oneADseven said:It's interesting you say that because "challenge" was recently defined in a newsletter:
"But with Pantheon, our philosophy of challenge puts less burden on nimble fingers and more on what we call strategic depth: designing gameplay around a longer-term curve that asks players to make decisions not based purely on reaction time, but by increasing players long-term reward or lowering their long-term risk based on a growing knowledge of the game."Knowing the optimal combination of abilities that should be used for any individual fight is something that players can look up on a website. The desired APM can remain the exact same regardless of whether or not our hotbars are limited. Knowing the optimal ability to use at any given point in time (with all of them being available) is a matter of execution. The more possible combinations that are available, the more likelihood there is that someone can make a mistake. (This can be offset by experience ... or a growing knowledge of the game.) If the burden of challenge is placed on being "proactive" rather than "reactive" that only incentivizes players to look up a guide (which there will be plenty of, for every class, and for every boss) -- with a more expansive action set, and assuming a static level of desired APM, it's about having a nimble mind rather than nimble fingers. I just prefer challenge to be more focused on execution than planning.
yaaaass moar butons 4 moar xocushon powaAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhRgggg!!!
oneADseven said:It's interesting you say that (Chanus) because "challenge" was recently defined in a newsletter:
"But with Pantheon, our philosophy of challenge puts less burden on nimble fingers and more on what we call strategic depth: designing gameplay around a longer-term curve that asks players to make decisions not based purely on reaction time, but by increasing players long-term reward or lowering their long-term risk based on a growing knowledge of the game."Knowing the optimal combination of abilities that should be used for any individual fight is something that players can look up on a website. The desired APM can remain the exact same regardless of whether or not our hotbars are limited. Knowing the optimal ability to use at any given point in time (with all of them being available) is a matter of execution. The more possible combinations that are available, the more likelihood there is that someone can make a mistake. (This can be offset by experience ... or a growing knowledge of the game.) If the burden of challenge is placed on being "proactive" rather than "reactive" that only incentivizes players to look up a guide (which there will be plenty of, for every class, and for every boss) -- with a more expansive action set, and assuming a static level of desired APM, it's about having a nimble mind rather than nimble fingers. I just prefer challenge to be more focused on execution than planning.
You can choose to not look up a guide.
I can't choose to have more fingers.
Well... not yet...
I'm not sure what having more fingers has to do with anything. The only additional key press required (for 2-3 bars as opposed to 1) would be alt or control. The actions per minute would remain the same, but the scope/breadth/depth would increase. I'm not sure if we're on the same page here. As far as players choosing to not look up a guide ... I like to be realistic. I'm sure some people won't and that's fine ... but reality suggests that if Pantheon has a meaningful death penalty, where players are punished for failure, many people will choose to mitigate their risk by looking up a guide. In other words, players would be able to "reduce their long term risk" by repeatedly following every available strategy guide rather than having the burden placed squarely on their ability to execute.
Chanus said:oneADseven said:It's interesting you say that (Chanus) because "challenge" was recently defined in a newsletter:
"But with Pantheon, our philosophy of challenge puts less burden on nimble fingers and more on what we call strategic depth: designing gameplay around a longer-term curve that asks players to make decisions not based purely on reaction time, but by increasing players long-term reward or lowering their long-term risk based on a growing knowledge of the game."Knowing the optimal combination of abilities that should be used for any individual fight is something that players can look up on a website. The desired APM can remain the exact same regardless of whether or not our hotbars are limited. Knowing the optimal ability to use at any given point in time (with all of them being available) is a matter of execution. The more possible combinations that are available, the more likelihood there is that someone can make a mistake. (This can be offset by experience ... or a growing knowledge of the game.) If the burden of challenge is placed on being "proactive" rather than "reactive" that only incentivizes players to look up a guide (which there will be plenty of, for every class, and for every boss) -- with a more expansive action set, and assuming a static level of desired APM, it's about having a nimble mind rather than nimble fingers. I just prefer challenge to be more focused on execution than planning.
You can choose to not look up a guide.
I can't choose to have more fingers.
Well... not yet...
you can choose to not look up a guide just like i should have a choice to use more keybinds :D
oneADseven said:... If the burden of challenge is placed on being "proactive" rather than "reactive" that only incentivizes players to look up a guide (which there will be plenty of, for every class, and for every boss) -- with a more expansive action set, and assuming a static level of desired APM, it's about having a nimble mind rather than nimble fingers. I just prefer challenge to be more focused on execution than planning.
