Raidan said:Yes they should persist - there's no logical reason why they shouldn't. The channeling for the spell has occured, mana has been used, the spell has been cast and landed and you are able to now cast another spell. If you dot or debuff a mob and then remove the spell, does the DoT/Debuff fade also?
This isn't really a fair comparison. In the example given, the buffs (and/or other spells that function similarly such as having a pet) are used while out of combat, and then replaced with something else. Using a DoT or Debuff would automatically place a character in combat and therefore cannot be swapped in the same manner. I see plenty of merit in Zoltar's post here and think that playing the "spellbook mini-game" would be nothing more than a layer of tedium if there is no real opportunity cost associated with the decision making process of using the kind of abilities in question. Something has to give.
I am all for tactical and meaningful decisions both before and during combat. I am not a fan of a combat system that incentivizes players to "game the system" in the way Zoltar is describing. I am sure VR has something up their sleeve in regard to how they will address this very real issue. It's a great observation and I look forward to seeing what VR has in store for us. I also consider myself an oldschool/hardcore MMO gamer and this is one of the areas where I truly embrace VR's desire to evolve the genre. Fun/Flavorful/Meaningful choices are great. Boring/Lackluster/Tedious choices should be gutted from the experience whenever possible. Thankfully we have a nice and long testing phase ahead of us where these kind of kinks can be worked out with care and consideration.
@187
I’ve rebuffed in combat plenty of times. Regen buffs/Haste, mobs that dispell buffs etc. Again don’t penalize people for buffing, improve mob AI. The proposed scenario of non-persistent buffs would increase tedium ten-fold - so I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue that point that having persistent buffs increases tedium. You have to rememorize spells sure, but most buffs lasted 30+ minutes that you didn’t keep memorized constantly.
As far as in-combat spell memorization goes (tangental to this discussion), If you can’t rememorize spells in combat then you also shouldn’t be able to meditate if the reason is concentration is necessary.
Also, rememorizing spells isn’t gaming the system - it should be a choice that comes with a risk in combat - increased agro on the caster.
Lastly, many failed at the spell-book minigame as you called it in EQ and it was one more layer that I could find a good player by how they timed rebuffing and keeping all buffs up. I’d vote for saved spell sets before Zoltar’s proposal.
*Edit Cleaned up post & Reread all of Zoltar’s posts - so I think I grasp his idea a bit better. If you were going to have a secondary buff bar then I’d agree with Keno - just go all in and allow all spells. At that point you’re only making things overly complicated to try to create a creative system.
Regardless of what’s chosen, it won’t be a dealbreaker for me.
Raidan said:@187
I’ve rebuffed in combat plenty of times. Regen buffs/Haste, mobs that dispell buffs etc. Again don’t penalize people for buffing, improve mob AI. The proposed scenario of non-persistent buffs would increase tedium ten-fold - so I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue that point that having persistent buffs increases tedium. You have to rememorize spells sure, but most buffs lasted 30+ minutes that you didn’t keep memorized constantly.
As far as in-combat spell memorization goes (tangental to this discussion), If you can’t rememorize spells in combat then you also shouldn’t be able to meditate if the reason is concentration is necessary.
Also, rememorizing spells isn’t gaming the system - it should be a choice that comes with a risk in combat - increased agro on the caster.
And this is where our experience differs. I have seen hard in/out combat states used many times in the past. I have never experienced "sitting in-combat allows you to swap spells and doing so causes extra aggro" -- this sounds like something that is exclusive to EQ. It seems like the combat system in Pantheon is designed to acknowledge the in/out states and that it will likely function quite a bit different than what may have been observed in EQ. If you look at the class reveals you will notice that there are abilities that can only be used under the in/out of combat condition. I personally don't mind the condition and feel that it can be used to great effect ... but if you allow players to bypass it with ease, it starts to fall apart at the seams.
Raidan said:eread all of Zoltar’s posts - so I think I grasp his idea a bit better. If you were going to have a secondary buff bar then I’d agree with Keno - just go all in and allow all spells. At that point you’re only making things overly complicated to try to create a creative system.Regardless of what’s chosen, it won’t be a dealbreaker for me.
I don't see what's complicated about having players two categories of skills that each have their own skill-bar. Seems very simple to me.
