disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:Liav said:84 abilities with a ton of overlap. Not 84 unique abilities with unique functions.
Let's be honest, the real reason people want the LAS is because it will coddle them with simplistic gameplay the same way EQ does. Reactionary gameplay is too hard for them. Pressing more than one button every 10 seconds is "button mashing" for them.
and again just becuase you think UAS is hard amazes me, becuase it doesn't do anything at all when you organize your kit and practice it. so trying to prove that UAS throws in some kind of dynamic of difficulty into the game, to me only means, you want to be able to solve any situation possible and not have to rely on your team to succeed, or you don't know how to organize your kit and you let yourself beat you.
Yeah I wouldn't suggest UAS is *harder* or LAS is *harder*, they are different. One (UAS) certainly gives more options and more to think about *during* an encounter, but it also gives more flexibility, so in some ways could be seen as 'easier'. The other (LAS) certainly gives less options and has less to think about *during* an encounter, but the restriction might be said to add difficulty and some of the tactics are moved to *between* fights.
They are different. Some enjoy more dynamism. Some enjoy more prep. Some find limitations a challenge. Some a frustration. Blah blah blah.
I wish people would stop insisting they are 'right' and others 'wrong' and would instead bend their minds to thinking out some innovative solutions that might please both.
EQ Classic wasn't strict LAS. Why shouldn't Pantheon have some new hybrid? Can we not agree that clearly we are split and so maybe some other solution is needed?
well the biggest thing is their hasn't been any testing so their no way to know what would actually work, so therefore makes coming up with a solution unrealistic at this time, Like i said earlier i wouldn't mind and Enchater and Bard (our suppose CC classes), to have a spell line that can only affect one target and if he is one only target that was in direct combat with you, that it would bring you out of combat, that lasts like 18 seconds or so(more than enough to mem up new spells), but not enough to where is solves mana problems, unless if that all you needed, and if anything slap it on a CD if you have to so you cant chain CC it, bam solves a bunch of problems.
Plus another problem people who support UAS, when they hear a workaround to make LAS work, they say thats a flaw in the system and thats why it doesn't work, which than cuases LAS players to stop bringing them up.
disposalist said:Yeah I wouldn't suggest UAS is *harder* or LAS is *harder*, they are different. One (UAS) certainly gives more options and more to think about *during* an encounter, but it also gives more flexibility, so in some ways could be seen as 'easier'. The other (LAS) certainly gives less options and has less to think about *during* an encounter, but the restriction might be said to add difficulty and some of the tactics are moved to *between* fights.
They are different. Some enjoy more dynamism. Some enjoy more prep. Some find limitations a challenge. Some a frustration. Blah blah blah.
I wish people would stop insisting they are 'right' and others 'wrong' and would instead bend their minds to thinking out some innovative solutions that might please both.
EQ Classic wasn't strict LAS. Why shouldn't Pantheon have some new hybrid? Can we not agree that clearly we are split and so maybe some other solution is needed?
LAS (even at 8) + some kind of ability to cast from the Codex or non-combat bar *but with penalty to cast time/mana use/resource use/cooldown/whatever*, like EQ (but less UI-fiddling than re-memming), might please both sides? No?
Honestly, there is nothing to solve at this point. Just us friends sharing theories and opinions on what will or won't work, based purely on our personal experience. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. Just simply opinions at this point. Now once everything is implemented and the full design can be tested it might prove some's personal opinions more accurate than others. Then again it could still achieve what Joppa wants it to achieve. Just like all those great games before. We are going to be given a set of tools and asked to figure out how to use those tools to our best ability. Very exciting stuff IMO! :)
Saicred said:disposalist said:Yeah I wouldn't suggest UAS is *harder* or LAS is *harder*, they are different. One (UAS) certainly gives more options and more to think about *during* an encounter, but it also gives more flexibility, so in some ways could be seen as 'easier'. The other (LAS) certainly gives less options and has less to think about *during* an encounter, but the restriction might be said to add difficulty and some of the tactics are moved to *between* fights.
They are different. Some enjoy more dynamism. Some enjoy more prep. Some find limitations a challenge. Some a frustration. Blah blah blah.
I wish people would stop insisting they are 'right' and others 'wrong' and would instead bend their minds to thinking out some innovative solutions that might please both.
EQ Classic wasn't strict LAS. Why shouldn't Pantheon have some new hybrid? Can we not agree that clearly we are split and so maybe some other solution is needed?
