I think it would be nice if buffs were more active aura’s provided by the buffing class that effects raid members within X (large, medium or small) range depending on the buff in question.
This way you need to decide which buffs are important based on your group class combination, encounter aspects, group members gear levels and the general skill level of your group players.
Buffs in general contribute greatly to general mudflation without soft/hard caps. Either the encounter is designed around having the buffs or not. If instead of the buffs being an expectation (like having the +bonus magic items in Pathfinder) they can just be a piece of the puzzle, along with gear and tactics, to solve encounters. The encounters would all be designed around soft capped player stats which can be reached with twink gear or a combination of buffs and level appropriate gear.
The long term goal is to balance the defensive and offensive tools to defeat encounters. For example energy resist gear is usually bad for DPS but if you are below a certain level of energy defense you will not be able to survive to DPS. Defensive buffs can be used while your gear is not good enough to survive then you switch to offensive buffs or offensive abilities once your gear gets good enough.
I think over all this buff system will go a long way toward player interdependence that could be circumvented if your second account buffer could just buff the party then log back off until buffs need refreshed. This would also allow some class overlap without watering down character classes as they can switch who is doing what to best fit the needs of the group.
Fragile said:This whole thread inspired me to create some content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAdX7wxepWM
<3
Naunet said: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.
Sorry, but I don't want to play a button mashing arcade game like pretty much all the current MMOs. There's already enough going on in Pantheon that long term, effectively passive, buffs have a hugely important part in the game. A fire and forget(for an hour) buff is extremely important. Acting like every single spell/ability needs to be some dynamic gameplay factor is thinking of buffs in the wrong way.
Keno Monster said:Sorry, but I don't want to play a button mashing arcade game like pretty much all the current MMOs. There's already enough going on in Pantheon that long term, effectively passive, buffs have a hugely important part in the game. A fire and forget(for an hour) buff is extremely important. Acting like every single spell/ability needs to be some dynamic gameplay factor is thinking of buffs in the wrong way.
You will have a limited number of slots for abilities. A button you only press once every 60 minutes just doesn't belong in that design. I disagree that this kind of spell is somehow important; it goes against the design of an LAS system. The abilities you choose to put on your bar should have an impact on your playstyle and not just be a fire-and-forget-every-60-minutes chore.
Naunet said:Keno Monster said:Sorry, but I don't want to play a button mashing arcade game like pretty much all the current MMOs. There's already enough going on in Pantheon that long term, effectively passive, buffs have a hugely important part in the game. A fire and forget(for an hour) buff is extremely important. Acting like every single spell/ability needs to be some dynamic gameplay factor is thinking of buffs in the wrong way.You will have a limited number of slots for abilities. A button you only press once every 60 minutes just doesn't belong in that design. I disagree that this kind of spell is somehow important; it goes against the design of an LAS system. The abilities you choose to put on your bar should have an impact on your playstyle and not just be a fire-and-forget-every-60-minutes chore.
So sit down and mem whatever version of the buff spell you want once in a while? Why is that such a bad thing? You know what is a bad thign? Having to rebuff an entire group or raid every 30 seconds or 5 minutes. Gameplay is what matters, not some intangible opinion on what "should" be.
Keno Monster said:Naunet said:Keno Monster said:Sorry, but I don't want to play a button mashing arcade game like pretty much all the current MMOs. There's already enough going on in Pantheon that long term, effectively passive, buffs have a hugely important part in the game. A fire and forget(for an hour) buff is extremely important. Acting like every single spell/ability needs to be some dynamic gameplay factor is thinking of buffs in the wrong way.You will have a limited number of slots for abilities. A button you only press once every 60 minutes just doesn't belong in that design. I disagree that this kind of spell is somehow important; it goes against the design of an LAS system. The abilities you choose to put on your bar should have an impact on your playstyle and not just be a fire-and-forget-every-60-minutes chore.
