An updated FAQ would certainly be nice to have because when information isn't consistently transparent, you run into situations as we have seen on this thread. Instead of us all being on the same page, some people manage their expectations based on what has been stated in the FAQ (That's what an FAQ is for) -- while others cite their personal opinion of what they hope and desire to happen based on previous experience in an unrelated game. There is a sense of validity to those opinions when the gameplay that is consistently showcased over a period of several years is highly reminiscent of the nostalgia they cherish, but it's bad for the community when you have folks telling others that this isn't the game for them. If it were based on fact? Sure, that would be fine, as facts allow people to manage their expectations properly. It's perfectly fine to discuss previous experiences in other games as long as the context is directly related to the established goals for this game. Combat either is or is not going to be extremely difficult to multi-box. The last thing VR should be doing when it comes to realizing that goal (where it is extremely difficult) is try to reproduce the "system" that enabled the very thing they are trying to prevent.
The frustration for me stems from the idea that many of the major differentiators for Pantheon aim to address what are obviously considered weak points in previous games. They don't want Ground Hog Day -- they want dynamic content. They don't want boring AI, they want to add spice and flair with dispositions. They don't want boring/monotonous combat, they want immersive combat and engaging group mechanics. So ... based on the differentiators, and the tenets, many folks have formed expectations. Those are the selling points for this game. But when those features are discussed, there seems to be this sense of "conflict" with how these things being realized would contradict what was previously experienced in EQ. That seems to be the point! We're supposed to see change and evolution and they have honed in on specific gameplay elements where these changes are supposed to take place. Providing specific information will only serve to make a portion of followers unhappy ... so instead of being able to have any sort of meaningful dialogue, we all get to argue about our opinions of what is more important for this game; delivering on their stated goals/tenets, or bringing back elements of EQ that contradict them.
oneADseven said:The frustration for me stems from the idea that many of the major differentiators for Pantheon aim to address what are obviously considered weak points in previous games. They don't want Ground Hog Day -- they want dynamic content. They don't want boring AI, they want to add spice and flair with dispositions. They don't want boring/monotonous combat, they want immersive combat and engaging group mechanics. So ... based on the differentiators, and the tenets, many folks have formed expectations. Those are the selling points for this game. But when those features are discussed, there seems to be this sense of "conflict" with how these things being realized would contradict what was previously experienced in EQ. That seems to be the point! We're supposed to see change and evolution and they have honed in on specific gameplay elements where these changes are supposed to take place. Providing specific information will only serve to make a portion of followers unhappy ... so instead of being able to have any sort of meaningful dialogue, we all get to argue about our opinions of what is more important for this game; delivering on their stated goals/tenets, or bringing back elements of EQ that contradict them.
I totally agree with this. I feel that it is self defeating out side of anything philosophical... but I like it. No sarcasm, I agree with this ^
So it is meant to sound humorous when I say:
We want a newer, updated, dynamic, non-boring, convenient, social, difficult, friendly, open, private, customizable, easy, not-too-silly, complex, retro-feeling, simplified, slower, fast-paced, not too convenient game.
In truth, we're all different people and our opinions are important. Important and frustrating.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:...
I just see it as two different ways to handle combat, one isn't necessarily better or worse than the other and they are challenging in different ways.
One is akin to packing up a backpack with essentials for a wilderness hike and the other is more akin to wandering around with a bag of holding with everything one could ever need. The former might lose their footing and fall into a ravine only to find themselves in a very challenging position having decided this hike would more likely require binoculars and not a grappling hook. They can get out of the ravine but it will be more difficult to pull off, and yes they might die. At any part of the journey they might find themselves in a tough spot because they weren't prepared for what was encountered, not because they didn't think of the dangers but because they couldn't bring all the possible tools due to limitations. They had to make choices.
The latter doesn't ever have to worry about any of that nor does he have to work with any companions to assess who should bring what. The companions they travel with changes very little about how they go about their business, yet for the former it changes everything about thier grouping experience and what each person decides to pack in their backpacks because optimization and full preparedness requires teamwork/communication not just about when to use the tools but what tools to bring.
With all abilities available all the time groups will have 300+ abilities available at all times in any given encounter instead of 72. No tradeoffs would need to be made, 6 people with every stun/slow/heal/shield/damage/etc ability possible to overwhelm any given fight. To me it seems less of a challenge when everyone has access to all their abilities: something needs an interrupt then you have 6 people capable, an add or two shows up and you have 6 people worth of CC ready to go, things start going south and you have 6 people with every "oh ****" ability ready to go.