Very much against just giving players access to all spells. Having to choose which spells to use seems like a pretty fundamental aspect of Pantheon's class & combat design. Also that would make adding new skills down the line very difficult to balance because there would be no tradeoff for using the new spell. How limited the spell selection should be is a valid discussion-- 12, 16, 18, etc. But unlimited seems like a bad way to go.
I spent the past several years playing an MMO with the kind of limited action set system that Pantheon is going for (in that game's case, it was limited to 8 buttons). One of the hallmarks of such a system is that your decisions of what spells to use matter. If you wanted to have access to an ability that buffed your group's assault and support power for X seconds, then you had to put that on your bar in place of something else. Choices matter.
When people talk about wanting to be able to keep buffs when swapping abilities, they tend to be talking about long-term buffs. Honestly, I find those kinds of buffs boring and fairly pointless. They're nothing but a chore you go through at the beginning of every session. In my personal opinion, buffs like that have no real place in an MMO with a limited action set. Get rid of them and either rebalance the content around not having them, or rebalance character base stats so that they're incorporated.
Instead, buff abilities should be designed around short term utility and timing, as well as sacrifice. So yes, if you want that assault/support power buff accessible in combat, you have to make use of one of your limited action bar slots. But in order to make it so that it's not just a button you press once and then forget about (no long-term stat boost chore button), the buff should be designed so that it is something you are actively make use of throughout a fight.
Your ability choices should matter, and they should also shape your activity throughout a fight.
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.
When I'm a blacksmith and being that class means that I have smithing abilities. Blacksmithing would be the overall skill and annealing might be one of the abilities resulting from that skill. A skill itself, for my part, would not have to be on a bar. As one does not simple forget a skill although it's not visible on screen. The abilities relating to that skill can be placed on and removed from that hotbar.
A racial skill, is permantly active to my understanding of "racial skill". An ability coming forth from that racial skill can be placed on or removed from a hotbar. I just choose to use or not use that ability at that time. If that's an ability in combat, I should prepare my combat-hotbar to using that ability. If I do not plan on using it on that mob or friend during the next encounter, I will not place it there and replace it with another ability that will be used.
I like the idea of primary and secondary combat hotbars..in the scenario where Primary abilities, are those one just can not ever go without..when in combat. These would indeed be those abilities that get upgraded as you level up and you'ld always use or want within reach for your character's role in action. When I think of Secondary combat hotbars, I think more in lines of Stances..a fighter might have different stances or a mage might choose to pool from a different magical source. When I'm reading what Pantheon's classes could be, it seems that it is well within reach of such hotbar settings.
The question however remains, would one be allowed to swap spells from their secondary hotbar then? Swapping between stances.. For that question, I'ld lean more towards, no. You had your time to decide what you wanted to add onto that Secondary hotbar, you now learn from your decisions. That, I think is also one of the aims of Pantheon (I might be stretching my opinion here)..if at first you don't succeed, you learn, adjust and come back fighting. That becomes the value of this decisions design. They do not expect you to defeat every thing from the first pull. You'll just have to make due in combat with your chosen setup.
There will be more spells or other abilities as the game is rolled out over time. It's difficult not to. Perhaps you'll only fill up that last open hotbar slot when reaching level 40. Who's to say?
I also like the weighted design, in that it would not exclude your first design either. The abilities of your different 'stances' on your secondary hotbar could be weighed differently. So for me, that's not per se an this or that story.
Spells/buffs with limited effect will last their duration unless the caster died, is out of range of its target or when that groupmember disbands (depending on the flavour of the spell) for me that makes sense. Persistent spells or buffs would require a cost and should not be all accessible at ones. In my bard carrier, I just couldn't play all buffs and boosts at the same time. And that also makes sense. Should they persist after being swapped from my hotbar...they may, as long as I don't put up a new one. Like I stated earlier, it should cancel each other out. There is no harm in that. It just calls for preparation.
Broken record, but per usual Raidan has the right of it, imo. Swapping a spell out in EQ mid fight has killed many groups and wiped many raids. It absolutely had a tremendous negative associted with it.
I do however agree with Zoltar that they could do something better with skill slots IF they are going to enforce no swappiong during combat(which I think is stupid).