So sit down and mem whatever version of the buff spell you want once in a while? Why is that such a bad thing? You know what is a bad thign? Having to rebuff an entire group or raid every 30 seconds or 5 minutes. Gameplay is what matters, not some intangible opinion on what "should" be.
Keno, I think you and Naunet agree on this. You both don't think it should have to remain in your bar and casting buffs that last 30-60 mins is fine. If I misread either of your posts, please let me know.
The best system I have seen in regards to this , was concentration slots. Each buff or maintained ability cost 1 concentration, if you want to maintain a armor spell buff , it costs you a concentration slot ie. with a cap of 5 total a single person can maintain.
That has nothing to do with your spell bar , castable bar etc but simply what you can maintain total in personal buffs on either yourself or another player.
This does not go towards , your "personal" buff bar cap of 15 using eq as a example. But a personal max buff allowed , this allowed more complex set up's for raids since all of a sudden non flavor of the month class x , you might want two of them for example in a raid instead of 1 or 0.
So in example , I can mem and cast armor = 1 concentration , delete the armor spell ... remem a ability instead of armor and rinse repeat until I have all 5 slots filled.
I can click off the concentration slot and whoever the buffs where on lost it. This also allows for progressive buff costs and maintaince cost ... raid wide nbg armor , might cost 2 to maintain as a example.
Ie2 - lets say class x has 10 awesome abilitys , that will be amazing on the tank for a specific encounter. This causes you to now to field 2 of this class to be able to maintain all 10 (each can only maintain 5) buffs and cordinate between the two players, who is buffing what . This added a extra layer of strategy , more complex raid encounters and raid / group set ups.
I'm familiar with the concentration mechanic from EQ2 and while I do agree that it can be useful for both balance and strategy purposes, it can also feel quite a bit gimmicky, depending on implementation. Using EQ2 as an example, the majority of classes never had any meaningful choices to make when it came to their concentration slots. In the end, I think this contributed to the hotbar bloat that is often associated with that game. For the most part, it was only bards and enchanters that had to make the meaningful choices on how they would slot their concentration. As a guardian, there was never a situation where I felt the same way. I had extensive experience playing most classes in that game and it felt the same way for most of them. Bards and enchanters had a few impactful decisions, healers had less, and most classes had none.
In order to make the feature seem like it was balanced into the game, a lot of classes had buffs that required concentration. Looking back, though, they could have taken all of those buffs and made them passive, for most classes, and it would have had no impact whatsoever on how the game was played. They felt like nothing more than a few extra keystrokes whenever the buffs needed to be reapplied. That is what made the feature feel gimmicky. A lot of classes had "fluff-buffs" they could use to fill up their concentration slots and it really did feel like the system was tacked on for the majority just so that it could be meaningful for the few. If VR were to adopt a similar mechanic, I would hope that it would only be used for a few classes where it's actually necessary ... otherwise it would come off as overly contrived.
Firstly, arguments based on the game's mechanical consistency are not compatible with arguments based on the world's logical consistency. The reason this topic was even considered is because people are considering how to make buffs mechanically consistent with the LAS based on the mechanics of those two systems. However, if things are made consistent with the LAS, then they are likely not logically consistent with the world because the LAS is not logically consistent with the world. It doesn't make sense that a rogue would "forget" how to pickpocket something until they stop fighting a spider, then wait a few seconds, then they are able to remember how to pickpocket, but they have to forget how to throw a rope... The LAS is introduced for mechanical reasons, but flies in the face of logical consistency. It's not all bad though. The LAS reduces the finger jockeying needed to play, lets the devs balance around X abilities at once, and introduces choices to be made out of combat.
Making buffs mechanically consistent with the LAS has a "game design" appeal, while making buffs logically consistent with the world has a "world design" appeal. I think this is where our forum debate has broken down. Naunet et al. are making arguments for "game design", while KenoMonster et al. are making an argument for "world design" (sorry if I misinterpreted your stances).
A couple of last points that I would like to make.