LAS (even at 8) + some kind of ability to cast from the Codex or non-combat bar *but with penalty to cast time/mana use/resource use/cooldown/whatever*, like EQ (but less UI-fiddling than re-memming), might please both sides? No?
Honestly, there is nothing to solve at this point. Just us friends sharing theories and opinions on what will or won't work, based purely on our personal experience. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. Just simply opinions at this point. Now once everything is implemented and the full design can be tested it might prove some's personal opinions more accurate than others. Then again it could still achieve what Joppa wants it to achieve. Just like all those great games before. We are going to be given a set of tools and asked to figure out how to use those tools to our best ability. Very exciting stuff IMO! :)
I hadn't heard someone mention the CC class maybe having a skill to take you out of combat. That does sound fun. Exactly the kind of idea I'd love to see more of!
I guess I just wish it *were* more of a discussion and less of people getting angry trying to 'prove' each other 'wrong', when, as you say, it is all untested opinion at this point.
disposalist said:I hadn't heard someone mention the CC class maybe having a skill to take you out of combat. That does sound fun. Exactly the kind of idea I'd love to see more of!
I guess I just wish it *were* more of a discussion and less of people getting angry trying to 'prove' each other 'wrong', when, as you say, it is all untested opinion at this point.
Oh let's discuss this!
Based on the abilities on the website, which abilities do we think are action vs utility vs passive?
And then how might you set up a class based on those to fit the need of your group... oh and what might be the need of your group!? Does your setup change base on your group comp? Would it change based on the area you're in? Would you have to change it often or maybe just change 1 or 2 abilities based on content as you move through an area with the same group if in the same role? Ahh, exciting stuff!
I did this exercise for two weeks straight 3-4 hours a day and it completely changed my opinion on the matter :)
So I used this as my base for what was what.... again it's my personal take on what is Action vs Utility vs Passive ability.
Action Ability:
- Requires a Target
- Generates Hate during combat
- "Combat Action"
- Uses a class resource
Utility Ability:
- Everything that is not an Action Ability
Passive Ability:
- Requires no action to activate from the player
Saicred said:disposalist said:I hadn't heard someone mention the CC class maybe having a skill to take you out of combat. That does sound fun. Exactly the kind of idea I'd love to see more of!
I guess I just wish it *were* more of a discussion and less of people getting angry trying to 'prove' each other 'wrong', when, as you say, it is all untested opinion at this point.
Oh let's discuss this!
Based on the abilities on the website, which abilities do we think are action vs utility vs passive?
And then how might you set up a class based on those to fit the need of your group... oh and what might be the need of your group!? Does your setup change base on your group comp? Would it change based on the area you're in? Would you have to change it often or maybe just change 1 or 2 abilities based on content as you move through an area with the same group if in the same role? Ahh, exciting stuff!
I did this exercise for two weeks straight 3-4 hours a day and it completely changed my opinion on the matter :)
So I used this as my base for what was what.... again it's my personal take on what is Action vs Utility vs Passive ability.
Action Ability:
- Requires a Target
- Generates Hate during combat
- "Combat Action"
- Uses a class resourceUtility Ability:
- Everything that is not an Action Ability
Passive Ability:
- Requires no action to activate from the player
The issue to me is fundamental to the concept of LAS, ie. If LAS is to be meaningful, there must be regular hotbar switching, which to me, would be annoying and frustrating. But, if there isn't a need for regular switching, then what's the point in having it?
You imply above, though, that the classification of "action", etc, might mean that the set is only really limited in a such a way that irregular switching is needed, like, say, the irregular changing of your acclimitisation gear might be needed (ie. only when you are headed to a very different zone).
If it works something like EQ in that, when you are going to fight in tight, densely populated zone, you slot a root and two stuns, whereas if you're going to fight in the open you slot a snare, a fear and a confusion, then *shrug* ok, *but* I would *still* prefer to feel I have a way to access other in an emergency (hence the need for casting from Codex, or control classes (or self) causing out-of-combat states, or whatever) even at a cost. I feel *that* kind of thing would *add* to the tactics where a simple restriction full-stop does not add as much and is more frustating.
Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
That's just comes with knowing how to play the game and does nothing with LAS or UAS, you know for someone you keep saying people keep messing up what LAS and UAS actually does you do it alot as well.
Plus if it was that common they would simply keep both memmed.
Riahuf22 said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
That's just comes with knowing how to play the game and does nothing with LAS or UAS, you know for someone you keep saying people keep messing up what LAS and UAS actually does you do it alot as well.
It's literally an example of the LAS not allowing the player to have both abilities(or something else) at the same time. I know you struggle with communication, so perhaps you should read what I said again. Also, please provide other(one single) examples of me doing that "alot". Good luck.