(Also, my god I would not envy healers with all abilities available all the time. Half their screen would be hotbars with every heal and every version/down-rank of each.)
for the ladder, balancing comes from class design. if the devs decide to give every class the ability to do everything then yes you end up with everyone being able to do everyones job. that's the issue with modern day mmos. i'm pretty sure vr are well aware of this.
as for healers with down ranking heals in old school mmos, i took pride in being able to keep my party alive while being efficient with my mana as possible. healers have a different mindset than any other class. i don't mind having half my screen littered with bars if i can keep my party alive.
Perhaps some of you have only played MMOs where 24-96 abilities being available and all over your UI were the standard format.
In which case your perspective is skewed to that viewpoint and you only want it back without being able to appreciate or understand a different design.
Some may tell you to try P99, but I think EQ would be too many steps back for you because all the mechanics are far slower and more methodical.
You should try something like Guild Wars 2 - the base game is free to play, it has limited abilities with only 10 available, it is action combat though so it's not slow paced. But your first 5 skills are weapon skills tied to the weapon you choose, after that you choose a heal, 3 utilities and an elite utility.
Perhaps playing this a little can help you to understand
Why this is a positive design system and a more positive option than allowing a character to have every ability available which is a design philosphy akin to 'having your cake and eating it' that seems to be designed around the lazy kinds of millennials that want instant gratification only.
I don't mind a limited hotbar as long as it is not completely artificial. If I have a usable skill, I would like to use it, and would be annoyed if the only reason is "we don't want you to have access to all of your abilities". That being said, it does appear that some pains have been taken to make the limitations appear less arbitrary. I am okay with buffs, weapons, environments, mobs ect. locking and unlocking different abilities. I actually think it is pretty neat. If limitations are put in place through creative design, great. If they are simply there because the creators just want limits for the sake of having them, then I believe there just shouldnt be many abilities at all. Don't give me a game with tons of potential and no way to use it. That would be true potential, which isn't worth anything right now.
Ezrael said:Perhaps some of you have only played MMOs where 24-96 abilities being available and all over your UI were the standard format.
In which case your perspective is skewed to that viewpoint and you only want it back without being able to appreciate or understand a different design.
Some may tell you to try P99, but I think EQ would be too many steps back for you because all the mechanics are far slower and more methodical.
You should try something like Guild Wars 2 - the base game is free to play, it has limited abilities with only 10 available, it is action combat though so it's not slow paced. But your first 5 skills are weapon skills tied to the weapon you choose, after that you choose a heal, 3 utilities and an elite utility.
Perhaps playing this a little can help you to understand
- Meaningful choices,
- Risk vs reward,
- Specialised builds vs an all-rounder
Why this is a positive design system and a more positive option than allowing a character to have every ability available which is a design philosphy akin to 'having your cake and eating it' that seems to be designed around the lazy kinds of millennials that want instant gratification only.
played gw2 its okay i prefer bdo for action based mmos. i have also tried eso (skyrim modding junkie) but pantheon isn't going to be action based so i don't think you can compare the two.
just looking at the videos from casters perspective managing your mana is a real thing.
so yes i'll take an extra 12 action bar slots so i can downrank(if that is a thing) my healing giving me an edge to be efficient. the difference between a good healer and a avg healer is how well they can manage their mana pool while keeping the party alive.
it provides a very meaningful choice. do i use a heal that costs 50 mana with a cast speed of 5 secs healing for 300 hp or do i cast a spell that cost 10 mana healing for 100hp. do i cast a healing spell that has a 1.5 sec cast costing 100 mana healing for 200hp, 200 mana for 300hp?
you can essentially apply the same concept to cc class since they are cutting damage taken.
dps for no reason i see them having to do this since their job is to optimize for damage.
a side note: it's very unfair to project your perceptions of what people here have played and not played. you should be specific in who you are addressing and i'll bet that almost any player roaming these forums have played a wide variety of mmos.
Ezrael said:Perhaps some of you have only played MMOs where 24-96 abilities being available and all over your UI were the standard format.
In which case your perspective is skewed to that viewpoint and you only want it back without being able to appreciate or understand a different design.
Some may tell you to try P99, but I think EQ would be too many steps back for you because all the mechanics are far slower and more methodical.
