialize content, design content to require either FD splitting or CC, or both. I also don't want to see FD Powerleveling and things like that, that really made people sore about FD.
I agree that FD pulling added a higher skill ceiling to the class, however, there are a wide variety of other mechanics that work more intuitively that can have a comparable effect. FD pulling just makes EQ look like a cheap product, and I personally believe it would do the same in Pantheon.
I can come up with a million tools to give a Monk to pull with that don't necessitate implementing a highly unintuitive emergent behavior from a 20 year old game.
Here's an example. The Fade AA that Bards eventually got in EQ achieved much the same function as FD pulling, but the way it worked was much more intuitive and functioned within the expected parameters of the game. Memblur, Mez, Lull, etc. are all tools that could be implemented in various Pantheon classes to give them utility and achieve the same functions without making Pantheon look like a cheap game.
Not to mention, I also think it is an unreasonable burden of knowledge for a new Monk to effectively have to learn all of these emergent behaviors to fully experience their character. With good design, it is entirely possible to add a very high skill ceiling without having mechanics that violate the expected parameters the game is built on.
Rallyd said:...I would also say that between Kunark and Velious, they had been developing content with the understanding that FD pulling would be used, and the difficulty bump reflected this. Previous to AA's and luclin and beyond, FD pulling created a real skill gap between good monks and great monks. It basically became a large part of the class meta, and without it monks would have rarely been played.
...
I believe that this is a very important point. If you can single pull, then content needs to be balanced to that ability. As far as I can tell there are two veins this discussion is heading in and mixing them up can lead to confused arguments.
1) The balance (or imbalance) of being able to single pull. This is a purely mechanical argument and is not exclusive to feign death.
2) Feign death as a sensible ability to be used within a fantasy setting. This takes into account realism, immersion and those sorts of arguments.
For 1: We must keep in mind in this argument that crowd control is one of the pillars of the quaternity in Pantheon. It is just as important as healing, dealing damage, and tanking. If single pulling is to exist in Pantheon, then it needs to be a task that is balanced against the other means of crowd control. If single pulling inherently trivializes crowd control by being too easy to achieve, then your quaternity is just a veil over a trinity. If single pulling can be a balanced task, then classes with that ability should be seen as crowd control classes.
For 2: I thought Shucklighter's scenario was hilarious. While it's not the kind of thing I tend to think about (and thus not immersion breaking for me), I can see that it's truly pretty silly.
Edit: Liav started a new vein: Possible alternative mechanics to achieve single pulling.