Keno Monster said:Riahuf22 said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
That's just comes with knowing how to play the game and does nothing with LAS or UAS, you know for someone you keep saying people keep messing up what LAS and UAS actually does you do it alot as well.
It's literally an example of not being allowed to have both abiliites available at the same time, so I have no idea what you're on about. I know you struggle with communication, so perhaps you should read what I said again. Also, please provide other(one single) examples of me doing that "alot". Good luck.
Well if it was that common you would simply adapt and keep both memmed, your more than likely not going to have to have all of them up in that area. Plus as I mentioned earlier the one thing you keep missing that hurts UAS is that ability bloat is unavoidable. It could take an expat or 2 to actually get there but once it does it would remain, unless of course you start to combine abilities to bloat the abilities themselves.
Riahuf22 said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
That's just comes with knowing how to play the game and does nothing with LAS or UAS, you know for someone you keep saying people keep messing up what LAS and UAS actually does you do it alot as well.
Plus if it was that common they would simply keep both memmed.
Yes, knowing how to play the game is independant of UAS or LAS. Exactly. So LAS is just an annoying, unneeded UI-click interrupt. Not a 'challenge' or a 'difficulty', but a frustration.
Or, as you go on to say, you can mem both, but, of course, that means you un-mem something else that was almost certainly of more frequent use. Another annoyance when you need that one (with 8 slots, you aren't going to have stuff memmed that you won't miss).
So your choice is frequent and annoying un-mem, re-mem or constant annoying reduced skill options in order to slot less used skills. Yay.
DISCLAIMER: As I mentioned above, I don't believe 100% LAS or 100% UAS is a good solution. I wish people would stop arguing for one or the other (or just against one or the other) when both have definite problems.
How about suggesting an alternative? Or, if you're happy to wait and see how it works in PA5, do that and don't just bash others' opinions?
Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:Keno Monster said:Ranarius said:I would much rather play a game where I have a chance of death because the fight isn't what I expected it to be than a game where the fight goes exactly how I expect every time and I rarely/never die.
Which is an argument against the LAS.
Actually it's not.
It absolutely is. You're describing a game where players will know exactly what they need to do beforehand, and will prepare for exactly that. One death, or one close call, is all anyone will ever need to determine exactly how to approach that scenario the next time.
Warrior: "That mob almost killed me with a nasty poison DoT last time."
Druid: "Okay, I will mem cure poison this time."
That's it, you're done. You do that every single time going forward. That's your "strategy", that's your communication. You're left with the stand up sit down de-mem re-mem gameplay that is oh so tedious.
Warrior: "This mob put a disease based slow on me before."
Druid: Sits down, forgets cure poison, mems cure disease.
Warrior: "Incoming another one that does the poison DoT."
Druid: sigh
Exactly the kind of scenario I'm going to find very irritating. And don't forget, the druid has to drop something important too, so will have to discuss with the other party members who will slot their equivalent of that skill and then there is a round-robin of skill re-memming until everyone is half-happy with the skills they've had to un-mem, re-mem just because the pull was slightly different this time. And by the time they've done that it turns out both types came... etc...
BUT we don't know it will work that way. Saicred suggested CC classes might be able to push characters out-of-combat and allow them to cast from their non-combat (or maybe alternative combat) hotbar. There could be skills that all classes have that can drop them out of combat. I (and another) suggested being able to - with a cost - cast from Codex or from second hotbars. There are lot's of ways LAS *can* add to the strategy and not add to the frustration if some innovation is added into the mix.
Let's talk about that :^)
Keno Monster said:Scaling difficulty by taking abilities away from a player, instead of actually making encounters themselves more difficult, is not great design. I fully believe that VR feels they have to use the LAS because they simply do not have the resources to actually balance the content vs the players otherwise. It's not an idictment of their ability, merely an acknowledgement of their limitations.
Or the LAS is part of the core game tenents and design mechanics and was clearly laid out years ago for us all to see.
Group based social game where choices matter and preparation for combat is a necessity both in terms of ability preparation and gear that you wear to face the environment.
Key relevant game tenents
A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
Key relevant game features
Immerse yourself in group-focused, intensely social game play using classes that complement each other, encouraging teamwork.
Quickly equip situational gear as you move from one climate to the next.
Key relevant FAQ
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.
I m surpised how much the Faq is beeing called for beeing obsolète and old, and yet it still stated LaS that comes out as a surprise now for some very old forum members.
