stellarmind said:hmm... i would say the tradeoff to las is it 'encourages' players to communicate with one another. like the warrior saying i'm going to take this spell in case i get low hp so the healer knows that i'll take these spells to make sure you don't get low.
the problem then becomes when the tank and the healer don't agree on setups then starts to wipe continously, but we really know who's at fault. it's the dps for not killing fast enough.
the devs are trying to create more 'coop' experience, but it's a bit too forced with a restrictive las8 uas6. eh won't know till we actually get alpha to test for myself. this is all theorycrafting of course OwO
That communication between players isn't even slightly hindered by lack of LAS, or even slightly reduced in value. The group can and absolutely should be having those conversations. But what the lack of LAS does do is allow for the Paladin to whip out his stun instead of using his taunt because the jackwagon rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt the damn healer like we agreed.
Feyshtey said:That communication between players isn't even slightly hindered by lack of LAS, or even slightly reduced in value. The group can and absolutely should be having those conversations. But what the lack of LAS does do is allow for the Paladin to whip out his stun instead of using his taunt because the jackwagon rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt the damn healer like we agreed.
that's the point the devs want isn't it? because skill and twitch reactions make the individual paladin to shine too much. they probably want a more 'communial experience' like, WE DID THIS and not I DID THIS.
can't let exceptionalism make someone without twitch and skill feel bad, but on the same token, it is at the cost of inspiration and breathtaking moments the paladin player could have had for other players to aspire- i can be better. i can do better. i will be better.
instead we'll get the shift of fault:
i didn't perform
to
i didn't have the right abilities
no hard feelings for the player that he didn't perform well, said player didn't have the right abilities.
When people become polarize on a topic and abandon all compromise. That discussion has become toxic. It is a waste of time to continue.
We are going around in circles now. The same points have been repeatedly said from both sides of this discussion. ( Before the angry people come out me with pitchfolks, I'm not taking sides here or attacking anyone. Just trying calm the discussion down )
When you repeatedly say the same things. You might word it different, but you all saying the same things over and over. It is no longer about putting forth your views on the subject. It is about forcing other people to agree with your views. That is never going to happen and that is one thing leading to all the angry posts.
Let your voice be heard and than move on. Nothing here is worth getting mad over and raising your blood pressure. Go find Brasse and have an ale.
Is that what you got out of that stellar? My thought was
rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt
There shouldn't just always be a alternative solution. If you are playing with bad players you should die. ...or plan ahead in case something goes wrong and have multiple people load interupts. There shouldn't always be that "evac/parachute" button because everyone has access to everything.
Require choices that have consequences.
stellarmind said:that's the point the devs want isn't it? because skill and twitch reactions make the individual paladin to shine too much. they probably want a more 'communial experience' like, WE DID THIS and not I DID THIS.
can't let exceptionalism make someone without twitch and skill feel bad, but on the same token, it is at the cost of inspiration and breathtaking moments the paladin player could have had for other players to aspire- i can be better. i can do better. i will be better.
If the one (or maybe two) people who everyone agreed should fill a particular role (healer interupts), are failing to perform their role, then the communal experience is going to be a collective death. If, however, the Paladin is not assigned the role, but can accomplish the role when others fail theirs, the communal experience might be success. But I bet the success wont be nearly as smooth (lack of taunt being kept up consistently causes mob to ping pong between the paladin and the group's Shaman).
The player and class roles still exist. The group assignments still exist. The need for the communication and learning still exist. The predominant difference is that there isn't an arbitrary machanic that says that even though that Paladin can save the group with a skill he knows, he didn't have it available in this fight because the rogue said he was going to do it and we're all dead.
@vander
it's pretty good spirited talk imo.
good steel isn't forged in fire and folded a thousand times XD
we can always go back to 'let's compromise'
but really, we're all just theorycrafting
it's not like we have access to actually test these points.
lots of fun and engaging the community.
if one feels insulted, just stop communications and it's done :o
we have that luxury and no hard feelings. everyone on the forums wants a good game oorah!
philo said:Is that what you got out of that stellar? My thought was
rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt
There shouldn't just always be a alternative solution. If you are playing with bad players you should die. ...or plan ahead in case something goes wrong and have multiple people load interupts. There shouldn't always be that "evac/parachute" button because everyone has access to everything.
Require choices that have consequences.
