Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

PantheonPlus Joppa Interview Stream

    • 169 posts
    March 16, 2020 9:01 AM PDT

    oneADseven Having dynamic content makes your fantasy virtual world more replayable! One only has to look at the statistics of popular MMOs like WoW to see that when there is not enough new content people lose interest and stop subscribing. Players are bored of the non-dynamic MMO and voting with their feet. Over the years, millions of dollars of subscription revenue have been lost because MMO developers like Blizzard have failed to embrace the concept of dynamic content."

    This I do agree with why not to make it easy. When everything is predictable then you take the challenge away from not knowing what is going to happen, it's cookie cutter mechanics and lazy game design, which is easily explotable. I want that varible that makes a game challenge it's players so they don't know what is going to happen when you enter the dungeon/raid with your group everytime and also not to put the prefix and suffix's on a timer toation. Every boss that spawns in should be different everytime so no two fights are the same.


    This post was edited by Oldwargoat39 at March 16, 2020 9:01 AM PDT
    • 1941 posts
    March 16, 2020 9:45 AM PDT

    Joppa said:

    Totally, which is why I'm loud about the caveat: things may change as we test.

    So get on with the actual testing then.  Because every day that goes by, more and more content is developed with this 8+6 LAS setup and if, through testing, the players can demonstrably show that the 8+6 is a terrible idea, all previous developed content may very well need adjusted in significant ways.  That will take time.  The further along you are, the less likely you will be open to adjust all that content.

    This whole argument about the LAS is pointless until actual testers get their hands on it.

    • 38 posts
    March 16, 2020 9:56 AM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    This whole argument about the LAS is pointless until actual testers get their hands on it.

     

    This is the only correct statement in this entire thread.

    • 1893 posts
    March 16, 2020 2:55 PM PDT

    I am all for a limited set of active abilities in combat. Although not identical as MMOs, but it's their basis anyways: D&D.

    In D&D, casters much choose all their spells, from a potentially large list, before they even find out what combat they might encounter. If they know ahead of time what kind of fight they will get into, they can prep, but still plenty of surprises. Outside of combat, with rests, they can switch spells out. But, in combat, they are stuck with their prepared soells. 

    They have survived that way for decades. It adds to the challenge and well prepared groups thrive.

    Forget access to everything. Think ahead, win. Learn an area, better preparation. But, there will always be surprises you can't plan for. That's the excitement and challenge!

     

    There has always been a lot of talk about trial and error. You encounter a new set of mobs/dungeon/etc. You try your standard layout. You fail. You make some changes, still fail. You finally figure it out with the right load out and Win! This is the challenge that I look forward to. For me, this is much better than just buzzing through combat because I always have my cool stuff available for every situation.


    This post was edited by Beefcake at March 16, 2020 3:05 PM PDT
    • 377 posts
    March 16, 2020 3:18 PM PDT

    Beefcake said:

    In D&D, casters much choose all their spells, from a potentially large list, before they even find out what combat they might encounter. If they know ahead of time what kind of fight they will get into, they can prep, but still plenty of surprises. Outside of combat, with rests, they can switch spells out. But, in combat, they are stuck with their prepared soells. 

     

    And this is even easier than that because we can swap things out between battles in a dungeon.  We don't need a "long rest" to swap out spells.  Wouldn't that be crazy in an MMO?  You can only swap out spells when you log out for 8+ hours, lol (yes I know that'll never happen for hundreds of reasons...just trying to add some perspective)

  • March 16, 2020 4:25 PM PDT

    Beefcake said:

    I am all for a limited set of active abilities in combat. Although not identical as MMOs, but it's their basis anyways: D&D.

    In D&D, casters much choose all their spells, from a potentially large list, before they even find out what combat they might encounter. If they know ahead of time what kind of fight they will get into, they can prep, but still plenty of surprises. Outside of combat, with rests, they can switch spells out. But, in combat, they are stuck with their prepared soells. 

    They have survived that way for decades. It adds to the challenge and well prepared groups thrive.

    Forget access to everything. Think ahead, win. Learn an area, better preparation. But, there will always be surprises you can't plan for. That's the excitement and challenge!

     

    There has always been a lot of talk about trial and error. You encounter a new set of mobs/dungeon/etc. You try your standard layout. You fail. You make some changes, still fail. You finally figure it out with the right load out and Win! This is the challenge that I look forward to. For me, this is much better than just buzzing through combat because I always have my cool stuff available for every situation.

     

    Actually, you can switch them out in battle. Even before that, you don't necessarily have to have a full load out, and with ritual spells in later renditions, you can forego the spell prep. It's ultimately based on your DM if you are allowed to. If you can make the right rolls and land on the right numbers, a DM can allow a spellcaster of any sort to memorize a spell on the fly. Some DM's will even allow you to memorize previously memorized spells in half the time it takes, though the ranges for your rolls become higher lower in order to get it be able to recall it from the day passed. so to get it, if your DM deemed you needed between 30-90% to mem the spell in battle, then you would need a 10-30% to mem one form the day passed, as an example. There might have been a spell too that allowed you to do this, but don't quote me on that lol. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.

    To the other point, I don't feel that people should be punished twice in the case of your example, when they clearly have a spell they could use; especially when they keep saying that this death penalty is going to be harsh. This isn't D&D though, this is an MMO that can do as it liked. EQ players were allowed to switch spells in combat, they also had a few hotbars if I remember correctly, but I do know for a fact that they could switch out spells in the middle of fighting in hopes of saving a wipe situation. That's probably what made it a little more tolerable for such a harsh punishment the death was. Here they aren't allowing anyone to switch in battle AND having the harsh death penalty, it's just not right in my opinion.