I am a fan of dynamic combat. A basic example would be a boss that can periodically spawn NPC's of a random archetype after you engage it. While it's still possible to "prepare for a range of potential outcomes" an LAS would emphasize the significance of RNG. You know that a boss can summon a tank pet, a mage pet, a healer pet, or a melee pet ... so you plan your hotbars to compensate for all 4 of those possibilities. Once you initiate combat, though, RNG decides to hit you with 4 consecutive tank pets. The healing debuff you prepared for the healer can't be utilized. The interrupt you prepared for the mage can't be utilized. It just doesn't make sense to emphasize execution if players cannot adapt to dynamic content. This means that encounters will likely be highly predictable (or the severity of the death penalty reduced) just for the sake of not making it overly frustrating for the player-base. VR would need to purposely create "wiggle room" for mistakes or reduced efficiency to compensate for any dynamic RNG and by the nature of doing so, they would be decreasing the burden of proper execution from the players. You don't get to enjoy a fight that requires near-perfect execution of all 12 of your slotted abilities because 2 of them were rendered useless as soon as you engaged in-combat.
For that reason, I have a strong feeling that we wouldn't see much in the realm of dynamic combat. I like surprises and RNG but players should be able to respond to them in real-time. If they cannot, and the window for execution remains fairly tight, players will simply have to get lucky to be victorious. With a tight window, they can prepare the perfect hotbar for a boss that summons 4 consecutive tank pets and continue engaging the encounter until RNG blesses them with that outcome. With a loose window, you can beat the encounter from 100-0 even if you have several slotted abilities that serve no functional purpose during the fight. Dynamic combat simply doesn't mesh with an emphasis on proactive planning. I understand that players can prepare for a range of outcomes, but the idea of "requiring execution in order to prevail victorious" would need to be watered down to compensate for RNG. One or the other would need to be compromised. The burden of execution, or the ability to produce dynamic/challenging content.
vjek said:Iksar said: I know I've said it somewhere before but my basic feeling on this is that we really need to get away from the builder/spender active ability paradigm. If DPS classes in particular are set up as builders and spenders then it will boil down to fairly basic optimal rotations for any given fight, very predictable and mindless in short time. ...But.. aren't pretty much all the current class designs set up as builders/spenders?
Yeah pretty much, and it's a problem (to me) when it comes to having more challenging/engaging combat that isn't boiled down to rotations and spammy gameplay.
If things stay as simple builder/spender abilities then this game will be just as spammy as every other MMO from WoW onward. It will be a game of keeping the global cooldown always ticking (for many classes) by hitting a button to build or spend ASAP.
So to me it would be better if building were more RNG dependent or nuanced instead of something reliable and spammy. For example: things like successful double attacks, blocks, riposte, dual wield, etc (passive skills) would open up use of different abilities or combo chains to build resources. This would make those resources much more valuable and require more consideration of how/when to spend them, it would require more active engagement/awareness from the player in a fight and make each battle just a little different, and psychologically it feels good/rewarding seeing those abilities on the hotbar highlight.
oneADseven said:I am a fan of dynamic combat. A basic example would be a boss that can periodically spawn NPC's of a random archetype after you engage it. While it's still possible to "prepare for a range of potential outcomes" an LAS would emphasize the significance of RNG. You know that a boss can summon a tank pet, a mage pet, a healer pet, or a melee pet ... so you plan your hotbars to compensate for all 4 of those possibilities. Once you initiate combat, though, RNG decides to hit you with 4 consecutive tank pets. The healing debuff you prepared for the healer can't be utilized. The interrupt you prepared for the mage can't be utilized. It just doesn't make sense to emphasize execution if players cannot adapt to dynamic content. This means that encounters will likely be highly predictable (or the severity of the death penalty reduced) just for the sake of not making it overly frustrating for the player-base. VR would need to purposely create "wiggle room" for mistakes or reduced efficiency to compensate for any dynamic RNG and by the nature of doing so, they would be decreasing the burden of proper execution from the players. You don't get to enjoy a fight that requires near-perfect execution of all 12 of your slotted abilities because 2 of them were rendered useless as soon as you engaged in-combat.