1) I would argue that a "buffbot" could be defined as any person who is not participating in the group/raid in earnest, but is providing utility for that group with buffs. This has and will exist again unless buffs are restricted to group/raid only, which ensures the buffer is participating in the group/raid in earnest. Powerleveling (with buffs) and philanthropic buffing is common, but is primarily used when there is a level disparity. If you restrict buffs with the LAS system, a "concentration" system, or anything of that sort, then you will encourage "buffbots" to be found in level-appropriate play, which isn't great (this would be stopped by group/raid only restrictions).
2) There doesn't have to be a one size fits all system. I would argue that buffs that have in combat benefits should be LAS and group/raid restricted, while buffs that provide out of combat benefits should not be restricted in any way (slottable on a non-LAS hotbar).
3) Restricting buffs in any way doesn't make the game harder or easier. It's not a boon taken from you, the player. Game balance is done in context, not in a vacuum.
Matauris said: Keno, I think you and Naunet agree on this. You both don't think it should have to remain in your bar and casting buffs that last 30-60 mins is fine. If I misread either of your posts, please let me know.
Actually, I don't think those long term buffs are at all necessary in a game that utilizes an LAS, and I don't really see the point of clinging to them. They're not critical to gameplay. They're just something you hit before a game session and then forget about for an hour. It is my personal extensive experience with MMOs with LAS systems that has led me to this conclusion. "Buffs" in an LAS system should be designed differently than the kinds of "buffs" you would get in a system where you have access to all of your spells at all times. I don't see why anyone would want to go through the clunky process of clicking around and slotting long-term buffs onto your bar to cast on the party/raid only to take those all off and then put your actual abilities on - especially when you could instead have meaningful decisions to make about which buffs to take or not.
Everyone is all gung-ho about making choices matter in so many other topics of this game, and yet here everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, even if it means disjointed gameplay.
I've also been making the point that a number of spell designs for particular classes are at direct odds with the LAS design and need to be changed to better suit it. Kind of a tangential point, but related to the topic of LAS as a whole.
There are a lot of things to consider here. As Ainadak pointed out, a lot of this boils down to "game design" vs "world design." I would like to cite the following two excerpts from the FAQ, and then breakdown some of the conflicts that may result from trying to emphasize both of them at the same time.
10.4 Will multi-boxing be allowed in Pantheon?
"Our reaction to multi-boxing is to try something first before we even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it. We want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is extremely difficult if not impossible and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group."
2.2 Will there be a limitation to the number of abilities we can use at a given time?
"You may be limited to a subset of your abilities for the next encounter, causing you to have to intelligently plan ahead and memorize the spells most effective against the upcoming enemy. Likewise, you'll want to memorize spells that counter the upcoming mob’s abilities. Lastly, you may have some abilities that work synergistically with others in your group. But the key point here is that these tactical decisions can be made right before the actual encounter. Then, say you move on deeper into the dungeon and are about to confront a different boss with different abilities and a different disposition, it may make tactical sense to prep different abilities. So yes, you are limited to that extent (you cannot simply use any of your 80+ abilities whenever you wish) because planning for the battle ahead and doing so effectively is key to Pantheon. The exact number of spells, abilities, feats and actions one can prep is TBD and won’t likely be finalized until Beta. What’s depicted in screenshots showing the UI is not final."
First and foremost, we see an emphasis on "active combat" -- to my knowledge, this appears to be a design goal that would extend to all classes. I have seen a lot of people make the argument that they aren't a fan of "spammy combat" where they are constantly mashing their buttons. In a lot of cases, players are quick to say "If you don't like the slower pace of this class, maybe you should play a melee." Again, based on the FAQ, it doesn't seem like there is any intention to make some of the classes any less active than others. If that is a goal, it would contradict the emphasis on active combat, and in many ways, recreate the exact situation that they are trying to avoid. If any given class can function as a "buff bot" and still be considerably effective, they are directly opposing what is being emphasized in 10.4, and as a result, these classes would instantly become an ideal candidate for a multi-boxer.