Why this is a positive design system and a more positive option than allowing a character to have every ability available which is a design philosphy akin to 'having your cake and eating it' that seems to be designed around the lazy kinds of millennials that want instant gratification only.
I have played a wide variety of MMO's, both with and without an LAS. If you want to talk about slow/methodical combat, I would reference the holy grail of that style of play which was found in FFXI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9-vx2qMHs
You see ... in a game like that, we didn't suffer from ability bloat. We didn't get a new ability every other level and there was no "having your cake and eating it" philosophy. As a max level character (75 Paladin with 37 Warrior subclass) I had access to 13 class abilities. Even after adding in macros and racial abilities, I didn't need more than two 10-slot bars. There was no need to limit how many abilities we could use at any given point in time because by the very nature of the game, combat was already going to be slow, and every decision we made was important. Resources were precious and teamwork was vital for success. The combat had to be slow due to how important macro-play and world awareness was. If an ally in your group was using an ability, it was important to pay attention to that. You needed to keep track of what was going on around you rather than staring at your hotbar and cranking out accelerated APM as part of some boring DPS rotation.
My stance is similar to that of "definitelynotarobot" -- an artificial limitation sounds awful. I played Wildstar to max level and I honestly found that style of ability preparation to be dreadfully shallow. We had a maximum of 8 abilities that could be used at any given point in time and it really served as a catalyst to dumb down the combat, for me. Less responsibilities/possibilities = less mental stimulation or potential for clutch plays or rough mistakes and more emphasis on DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) style telegraphed movement patterns. You talk about meaningful choices and the irony in what you say is that the entire premise of my argument is based on making more meaningful choices. You seem to have this philosophy that picking an ability set before engaging in-combat delivers on this meaningful choice concept.
To me, that's more of an on-rails experience, and as much as I enjoyed GI Joe as a kid, knowledge should not be half the battle in Pantheon. (It's certainly important -- I am very much pro-preparation and strategy but am confident that those things can be facilitated through dozens of other gameplay aspects outside of the LAS.) The thing to understand here is that a player doesn't need to alt-tab and look up a guide to be directly affected by the existence of that guide. Seeing that Pantheon is a group-centric game, and one that focuses on player interdependence, it's highly likely that we would see what we have seen in other games. People don't want to wipe because suffering from a penalty sucks ... so they go ahead and look up the guide for you. They want to micromanage your pre-combat choices because there is little risk in doing so while not actively engaged in combat, and since there will likely be downtime due to resource regeneration and this emphasis on preparation, there will be plenty of time for them to do so.
I am of the opinion that I would rather make a series of meaningful/tactical choices over the span of the fight, with an emphasis on macro-play (responding to actions seen in real-time from both allied players and NPC's alike) than have to lock them in before combat starts. You make these broad assumptions about what type of experience people have, or what kind of player they are (instant gratification millennials) but seemingly ignore the context that is readily available, all while taking it upon yourself to challenge whether or not someone on this thread was capable of reading. Instead of assuming intent, I would ask that you read up on the previous pages here and try to absorb the greater context contained within the posts. It's unfair to people who go out of their way to share detailed thoughts on what is important to them if you're going to minimize or downright ignore the significance of what they are saying and twist the narrative in the process.
When managing resources is important, which it's supposed to be in Pantheon, having access to more abilities doesn't mean that you'll be able to use all of them. You do understand how limited resource pools work, right? You have X amount of whatever resource pool and have to make meaningful choices throughout combat on how to be most efficient with that pool. There is still an emphasis on meaningful choice but it's more of a real-time occurrence, and due to the slow-paced combat, you actually have a chance to pay attention to what's going on and have an opportunity to respond. Outside of mana/resource costs, available cooldowns are also an important consideration, and they are increasingly important the longer the CD. Again ... putting all that weight on pro-active ability selection allows players to "get things right" from what I consider a safe space. It's the opposite of meaningful choice and risk / reward. It's conformity to a script and it kills any chance for the type of dynamic combat that I have been hoping to see. Give me access to all of my abilities and let the meaningful choice be governed by resource management and synergistic play (exploiting windows of opportunity created by real-time observations) -- this is more about having a nimble mind than nimble fingers. Maybe it is a sense of instant gratification ... but it can't be enjoyed until the instant that you make the proper tactical choice. I'll take that over "pre-instant-gratification" where you get a nice big pat on the back before the fight even starts.