So now the limited 8 slots people have should also be filled with redundancy for things you aren't supposed to have to use, but might need....
You see where I'm going here? It means that really you're down to 5 or 6 things that you're really going to use in combat, and a couple of things that are there just as backups? You claimed that knowing what/where/how a 100 skills can and should be used was tedius but using only 5 or 6 skills in combat isnt?
@vander
I don't think we are going around in circles. We just have different opinions.
Actually I have had at least a few conversations with Fey in the past and he and I can disagree and keep it civil...unlike many others. I enjoy his perspective even when mine is opposite. I was hoping Fey was going to list some games he had played with a LAS that would help me understand where he was coming from. Maybe they implemted the limited actions differently and that is why our perspectives are so different? but we never got to that point so I'm still unsure.
Feyshtey said:philo said:Is that what you got out of that stellar? My thought was
rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt
There shouldn't just always be a alternative solution. If you are playing with bad players you should die. ...or plan ahead in case something goes wrong and have multiple people load interupts. There shouldn't always be that "evac/parachute" button because everyone has access to everything.
Require choices that have consequences.
So now the limited 8 slots people have should also be filled with redundancy for things you aren't supposed to have to use, but might need....
You see where I'm going here? It means that really you're down to 5 or 6 things that you're really going to use in combat, and a couple of things that are there just as backups? You claimed that knowing what/where/how a 100 skills can and should be used was tedius but using only 5 or 6 skills in combat isnt?
No, why would you have an interupt up all the time? Maybe if you are going to the tower of the reckless magician you would because its filled with casters.
Again, running into something and failing because you weren't prepared is a Positive. That makes the game challenging. It keeps players on their toes. Maybe you die and come back better prepared for that mob next time. This is the way.
The more we get into it the more it seems like you are adverse to failure and that is why your perspective is how it is? Why don't you think you should fail if the rogue was supposed to interupt and didn't?
philo said:Is that what you got out of that stellar? My thought was
rogue keeps missing his queue to interupt
There shouldn't just always be a alternative solution. If you are playing with bad players you should die. ...or plan ahead in case something goes wrong and have multiple people load interupts. There shouldn't always be that "evac/parachute" button because everyone has access to everything.
Require choices that have consequences.
hmm.. i agree that required choices should have consequences. some groups are going to be way better at planning, but to players that put emphasis on execution, it's not really fair. in a way, it's homogenizing execution(things that players can control) and moving the burden to planning(things the player cannot control)
should i be penalized for my toolset choice or my inability to use those tools?
really depends on what the devs want. people are going to have different tastes.
well the devs know that las8 uas6 might be a bit restrictive and were vocal in the stream that it could be expanded :o
we're just playing tug of war with teh devs. hehehe.
@Philo, we were just talking about the fact that the rogue was assigned by the group to use interupts. And maybe another person loaded that skill up as a backup to the rogue. We're in combat. The rogue has lag and is timing the interupt wrong and the backup guy is just a clueless noob.
With LAS - You're screwed, everyone dies.
Without LAS - The paladin skips a taunt or two and interupts the healer to get thru the fight. Then educates the ***ing backup interrupter.
I see the former as a limiting system with arbitrarily punitive punishment, and the latter as a system that allows for flexibilty and agile adjustment to changing environment and group variables.
(And yes, I know I'm describing things in the extreme. That's what we do here, right? )
should i be penalized for my toolset choice or my inability to use those tools?
Both. I can't imagine anyone would think otherwise?
If you have the wrong abilities loaded to do the job you should fail. If you have the right abilities loaded but use them at the wrong time you should fail.
This seems like I am stating the obvious? No?
Feyshtey said:@Philo, we were just talking about the fact that the rogue was assigned by the group to use interupts. And maybe another person loaded that skill up as a backup to the rogue. We're in combat. The rogue has lag and is timing the interupt wrong and the backup guy is just a clueless noob.
With LAS - You're screwed, everyone dies.
Without LAS - The paladin skips a taunt or two and interupts the healer to get thru the fight. Then educates the ***ing backup interrupter.
I see the former as a limiting system with arbitrarily punitive punishment, and the latter as a system that allows for flexibilty and agile adjustment to changing environment and group variables.
(And yes, I know I'm describing things in the extreme. That's what we do here, right? )
No, a good group knows how to have a backup plan. If that interupt is so important you better have more than one person ready to step up if that rogue fails.
If your plan fails you should die.