For that reason, I have a strong feeling that we wouldn't see much in the realm of dynamic combat. I like surprises and RNG but players should be able to respond to them in real-time. If they cannot, and the window for execution remains fairly tight, players will simply have to get lucky to be victorious. With a tight window, they can prepare the perfect hotbar for a boss that summons 4 consecutive tank pets and continue engaging the encounter until RNG blesses them with that outcome. With a loose window, you can beat the encounter from 100-0 even if you have several slotted abilities that serve no functional purpose during the fight. Dynamic combat simply doesn't mesh with an emphasis on proactive planning. I understand that players can prepare for a range of outcomes, but the idea of "requiring execution in order to prevail victorious" would need to be watered down to compensate for RNG. One or the other would need to be compromised. The burden of execution, or the ability to produce dynamic/challenging content.
so in a nutshell its like you are musician and the crowd decides that you need to play heavy metal, but all you got is a violin, viola and a cello. you can't execute because you didn't preset your instruments properly for heavy metal.
so in essence you should bring a keyboard (more keybinds) since you can adjust for different styles of music giving you a chance to execute, although not as refined as a singular instrument, but can dynamically compensate for changes in the musical style.
stellarmind said:oneADseven said:I am a fan of dynamic combat. A basic example would be a boss that can periodically spawn NPC's of a random archetype after you engage it. While it's still possible to "prepare for a range of potential outcomes" an LAS would emphasize the significance of RNG. You know that a boss can summon a tank pet, a mage pet, a healer pet, or a melee pet ... so you plan your hotbars to compensate for all 4 of those possibilities. Once you initiate combat, though, RNG decides to hit you with 4 consecutive tank pets. The healing debuff you prepared for the healer can't be utilized. The interrupt you prepared for the mage can't be utilized. It just doesn't make sense to emphasize execution if players cannot adapt to dynamic content. This means that encounters will likely be highly predictable (or the severity of the death penalty reduced) just for the sake of not making it overly frustrating for the player-base. VR would need to purposely create "wiggle room" for mistakes or reduced efficiency to compensate for any dynamic RNG and by the nature of doing so, they would be decreasing the burden of proper execution from the players. You don't get to enjoy a fight that requires near-perfect execution of all 12 of your slotted abilities because 2 of them were rendered useless as soon as you engaged in-combat.
For that reason, I have a strong feeling that we wouldn't see much in the realm of dynamic combat. I like surprises and RNG but players should be able to respond to them in real-time. If they cannot, and the window for execution remains fairly tight, players will simply have to get lucky to be victorious. With a tight window, they can prepare the perfect hotbar for a boss that summons 4 consecutive tank pets and continue engaging the encounter until RNG blesses them with that outcome. With a loose window, you can beat the encounter from 100-0 even if you have several slotted abilities that serve no functional purpose during the fight. Dynamic combat simply doesn't mesh with an emphasis on proactive planning. I understand that players can prepare for a range of outcomes, but the idea of "requiring execution in order to prevail victorious" would need to be watered down to compensate for RNG. One or the other would need to be compromised. The burden of execution, or the ability to produce dynamic/challenging content.
so in a nutshell its like you are musician and the crowd decides that you need to play heavy metal, but all you got is a violin, viola and a cello. you can't execute because you didn't preset your instruments properly for heavy metal.
so in essence you should bring a keyboard (more keybinds) since you can adjust for different styles of music giving you a chance to execute, although not as refined as a singular instrument, but can dynamically compensate for changes in the musical style.
You seem to be struggling to understand one of the core philosophies of this game which is the planning element when going into a fight and choosing which 12 abilities you want to have available.
This is a design choice on purpose.
If you are looking for a game with 8 hotbars so that you can have 96 abilities available and when the boss does something it's easy for you to just press the right one, then you need to look elsewhere.
Being faced with an encounter that suddenly shifts and you realise none of the abilities you have made available will be effective is a purposeful challenge.
I think 12-16 is a solid range for the number of active abilities. So 12 is on the lower end, but we're talking about release. I'd like VR to look at the option to more skill slots in future expansions.
The one change I would like to see is the addition of a second bar for non-combat abilities. Things like summoning food/water, teleport spells, traps, poison blades, scouting abilites, long-term buffs, etc. When the player is put in combat, all skills on that bar would be locked out. Non-skills (consumables, weapon swap macros, etc) would still be enabled as long as they can be used in combat by default (i.e. if you can't change armor during combat, an item swap macro that changes armor would also be grayed out). This would help by removing the choice of having to go through the tedium of swapping a non-combat skill in and out repeatedly or using up a slot for it during combat.
Ezrael said:stellarmind said:oneADseven said:I am a fan of dynamic combat. A basic example would be a boss that can periodically spawn NPC's of a random archetype after you engage it. While it's still possible to "prepare for a range of potential outcomes" an LAS would emphasize the significance of RNG. You know that a boss can summon a tank pet, a mage pet, a healer pet, or a melee pet ... so you plan your hotbars to compensate for all 4 of those possibilities. Once you initiate combat, though, RNG decides to hit you with 4 consecutive tank pets. The healing debuff you prepared for the healer can't be utilized. The interrupt you prepared for the mage can't be utilized. It just doesn't make sense to emphasize execution if players cannot adapt to dynamic content. This means that encounters will likely be highly predictable (or the severity of the death penalty reduced) just for the sake of not making it overly frustrating for the player-base. VR would need to purposely create "wiggle room" for mistakes or reduced efficiency to compensate for any dynamic RNG and by the nature of doing so, they would be decreasing the burden of proper execution from the players. You don't get to enjoy a fight that requires near-perfect execution of all 12 of your slotted abilities because 2 of them were rendered useless as soon as you engaged in-combat.