A lot of classes have more than 12 slots already, look at the warrior from the latest stream, we've seen druids will have additional slots above their bars too.
I hope they keep it how it is now I like the idea of having 12 slots to fill and make a balanced build set up with to tackle unknown encounters, I hope they have many meaningful skills to pick from too. and where it makes sense give the classes an extra bar with set skills like banners or stealth. That way if you want to play a class with lots of buttons you can pick one that has access to additional skills.
I've even started making "builds" with the info we have on classes and seeing if I can get all the de-curses and buffs I need while still having rezs and down ranked healing skills along with healing skills of the level, and if you pick carefully you can just about squeeze everything on there, for a general set up of skills that will see you through any encounter. Then you can specialize and make changes to set ups adding other skills that may suit the encounter more. But if you plan properly you wont be missing any key skills from your bar in the first place so you wont have encounters that feel unfairly punishing because you don't have the right skills.
Kellie said:A lot of classes have more than 12 slots already, look at the warrior from the latest stream, we've seen druids will have additional slots above their bars too.
I hope they keep it how it is now I like the idea of having 12 slots to fill and make a balanced build set up with to tackle unknown encounters, I hope they have many meaningful skills to pick from too. and where it makes sense give the classes an extra bar with set skills like banners or stealth. That way if you want to play a class with lots of buttons you can pick one that has access to additional skills.I've even started making "builds" with the info we have on classes and seeing if I can get all the de-curses and buffs I need while still having rezs and down ranked healing skills along with healing skills of the level, and if you pick carefully you can just about squeeze everything on there, for a general set up of skills that will see you through any encounter. Then you can specialize and make changes to set ups adding other skills that may suit the encounter more. But if you plan properly you wont be missing any key skills from your bar in the first place so you wont have encounters that feel unfairly punishing because you don't have the right skills.
Agreed. This is how I feel. Also we are playing with 5 other people if we really 'need' more skills. Group effort. I 'hope' it stays as it is but wel'l see.
Ezrael said: Well, this game will have 12 active abilities available.
This is a prediction... nothing more.
stellarmind said:for the ladder, balancing comes from class design. if the devs decide to give every class the ability to do everything then yes you end up with everyone being able to do everyones job. that's the issue with modern day mmos. i'm pretty sure vr are well aware of this.
definitelynotarobot said:I don't mind a limited hotbar as long as it is not completely artificial. If I have a usable skill, I would like to use it, and would be annoyed if the only reason is "we don't want you to have access to all of your abilities". That being said, it does appear that some pains have been taken to make the limitations appear less arbitrary. I am okay with buffs, weapons, environments, mobs ect. locking and unlocking different abilities. I actually think it is pretty neat. If limitations are put in place through creative design, great. If they are simply there because the creators just want limits for the sake of having them, then I believe there just shouldnt be many abilities at all. Don't give me a game with tons of potential and no way to use it. That would be true potential, which isn't worth anything right now.
Right, LAS class and combat design for a game has to be done almost entirely different than for a game with unlimited hotbars.
With a LAS you can design classes with more abilities (especially ones that toe into different roles/areas of play) and balance that much more easily. It makes grouping and ability choice far more fluid than it is being given credit too, if trying to optimize for an encounter it isn't necessarily as simple as to google the best skills to bring for any given area/encounter since your specific group composition can dramatically change what one brings (even if it were so simple I would argue it's more basic or "lifeless" in an unlimited design as you would just google any given area/encounter and see what abilities you will need to lean on most and be good to do whatever).
With limitless you need a much more narrow scope for classes all while making balancing a far larger mess to tackle, both between classes & roles as well as combat encounters.
As I mentioned before, I'll believe it when I see it. There has yet to be a stream where this concept of meaningful ability choice has been demonstrated. If you don't think these strategy guides will be intuitive enough to compensate for your group composition, I don't know what to tell you. It's generally accomplished by something like this "If you don't have class X present then definitely bring this. If you don't have class Y present then definitely bring this." If people are looking up strategy guides the experience should be "lifeless" -- that is the point. If it's some sort of spirited thing then that makes it feel all that much more meaningful. Follow the expert steps in this guide and you're already half-way to victory before you even start the fight! There is life in saying that because it's powerful. The problem with this guide concept is that you have almost no risk while you take your time to prepare. Sure you could argue that respawns or whatever else could be an impact, but that is minimal compared to having a difficult NPC beating on you while your precious resources are being drained away while you try to survive.