Why are so many of your responses about "what does the group do if X happens?"
They die if they can't handle the situation with the skills they have available. As it should be.
Learn from it and come back later.
This whole thing seems odd... I can't figure out why we aren't on more of the same page.
philo said:Feyshtey said:@Philo, we were just talking about the fact that the rogue was assigned by the group to use interupts. And maybe another person loaded that skill up as a backup to the rogue. We're in combat. The rogue has lag and is timing the interupt wrong and the backup guy is just a clueless noob.
With LAS - You're screwed, everyone dies.
Without LAS - The paladin skips a taunt or two and interupts the healer to get thru the fight. Then educates the ***ing backup interrupter.
I see the former as a limiting system with arbitrarily punitive punishment, and the latter as a system that allows for flexibilty and agile adjustment to changing environment and group variables.
(And yes, I know I'm describing things in the extreme. That's what we do here, right? )
No, a good group knows how to have a backup plan. If that interupt is so important you better have more than one person ready to step up if that rogue fails.
If your plan fails you should die.
Well, that was precisely my point about the fact that now you have multiple characters utilizing some of their very limited action slots for things they have no intention of using buy may have to. Which effectively means you're ok with any player really only needing 5 or 6 of their action slots in any given combat.
Game designers need to put some sort of limitations on abilities in-game. It is not a way of being lazy it is a way of directing the outcome of battle conditions, not the battle itself but having rules for the battle. Games/sports all have rules to govern the playing conditions usually for protection but also to define the boundaries. This is very much necessary for players are going to come up with ways to exploit everything they can anyways.
VR is choosing to limit this with LAS. Blizzard chose to control this with specs. It is not much different. Let's compare the two briefly. I am going to use Shaman since that is the class we know the most about right now.
In Pantheon, according to the stream(the best we have been able to discern), we have 88 spells for the Shaman, now it appears those break down into 24 unique skill chains.
There we already have a form of abilities that begs for some form of control no need to carry that many abilities around. So VR limits this to 14, I would like to see this kicked up to somewhere between 16 and 20 with 10 being in combat abilities.
WoW without specs would allow the shaman to carry 46 castable abilities into combat. Too many for the devs then and now to feel comfortable with so they broke them down into specs giving each spec about 10 abilities after base abilities which have 11 to carry. Not counting passives as they are passive and let's get real some are, not truly combat spells they could be switch or even cast from the book. Most WoW class rotations are six to eight ability rotations anyways with the rest sitting there useless 98% of the time just cluttering up the UI.
The way I see it is WoW has Limited Action by Specialization where Pantheon will have Limited Action by Hotbar set. Both accomplish the same thing but VR's allows for a little more freedom in your buildout. For theirs does not make your character unlearn a third of their abilities just limits the cast abilities of them. Thereby allowing a player to make a middle of the road shaman if the group can handle it a few mobs down the road change one spell out not the whole spec to add more DPS or more heals.
VR will tweak the numbers until it finds a happy medium they can work with but they need limitation with a robust spellbook.
Even Gary Gygax put limitations on spell casting in DnD because it was needed and ultimately made the game more fun for everyone. Without limitations, you might as well make everyone be Link and playing with 5 other Links would be boring.
Feyshtey said:The player and class roles still exist. The group assignments still exist. The need for the communication and learning still exist. The predominant difference is that there isn't an arbitrary machanic that says that even though that Paladin can save the group with a skill he knows, he didn't have it available in this fight because the rogue said he was going to do it and we're all dead.
yes those are fixed choices that can't be changed mid combat. i do agree that the fate of the group shouldn't be decided on a las choice, but should be placed in performance of the group. so instead of a 100% chance of success based on las choice, it should be something like a 20% planning, 20% execution, 20% adaptability and 40% party synergy. 20% individual skill, 20% party synergy.
philo said:should i be penalized for my toolset choice or my inability to use those tools?
Both. I can't imagine anyone would think otherwise?
If you have the wrong abilities loaded to do the job you should fail. If you have the right abilities loaded but use them at the wrong time you should fail.
This seems like I am stating the obvious? No?
it should be both to a varying degree. an las8 uas6 could lead(this is just assumption) to a 60% planning, 10% execution, 10% adaptability and a 20% party synergy.
it's kind of like a phillips screwdriver and a flathead. technically if i'm careful and dexterious enough, i could use a flathead to undo a philips screw, even if i forgot my philips screwdriver somewhere XD
Feyshtey said:Well, that was precisely my point about the fact that now you have multiple characters utilizing some of their very limited action slots for things they have no intention of using buy may have to. Which effectively means you're ok with any player really only needing 5 or 6 of their action slots in any given combat.
