I think you're pretty spot-on with how I view things Zoltar. While I'm not a fan of the LAS in general, I think it would resonate with me more if it were to be implemented more authentically. If we reflect back on the quote I shared from Brad, he specifically mentioned, multiple times, the importance of "buffing" as part of the preparation phase. This is something I have personally experienced in EQ2 with their concentration mechanic. Choosing what buffs to use, and who gets what, often times at the expense of someone else getting something that would also be beneficial, was a core element of strategizing. The downside is that only a handful of classes had to make these kind of choices, and once you figured out what worked best, the idea of strategizing (in that way) felt very short-lived. What I have seen proposed here is the idea of removing buffs from the "intelligent planning" equation, and simply putting them on a side-bar that is less relevant. The only change that would bring is admitting that the LAS isn't being enforced and making the circumvention process less tedious.
It all comes down to priorities. I explained, in detail, how there are multiple goals that have been shared for Pantheon that are on a crash collision course with each other because of the LAS, and the LAS only. (Meaningful preparation vs intense/difficult combat) -- I think the preparation phase of combat is extremely important and it's definitely something I am excited about with this game. That said, I know it's possible to have a very meaningful preparation phase outside of the confines of an LAS system. There are plenty of significant variables that can be played with when it comes to preparing for combat and the LAS just doesn't feel like something that has been "missing" from my previous MMO experiences. I played Wildstar to max level and don't remember their strictly enforced LAS being much of a factor at all. I spent plenty of time strategizing in previous games and even more time testing out the theories of those strategy sessions. When it comes to challenging content there are several factors that we can look at but I think there is a quote that really sums up my thoughts. "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
Knowledge and wisdom should both be important when it comes to overcoming challenges, but so to should execution. It helps that execution isn't something you can look up online, and in this day and age, that is more of a rule than an exception, especially if we're talking about a game with a meaningful death penalty. The combat system described in the multi-boxing excerpt sounds like something that should focus on execution more than knowledge and wisdom. While planning for the battle ahead is indeed tactical, it isn't intense. In order to achieve the ideal combat system, as it was described, we're really going to need to see an evolution to EQ style combat. We're talking about taking something from one end of the spectrum (EQ had a notorious reputation for being one of the easiest MMO's to multi-box) and putting it on the totally opposite side (making boxing extremely difficult, if not impossible) -- this is going to require consistent doses of tense moments where timing and critical decision making are the difference between victory and defeat. The combat system, as it has been described, is going to be intense, broad in scope, and highly active. In order for that to be true, we need to set the stage properly.
By limiting the maximum size of a hotbar, you're also limiting the breadth of the actions that players can make. That runs directly counter to goals related to the combat system that is described in the FAQ. While it's possible that the desired APM (Actions Per Minute) could be funneled into the LAS, we have to stop and think about what that means. When I try to do that, all I can see is a very muddy picture. The idea that 12 abilities are the maximum amount of actions that I can be responsible for, at any given moment, in an extended and intense fight, feels very limiting. That means there are less abilities that I can counter with, and less abilities that require critical timing. For me, that translates into less difficult combat, and more difficult preparation. I don't think this is necessary when there are already 4 major "Pantheon Differentiators" that will be elevating the preparation phase: Colored Mana, The Living Codex, Dispositions, and the Climate System. It's possible that the Perception feature could also tie into meaningful preparation.
Considering everything I know about Pantheon, this is not an area that I am worried about at all. I fully expect the preparation phase of combat to be an integral part of finding success in this game and that I will be "counting down" engages for all challenging encounters. Combat, on the other hand, seems different. The idea that Pantheon is going to be difficult to multi-box is more of a sad joke than something people are actually taking seriously. I would like to see that narrative change as soon as possible and believe that removing the LAS is the best way to make it happen. I want to see the world unleashed from the same restrictions that govern player behavior and turn into something much more intense, demanding, and dangerous. (If players have their scope of abilities limited, so to must the development team while designing encounters, to compensate.) Access to more abilities (with conditional logic), more temporary buffs (with longer cooldowns), and more potential for errors that lead to consequences. That would make multi-boxing difficult, in my opinion. Well ... that and XP Chains / Skill Chains.
oneADseven said:What I have seen proposed here is the idea of removing buffs from the "intelligent planning" equation, and simply putting them on a side-bar that is less relevant. The only change that would bring is admitting that the LAS isn't being enforced and making the circumvention process less tedious. For someone like me ... that basically amounts to removing a layer of strategy rather than adding one.