For that reason, I have a strong feeling that we wouldn't see much in the realm of dynamic combat. I like surprises and RNG but players should be able to respond to them in real-time. If they cannot, and the window for execution remains fairly tight, players will simply have to get lucky to be victorious. With a tight window, they can prepare the perfect hotbar for a boss that summons 4 consecutive tank pets and continue engaging the encounter until RNG blesses them with that outcome. With a loose window, you can beat the encounter from 100-0 even if you have several slotted abilities that serve no functional purpose during the fight. Dynamic combat simply doesn't mesh with an emphasis on proactive planning. I understand that players can prepare for a range of outcomes, but the idea of "requiring execution in order to prevail victorious" would need to be watered down to compensate for RNG. One or the other would need to be compromised. The burden of execution, or the ability to produce dynamic/challenging content.
so in a nutshell its like you are musician and the crowd decides that you need to play heavy metal, but all you got is a violin, viola and a cello. you can't execute because you didn't preset your instruments properly for heavy metal.
so in essence you should bring a keyboard (more keybinds) since you can adjust for different styles of music giving you a chance to execute, although not as refined as a singular instrument, but can dynamically compensate for changes in the musical style.
You seem to be struggling to understand one of the core philosophies of this game which is the planning element when going into a fight and choosing which 12 abilities you want to have available.
This is a design choice on purpose.
If you are looking for a game with 8 hotbars so that you can have 96 abilities available and when the boss does something it's easy for you to just press the right one, then you need to look elsewhere.
Being faced with an encounter that suddenly shifts and you realise none of the abilities you have made available will be effective is a purposeful challenge.
no need to tell people to look for another game or to insult my intelligence. i am well aware of who is making this game and the model they are going for.
[spoiler]
oneADseven said:For me, it has always come down to finding a balance of proactive / reactive gameplay. Let's consider this excerpt from the FAQ:
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.
I don't see how a limited hotbar would help realize that goal. I would argue that it actually contradicts it. The above excerpt focuses on "reactive" gameplay. If the goal is "to make 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 ..." -- a limited hotbar does more bad than good. While it's been stated that Pantheon won't focus on having "twitchy" combat, it does appear that players will have to navigate a steady amount of APM (Actions Per Minute) as per the design philosophy. By expanding the amount of abilities that players can use at any given time, it opens up more depth and breadth to the choices that players can make.
Whatever the desired APM ends up being, combat will be more spammy if the amount of available actions are condensed into fewer ability choices. Simple mathematics prove that you can't really have your cake and eat it too, in this scenario. I would prefer a system where every class has at least 12 "situational abilities" that have longer cooldowns, which need to be managed dynamically. If the game emphasizes preparation too much, that would make it predictable. I would rather see dynamic combat where players have to adapt to what is happening in real-time. If I have an emergency ability with a 10 minute recast, I should always have access to it. If you can consistently "predict" emergencies then that would be a sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
When I think about that quoted excerpt, and then look at the class reveal for the warrior ... I like to imagine a combat system where all of those abilities could be leveraged at any given point in time. I'd like to see NPC's throw the kitchen sink at us players and it doesn't seem possible if our ability pool is purposely gimped. When I think about the phrase "the timing of many abilities crucial" -- I'd like to see encounters where I need to time all of my abilities in order to be successful, even if that means not using that which is available in order to conserve precious resources. Reducing the number of abilities that I'm responsible for at any given point in time only serves to dumb down the potential scope of dynamic combat.
I had plenty to say on a related topic some months ago: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/9899/should-spells-buffs-persist-after-removed-from-bar
"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: Situational Gear, 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."
I'm not a fan of what I have seen thus far and hope that the LAS gets scrapped. Multi-boxing is antithetical to the overarching spirit and vision of this game.
[/spoiler]
I apologize in advance for quoting such a long post without having a condense/expand option. I couldn't see how to do that in this forum. If a mod sees this please feel free to fix it.
This post describes exactly what I have been worried about in a much more elegant way and in a much better way.
I am of the "more is better" group, and I *really* dislike Iksar's idea. I had 4 hotbars in EQ2, was fine without being too much. I have seen some with considerably more, but 4 was enough for me. Half of mine were situational anyways (a lot of potions and poisons, totems and the like) that just made it take less time to open my inventory then my bags to the use them.