Execution is important when it comes to creating challenge. The difference between proactive/active/reactive execution is ... you can properly execute your "planned hotbar" from relative safety, and take all the time you need to get it "exactly right." Before any real risk enters the equation (from the boss in question) you are able to overcome various "challenges" associated with preparation. I'm sure that might be a novel experience the first or second time but anything past that is clockwork. People can look up a guide on how to play through a given encounter, or even watch a video of other people doing it. What's harder to do? Emulate someone preparing a hotbar, or actively using abilities and managing resources over an extended duration after combat has started? It's not rocket science when it comes to identifying what makes combat more challenging or difficult. Guides/Videos are 10 times more effective when it comes to trivializing planning/proactive gameplay elements than active/reactive ones.
I think I may have a vague recollection of one person actually switching up their hotbar between fights during a community stream, but it was the worst example of how it should be done that I can think of. They didn't waste a spot on their bar with buffs ... so wait for it ... they waited until their buffs ran out, memorized the buffs, cast them, unmemorized them, and then memorized other abilities. That is the furthest extent of LAS-based "meaningful ability choice" that we have seen and it was the exact kind of LAS circumvention that I have cited throughout this thread. There wasn't anything tactical about that. It was just tedious and immersion breaking drag/dropping, and it was done for the sake of efficiency, not strategy. It's inefficient to waste a spot on your bar for a buff if you can leverage it's benefits for extended periods of time after you cast it.
Iksar said:stellarmind said:for the ladder, balancing comes from class design. if the devs decide to give every class the ability to do everything then yes you end up with everyone being able to do everyones job. that's the issue with modern day mmos. i'm pretty sure vr are well aware of this.
definitelynotarobot said:I don't mind a limited hotbar as long as it is not completely artificial. If I have a usable skill, I would like to use it, and would be annoyed if the only reason is "we don't want you to have access to all of your abilities". That being said, it does appear that some pains have been taken to make the limitations appear less arbitrary. I am okay with buffs, weapons, environments, mobs ect. locking and unlocking different abilities. I actually think it is pretty neat. If limitations are put in place through creative design, great. If they are simply there because the creators just want limits for the sake of having them, then I believe there just shouldnt be many abilities at all. Don't give me a game with tons of potential and no way to use it. That would be true potential, which isn't worth anything right now.
Right, LAS class and combat design for a game has to be done almost entirely different than for a game with unlimited hotbars.
With a LAS you can design classes with more abilities (especially ones that toe into different roles/areas of play) and balance that much more easily. It makes grouping and ability choice far more fluid than it is being given credit too, if trying to optimize for an encounter it isn't necessarily as simple as to google the best skills to bring for any given area/encounter since your specific group composition can dramatically change what one brings (even if it were so simple I would argue it's more basic or "lifeless" in an unlimited design as you would just google any given area/encounter and see what abilities you will need to lean on most and be good to do whatever).
With limitless you need a much more narrow scope for classes all while making balancing a far larger mess to tackle, both between classes & roles as well as combat encounters.
i'm okay with having a small number of abilities, but as a healer or cc class, i'm going to be using the same spell of differrent ranks. take the shaman for example with a healing setup:
http://pantheonmmo.com/classes/shaman/
mantle of mist: you'll only use max rank for this. great buffer heal.
hurry the past: max rank great for emergency situation.
gift of the rainlands: aoe buffer heal and can be used with hurry the past aoe
gate of forgotten eras: omg the tank is about to go down drop this.
hand of aivelu: core healing ability. any healer that wants to be mana efficent is going to have use 3 ranks of this spell.
adepts theory: a self buff your probably going to want.
totalling up that 8 abilities already that i'll definitely be actively using.
situational takes but your probably going to take:
cleansing flames(dispel), walk the ages (defensive tool) that puts me at 9-10 slots
so the rest of my abilities are going to involve the rest of the abilities which i have 2-5 slots to work with.
offensive buffs:
primal fury(great on slow bursty classes), grip of the crags(probably just for tanks or warrior types), skymanes memento (great on attack speed classes)
defensive buffs:
mark of the fireclaw, interlocking stones,
utility abilities:
part the veil(rezz)
i won't go into offensive abilities it's basically debuff. (you'll basically be swapping this in and out depending your party composition)
now i can setup my bar to be a debuffing buffing machine with some backup healing if my party has a main healer already.
