This is a topic that sparked a spirited debate on discord the other day, and it's also relevant to the post about having to use a skill-bar slot for racial abilities. Basically, I and some others are of the mind that if you remove a spell from your current skill-bar loadout, any current benefits of that skill should be removed. If I have a skill that summons a pet, removing the skill should dismiss the pet. If I've buffed my group with a spell, removing the spell should cancel the buffs.
The whole point of a limited spell/skill bar is that there is an opportunity cost to memorizing any spell and you have to think about what the optimal setup is and whether a particular situation warrants a differet setup. It throws the system out of whack if you can get the benefits of a spell without having to pay the cost of equipping it. You can also get into a situation where you incentivize awful gameplay by having players constantly swapping spells in and out... not to adapt to a particular situation as is intended, but rather just too avoid the checks and balances of your skill selection limit.
However, making buffs behave in this way exacerbates the issue of "weaker" skills never being used. Marginal skills like buffs and situational skills end up being left out for "bread and butter" active skills that provide more consistent and powerful benefits. But I think there are a couple of possible soltuions that would address the persistence issue, improve skill diversity, and also account for how racial skills could factor into the skill bar limitations.
-------------------
Solution 1: Split abilities into two categories. Primary skills are your "bread-n-butter" abilites, and are limited to ~10 primary skill-bar slots. Secondary skills would be situational/fluff skills and some buffs, and they would either have a separate bar with its own limited number of slots (or possibly unlimited?). Basically, any skill that seems like it wouldn't be worth spending a primary slot on and would be OK giving players have access to in addition to their primary skills.
Solution 2: Give each ability a weighted "skill slot cost" and let players equip whichever abilities they want up to a specific cap. A major attack or healing spell might have a cost of 5, while a buff might just have a cost of 1. Personally I like this solution quite a bit because it gives the developers a lot of flexibility to add abilities with various strengths as well as provides another avenue of character progression and itemization. For example, an item could have a mod that reduces the skill slot cost of a particular ability, or you could have AA's that give players a large pool of skill slot points.
Buff skills/spells shouldn't count against your limited primary "hot-bar." So, they should persist if swapped out for other skills (optimally we'll have multiple hot-bars, with the extra hot-bar(s) for things like buffs, fluff abilities, clickies, etc). So, I guess Solution 1 that you propose? The reason for this is that by removing the buffs if the spell is swapped off, it punishes some classes much more than others. For example, if I'm a Ranger or Rogue it's very likely I might only have one or two personal buffs, but if I'm a Cleric/Shaman/Druid it's possible I might have one or two personal buffs along with two or three group buffs, the kind of which are vital and add the class flavor we all want in our groups. So now if I'm playing as a Cleric/Shaman/Druid I only get to use five "combat" abilities? That's pretty discouraging and really reduces the variability that classes should have in combat, especially if the overall goal is an engaging combat system for every class.
Sicario said:Buff skills/spells shouldn't count against your limited primary "hot-bar." So, they should persist if swapped out for other skills (optimally we'll have multiple hot-bars, with the extra hot-bar(s) for things like buffs, fluff abilities, clickies, etc). So, I guess Solution 1 that you propose? The reason for this is that by removing the buffs if the spell is swapped off, it punishes some classes much more than others. For example, if I'm a Ranger or Rogue it's very likely I might only have one or two personal buffs, but if I'm a Cleric/Shaman/Druid it's possible I might have one or two personal buffs along with two or three group buffs, the kind of which are vital and add the class flavor we all want in our groups. So now if I'm playing as a Cleric/Shaman/Druid I only get to use five "combat" abilities? That's pretty discouraging and really reduces the variability that classes should have in combat, especially if the overall goal is an engaging combat system for every class.
Exactly. Casting a buff and swapping the buff ability off your bar is a way to get around the basic problems with having all skills competing for the same slots. But it's better to solve both issues IMO.