How is it removing a layer of strategy when there was never any strategy in the first place? That what I don't get about your positon. You're advocating for the removal of ANY bit of strategy in selecting skills in the ditching of the LAS, but you have an issue with removing a fake layer of strategy?
Also, I found this interesting quote from Brad:
We don't want it to be so key that you are messing with your character's configuration all of the time (needlessly tedious). Also any type of reconfiguration of your character, or anything really that you may end up doing relatively frequently needs to be supported by an intuitive and easy to use UI and interface. But on the opposite extreme we do want people to learn about encounters, figure out tactics, etc. again the more so the more significant the mob. As you learn a dungeon and master its significant or special encounters a big part of that process should be learning what kind of defensive and offensive capabilities these mobs have. Also, their disposition and behaviors. Running in blind or with minimal planning should put you at a disadvantage vs. the party that did plan.
Having a secondary bar, even one that is restricted to out-of-combat, where you can put buffs and skills like summoner's summon food/items, rogues applying poison to weapons, out of combat resurrection spells, etc seems completely in line with what Brad is saying about not wanting people messing with their configuration all the time and having a UI that reduces tedium.
Sorry, you caught me while I was editing. What I meant, specifically, was that the buffing/concentration mechanic is something I considered a layer of strategy, at least for some of the classes. (This always affected me directly as the raid leader since I was in charge of group/raid compositions and buff management when concentration was a factor.) Making buffs free-cast (not requiring a slot on the LAS) would remove that layer. Buffs are supposed to be a meaningful part of the preparation phase ... how exactly can that be achieved if there are no this/that choices? If buffs were to fade when removed from your hotbar then that's a different story. Either way, I maintain my position that there is plenty of room for a meaningful preparation phase without the need of an LAS.
When I look at the warrior reveal the first thing I think of is how awesome it would be to have access to all of those abilities simultaneously, and to be put into difficult situations where managing my resources and cooldowns properly are key to being successful. I would like to see encounters with enough depth where the timing of every one of those abilities is crucial. When I think about being limited to 12 abilities at once, a lot of them lose their appeal. It seems inevitable that players would come up with an optimal setup since a variety of abilities would only be viable in limited situations. We already have meaningful preparation from a dozen plus other sources, including situational gear. Why can't our abilities be more active/reactive based to align with the envisioned combat system?
oneADseven said: Buffs are supposed to be a meaningful part of the preparation phase ... how exactly can that be achieved if there are no this/that choices? If buffs were to fade when removed from your hotbar then that's a different story. Either way, I maintain my position that there is plenty of room for a meaningful preparation phase without the need of an LAS.
But preparation doesn't necessarily have to involve making choices with opportunity costs. Just making sure everyone has the buffs they need refreshed is a kind of preparation. Honestly, I don't see choosing between long-term buffs as a very interesting dynamic. Do you want an AC buff or an agi/dex buff? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Compare that with something like trying to counter a boss with a burn phase. The whole group might have to coordinate their active abilites to try to counter it. Maybe you have the shaman and enchanter plan to coordinate the shaman's 1 minute crit buff with the enchanter's Lucid Dream buff that eliminates resource cost so that the mage can go ham on the boss, and the tank slots in an extra taunt and more threat abilities to help keep the boss from murdering the mage. [note that these are short-duration active buffs, not the passive long-duration buffs we've been discussing]. Or maybe instead you decide to focus on a more defensive strategy and weave in some bits of kiting using a bunch of mobilitiy skills and defensive cooldowns.
I think that's the kind of planning that Brad is talking about. It's easily an order of magnitude more interesting than choosing whether to use an AC buff or stat buff. If we are allowed to take a few minutes every hour to buff the group with every spell in the book, I really don't see the harm. The interesting part is deciding what active abilities to use, and how you're going to coordinate them.