what is the purpose of limiting bars then? its essentially a very loose talent tree. maybe specializations have been copyrighted or vr just wants a different approach, but it just makes it tedious from an interface perspective.
if they are going to do a 12 bar limit then i'd compromise if i'm given the ability easily save and swap presetups. i'd be really content with that.
oneADseven said:But when those features are discussed, there seems to be this sense of "conflict" with how these things being realized would contradict what was previously experienced in EQ. That seems to be the point! We're supposed to see change and evolution and they have honed in on specific gameplay elements where these changes are supposed to take place. Providing specific information will only serve to make a portion of followers unhappy ... so instead of being able to have any sort of meaningful dialogue, we all get to argue about our opinions of what is more important for this game; delivering on their stated goals/tenets, or bringing back elements of EQ that contradict them.
I have seen that a lot in these forums as well. And it scares me...a lot. I grew up playing EQ and loved it. But I don't want to have an EQ 1.5-- Even though I played EQ I have come to discover and learn what some other MMOs have done right. I've played EQII, Vanguard, WoW, FFXIV and a dozen other MMOs. Although so many of them lack what pantheon is trying to bring back into the MMO space. What many of them DONT lack is engaging combat. For all the things I hate about the big title MMOs (stuff that pantheon is trying to fix) bad combat isn't one of them. Sure combat might be a bit higher APM in most of them than is wanted in Pantheon but there is still challenging content in most MMOs. Every time someone brings up other MMOs that aren’t EQ as a "well if you want to pownzards some newbs go play XYZ modern MMO" is just so hypocritical as the same can be said about some of the boring EQ mechanics (like all of EQ combat at least the last time I tried the game). "If you want just EQ go play EQ".
I think people should approach things with the attitude of "If you want the best of EQ (social, risk/reward etc) and the best of modern MMOs (better UI, better graphics, better more challenging and dynamic gameplay) then play Pantheon"
Nubi said:oneADseven said:But when those features are discussed, there seems to be this sense of "conflict" with how these things being realized would contradict what was previously experienced in EQ. That seems to be the point! We're supposed to see change and evolution and they have honed in on specific gameplay elements where these changes are supposed to take place. Providing specific information will only serve to make a portion of followers unhappy ... so instead of being able to have any sort of meaningful dialogue, we all get to argue about our opinions of what is more important for this game; delivering on their stated goals/tenets, or bringing back elements of EQ that contradict them.
I have seen that a lot in these forums as well. And it scares me...a lot. I grew up playing EQ and loved it. But I don't want to have an EQ 1.5-- Even though I played EQ I have come to discover and learn what some other MMOs have done right. I've played EQII, Vanguard, WoW, FFXIV and a dozen other MMOs. Although so many of them lack what pantheon is trying to bring back into the MMO space. What many of them DONT lack is engaging combat. For all the things I hate about the big title MMOs (stuff that pantheon is trying to fix) bad combat isn't one of them. Sure combat might be a bit higher APM in most of them than is wanted in Pantheon but there is still challenging content in most MMOs. Every time someone brings up other MMOs that aren’t EQ as a "well if you want to pownzards some newbs go play XYZ modern MMO" is just so hypocritical as the same can be said about some of the boring EQ mechanics (like all of EQ combat at least the last time I tried the game). "If you want just EQ go play EQ".
I think people should approach things with the attitude of "If you want the best of EQ (social, risk/reward etc) and the best of modern MMOs (better UI, better graphics, better more challenging and dynamic gameplay) then play Pantheon"
i would do some meme marketing. one sec i got this....
Nubi said:oneADseven said:But when those features are discussed, there seems to be this sense of "conflict" with how these things being realized would contradict what was previously experienced in EQ. That seems to be the point! We're supposed to see change and evolution and they have honed in on specific gameplay elements where these changes are supposed to take place. Providing specific information will only serve to make a portion of followers unhappy ... so instead of being able to have any sort of meaningful dialogue, we all get to argue about our opinions of what is more important for this game; delivering on their stated goals/tenets, or bringing back elements of EQ that contradict them.