It's going to be bad enough that you can't re-mem spells in combat (in opposition to what you can do in EQ1), I wouldn't add this additional restriction to designers, personally. As it is, the current public design goal is very limiting regarding what designers can implement respecting challenging encounters. If each class can only have 2 damage types, or two damage spells, or two weapons, and/or spells can't be swapped but weapons can, or the other way around? There's no way to balance that implementation. The logical conclusion to their current public design is a bad compromise everyone hates. Either everyone will be forced, hardcore, into the limited action set, and designers hamstrung, or half the classes will have a massive advantage and the others will be perpetually angry.
Also, there is no reason, at all, ever, that you would prevent or limit players from casting any spell they want, on any number of hotbars they want, out of combat, and/or directly from their spellbook or skill tome. There is simply no good reason to be punitive in this area.
zoltar said:Exactly. Casting a buff and swapping the buff ability off your bar is a way to get around the basic problems with having all skills competing for the same slots. But it's better to solve both issues IMO.
I don't think all abilities should compete for the same limited slots, especially not buff abilities. I would certainly prefer the concept of buffs being classified as "secondary" abilities like you mentioned and having a permanent place on a secondary-abilities' hot-bar. And I'm not sure I even agree with the concept of buffs being removed if swapped off the hot-bar to begin with. I guess it depends on how you view the mechanics of how a buff is working in a given fantasy world. Are they cast like a fireball or are they "sustained" by the caster for the duration of the buff? I've never considered buffs like Spirit of the Wolf being a sustained buff that's maintained by the caster. I've always viewed them in a similar capacity as to a wizard using a fireball, once it's cast it's cast. Some buffs might be maintained by the caster, but certainly not all. Regardless, I would really just prefer to have a secondary hot-bar for buffs. Buffs are class defining, and I feel it'd take something away from the world if there's pressure to play without them readily available.
vjek said:It's going to be bad enough that you can't re-mem spells in combat (in opposition to what you can do in EQ1), I wouldn't add this additional restriction to designers, personally. As it is, the current public design goal is very limiting regarding what designers can implement respecting challenging encounters. If each class can only have 2 damage types, or two damage spells, or two weapons, and/or spells can't be swapped but weapons can, or the other way around? There's no way to balance that implementation. The logical conclusion to their current public design is a bad compromise everyone hates. Either everyone will be forced, hardcore, into the limited action set, and designers hamstrung, or half the classes will have a massive advantage and the others will be perpetually angry.
Also, there is no reason, at all, ever, that you would prevent or limit players from casting any spell they want, on any number of hotbars they want, out of combat, and/or directly from their spellbook or skill tome. There is simply no good reason to be punitive in this area.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're getting at here. You're making a bunch of vague, generalized statements.
Fragile said:Let's not reinvent the wheel here folks. Things are fine as is. Let's not turn into WildStar with an even more restricted action set.
I'm not saying that the action set should be more restricted. If anything, I'm saying make it less restricted overall so that there isn't the need to swap buffs in and out of the skillbar, and thus the issues with buffs persisting after the skill is removed no longer applies.
Fragile said:I think that goes against their idea of soft class specialization and having 'your decisions matter'. Think we are stuck, at the moment, with how the system is - even if it may be rigid.
This makes no sense though. How does eing able to swap in a buff, cast it, then swap it out make your decisions matter? The decision is "do I use this skill or that skill?" Being able to use both is not a choice. On the one hand, you're saying "don't make things restricted" and on the other you're saying "decisions should matter". Without restrictions, there are no decisions to make in the first place.
I play a druid in P99 and as it is, I have a tough time keeping my main buffs, utilitym damage, dots, and healing spells in one set of 8 spell slots.
I could not imagine if I had to choose specifically, and not had the option between fights to load a particular buff, cast, then swap out for my combat spell.