If that's how you interpret "the buffs you apply to yourself and party should matter" and "How you are buffed should matter a lot" and "buffs, etc. will always be important" that's on you, but I feel much differently. You shouldn't be so quick to reduce a concentration buff mechanic into "AC or Stats" -- it can be way more complex than that. The key, in my opinion, is utilizing concentration for the classes that can buff other players. Or, rather than having a set amount of concentration slots that are universal to every class, custom tailor that amount for each class individually. An enchanter should be deciding whether or not their monk gets a haste buff (of course they want it, desperately) or if their mage is getting a threat reduction buff (of course they want it, desperately) -- or, as the raid leader, maybe I need to switch the group compositions up and create different dynamics to play around with. (Certain buffs could be group only to add additional layers of preparative strategy.) Does the shaman give their big HP buff to the off-tank or provide extra disease resistance to the entire group? Does the bard provide increased threat to the tank or decreased threat to the wizard, or both? In other words, the interesting combat dynamic you brought up can be facilitated through meaningful buff selection, and then some, without having to sacrifice the depth of how active your combat will be.
When I think about intense combat, all of the variables you mentioned are consistently in play. All abilities would be available at all times, but you still need to manage resources, cooldowns, and conditional logic. You don't need to rob Peter to pay Paul to "counter a burn phase." The type of "short-duration active buffs" you brought up are a critical component of making that style of combat fun and dangerous. Rather than deciding "if" you're going to use them, you decide "how and when" to use them. (You still incorporate the "if" element with long duration buffs and concentration.) Do you stack multiple temporary buffs simultaneously for increased effect or stagger them out? Do you use your offensive burst to take out a nasty add as quickly as possible or do you coordinate it with a major debuff another player puts on the boss for increased damage output overall? Does the tank use their big threat cooldown while that major debuff is on the boss, in an effort to maintain aggro, or save it for when a fresh set of adds spawn in order to quickly lock them down and prevent chaos from emerging onto their backline? Does the necromancer use their in-combat rez on the monk that just died or do they continue channeling their Lich spell to make the most out of it's limited duration?
Every "short-duration active buff" that players put on their bar is one less action that they can make for an entire fight unless the cooldown for that buff comes up again. I'm used to seeing fights similar to what was described in the multi-boxing excerpt. Players might need to execute the timing of 6-7 different temporary buffs perfectly, sometimes multiple times each, in a single fight. That same logic applies to active abilities with long cooldowns. Again, we have to realize that if our action set is limited as players, so too is the action set of our enemies. Every boss should have it's own kitchen sink prepared and it's up to us as players to prioritize how we respond. With an LAS, players will be able to look up strategy guides for each individual encounter and plan for the major mechanics that they need to play around once the fight breaks out. I am hoping to see less emphasis on preparation and more on execution. You can have the most "intensely passive" strategy session in MMO history but that doesn't make it more difficult to multi-box. You need consistent action, and windows where your reactive choices can either provide an edge or hamstring you. The more opportunities to make those choices, the more things that can go wrong.
It all boils down to this desire to create an "intensely tactical" combat system "with so much going on, so much to counter, and the timing of many abilities crucial" and then confining all of that into a limited action set. It just doesn't make sense. The action and reaction elements are going to be purposely limited because of the LAS. That tells me that preparation is being prioritized over action. As we know, there are plenty of ways to create a meaningful preparation phase of combat without using an LAS. On the other side of the coin, there are only so many ways to create the envisioned "active combat" system while operating within that same LAS, and they are pretty limited ... because they are being funneled through a limited action set! Your "Zzzzz" response to this/that buff choices is exactly how I feel about the LAS-focused coordination and preparation that allows a mage to go ham without getting murdered. None of that sounds special. It sounds like a single, basic element of what I would expect with any boss fight. But rather than deciding "if" that is something we're going to do, it's more of a matter of "how" or "when" we're going to do it.
Keno Monster said:When did long term buffs become a chore? Has anyone in the history of gaming said "Gee, I wish this AC/Regen buff I cast on myself would wear off in 10 minutes instead of 30"? Short term button mashing is the chore. The entire reason people are having this discussion is because of the bloat we see in so many other games today, where you have 80+ different skills and spells on hotbars all around your screen. Having long term buffs you can mem once in a while and not have to worry about for an hour, or whatever, is fantastic. Imagine how absolutely awful it's going to be for buffing classes to have to redo buffs mid fight all the time. Talk about garbage gameplay.