All this said, 12 might be ok actually, really depends on how many skills in total and what kind of restrictions items and clickies have. Probably not, but I am sure it will work regardless of what I think of it.
I don't want "unlimited" abilities available all the time. I would prefer a system like EQ with a limited amount of spell/ability slots, but a (mostly) unlimited amount of hotbar slots. Where you can pull abilities from the spell/ability bar to hotbar slots, or you can put macros, or clicky items in the hotbar slots. Where you can switch between the hotbars during combat, and also access slots on your second/third hotbar with shift/alt + number key (or similar).
However I'm rather worried from what I hear, that Pantheon is going to disallow switching out spells/abilities on the spell/ability bar during combat. Being able to do that was a great strategic part of EQ that was really well done IMO. If you knew an encounter, you could put the correct spells on the spell bar beforehand. If not, you could adapt during the encounter, at some risk (because you had to sit down to change spells, potentially aggroing mobs). This allowed for dynamic combat, without needing to have several spell bars.
But being "locked" in what spells you take into an encounter, leads to the problem described above: Players absolutely failing because they have no way to adapt. Which in turn leads to players doing everything to avoid any risk. Not a good idea IMO..
Sarim said:I don't want "unlimited" abilities available all the time. I would prefer a system like EQ with a limited amount of spell/ability slots, but a (mostly) unlimited amount of hotbar slots. Where you can pull abilities from the spell/ability bar to hotbar slots, or you can put macros, or clicky items in the hotbar slots. Where you can switch between the hotbars during combat, and also access slots on your second/third hotbar with shift/alt + number key (or similar).
However I'm rather worried from what I hear, that Pantheon is going to disallow switching out spells/abilities on the spell/ability bar during combat. Being able to do that was a great strategic part of EQ that was really well done IMO. If you knew an encounter, you could put the correct spells on the spell bar beforehand. If not, you could adapt during the encounter, at some risk (because you had to sit down to change spells, potentially aggroing mobs). This allowed for dynamic combat, without needing to have several spell bars.
But being "locked" in what spells you take into an encounter, leads to the problem described above: Players absolutely failing because they have no way to adapt. Which in turn leads to players doing everything to avoid any risk. Not a good idea IMO..
I think the ability to swap out abilities within combat is crucial to being able to adapt. Otherwise you engage an encounter with the wrong setup and, so sorry, you're boned. Too bad for you. What did you learn? Next to nothing.
It shouldn't necessarily be instantaneous or without risk. If you need to sit and mem an ability, or ability set, like in EQ, you can make that part of the "cost" for not coming prepared -- assuming sitting will similarly have a chance to pull aggro onto you.
I have no opposition to characters having a wide and varied number of abilities, I just really do not want to see the combat in the game turn into staring at pages of hotbars and clicking buttons. I want to be able to actually experience the combat itself.
Iksar said:vjek said:Iksar said: I know I've said it somewhere before but my basic feeling on this is that we really need to get away from the builder/spender active ability paradigm. If DPS classes in particular are set up as builders and spenders then it will boil down to fairly basic optimal rotations for any given fight, very predictable and mindless in short time. ...But.. aren't pretty much all the current class designs set up as builders/spenders?
Yeah pretty much, and it's a problem (to me) when it comes to having more challenging/engaging combat that isn't boiled down to rotations and spammy gameplay.
If things stay as simple builder/spender abilities then this game will be just as spammy as every other MMO from WoW onward. It will be a game of keeping the global cooldown always ticking (for many classes) by hitting a button to build or spend ASAP.
So to me it would be better if building were more RNG dependent or nuanced instead of something reliable and spammy. For example: things like successful double attacks, blocks, riposte, dual wield, etc (passive skills) would open up use of different abilities or combo chains to build resources. This would make those resources much more valuable and require more consideration of how/when to spend them, it would require more active engagement/awareness from the player in a fight and make each battle just a little different, and psychologically it feels good/rewarding seeing those abilities on the hotbar highlight.
Yeah, I have to agree. I think that the only three roles who should have a secondary resource are your tanks, off tanks, and your healers. These roles are not governed by optimal DPS rotation, and there is a clear and apparent trade-off when deciding to use stored power in the form of survivability. For the most part, I am happy because almost all of the classes that have a secondary resource fit into one of these three categories.