I see what your saying, but if someone dies - and you don't have the buff on your bar, GG until combat is over. This isnt a big deal in a ezmode exp group, but in a longer/harder encounter it very well might be. For example, not having 20-30% (enchanter/shaman buff) melee haste for 3-5 mins is a lot of dps lost.
I always thought that a Mana pool maintenance cost would make sense. If you cast a buff on one person, for instance, your mana pool is limited by 1% (you can only med up to 99%). If you buff 10 people, you are limited to 90%, etc. In some sense, the universal mana pool is being used to maintain the buff.
I'm not advocating for or against the idea. I just wrote that it would make sense to me. It would make the game harder- or inject difficult decisions into gameplay, which is a concept I generally like.
I never really played DAOC, but is that what "concentration" is?
Fragile said:I see what your saying, but if someone dies - and you don't have the buff on your bar, GG until combat is over. This isnt a big deal in a ezmode exp group, but in a longer/harder encounter it very well might be. For example, not having 20-30% (enchanter/shaman buff) melee haste for 3-5 mins is a lot of dps lost.
Easy solution, make the secondary bar buffs only castable out of combat. If you want the option to cast during combat, you can put then in a primary slot.
I think the spell should persist even if you remove it from your spell bar. I really enjoyed getting random buffs from strangers, getting a SoW and tipping for it and what not. Nothing punitive should be added, the spell is cast, the mana is spent, the spell sticks until it is removed or the timer runs out.
I dont understand the point of this idea at all? Good buffers are people that can throw alot of buff, swap out sets when needed and rebuff different classes as needed. Its alot of work and I appreciate the people that take the time to do it versus the lazy ones that only want to throw one or two buffs.
What you are proposing would encourage people to be bad buffers, not good ones that react and flow with the situation and adapt.
This seems like yet another solution that A: Is for a problem that doesn't exist and/or B: Is worse than the problem it's trying to solve in the first place. There's a lot of effort that now has to go into balancing not just the classes with their spells and abilities, but now the point system for how many can be memmed at once and which spells will lose their buffs if you remove it from your spell bar. I just don't see the point. It's a ton of work and balance for what seems like, to me, maginal if any benefit. Big no. Certain classes are absolutely going to be impacted more than others. Certain classes are designed around their versatility. Why do we want to make buffing/healing even more difficult? It doesn't seem fun and I don't think is solves anything. VR should spend time on things that actually matter instead of coming up with wild ideas(of which they already have plenty).
Deathwish said:I dont understand the point of this idea at all? Good buffers are people that can throw alot of buff, swap out sets when needed and rebuff different classes as needed. Its alot of work and I appreciate the people that take the time to do it versus the lazy ones that only want to throw one or two buffs.
What you are proposing would encourage people to be bad buffers, not good ones that react and flow with the situation and adapt.
So what you're saying is that we need to make buffing tedious just so we can differentiate between "good" buffers and "lazy" buffers? What?
I mean, I'm down for the whole mechanic of swapping skills in and out to adjust to various situations in the game. That makes sense mechanically. But swapping skills in and out for reasons that have nothing to do with your environment and only becuase you the benefit of the spell without actually using a slot on your skill bar... that's just needlessly tedious. Designing the game that way just because it was that way in EQ and so that you can appreciate "good" buffers makes no sense to me.
Keno Monster said:This seems like yet another solution that A: Is for a problem that doesn't exist and/or B: Is worse than the problem it's trying to solve in the first place. There's a lot of effort that now has to go into balancing not just the classes with their spells and abilities, but now the point system for how many can be memmed at once and which spells will lose their buffs if you remove it from your spell bar. I just don't see the point. It's a ton of work and balance for what seems like, to me, maginal if any benefit. Big no. Certain classes are absolutely going to be impacted more than others. Certain classes are designed around their versatility. Why do we want to make buffing/healing even more difficult? It doesn't seem fun and I don't think is solves anything. VR should spend time on things that actually matter instead of coming up with wild ideas(of which they already have plenty).