Yep . 100 % agree /boggles mind that anyone thinks its a chore ( geez the memories of helping all those people ).
Here is the problem with your argument in my opinion. You want a spell to be meaningful as in you need the spell to be on your hotbar and it will be ready to use and as it sits on your bar the spell is allowed to persist in its described intent weather it be a buff, a DoT, a HoT or whatever. If you remove said spell from the slot to replace it with another (say to pre-buff for a boss fight as we see all the time in Everquest and other games) you would lose that buff from everyone who had contact with it...
Ok, so I see what you want. I understand why. But I dont necessarily agree because of one KEY factor. This mechanic would almost require if not encourage higher level content to have people sitting on the sidelines as "buff bots". All they have are buffs and/or persistent combat spells on their bars and that is all they do. Throw every other mechanic of their class out the door. It wont be for ALL players of that class but it would encourage a groupful of specific memorized spells to be ready because thats what the raid wants and their only job is to make sure those buffs are up at all times. I dont agree with this. I believe it will make another divide amongst roles in raids. If i make a caster I dont want to be sitting somewhere because im not "geared as much" as the other guy my same class that has the same buffs as i do. It will alienate players that are at the bottom of the DPS or HPS that are trying to get gear. Yes, it will ensure they can attend the raid but they could be doing something they never intended in doing and not having fun. As we all know this game is suppose to be fun above all things.
It honestly depends on how they design the system. In AD&D, a mage could memorize spells, then cast them. Certainly they could then sit and memorize additional spells, but in most cases, the previous spells would disappear in the time it took them to memorize the new line of spells. In fact, Brad spoke about the original design of EQ trying to emulate spell memorization of AD&D and how they ran into problems with the practical application of such, which is why they chose "mana" as a means to control spell use.
Early EQ had spells with short duration and over time, this was increased for the sake of "convenience". I think it was a mistake due to the fact that part of the game play was deciding what you should use in a given encounter, and so while in some very immediate situations you might be able to "overload" with numerous buffs to gain an advantage in an encounter, such practice was not reasonable for standard use (ie doing the mem/buff routine became a pain in the rear for anything but specific use). This meant that players then had to choose when such application was most beneficial. I mean, you weren't stopped from constantly buffing the short term spells, but.. in most cases people streamlined their use according to the situation, only buffing certain classes with the most reasonable spells due to the time and mana to try and buff them with everything. Long term buff spells removed this concept of management in play. Eventually all spells were of such long timers that a player could cast EVERYTHING and then not have to worry about it for an hour or so (if ever as some development started making spells into auras always on). Eventually, developers realized such was pointless in game play and then removed the concept of these spell buffs entirely as they served no real purpose in play compared to not having them at all.
I think that the buffs should be of short duration, where players have to consider when such a buff is useful rather than trying to mass buff everything and complain about how they spend all their time buffing. Buffing is an element of play, a decision to choose when and where a given advancement to a character is useful. Some will just blindly buff, wasting time and effort because they refuse to do such evaluations while others will consider where and when to apply such, making short term buffs a useful tool, not a hassle.
I think it would be pretty amazing if the focus on preparation was shifted away from the LAS and more toward AA's. Imagine a system where every player can unlock up to 250 different AA points, but be limited to leveraging 100 at any given point in time. They could make it so you can only adjust your AA build while out of combat which would be very similar to how the LAS is supposed to work. I know it's not the exact same thing but it could still be really meaningful and wouldn't hamstring the combat system like an LAS does.
The idea is that there would be 250 total points but you could build them up in whatever path you want. (5 trees of 50 points each.) Eventually everybody would be able to get to 250 but there would be no linear path on how to get there. Also, you would only be able to utilize 100 of the 250 AA's at any given point in time. There is no "best build" because it would function similar to the LAS -- you would adjust your build as necessary depending on what you're going up against and what you have unlocked. The people who are fully progressed would have more flexibility when it comes time to prepare their situational build.