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).
It is absolutely what a good buffer does, they have an arsenal of buffs to choose from to guage which ones are best needed for the situation and then when the situation changes, they adapt and add new buffs. Different classes need different buffs and no way can you fit all the buffs you need on one bar and with the small groups and raid caps. You are not going to have alot of the same buffer classes so each can keep a seperate set of buffs memmed so they do not have to remove one and wipe an entire cross section of buffs on players. What if you are the only buffer present? So some people wont get buffs they need? If you want to make drastic drops in quality of life for a game here are some other good ones to advocate.
1) If a caster dies or DCs, any dots they had on mobs or buffs on players vanish
2) Anytime you zone you have to redo all buffs
3) Melee cannot swap weapons or gear out mid combat, they should have thought it out ahead of time
4) If a melee or caster dies during a fight , all of the damage they did on the mob is added back- they should have thought things out better and not died. They only exception to this rule is if it was a Ranger
cuz thats too funny when it happens.
5) If you are playing Pantheon while you are drunk or buzzed, your character suffers combat penalties and cannot mem spells and there is an additional roll to see if you accidentally land a hit or spell on your
groupmates.
oneADseven said:Raidan said:@187
I’ve rebuffed in combat plenty of times. Regen buffs/Haste, mobs that dispell buffs etc. Again don’t penalize people for buffing, improve mob AI. The proposed scenario of non-persistent buffs would increase tedium ten-fold - so I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue that point that having persistent buffs increases tedium. You have to rememorize spells sure, but most buffs lasted 30+ minutes that you didn’t keep memorized constantly.
As far as in-combat spell memorization goes (tangental to this discussion), If you can’t rememorize spells in combat then you also shouldn’t be able to meditate if the reason is concentration is necessary.
Also, rememorizing spells isn’t gaming the system - it should be a choice that comes with a risk in combat - increased agro on the caster.
And this is where our experience differs. I have seen hard in/out combat states used many times in the past. I have never experienced "sitting in-combat allows you to swap spells and doing so causes extra aggro" -- this sounds like something that is exclusive to EQ. It seems like the combat system in Pantheon is designed to acknowledge the in/out states and that it will likely function quite a bit different than what may have been observed in EQ. If you look at the class reveals you will notice that there are abilities that can only be used under the in/out of combat condition. I personally don't mind the condition and feel that it can be used to great effect ... but if you allow players to bypass it with ease, it starts to fall apart at the seams.
Just for what it's worth, EQ also has these same in/out of combat conditions.
In my opinion, I do not like the idea of adding a second skill bar for buffs or having them fade when removed from the primary skill bar. Adding another skill bar seems to do the opposite of solve the problem I'm hearing (people should have to be strategic about buffing) and having them fade ignores the thought/strategy about when buffers switch out their spells to buff their teammates (or random people).
Buffs should dissipate when a player removes the spell from their limited action set.
Having buffs remain after choosing another skill in their place defeats the purpose of a limited action set. The whole point of the system, as I understand it, is to give players a sense of agency over their gameplay. If buffs do persist, then there is no point to ever keeping a buff on your skillbar. It would always be best to prebuff then swap to a different combat setup. In this case, each class's buffs should be consolidated into a single spell that can be easily swapped. Or they could be removed altogether.
I would advocate for keeping buffs that do not persist when removed from the skillbar, but balancing them so that it is tough to decide between using a buff or a combat skill.
I think long-term buffs should stay active regardless of mem'd spells. I mean how else are you going to buff newbs or get donations for buffs, amirite? Short-term buffs are more where the case could be made for this thread. Personally, I think the offensive/defensive spells and abilities are much more important and thus the implementation of the 'limited action set'. All the worry over buffs seems kind of here nor there. I understand the gripes about buffing turning into a tedious act (then play a melee?), or "but it makes the limited action set not matter" (not true), but once everyone gets in the game and are playing - I don't think many people will be seething over what's currently implemented (as seen on streams as of now).