Who is trying to make buffing more difficult? My point is that constantly switching buffs in and out of your skillbar circumvents the point of having a limited number of skills. So then why should buffing skills be limited in that manner at all? It's just a pointless layer of tedium. I'm saying make buffing easier because there is no point to making it difficult (in terms of skill bar manangement).
zoltar said:Keno Monster said:This seems like yet another solution that A: Is for a problem that doesn't exist and/or B: Is worse than the problem it's trying to solve in the first place. There's a lot of effort that now has to go into balancing not just the classes with their spells and abilities, but now the point system for how many can be memmed at once and which spells will lose their buffs if you remove it from your spell bar. I just don't see the point. It's a ton of work and balance for what seems like, to me, maginal if any benefit. Big no. Certain classes are absolutely going to be impacted more than others. Certain classes are designed around their versatility. Why do we want to make buffing/healing even more difficult? It doesn't seem fun and I don't think is solves anything. VR should spend time on things that actually matter instead of coming up with wild ideas(of which they already have plenty).
Who is trying to make buffing more difficult? My point is that constantly switching buffs in and out of your skillbar circumvents the point of having a limited number of skills. So then why should buffing skills be limited in that manner at all? It's just a pointless layer of tedium. I'm saying make buffing easier because there is no point to making it difficult (in terms of skill bar manangement).
Then why place additional restrictions on spells in general? Having 10 points available and only being able to have a 2 four pointers and a 2 pointer doesn't seem like strategy, it seems like tedium. And then you're in situations where you have to forget multiple spells just to mem one more and maybe crap now you're at 9 points instead of 10. I can already hear people arguing about how fireball should be 4 instead of 3 and Skin Like Nature should be 2 instead of 4. Ugh. I just don't think it's a good idea. It's not going to be fun or a good way to separate good player from not as good player by making people remember which abilities cost how many points and then being like "oh I need to forget lesser heal and innervate so i can mem fire protection, but if I want to keep fire protection and lesser heal up at the same then I need to drop skin like bark and and and".
Also, why is the title of this thread:
if you're going to argue a system that would make buffing more fun/easier? Because that sure as heck isn't it, imo.
You made 2 points, the point system, or the A/B tier system without overlap. Solution 1 doesn't address your core point of making the opportunity cost important. How does giving twice the number of slots make that decision more important? And solution #2 is rife with balance issues.
We can go round and round with little tweaks and adjustments and nuances to the idea, but again, I stand by my point: This isn't a disease. It doesn't need a cure. Maybe others disagree.
And you're a great poster with lots of great ideas that I agree with most of the time.
zoltar said:This is a topic that sparked a spirited debate on discord the other day, and it's also relevant to the post about having to use a skill-bar slot for racial abilities. Basically, I and some others are of the mind that if you remove a spell from your current skill-bar loadout, any current benefits of that skill should be removed. If I have a skill that summons a pet, removing the skill should dismiss the pet. If I've buffed my group with a spell, removing the spell should cancel the buffs.
The whole point of a limited spell/skill bar is that there is an opportunity cost to memorizing any spell and you have to think about what the optimal setup is and whether a particular situation warrants a differet setup. It throws the system out of whack if you can get the benefits of a spell without having to pay the cost of equipping it. You can also get into a situation where you incentivize awful gameplay by having players constantly swapping spells in and out... not to adapt to a particular situation as is intended, but rather just too avoid the checks and balances of your skill selection limit.
However, making buffs behave in this way exacerbates the issue of "weaker" skills never being used. Marginal skills like buffs and situational skills end up being left out for "bread and butter" active skills that provide more consistent and powerful benefits. But I think there are a couple of possible soltuions that would address the persistence issue, improve skill diversity, and also account for how racial skills could factor into the skill bar limitations.