The ranger, on the other hand, is a different story. The focus system is either going to be really good or really bad with it comes to strategic gameplay, and how good or bad it is will come down to how other spells and abilities are designed for them. If every spell and ability they have is designed around focus it's going to be absolutely horrible and there will be no room to deviate from a set rotation. If they have a mixture of spells that require mana, endurance and focus then it might not be as bad. Personally, I would have liked to see the focus system as a passive buff that just increased auto attack speed after every attack stacking up to 5 times, and then maybe resetting when you switched from range to melee, rather than an additional resource pool.
Chanus said:I have no opposition to characters having a wide and varied number of abilities, I just really do not want to see the combat in the game turn into staring at pages of hotbars and clicking buttons. I want to be able to actually experience the combat itself.
I find it hard to relate to this position. By nature of having a limited hotbar, players will be required to "stare at pages of abilities" and click extra buttons to swap their hotbar around, as needed. Instead of being able to experience dynamic combat seamlessly, they will have to "predict" what abilities they will need and then "lock them in" prior to engaging any given encounter. If doing so is supposed to be meaningful then players will be highly incentivized to look up a strategy guide for every major encounter in the game in order to mitigate their chance of suffering from what is supposed to be a harsh death penalty. So much for discovery, exploration and adventure.
FFXI offered the ideal sweet spot, in my opinion. That game didn't suffer from ability bloat. As a max level character (75 Paladin / 37 Warrior sub-class) we had access to less than 15 abilities. Even after adding in racial abilities and macros, it was uncommon for someone to have more than three 10-slot hotbars on their screen at any given point in time. That game did feature an alternate resource for all classes though, and it was tied into their weapon type. As players participated in combat they were able to build their "TP" resource. They could fill up to three bars of TP and each bar unlocked a varying amount of "weapon skills" that could be used, depending on the type of weapon they had equipped. These weren't considered "abilities" in the traditional sense because they couldn't be used on demand. FFXI style combat wasn't spammy at all. Every ability had meaning, and each class had a special ability with a 2 hour recast. The combat system was built around the idea of synergistic play and opportunistic timing/positioning. Of all the MMO's I have played over the last 15+ years, FFXI emphasized "macro-play" more than any other. In other words, players spent more time focused on the environment, the NPC's, and other players than they did staring at their hotbars. Combat wasn't some rotational spammy thing -- every action had meaning and purpose. It was both slow/methodical and tactically intense at the same time.
From what I have seen in Pantheon streams thus far, the combat seems closer to EQ2 style pacing. Lots of actions and ability usage ... but bogged down by a lack of depth and breadth. While casters seem to spend a bit of time sitting on the ground, the melee classes are constantly building/spending. You know what I haven't seen in a single stream since 2014? Players "strategically adjusting their hotbars before a fight." Not once. We have seen multiple Gnasshura streams (and dozens of lesser bosses) thus far and not once did we see a group communicate about what abilities they have available and see them adjust their bars. The combat looks extremely bland and monotonous and that just isn't something I'm interested in. I want to be mentally stimulated. I want the timing of abilities to be crucial but that isn't what we're seeing unless we look at that in the most simple of terms: "Managing constant up-time on as many abilities as possible is ideal." That's what a builder/spender system looks like. FFXI got the recipe right. They had a builder/spender system as well but it wasn't tied into abilities, it was tied into weapon skills. Combat was active and intense, but not in the "button pressing way." It was intense because you had to pay close attention to everything going on around you and if you weren't focused, you could miss a detail that could see you or an ally lying on your back as a chunk of XP fades into oblivion.
I am not at all impressed by what I have seen with the combat system so far and sincerely hope that they go the Vanguard route of unlocking our ability sets. Vanguard was very similar to FFXI. There are a ton of ways to "meaningfully prepare" for the upcoming battle and that is fundamentally what they are seeking to accomplish. The LAS has never been set in stone. I know some people are suggesting that on this thread, even going so far as to call it a "core philosophy" -- but that just isn't true. The core philosophy is based around the idea of having a meaningful preparation phase. The core philosophy is to create a combat system that is more favorable to those who "plan ahead" for the upcoming battle rather than rushing into it blindly. I'm going to share some other quotes from that thread I linked previously:
From Kilsin:
"To be honest, I would personally prefer open abilities like VG had, after playing both EQ and VG, I much prefer the unlimited options, which I think is even more tactical and challenging than forcing a set amount but our system is not set in stone, we will be going into testing with the limit abilities and gathering data/feedback so grab a pledge, jump in and test and let us know what you think. :)"
From Aradune:
"...I can reveal what we are generally trying to accomplish and the vision and thinking behind it, but it's too early to set number of slots or anything else in stone, specifics and the like.
Fundamentally, what we're shooting for here is needing to plan for that next encounter, especially significant encounters (boss mobs and the like). There should be a noticeable reward for prepping for an encounter properly vs. just running into combat without any forethought or tactics.