Furthermore, we have 2.2 -- here we see an emphasis on "proactive combat." This excerpt states that "planning for the battle ahead and doing so effectively is key to Pantheon." The LAS is clearly designed to emphasize proactive combat and that will have a major impact on how well the emphasis on active combat can be executed. By limiting the amount of abilities that players have access to (not to be confused with the frequency at which they are used) at any given time, you're purposely reducing the potential scope of "We want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is extremely difficult if not impossible and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group."
In order to bridge the gap between these two contrasts, it appears that VR is aiming for an unchartered middle ground. In my opinion, this forces the design team to create a combat system that is inherently spammy, and less tactical. The LAS limits the amount of actions that a player can perform and AI must be balanced with this realization in mind. At the same time, we can't forget about the emphasis on active, tactically intense combat. What this means is that the APM (actions per minute) will likely remain high (or even increase) in frequency, but be stunted in breadth. Players will have a smaller scope of abilities that need to be crucially timed or used as a counter, but those that make the cut will be used more often, and with more urgency. Again, AI must be balanced with this realization in mind, and that tells me that the active combat system will also be stunted in breadth. You can't design content to be balanced (this is obviously extremely important if you want to make a truly challenging game) for a group that has access to 150 abilities at once if they can realistically only have 72.
In many ways, I agree with Naunet and would summarize this as trying to force a square peg through a round hole. If players can circumvent the LAS and gain in-combat advantages by using abilities/spells while out-of-combat -- this is, by all definitions, creating an environment that encourages multi-boxing rather than detracting from it. In the end, it's important to understand that there are multiple design goals that have been emphasized here. For all intents and purposes, I think the emphasis on active combat is an attempt to evolve from the slow-paced system that was observed in EQ. Multi-boxing was clearly quite rampant and there are plenty of players who acknowledge the consequences of it. It has an impact on competition for resources, player interdependence, group-based combat, and community. On the other hand, the LAS and inclusion of long term buffs seem like the nostalgic throwback that focuses on preemptive strategy and philanthropic buffing.
It is my hope that VR remains true to their vision, at least how I have perceived it, and prioritize a combat system that both naturally and effectively diminishes the benefits of multi-boxing, but without creating a combat system that feels spammy or rotational. To be fair, there are a lot of important features that we have barely scratched the surface on yet. Things like The Living Codex, Colored Mana, Dispositions, and situational gear. There are also important design decisions that have not been finalized. The in/out combat designation is going to be pretty important because it governs a variety of abilities that use it as conditional logic, as well as mechanics that determine when players can swap abilities/weapons/armor.
It's no secret that I have been quite outspoken in acknowledging that I view FFXI as the golden standard for getting a lot of these things right. They had a combat system that delivered excerpt 10.4 on a silver platter while also achieving the desired "effects" of 2.2: "Lastly, you may have some abilities that work synergistically with others in your group. But the key point here is that these tactical decisions can be made right before the actual encounter." FFXI didn't need an LAS to accomplish that and I feel it was an incredibly important distinction in how they managed to avoid compromising the integrity of their world design. Playing the spellbook mini-game feels very gamey when I think about "preparing for the next encounter." Rather than dragging and dropping stuff through UI (Micro-Preparation) I would much rather feel a constant sense of danger and play through tight, tense windows that require active/intelligent decision making related to group-based positioning, resource management, available cooldowns, and conditional logic. (Macro-Preparation.)
FFXI had a long TTK (time to kill) variable and even longer, meaningful cooldowns. It had slow, non-spammy, tactical, and thought-provoking combat that created amazing opportunities for emergent player behavior to thrive. It emphasized preparation, strategy, and teamwork. It didn't suffer from the kind of hotbar bloat that we have seen in other games. They struck a great balance of "game design" and "world design" by utilizing complimentary features like XP Chains, Skill Chains, improved AI, and advanced NPC aggro-detection methods (True Line of Sight for vision, radial distances for sound, scent for tracking, and a variety of others for added context and flavor.)