I have seen that a lot in these forums as well. And it scares me...a lot. I grew up playing EQ and loved it. But I don't want to have an EQ 1.5-- Even though I played EQ I have come to discover and learn what some other MMOs have done right. I've played EQII, Vanguard, WoW, FFXIV and a dozen other MMOs. Although so many of them lack what pantheon is trying to bring back into the MMO space. What many of them DONT lack is engaging combat. For all the things I hate about the big title MMOs (stuff that pantheon is trying to fix) bad combat isn't one of them. Sure combat might be a bit higher APM in most of them than is wanted in Pantheon but there is still challenging content in most MMOs. Every time someone brings up other MMOs that aren’t EQ as a "well if you want to pownzards some newbs go play XYZ modern MMO" is just so hypocritical as the same can be said about some of the boring EQ mechanics (like all of EQ combat at least the last time I tried the game). "If you want just EQ go play EQ".
I think people should approach things with the attitude of "If you want the best of EQ (social, risk/reward etc) and the best of modern MMOs (better UI, better graphics, better more challenging and dynamic gameplay) then play Pantheon"
Here's the thing. Certain parts of EQ that are considered outdated by today's design models contributed to the experience and community, some did not. We as a community can not agree on what those are. When in doubt, EQ1.5!
I think there is a middle ground here. I want slower combat with fewer abilities. I hate ability bloat with a passion. Having 30 abilities does not make the game more engaging or fun to me over having 8 abilities. I'm not playing a MMO for an action game, I'm playing an MMO for a relaxing experience most the time. I can raid if I want more. I don't want to have to be at 100+APM to play a MMO.
There are MMO's out there that are action oriented. I think it's fine to say to someone "try out X MMO if you want faster combat".... or perhaps "try out Y MMO if you want more of a story book experience". Pantheon doesn't need to dethrone every MMO.
When in doubt, Vanguard, IMO. It was the spiritual successor to EQ after all. As far as more abilities translating to a higher APM requirement, that isn't necessarily true. It's important to distinguish concept from implementation. APM can easily be governed by resource pools that need to be properly managed. Even if a player could achieve a high APM for a short burst of time, they would run out of resources and that number would start to fall off. If, for example, the warrior had access to 10 additional abilities on a second hotbar, and each one of them have a 5 minute cooldown, what does that translate to APM wise? An extra two actions per minute assuming they are used as often as possible ... which wouldn't be the case because managing important cooldowns isn't something you spam, it's something you do tactically based on specific combat conditions.
oneADseven said:When in doubt, Vanguard, IMO. It was the spiritual successor to EQ after all. As far as more abilities translating to a higher APM requirement, that isn't necessarily true. It's important to distinguish concept from implementation. APM can easily be governed by resource pools that need to be properly managed. Even if a player could achieve a high APM for a short burst of time, they would run out of resources and that number would start to fall off. If, for example, the warrior had access to 10 additional abilities on a second hotbar, and each one of them have a 5 minute cooldown, what does that translate to APM wise? An extra two actions per minute assuming they are used as often as possible ... which wouldn't be the case because managing important cooldowns isn't something you spam, it's something you do tactically based on specific combat conditions.
I get that but personally I hate abilities with a 5+ minute cool down. They are like potions in most RPGs... you never use it because you are afraid you may need to use it... and often times simply forget its there.
oneADseven said:When in doubt, Vanguard, IMO. It was the spiritual successor to EQ after all. As far as more abilities translating to a higher APM requirement, that isn't necessarily true. It's important to distinguish concept from implementation. APM can easily be governed by resource pools that need to be properly managed. Even if a player could achieve a high APM for a short burst of time, they would run out of resources and that number would start to fall off. If, for example, the warrior had access to 10 additional abilities on a second hotbar, and each one of them have a 5 minute cooldown, what does that translate to APM wise? An extra two actions per minute assuming they are used as often as possible ... which wouldn't be the case because managing important cooldowns isn't something you spam, it's something you do tactically based on specific combat conditions.
say no more fam i gotchu
@Eppe
That's understandable but your dislike of a timeframe doesn't really translate to this massive inflation of APM that you previously alluded to. I enjoy longer cooldowns because there is an inherent risk in using them. If you have a longer duration fight, you can only use them once. If you don't manage your cooldowns wisely, they won't be available when you need them the most. If you do use them wisely, you can save the day for your group. The main point I have been trying to make with having access to more abilities is that it doesn't automatically translate to some action-packed arcade simulator. That seems to be a common misconception stemming from assumptions based on previous implementations rather than the concept as a whole. I'm interested in a style of combat that requires more mental processing than button smashing, and having a broader suite of tools available would add some much needed depth and breadth to the decision making process during combat.