Fragile said:I think long-term buffs should stay active regardless of mem'd spells. I mean how else are you going to buff newbs or get donations for buffs, amirite? Short-term buffs are more where the case could be made for this thread. Personally, I think the offensive/defensive spells and abilities are much more important and thus the implementation of the 'limited action set'. All the worry over buffs seems kind of here nor there. I understand the gripes about buffing turning into a tedious act (then play a melee?), or "but it makes the limited action set not matter" (not true), but once everyone gets in the game and are playing - I don't think many people will be seething over what's currently implemented (as seen on streams as of now).
You're thinking of buffs in the wrong way. IMO, in an MMO with a limited action set, they shouldn't function like the long-term chore buffs in EQ or WoW or whatever. Choosing to put a buff ability on your bar should have just as much of an impact on your gameplay as any other ability. It should be something you're actively making use of throughout a fight. Short duration but impactful buff spells.
I understand the point of the ideas, but in my opinion a system like that is not necessary. In EQ, the limiting factor for the choice of buffs was not the amount of available spell bars, but the mana. While leveling, my enchanter had a hard time to buff a mellee heavy group with speed while doing the basic tasks. I buffed the whole group at once for each buff, so that i know when it fades and can rebuff without any notification. However, after buffing 6 people, i was oom. In my opinion this is limiting enough.
Edit: In short, I have the feeling that mana costs of buffs (and their usefulness) was considered in the whole discussion.
The cleric, ranger, rogue, shaman and warrior all have abilities that are limited to the in/out combat designation, and there are probably more classes with similar abilities that have yet to be revealed. Let's consider this:
Ranger Ability
A carefully aimed shot that inflicts devastating damage to your enemy. If your enemy is currently caught in a trap, this ability will critically hit. Additionally, Silent Arrow will inflict bonus damage if outdoors. Silent Arrow is only usable out of combat. (Manually Aimed. If in 3rd person view, activating this ability will move the camera into an over-the-shoulder perspective. 1st person view will not be affected.)
Warrior Ability
You charge at your enemy with furious speed, stunning them briefly. Only usable out of combat. (Grants 1 Battle Point)
Here we have two abilities that are governed by the in/out designation which greatly reduces their versatility. When it comes time for a ranger or warrior to consider using these abilities, they understand that they can only use them one time per encounter and they must be used as an opener. Let's compare that with some summoner abilities:
You are able to summon weaponry that is specifically designed for your Arcamentals to use in combat. As you grow in power, the variety and potency of this weaponry will increase.
You are able to summon armor that is specifically designed for your Arcamentals to use in combat. As you grow in power, the variety and potency of this weaponry will increase.
Based on the verbiage, it's clear that these abilities are "specifically designed for your arcamentals to use in combat" yet they don't have the "can only be used in-combat" designation. To me, this sounds like something that will be easily and consistently circumvented. It doesn't sound like these abilities are designed to be temporary buffs, similar to the "Augment Arcamental: Force/Metabolize/Quickening/Density" lines that specify a limited duration.
And then we have:
You summon a random, hostile creature from somewhere within Terminus which must be Charmed by an Enchanter to be utilized in combat. The type and level of the summoned creature is governed by your level. Creatures summoned in this way do not provide experience when killed.
Epic Ability. Summoners can evolve their Summon Creature ability into Summon Behemoth, allowing them to conjure various creatures of great might. These creatures are hostile and must be Dire Charmed by an Enchanter to be useable in combat. Creatures summoned in this way cannot be permanently charmed and do not provide experience when killed.
The summoner class, as it has been revealed, is a great example of why players should be looking to game the limited action set as often as possible. In order to play a summoner optimally, there will be situations where they summon their pet ... then they apply bonus armor ... and then bonus weaponry. If there is an enchanter present, they would also summon a creature or behemoth for them to charm. Immediately afterward, they would remove all (4) of those abilities from their bar and replace them with something else that offers more value in-combat. The previously listed abilities all offer the majority of their value in-combat but it's most efficient to use them while out-of-combat -- there will be exceptions here and there where their pet dies and maybe they want to keep those abilities slotted so that they can resummon their pet (and additional creature if an enchanter is present) and apply the armor/weaponry buffs in the middle of a fight. For other classes, it would mostly be the use of dispels that require buffs to be re-applied during the fight. These exceptions are not something to balance around or they would feel incredibly gimmicky and frustrating, in my opinion.