I don't want to get off-topic here so I'll end my would-be-even-longer novel now. I view Pantheon as both my best and only chance of being able to play my favorite kind of game again. The little details matter an awful lot and my expectations are really riding on what VR accomplishes with PA5. The core experience should be intact by that point, at least in theory, and it will hopefully be a lot easier to understand more of the hows, rather than the whys.
oneADseven said: ... If players can circumvent the LAS and gain in-combat advantages by using abilities/spells while out-of-combat ...
No issues with the rest of what you wrote above, but this stood out as a bit of a head scratcher for me. In what manner could this ever happen? Specifically, what I mean is, people keep alluding to this possibility, but no-one explains how this would ever be possible.
Especially given LAS only applies to in-combat.
Out of combat... you always have access to all your abilities. There's never been any indication from Visionary Realms that it would not be this way.
I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, is the logical conclusion or end result of the design change you're proposing, or the problem being solved here is, based on your quote?
It's all about gameplay. Do people really want to be rebuffing every couple of minutes? That's going to become extremely tedious. What's the point? Are we seriously saying that people want HP/AC/Haste/Regen/Mana/Stat/ETC buffs to be short duration and cast each and every fight? Those buffing classes will already have a ton of stuff going on with DoTs, HoTs, DDs, CC, heals, and other spells and abilities. Please, let us not saddle them with the additional tedium of requiring buffs to be recast over and over and over again to satisfy some thematic desire. There are plenty of other things going on already without people having to worry about a str/ac buff only lasting 18 seconds. People will burn right out if this type of ideal is enforced. That type of gameplay is exactly what has led the modern MMO to become an arcade game, the constant button mashing, the constant proactive skill rotations. Gone are the days where people cast a spell and then chilled for a few seconds to take in the situation so they could REACT to the next threat/mechanic/whatever. Constantly being forced to rebuff players in combat is going to destroy that sense that each and every thing you do is important. I pray that actions per minute is NOT more important than the right action at the right time.
Additionally, for all the people who want modern convenience and revolt against the labors of the "old school" game style, why in the world would they want a severely limited action set? That's as hardcore oldschool d&d wizard as it gets.
Trasak said:I think it would be nice if buffs were more active aura’s provided by the buffing class that effects raid members within X (large, medium or small) range depending on the buff in question.
This way you need to decide which buffs are important based on your group class combination, encounter aspects, group members gear levels and the general skill level of your group players.
Buffs in general contribute greatly to general mudflation without soft/hard caps. Either the encounter is designed around having the buffs or not. If instead of the buffs being an expectation (like having the +bonus magic items in Pathfinder) they can just be a piece of the puzzle, along with gear and tactics, to solve encounters. The encounters would all be designed around soft capped player stats which can be reached with twink gear or a combination of buffs and level appropriate gear.
The long term goal is to balance the defensive and offensive tools to defeat encounters. For example energy resist gear is usually bad for DPS but if you are below a certain level of energy defense you will not be able to survive to DPS. Defensive buffs can be used while your gear is not good enough to survive then you switch to offensive buffs or offensive abilities once your gear gets good enough.
I think over all this buff system will go a long way toward player interdependence that could be circumvented if your second account buffer could just buff the party then log back off until buffs need refreshed. This would also allow some class overlap without watering down character classes as they can switch who is doing what to best fit the needs of the group.
I'm in 95% agreement with this. I love the idea of buffs being aura's, and limiting the number you can have active. Only thing I'd add is that I think those auras should "projectable" for a short time frame. Thus you could still get enjoyment out of buffing lower level players and have it last just 5-10 minutes. I think this would cost the full mana cost of the spell each time, thus making it inefficient in comparison to the aura, but the benefit of helping lower players is a nice offset.