I'm not in favor of any specific number of slots, just that they should be limited. The number of slots will have to be balanced and tested. Where did you get the 5 or 6 number?
I am 100% in favor of a group running into something that they can't defeat because they don't have the proper skills loaded. That is a huge part of the challenge and the experience.
Having every encounter that you might possibly run into be beatable because you have access to all of your abilities (assuming you are fighting in an area designed for your level...and assuming competent players) removes a lot of the challenge.
It does seem like you are a bit risk adverse. Seting up the system in a way that even good players die if they didn't plan ahead well is fantastic imo.
stellarmind said:it's kind of like a phillips screwdriver and a flathead. technically if i'm careful and dexterious enough, i could use a flathead to undo a philips screw, even if i forgot my philips screwdriver somewhere XD
This is a really good point stellar. Another benefit of a limited bar is forcing players to be creative. Maybe they don't have the exact abilities loaded that they need. Can they figure out a way to overcome the situation with a less than optimal hotbar loadout? Sometimes. That can be exciting.
philo said:If your plan fails you should die.
Why are so many of your responses about "what does the group do if X happens?"
They die if they can't handle the situation with the skills they have available. As it should be.
Learn from it and come back later.
Biiiig QFE. This guy Pantheons.
Co-operative challenge. Class identity. Player interdependency. This is what devs (and many supporters) want.
It's okay to fail.
@ Fey
I just re-read one of your posts and I think I might understand what you meant? Maybe you can let me know if i'm correct?
When you mentioned 5 or 6 slots that's because you were saying you had one or 2 abilities loaded that were backup abilities just in case someone else screwed up so you could cover. Is that right?
It's only for this fight. In between fights you can switch out entire hotbars if you want with just a click or 2 (or just a couple abilities). If I understood you right when I re-read I don't think that is much of a concern. It is up to you to decide what is crucial to have loaded for the next fight. It's not like you have to keep that interupt spell on your bar for the entire dungeon if all the casters are at the beginning.
philo said:I'm not in favor of any specific number of slots, just that they should be limited. The number of slots will have to be balanced and tested. Where did you get the 5 or 6 number?
Every class/role is going to have at least half their bar almost glued on there with their bread and butter role abilities with very little change. Only a few slots will truly be flexible, and only slightly so.
This is a really good point stellar. Another benefit of a limited bar is forcing players to be creative. Maybe they don't have the exact abilities loaded that they need. Can they figure out a way to overcome the situation with a less than optimal hotbar loadout? Sometimes. That can be exciting.
This can be just as realized with no limits and longer than MMO average cooldowns. More interesting and complex ways to use a wide range of abilities depending on what is happening but certainly no guarantee you can win every little thing, reading a situation wrong and blowing a cooldown could just as easily spell a wipe. You can distance players from dull rotation based gameplay quite a lot with varying long to longer cooldowns that might not be available every encounter or even every few.
The risk mounts the longer an encounter or chain of pulls goes.
philo said:@ Fey
I just re-read one of your posts and I think I might understand what you meant? Maybe you can let me know if i'm correct?
When you mentioned 5 or 6 slots that's because you were saying you had one or 2 abilities loaded that were backup abilities just in case someone else screwed up so you could cover. Is that right?
It's only for this fight. In between fights you can switch out entire hotbars if you want with just a click or 2 (or just a couple abilities). If I understood you right when I re-read I don't think that is much of a concern. It is up to you to decide what is crucial to have loaded for the next fight. It's not like you have to keep that interupt spell on your bar for the entire dungeon if all the casters are at the beginning.
That is what I meant. And the 5 or 6 comment was related to the fact that right now there are only 8 total slots available. If 2-3 of those slots are loaded with things as backups for roles other people are supposed to be filling in that particular group...
And swapping between fights isn't a factor. You either have those slots loaded as backups for other people, or you are wholly reliant on the person (or people) the group assigned to that role to fill that job. You were the one (I think? it's getting muddy) who said that if you didn't take it upon yourself to use one of your slots to have a backup for roles you can fill but werent assigned, you essentially deserve to fail as a group.