Anyway I doubt pantheon is designed to let you succeed everytime because you pressed the righr key in you 30 skill loaded arsinal.
Failure is also part of the learning process, and it might imply you will until you know which key ability you SHOULD have loaded.
Mmo's been too much about reactivity and hot decisions, time to adapt.
I don't think anyone is arguing LAS is a treachorous surprise, but an important bit of that FAQ entry to some will be: -
"The exact number of spells, abilities, feats and actions one can prep is TBD and won’t likely be finalized until Beta"
A lot of folks seemingly very against LAS might well be fine with it waiting-and-seeing if there were more like 12 skill slots or if there were an equivalent to the EQ-style mid-combat re-mem (which isn't exactly ruled out).
As is often (always?) the case, when details start to appear, people like to debate the merits (or lack of) in their opinion. The FAQs and tenets are hardly exhaustive.
As we have seen, people can quite cogently reason LAS being counter to some tenets at the same time as others argue it is totally in line.
Ezrael said:Keno Monster said:Scaling difficulty by taking abilities away from a player, instead of actually making encounters themselves more difficult, is not great design. I fully believe that VR feels they have to use the LAS because they simply do not have the resources to actually balance the content vs the players otherwise. It's not an idictment of their ability, merely an acknowledgement of their limitations.
Or the LAS is part of the core game tenents and design mechanics and was clearly laid out years ago for us all to see.
Group based social game where choices matter and preparation for combat is a necessity both in terms of ability preparation and gear that you wear to face the environment.
Key relevant game tenents
A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
Key relevant game features
Immerse yourself in group-focused, intensely social game play using classes that complement each other, encouraging teamwork.
Quickly equip situational gear as you move from one climate to the next.
Key relevant FAQ
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.
Well said, enough said, can't wait til testing, see you there.
The tenets of the game sure seem awfully flexible when the devs have already confirmed they will adjust or scrap the LAS if it ends up not working.
Or maybe the number of abilities you can press has literally nothing to do with the tenets of the game.
Most of the playerbase will be bad at the game anyway regardless of how many buttons they will let us press, but things can go considerably more wrong when you have more stuff to press, so that's what I would like to see. I'm beginning to think a lot of the self-labeled hardcore people who post here aren't quite as hardcore as they think they are. You're literally asking VR to slow the game down to accomodate you. The fact that you are incapable of making good decisions when you have a lot of potential actions to take isn't everyone else's problem.
I would use checkers and chess as an analogy, but let's be honest, no MMO even remotely approaches the complexity of chess. You want to play tic-tac-toe. I want to play checkers, at the very least.
Liav said:The tenets of the game sure seem awfully flexible when the devs have already confirmed they will adjust or scrap the LAS if it ends up not working.
Or maybe the number of abilities you can press has literally nothing to do with the tenets of the game.
Most of the playerbase will be bad at the game anyway regardless of how many buttons they will let us press, but things can go considerably more wrong when you have more stuff to press, so that's what I would like to see. I'm beginning to think a lot of the self-labeled hardcore people who post here aren't quite as hardcore as they think they are. You're literally asking VR to slow the game down to accomodate you. The fact that you are incapable of making good decisions when you have a lot of potential actions to take isn't everyone else's problem.
I would use checkers and chess as an analogy, but let's be honest, no MMO even remotely approaches the complexity of chess. You want to play tic-tac-toe. I want to play checkers, at the very least.
And your still stuck on the notion that UAS actually brings a form of challenge is tottally misguided, for one even with UAS most MMOS dont even use 14 abilities anywy, ever. so honestly if panthein comes out and actually challenges you to where you do use all 14 one wy or another would already accomplish something most mmo's failed at from the beginning. Look at wow while playing oh lets say a priest you use like 4 core abilities, one to proc a ramp up, and than go back to your core abilities with an extra abilitiy in the mix, and than you have like maybe 3 cd's you use, and if you so happen to be a goblin you got a racial active that can be useful but still only comes up to be like, 9 abilities.
so again this whole idea of UAS is harder, superior, better, or any other word you want for it is simply just your complete biased opinion, when i bet VR has one done more research than you, and have also considered what could be the best path going forward and decided LAS was it, and to me since this team seems quite passionate and took this situation quite seriously when making that decision, makes it to where everything that you have stated they thought of probably months ago(if not years) and still disagree with you, until actual testing will be done.