Keno Monster said:It's all about gameplay. Do people really want to be rebuffing every couple of minutes? That's going to become extremely tedious. What's the point? Are we seriously saying that people want HP/AC/Haste/Regen/Mana/Stat/ETC buffs to be short duration and cast each and every fight? Those buffing classes will already have a ton of stuff going on with DoTs, HoTs, DDs, CC, heals, and other spells and abilities. Please, let us not saddle them with the additional tedium of requiring buffs to be recast over and over and over again to satisfy some thematic desire. There are plenty of other things going on already without people having to worry about a str/ac buff only lasting 18 seconds.
You're thinking of buffs as too narrow of a concept. Make buffs more engaging - more than just a fire and forget spell - and this won't be an issue. Take for example the WildStar warrior's Power Link - which, when it was active, had a significant impact on how you managed your resources and which abilities you used, in order to try and keep the buff up for as long as possible.
@oneAD - Really excellent post. It's quite clear that VR has some serious decision-making and soul-searching to do (or at least they should) if they want to end up with a consisten and coherent design paradigm for combat and class abilities. Whether it means tossing out the LAS concept (I'd be sad to see that go, but it wouldn't be the end of the world) or reworking how they approach ability design to better fit an LAS system, something has to give.
vjek said:oneADseven said: ... If players can circumvent the LAS and gain in-combat advantages by using abilities/spells while out-of-combat ...I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, is the logical conclusion or end result of the design change you're proposing, or the problem being solved here is, based on your quote?
More than anything, I wanted to illustrate my thoughts on why I feel there are some conflicts with two very important design goals. The whole point of the LAS is to emphasize the preparation phase of combat. At the same time, they want the game to be so tactically intense, and with so much going on, the timing of so many abilities crucial, and with so many things to counter, that multi-boxing will be highly inefficient. I can say without a doubt that using long duration buffs and then replacing those abilities with something else, prior to combat, is not one bit tactically intense. You can't be intensely passive ... or if you can, yikes. That sounds like a recipe for multi-boxing. In my opinion, it would be ideal to scrap the LAS. It's absolutely possible to enjoy a meaningful preparation phase without funneling it through the LAS. (Group based positioning, resource management, available cooldowns, environment awareness, NPC dispositions, and conditional logic are all great options, especially when used together.)
I would like to see more emphasis on the "world" (macro) and less emphasis on the "game" (micro) in this sense, specifically. I don't want to see long duration buffs scrapped or re-worked into short duration temporary buffs, though I do see plenty of value in having more situational/temporary (and long cooldown) buffs available if the LAS were to be removed. I would like to see the long duration buffs remain intact, but as part of a combat system that is designed with their inclusion as something that is complimentary rather than contradictive. If you want to better understand the type of conflict that I am alluding to, please see my post on page 3 that highlights some of the nuances of the in/out combat designation. I brought up a few points regarding some of the warrior/ranger abilities and then compared them to some for the summoner. To be completely fair, I think your suggestion is reasonable. If you're out of combat then you can cast directly through your spell-book. It wouldn't be ideal for me compared to other options, but it would certainly make the gameplay seem a lot smoother.
I have no shame in saying that I think additional hotbars would be ideal. I think it would be even better if earning those bars, even if it's one ability slot at a time, was considered a "rite of passage." This is usually the time where people chime in with doom and gloom about how if that were to even be considered, the game would end up like WoW or EQ2 with 8k abilities to mash, or how it's going to change the pace of combat into some sort of action RPG. I absolutely disagree with this assessment and I speak from experience. Again, I consider FFXI as the golden standard when it comes to how well some of the various design goals can be achieved without compromising the importance of one for the other. Actions per minute were never a part of their design philosophy ... the combat pacing was significantly slower than anything I have seen in another MMO, and the value of using the right ability at the right time was paramount. VR has stated their goals and why they are important, and they certainly resonate with me because they highlight the exact kind of gameplay that has been my favorite, all time. Again, though, I am really curious to learn more about how they plan on accomplishing those goals.