The argument that the mana cost of using these abilities is enough of a consideration to allow this circumvention of the LAS doesn't really hold water. What ends up happening, as with all other buffs with long durations, is that players will end up waiting for their mana to regen prior to engaging any difficult opponent, and that just so happens to be a time where meaningful tactical/strategic decisions should be more important than ever. Every single ability that can be gamed, will be gamed, especially when it matters the most. Players will do their rounds of buffs and then swap those abilities out for something that is more beneficial in-combat. If the mana cost is high, no big deal (except it is) ... they will sit there and wait until their resources are full again. This kind of downtime should be avoided at all costs. It's one thing to have meaningful downtime because players burn through their resources or to punish mistakes ... it's another thing, completely, to incentivize players to sit on their thumbs while they wait for the resources they just used to circumvent the LAS to replenish.
oneADseven said:The summoner class, as it has been revealed, is a great example of why players should be looking to game the limited action set as often as possible. In order to play a summoner optimally, there will be situations where they summon their pet ... then they apply bonus armor ... and then bonus weaponry. If there is an enchanter present, they would also summon a creature or behemoth for them to charm. Immediately afterward, they would remove all (4) of those abilities from their bar and replace them with something else that offers more value in-combat. The previously listed abilities all offer the majority of their value in-combat but it's most efficient to use them while out-of-combat -- there will be exceptions here and there where their pet dies and maybe they want to keep those abilities slotted so that they can resummon their pet (and additional creature if an enchanter is present) and apply the armor/weaponry buffs in the middle of a fight. For other classes, it would mostly be the use of dispels that require buffs to be re-applied during the fight. These exceptions are not something to balance around or they would feel incredibly gimmicky and frustrating, in my opinion.
Summoner abilities that just summmon a pet could really benefit from being treated like WildStar engineer's bots. In this way, you would choose to have a particular arcamental summon on your bar. However, once you've summoned that pet, the ability would turn into an active command ability to initiate an attack or some other spell cast by the arcamental. An example of this is the engineer class's Bruiser Bot in WildStar. If you choose to put Bruiser Bot on your bar, it doesn't just eat up one of your 8 action slots. When Bruiser Bot is summoned and alive, that button becomes an ability to activate an AoE stun that knocks off one interrupt armor. In this way, choosing which arcamental summons to place on your action bar represents a significant decision that directly impacts the summoner's gameplay, moving it away from just gaming the system.
A similar treatment needs to be given to the pet abilities like "Augment Arcamental: Quickening", "Augment Arcamental: Force", etc. Honestly, I would just completely revamp these spells, as they are designed in such a way that they are far more compatible with a traditional multiple action bar game and not a game with a limited action set. Perhaps some of them can be baked into whatever active ability the arcamental summon button becomes (as per prior paragraph). The Arcamental Weaponry and Armor really don't need to be abilities at all - or perhaps bake in the benefits of Weaponry to some summons and the benefits of Armor to different summmons.
Too many people in this thread are stuck on thinking of this game like a traditional action bar set-up when that's not what it will be and that's not how it should play - and that means things like buffs and pet spells and the like need a very different treatment.
WarKnight said: "Should spells/buffs persist after removed from bar?" Yes.
I agree, If you want something to change spells make a "skill" to "memorize" spell types
I.E. when a young caster gets his spell book out in order to apply the spell to the bar he has to "memorize" it or "learn" it whatever you want to call it to apply it to the bar.
At this point he has to use the "skill" for it and as he/she progresses thru their levels so this goes and or applies quicker to the bar
make it apply say at 10 seconds or 30 seconds at lower levels with chances of failing to apply. As the caster increases in skill level it gets faster to apply and also lessens the chance of them failing the application.
So the "penalty" would be a poorly trained higher end caster might not be able to apply the next spell to his bar as quickly as one who has practiced the skill.
You could even group spells into different types and make them each dependant on a different "skill type"
My belief is you get a buff its there until you remove it, it gets removed by some anul magic spell or skill, the buff gets changed due to a stronger version of it landing on you, or time runs out on it. Not by if the caster decides he needs to change the buff to a different one.
I think by implementing a suggestion of removing a buff if the caster removes the spell then you will end up with Bots that people create specifically to do nothing but Buff people.