-------------------
Solution 1: Split abilities into two categories. Primary skills are your "bread-n-butter" abilites, and are limited to ~10 primary skill-bar slots. Secondary skills would be situational/fluff skills and some buffs, and they would either have a separate bar with its own limited number of slots (or possibly unlimited?). Basically, any skill that seems like it wouldn't be worth spending a primary slot on and would be OK giving players have access to in addition to their primary skills.
Solution 2: Give each ability a weighted "skill slot cost" and let players equip whichever abilities they want up to a specific cap. A major attack or healing spell might have a cost of 5, while a buff might just have a cost of 1. Personally I like this solution quite a bit because it gives the developers a lot of flexibility to add abilities with various strengths as well as provides another avenue of character progression and itemization. For example, an item could have a mod that reduces the skill slot cost of a particular ability, or you could have AA's that give players a large pool of skill slot points.
Before going in any further.. are we talking about temporary and thus timed spell-effects and buffs or persistent ones?
Are we talking about in combat swapping or out of combat? To quickly clear that question, I'ld assume you can't swap in combat and the replacing action will occur out of combat.
When out of combat, one again would assume you're not in direct peril and are able (at your own choice) to swap out spells or buffs.
Damaging spells would have run their cours as you're out of combat. So there is no problem swapping those out.
Healing spells if timed, would run their timer and thereby have their limited effect and run out. As they also would in combat or without swapping. It's just a matter of time here.
Persistent buffs or other spell effects, would remain on the group in as wel as out of combat. Now the swapping action and your question could start having an impact.
The question here, should they last even after swapping. I'ld think, if I'm buffing the group for heat mitigation, and I swamp that spell from my hotbar for an Ice mitigation buff. The heat mitigation buff would remain active until I actually cancel out my heat mit by activating my ice mitigation.
If the hotbar or ability bar if you will, has 5 slots and I have them all actived. The game designed it so that I have 5 options to be active at one time. (not going into contradictory spell effects here) So it would make sense that if I swap one of those options out for another from my knowledge book. I would have to cancel one of the 5 I'm currently using, for the one I replaced it with.
Why would that be an issue? You are out of combat, the spells we are talking about are not temporary active damaging or healing spells. So there is no direct risk during the swapping phase.
Different mobs might require different spells. And thus one might need to swap around a lot? Which could be very tedious or intensive?
There, yes I hear you. But, let's set the scene here. ;
A group is going into a cave with Rats..the group knows this and has set up their hotbar accordingly. Beyond a certain point in that cave they'll come across frost spiders and even further down they'll encounter divine wraiths.
So here we have three possible needs for a swap.
For one, I highly doubt that the place will be so swarmed you constantly have to swap in and out spells, due to the sheer number of different mobs at the same place and the killingrate being so fast/high that mobs just keep on spawning and jumping the group. (Let's be realistic here, don't forget..Pantheon is aiming towards a slower pace combat design.)
So based on that...I'ld say..mmm highly questionable scenario.
What might happen..you play 30 min's and kill your way past the rats and find a safe spot..with view of the spiders. The group sits down and discusses their strat and persistent spells are being swapped around along with gear (possibly). When the group is fully equipped and ready, they start killing the spiders. Later on they managed to kill the last spiders and they see the first wraiths turning a corner. The group regains their mana, swaps gear and spells. And from there on they tackle the wraiths.
Now this is a scenario where in 1 single cave you'll encounter three different mobs that REALLY require you to swap out spells (and gear) to be optimal. As in you couldn't possibly manage without swapping.
So how realistic this scenario is where one group would encounter such requirements in 1 cave...is already questionable. It's more likely that you'll find different requirements in different caves or regions in the world. Rather then having it all in one cave. Still it could happen. But reading the scenario...was it really such a hassle? Would the group have died horribly due to a spell being canceled due to swapping or activating a replacement?
Let's not blow this out of proportion just yet and wait out how it will play out ingame shall we?
Still it's a good question and it's fun to consider these things.