I have spoken with a very significant amount of people who remain 100% convinced that they will be multi-boxing in Pantheon, and doing it efficiently. I'm not saying that they are all right, but damn, their confidence is quite shocking. They go on and on about how the combat system in Pantheon looks nearly identical to what was observed in EQ and it's pretty obvious that they are chomping at the bit to get in there and start taking advantage of how effective multi-boxing can be. I feel that this is a huge negative for the overall community. I don't know how VR plans on addressing that issue (which is why I'm so curious about how they are going to do it) but they say they want to try something before they entertain the idea of artificially restricting it. I hope they start trying to assess their combat system immediately, before PA5 since it's supposed to deliver the kind of core experience that we can expect in the future, and determine whether or not they are accomplishing their "multi-boxing should be highly ineffective" goals.
If they aren't meeting that goal then that would tell me that it's time to start entertaining the idea of artificially restricting multi-boxing, perhaps with an alternate ruleset server, and I'd like to sign up as someone who would prefer to play there. We already know that they have been considering alternate ruleset servers but they have stated that they will only happen if there is enough interest in the community to maintain a healthy population. It would be really sad if it came down to this because it would mean that they wouldn't be delivering the type of intensely tactical combat that has been emphasized. That would be unfortunate for me, but not game-breaking. In any event, I don't want my server to be tainted with the effects of multi-boxing. I would prefer if the game itself is an amazing deterrent to multi-boxing but if that doesn't happen, please get me out, and offer me a home where the community will be full of real players.
Again, no issue with any of that, but how would players " circumvent the LAS and gain in-combat advantages by using abilities/spells while out-of-combat ", in your own words?
I'm not seeing any circumvention, given the only time the LAS applies is in combat, yet, the claim is made, both by you and others, repeatedly.. so, what would be an example of circumvention?
You seem to have a different definition of what an LAS is supposed to be. Can you please share any information that helped you arrive to the conclusion that the LAS is only supposed to govern the "in-combat" designation? It's called a limited action set. Actions are not exclusive to combat. It is my opinion that if the LAS was only supposed to govern the in-combat designation, that would have been mentioned somewhere along the way, and that being able to cast directly from the spell-book would be an assumed feature rather than something you would be suggesting.
From section 2.2 of the FAQ, it only mentions "the battle ahead" and "before the actual encounter" and "against the upcoming enemy" clearly showing a distinction between in combat and out of combat.
Why would any class have more than 12 abilities if they couldn't use any of them, at any time, out of combat? I mean, really? Some of class pages already show classes with more than 12 abilities, heck, some with almost 12 spells or abilities that have no place in a combat setting. How would they ever use those if they couldn't use them out of combat?
Again, in section 2.2, it says "the exact number of spells, abilities, feats and actions one can prep" which again, shows a distinction between preparation for combat, and in-combat.
You are right in saying that it shows a distinction between in combat and out of combat. This is a pretty significant change compared to what was observed in EQ since it was possible for players to swap spells/abilities on their hotbar during combat, in that game. For everything you are saying, I think I can just as safely assume that they are talking about how the in/out distinction is going to work differently than what was observed in EQ. There is more emphasis on preparing the right abilities prior to engaging in-combat because it won't be possible for players to adjust them mid-fight. Consider this:
"So yes, you are limited to that extent (you cannot simply use any of your 80+ abilities whenever you wish) because planning for the battle ahead and doing so effectively is key to Pantheon."
I don't interpret that as "The key to effectively planning ahead in Pantheon is to utilize as many abilities as possible prior to engaging in combat, because once you become engaged, the LAS will start to govern your actions."
It also says:
"You may be limited to a subset of your abilities for the next encounter, causing you to have to intelligently plan ahead and memorize the spells most effective against the upcoming enemy. Likewise, you'll want to memorize spells that counter the upcoming mob’s abilities."