LAS and UAS are not intrinsically more challenging on their own, but UAS offers more opportunities for players to fail, which is good in a "hardcore" game .Most MMOs use way more than 14 buttons. I have no idea what MMOs you have played, but clearly you have not played very many. EQ, DAoC, Vanguard, EQ2, FFXIV, EQOA, FFXI, etc. all use way more than 14 independent actions. Early EQ might be an exception for certain classes (Clerics on a raid, LUL), but that certainly changed over the years.
VR does not always know what's best. There is a core intent behind LAS, but as I have stated before, I disagree with the developers that the LAS will achieve the goal that they want it to achieve, and that it will only have a negative impact on overall play. If VR knew everything, they would never ask for our opinions and these forums wouldn't exist.
Liav said:LAS and UAS are not intrinsically more challenging on their own, but UAS offers more opportunities for players to fail, which is good in a "hardcore" game .Most MMOs use way more than 14 buttons. I have no idea what MMOs you have played, but clearly you have not played very many. EQ, DAoC, Vanguard, EQ2, FFXIV, EQOA, FFXI, etc. all use way more than 14 independent actions. Early EQ might be an exception for certain classes (Clerics on a raid, LUL), but that certainly changed over the years.
VR does not always know what's best. There is a core intent behind LAS, but as I have stated before, I disagree with the developers that the LAS will achieve the goal that they want it to achieve, and that it will only have a negative impact on overall play. If VR knew everything, they would never ask for our opinions and these forums wouldn't exist.
UAS doesn't give more opportunities to fail than it gives you to succeed, and it doesn't make it anymore "Hardcore," and in EQ if you are not including AA's, and only spell specifically no class uses more than 14 spells, for one their spell gems they're not even 14 of them still to this date, but if you count rebuffing and all of that thn maybe but all of that is pre combt anyway so no point in actually counting them. And your stating isn't isnt going to reach that goal without actually doing any testing, which is the biggest problem in your entire compliant about it, plus for one right now VR havent asked us for our opinion of the matter when it came to LAS/UAS yet, I wonder why.
EQ's simplicity yet openness was what made it so malleable.
Limited spell slots? yes, but
- you could swap any slot you had uninterrupted time to sit and do
- you had varying cd's to weight swapping for different skills, adding very dynamic trade-offs (sitting and loading evac while you are being overwhelmed was a huge adrenalin rush)
- spell sets (load, save and manage) was later than classic, but imo it belongs in today's features; so click or key, it's up to your play style
Thoughts on what I hear on this thread:
- if you start pigeon-holing things like "X slots for that, and Y slots for this" you also have to think about keybinding impact, since 2 different sets of slots pretty much forces all players to have a mutually exclusive set of bindings they use for one or the other. In EQ it was simple: you could bind any key to any slot, and just load whatever spell or skill you wanted to be that key into that slot.
- EQ also had a separate abilities grid for a *lot* of skills like Sense Heading, Sit, macros, etc. Are you going to unify all of those too? A lot of those belong as choices on the "main spell bar", like if Sprint is an ability.
- if you don't allow in-combat changing of your loaded skills, within the rules above like EQ did, then how are you going to freely design fights were, say, mobs change immunities/vulnerablities from fire to disease to cold? Doesn't that hamstring your ability consider dynamics like that if players aren't allowed to freely swap in skills, assuming they can do so uninterrupted and can tolerate whatever skill cd there is upon initial loading? If I want to sit and try to memorize a spell, I should be able to do that since it is a strategic decision to take the memorization and cd time to do it. It adds a layer of thought to the game play, just as it did in EQ.
One final thought, I HOPE this isn't interface isn't being positioned toward making Pantheon console-friendly or something. Whenever I see games cut down on the openness and flexibility of their UI, often it is because they want some controller to be able to be used instead of a keyboard. Once you start down the road of targeting consoles too, all sorts of "dumbing downs" start to happen all over the UI, gameplay and accessibility of functionality, because otherwise console players will start complaining they can't do what keyboards can, so common denominator makes keyboard players play with oddly-justified limitations on UI, slots, windows, bindings, chat and such.
Can you say that you are not letting console support taint your decisions?
The point of LAS is to get people to work together, instead of having one player carry. When a group needs to counter multiple factors in combat, but each only has 8 slots, they discuss who is responsible for what. Referring to the example above, maybe the druid mems both cure poison and cure disease, but sacrificed something else in the process that a ranger can now step in to handle.
Most importantly though, it's okay to misread a situation and fail. The UAS crowd sounds like they want to be able to single-handedly avoid death at all costs. Death is part of the game, it's okay. It's not the end of the world, it's intent is to slow down the zerging and PLing. That's a good thing. I trust the devs to understand the importance of this and they clearly already do since it's part of the original design.