There ideally shouldn't be a set of abilities that is always optimal. It should change depending on where you are and what you are going up against.
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.
Of course, this extends beyond spells that you mem. Situational gear should play a part as well. Relics and artifacts should play an important role in the big fights. Your group composition and how you work with others and not just individually should matter too. The buffs you apply to yourself and party should matter. Group positioning (both initial positioning and then re-positioning either based on a plan or in reaction to something the mob did or is about to do), depending on class, DPS, ability to tank or off-tank, etc. should be very important. What we're trying to implement and reward are real tactics that give you an advantage over the party who just rushes in blindly with little to no thoughtful preparation. In MMOs your characters abilities, items, etc. generally matter a lot. Then comes buffs. Then eventually actual tactics.
I personally don't see one necessarily always being more important than the other. Certainly, the items you are using, how you are buffed, etc. should matter a *lot*. Pantheon will always be an item-centric and 'ability important' game. But that by no means is a scenario where, at any given level, there's one optimal configuration and as long as you adhere to it, you'll be in good shape. Items, stats, buffs, etc. will always be extremely important. Having that optimal configuration vary depending on who you are, where you are, who you are with, etc. is very important to us -- no 'one size fits all'."
The main takeaway I observed from the above:
There are a variety of ways to intelligently plan for the battle ahead, including: Situational Gear, relics/artifacts, group composition, buff selection, positioning/repositioning, synergy, and tactics. That list isn't comprehensive because I think all of the following would also apply: Resource management, available cooldowns, timing, communication, crowd control, role assignments, primary/secondary/tertiary objectives, NPC archetype/disposition consideration, line of sight, situational awareness with respawns or pathers, climate/environment, and pulling strategy. (Can you split the encounter up? Do you need to utilize mezz/lull?) The need to plan ahead can be realized without funneling preparation through the LAS. Buff selection is supposed to matter a lot. A concentration mechanic would be good for the buffing classes but should probably be avoided for non-buffing classes in order to prevent it from feeling like a gimmick for most classes, like it did in EQ2. A bunch of classes had a variety of buffs forced into their arsenal in order to justify the existence of their available concentration slots but in the end, it only contributed to the hotbar bloat. The vast majority of those buffs could have been passive, without an icon, and the game wouldn't have been played any differently.
The LAS is not a make-or-break mechanic that the entire combat system is designed around. It's an element, for sure, but it's not necessarily more important than any of the others, at least not in the sense that meaningful preparation cannot occur without it. Seeing that buffs are supposed to be a major consideration of the preparation phase, I would again cite what has been described as "LAS Circumvention" as a legitimate issue. The good news is that long-term buffs can remain, and that there can still be a heavy emphasis on planning for the upcoming battle. Players can still enjoy a sense of "soft-specialization" by utilizing situational gear, intelligently planned buffs, and playing around the stat modifiers that are listed in the various ability descriptions. Pantheon is supposed to be an evolved MMO and the combat system as a whole is going to be a major factor when it comes time for players to render a verdict. I expect pioneering more than emulating when it comes to combat, specifically.
It's an interesting topic because according to the above, the buffs that players use should matter. That obviously wasn't the case in EQ. You could use all of your buffs and then replace them with other spells on your bar. This is what I have referred to as "LAS Circumvention." If buff choices are supposed to matter then VR could very easily reproduce the "concentration mechanic" that we have seen in several previous MMO's. Classes would have access to a variety of buffs/stances that require a concentration slot, but those concentration slots are limited. They would have to make this/that choices. I understand the concerns people have about seeing 96 abilities on their screen. That isn't something I would want to see either. But 2-3 bars? That's going to be a lot more engaging. I think it's important that each class has a variety of abilities that have longer cooldowns, that they are always available, and that the world is constructed in a way where those abilities are consistently required to survive incoming surprise challenges (dynamic combat.) This would ensure that there is risk/reward for when we use them.
I am not a fan of the idea of always having to predict what makes the most sense for a fight. That sounds dreadful. For those who think that we'll be able to swap abilities around while "in-combat" I think you are mistaken. Pantheon seems to be taking a different approach than what was observed in EQ. There are many abilities that require an in or out combat state. If, for example, a ranger could have "Silent Arrow" on their bar at the beginning of the fight, and use it to engage ... only to replace it with something else afterward (since it can only be used once per fight due to the out-of-combat requirement) -- what is the point of having the LAS? That would encourage players to spend more time shuffling around in their spell book (circumvention-based-micro-play) and less time focused on what's going on in the world directly around them.