They imply that you should be memorizing abilities that counter the upcoming mob's abilities. If a mob has strong physical attacks, those can be countered with an AC buff. If a mob has a nasty fire DoT, that can be countered with a fire resist buff. There is no indication whatsoever that players would be able to "prepare" in a way that involves utilizing abilities outside of the LAS. The preparation phase, as it has been described, revolves around the implication that you should be memorizing abilities that will be helpful in the upcoming battle.
Why would players have 80+ abilities then? And "whenever you wish" (or not) implies there is a time when you could or can't. But at some point you can, otherwise there would be no need to point out that you can't, at some point.
In all the videos to date, players can drag whatever they want out of their spellbook and put anything they want on their action bar, and cast it, as long as they're not in combat. They've never given any indication that will change, and the FAQ currently lines up with that, with all the preparation context.
I mean, it's fine to interpret it the way you have, but they've never described it that way in any stream or video to date, and such a system makes no sense in the face of.. You have 80+ abilities, but you only have 12 abilities, at any time, regardless of combat state. That makes no sense, to me. Why give them the 80+ to begin with? Or, if you really want to nail it down, why give any class 13+ abilities, if they only actually get to pick 12, that they have as a max. No, you know what, there has to be more than 12, because they say you have to pick and choose from a larger subset to use the 12 (yes yes, # TBD), per encounter. As you can pick from the larger subset, clearly, you have more than 12. Just like all the videos and the FAQ shows.
I agree that you have "access to your 80+ abillities while out-of-combat." Again, that is how I interpret the distinction of the in/out combat states. While you are out of combat, you are free to access any of your abilities and swap them on your bars. While you are in-combat, that won't be possible. And yes, the whole point of the LAS is to cause players to be more selective with what abilities they can use. If they wanted you to have access to all 80 abilities while out of combat, why aren't players able to cast their abilities directly from the spell book like you have suggested rather than needing to memorize them on their hotbar? In the end, it really just doesn't make sense at all ... I think we both agree on that. It would never make sense to memorize long duration buffs on your hotbar if you could receive 100% of their benefit while out of combat without having to commit a slot to them. Yet, in many of the streams that we have seen thus far, they show these long term buffs being slotted on the LAS.
So, to be clear, your current interpretation of their current design and implementation is: You can't cast anything, while out of combat? And you can only and must cast EVERYTHING, only and while in combat?
Because everything they've shown thus far is, you do have access to all 80 at any time out of combat, and the fact that you can't cast out of your spellbook directly, when out of combat, is just a quick memorization click away. So, if that's not the case, I presume the above is what you're going with?
No. My interpretation of the current design and implementation is that they are allowing players to circumvent the entire point behind an LAS. There are several people on this thread who have chimed in saying they want it to be like EQ where you can memorize your buffs, cast them, and then swap them out with something more effective. Not only does that sound incredibly tedious and boring, but I also think it contradicts the emphasis they have placed on the preparation phase of combat. The implication is that you have to memorize abilities that will assist you in the upcoming fight. Again, using my summoner example on page 3, do you interpret that to mean that prior to engaging in-combat, "The key to effectively planning ahead in Pantheon for a (partially revealed, at this time) summoner would be to memorize these 4 abilities, use them, forget them, and then memorize 4 different abilities in their stead." and then continuing to do that countless times during the lifespan of their character?
I expect they'll just allow all players to cast out of their spellbook, or utilizing any number of non-combat hotbars, out of combat. But that's just me. :)
My current interpretation, based on the FAQ and the videos and streams is that the LAS only applies to in-combat. But at least now I understand why you're awkwardly phrasing what you're trying to get at.
What I mean by that is, if it's not what I've just typed? Then it has to be that you can only and ever cast in-combat, otherwise? There's no in between that makes any sense.
Also, there's no circumvention in any case, nor has anyone in this thread shown a practical example of how a circumvention could take place. But, that's enough of that for me, we're at the front of the mulberry bush again, and I'm not inclined to go another round of circular arguments. Maybe someone else is inclined. :)