Not knowing much about the game and how it plays. If you are killed in the game do you come back to spawn without spells in the bar? do you have to "relearn" them? I cannot imagine on a raid if this were the case and a buffer got snuffed early what that would mean to a raid..
Yes. You memorized that spell and cast it on a player ( in the past ). The buff isn't an exension of you just a fingerprint left behind, that fades in time.
Irriaden said:Yes they should stay.
These are not bard songs, or WoW Paladin Auras. They were cast, cost mana, and have a duration.
Buff spells should be more than just boring chores that you cast and forget about for an hour. Make them valuable and competitive to slot onto your action bar versus another ability by giving them high impact but shorter duration (can be AoE or restricted targets depending on the buff in question).
This isn't EQ or WoW where the game design is intended for you to have access to everything at all times. Buffs should be treated the same. Try playing an MMO with the kind of limited action set system Pantheon will have in order to understand.
This whole thread inspired me to create some content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAdX7wxepWM
I think there are some factors here we simply don't know. How long would the spell last being one of them?
As an Enchanter I didn't keep Clarity/KEI mem'd until I needed it. It had a longer duration and I needed that spot for something else. I kept Haste on my bar because the duration was always so short and ensuring a melee heavy group maintained buffs was important.
In order for me to justify a buff taking up a main slot on my bar it needs to be casted frequently and be more useful that what it would potentially replace. As an enchanter buffs were a chore. I didn't always enjoy casting them but I acknowledged the importance of them. I don't want to spend the whole fight casting buffs in order to give the impression that it some how makes casting a buff more engaging. That doesn't make playing a class that has crucial buffs more fun, it makes them less fun. There is no reason to change how this works. Let me cast long duration buffs out of combat, unmem them, and replace them.
EppE said:In order for me to justify a buff taking up a main slot on my bar it needs to be casted frequently and be more useful that what it would potentially replace. As an enchanter buffs were a chore. I didn't always enjoy casting them but I acknowledged the importance of them. I don't want to spend the whole fight casting buffs in order to give the impression that it some how makes casting a buff more engaging. That doesn't make playing a class that has crucial buffs more fun, it makes them less fun. There is no reason to change how this works. Let me cast long duration buffs out of combat, unmem them, and replace them.
The thing is, we don't need long-duration static buffs.
This game would do well to just toss those as unnecessary relics of a multi-action bar system, as they do not mesh with the design and intentions of a limited action set. Then rebalance content or bake those stat bonuses into other abilities.
Some examples of buff abilities that work very well as competitive spells in a limited action set system (yes, they're from WildStar):
Power Link - Warrior ability that granted an assault/support power buff to those within range. This was a toggle on/off ability, except the trick to it was that while it was on, it would continuously drain the warrior's primary resource. This meant you had to balance using your other resource consumers with maintaining enough reserve to keep Power Link up - or your group would lose the buff until you could activate it again.
Void Pact - Spellslinger ability, another assault/support power buff in an AoE circle around the caster. This particular one had a much longer cooldown than its duration. However, by being careful about your spell use and Spell Surge (one of a slinger's resources), you could reduce the cooldown to increase the uptime of the buff.
Volatile Injection - Engineer ability that served two purposes, granting a brief Multi-hit buff to those within range while also generating Volatility over time (Volatility was an engineer's primary resource, and engi was designed around carefully balancing Volatility to try and stay within a particular range for a damage bonus, if dps, or for some other ability bonuses if tank).
In contrast, a non-LAS game like WoW has the buff Power Word: Fortitude, which you just cast at the cost of some mana and it grants everyone a flat stamina buff for 60 minutes. Okay, that's great for the design of that game, because it is intentional that you have access to all of your spells at all times, so some of these spells can be things you might only hit periodically outside of combat. However, a LAS system is meant to force you to make strategic decisions.
I feel like anything that encouraged you to fill your bar up with buffs, cast them, then swap everything over to your "real" combat action set would 1) be overly cumbersome and 2) completely defeat the purpose of an LAS.
Likewise, certain classes (particularly summoner as we know it from the class page) most certainly need a redesign of several abilities to better work with an LAS system. I mentioned my ideas on this earlier in this particular thread.
People need to stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.