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.
this is from the faq section.
thank you 1d7. you articulate my points for having more buttons pretty well. i just don't want to be fumbling with my bars before each fight and i definitely don't want to be punished (since death is going to 'matter') for having the wrong spells. it's like i'm a guitar player and i can't play thunderstruck from ac dc because i have the wrong 2 strings equipped.
I would like combat abilities set to the 12 they have but I would like to see unlimited number of non combat skills to be: 1. Cast from your spell book or 2. a side bar where you can put as many as you like. Non-combat skills would be things like buffs, summon food and the like. I would like to see these non combat skills get their cast time to go up by say 20% when you are in combat as well.
Nanfoodle said:I would like combat abilities set to the 12 they have but I would like to see unlimited number of non combat skills to be: 1. Cast from your spell book or 2. a side bar where you can put as many as you like. Non-combat skills would be things like buffs, summon food and the like. I would like to see these non combat skills get their cast time to go up by say 20% when you are in combat as well.
buff bar, combat bar, epic ability bar, item bar?
maybe slots if they are going to be restricted?
so 12 for combat, 3 for buffs, 1 for epic, and 4 for items?
if they are going to lock us out of our spell book during engagements i'm pretty sure they have to do the same for items. the 20% additional cooldown is a prety cool concept. like a 2ndary combat bar but is penalized by cd? then have a 3rd combat bar that is penalized with cd and mana cost?
if down ranking heals is going to be a thing, i know as a healer at least 3 to 6 of my bar is going to be for one spell for efficency purposes.
stellarmind said:Nanfoodle said:I would like combat abilities set to the 12 they have but I would like to see unlimited number of non combat skills to be: 1. Cast from your spell book or 2. a side bar where you can put as many as you like. Non-combat skills would be things like buffs, summon food and the like. I would like to see these non combat skills get their cast time to go up by say 20% when you are in combat as well.
buff bar, combat bar, epic ability bar, item bar?
maybe slots if they are going to be restricted?
so 12 for combat, 3 for buffs, 1 for epic, and 4 for items?
if they are going to lock us out of our spell book during engagements i'm pretty sure they have to do the same for items. the 20% additional cooldown is a prety cool concept. like a 2ndary combat bar but is penalized by cd? then have a 3rd combat bar that is penalized with cd and mana cost?
if down ranking heals is going to be a thing, i know as a healer at least 3 to 6 of my bar is going to be for one spell for efficency purposes.
I just remember as a Shaman, memorizing and un-memorizing buffs became a full time pain. If I could have cast buff from my spell book, I would have been a very happy gamer.
You know what I haven't seen in a single stream since 2014? Players "strategically adjusting their hotbars before a fight." Not once. We have seen multiple Gnasshura streams (and dozens of lesser bosses) thus far and not once did we see a group communicate about what abilities they have available and see them adjust their bars. The combat looks extremely bland and monotonous and that just isn't something I'm interested in. I want to be mentally stimulated. I want the timing of abilities to be crucial but that isn't what we're seeing unless we look at that in the most simple of terms: "Managing constant up-time on as many abilities as possible is ideal." That's what a builder/spender system looks like.
I haven't seen any 'need' to swap out abilities either on a single stream. And the combat does look extremely bland (even if I do love the rest of the game) and I just can't play a game for more than a few weeks if the combat is that lacking.
Now I guess it's probable and possible that the streams we have been watching don't really include footage from people who are in the more 'skilled and hardcore' camp. Maybe if we get footage from another group that has a bit more of a resume of RECENT accomplisments from other games maybe the combat and challenge would look differently?
Pantheon has so many ideas and the game is so perfect in so many ways. Unfortunately combat just makes me think I'm watching footage from a game made 20 years ago.
I came to this topic with the baseline assumption that more abilities means more meaningful choices to make in combat, while less abilities (selected from a larger set) means more meaningful choices to make before combat. I get the impression that others share that assumption, but I'm not sure it is valid.
I've played games with a slew of abilities and it got to the point where just remembering that I should use ability #73 when situation #134 arose was the primary challenge. That's a fun type of game and it was super rewarding to correctly use my suite extremely situational abilities in the right situations. That said, I never wrestled with a choice between ability #34 and ability #54 - with that many abilities there were always a few that would be perfectly fine for a given task and I just had to pick one.
But I've also played abilities with few choices. I've been stumped by hair-pullingly difficult choices between two options that are both bad. If you don't have the perfect tool for the job then you have to make an assessment of which sub-par tool is best suited for the situation. With fewer choices you can examine those choices more deeply.
Conclusion: I don't think there's a correlation between number of choices and how meaningful/interesting your in-combat choices are. I think you can have very meaningful choices with a LAS of 12.