    Sorry, edited for spelling and clarification.

     


    This post was edited by OCastitatisLilium at March 16, 2020 4:30 PM PDT
    • 2621 posts
    March 16, 2020 4:49 PM PDT

    Not to mention there is a very substantial difference between a turn based pen and paper RPG and an MMO. 

    • 3380 posts
    March 16, 2020 5:18 PM PDT

    https://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

    "The GM has created a challenge in which the party has to fight a creature that keeps healing from all damage except for one or two specific types of damage. The GM assumes the party doesn’t know how to counteract the regeneration.

    Here is where the GM brain gets really, REALLY odd. What if the party opens up with fire and acid? Well, if they simply shut down the troll’s regeneration, the party has made the encounter too easy. The troll’s defining feature hasn’t come into play. Therefore, the party hasn’t really EARNED a victory.

    Of course, if the players have the right knowledge skill and roll a good roll, they get rewarded with the information and they get to have an easy fight. In effect, they EARN the victory with a good knowledge roll.

    But if the players don’t have the right knowledge skill or don’t roll well, they have to fight the troll as is. Otherwise, they don’t EARN the victory. Of course, if they FIGURE OUT that the troll is weak to fire or acid, that’s okay. Then they have EARNED the victory. But if they don’t figure it out on their own for reals, they deserve a hard fight.

    Now that SEEMS logical, right? Except, it’s actually bizarro logic that doesn’t really work if you really look at it.

    There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating a challenge that rewards the players for having the right skills or figuring things out or coming up with a clever plan. In fact, that’s a very good way to design a challenge. Challenges should reward the players for their skills and ideas and choices. Players who chose the right skills or deduce the right facts feel like they have created their own victory.

    The problem is there is actually no way to figure out most challenges that are prone to metagaming. For example, absent a die roll on a monster knowledge skill, how is a clueless player SUPPOSED TO figure out the troll’s vulnerability? There really isn’t a way to figure it out. They just have to act at random until they stumble on it, right? I mean, it’s one thing if it is a FIRE breathing RED dragon wreathed in FLAME in a FLAMING volcano. You can guess pretty easily that the thing is going to take a lot of punishment from a cone of cold spell but will probably shrug off a fireball. But the troll situation isn’t like that at all.

    Basically, the players have to be handed the information as the result of a random die roll OR they have to act randomly until they stumble on the answer. And if you look at just about situation in which a GM is whining about player metagaming “breaking the challenge,” you invariably come back to a situation that isn’t really something that even can be figured out.

    The problem is that a challenge that can be “broken” by a specific piece of information is a poorly designed challenge. There isn’t anything interesting about rolling a random die roll, acting at random to figure something out, or else getting screwed. It isn’t fun gameplay. The question is always this: “does this challenge become MORE interesting if the players know the information or LESS interesting.”

    A single troll becomes really boring if the players know its vulnerability. Unless fire is a limited resource. For example, fireballs are limited resources. Oil is a limited resource. If the party has to deal with a cave full of trolls, the fact that they need to either come prepared with literal FIREpower or manage their resources well makes the adventure interesting. A troll shaman that can shield his allies from fire makes the information MORE interesting. A mine filled with gas pockets that will explode if exposed to fire makes the information MORE interesting.

    The thing is, in many cases, the information DOES make the fight more interesting. The GM only thinks it breaks the challenge. As noted, fire is not something everyone has. Nor is acid. And both are limited resources. Even if the party knows the vulnerability, their tactical choices are going to be limited and subpar and create a resource management game. In the context of an extended adventure, that troll IS interesting even if the party literally burns through the encounter.

    Personally, this sort of metagaming, where the players know things about the game or the monsters or the way stories are structured? The Metagaming Against Challenges? I advise GMs not to sweat it. After all, the players are supposed to win anyway. Who gives a f$&%? If they torch the troll without breaking a sweat, oh well. There will be another fight. A better fight. If they realize the answer to the mystery because of the way I structured my mysteries, I’ll have to write better adventures. Obviously, I’m settling into a pattern or becoming too predictable. I need to up my game. I need to do more interesting things. If I catch my players metagaming, it’s a sign I f$&%ed up. Either I need to make my game impossible to metagame OR I need to make my game such that metagaming doesn’t break it.

    But usually, all the GM needs is an attitude adjustment. Usually, the GM just has a skewed view of how to construct challenges, obstacles, and adventures."

    When it comes to MMO combat ... resource management, tactical cooldown expenditure, and creating/exploiting conditional logic in a dynamic, group-centric and interdependent structure ... FTW!  If having the right hotbar loaded translates to winning, we all lose.  I'll take divergent thinking over convergent thinking all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.  We shouldn't be able to game our virtual world by subscribing to spoiler sites.  There is nothing wrong with emphasizing preparation ... but execution (real player agency) should always triumph as the superior differentiator.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at March 16, 2020 5:36 PM PDT
    • 1029 posts
    March 16, 2020 6:25 PM PDT

    oneADseven said:

      If having the right hotbar loaded translates to winning, we all lose. 

     

    Why would a single hotbar loaded ever translate to winning?

     

    Do we assume things will be designed so specifically that there can only be one way to achieve victory?

     

    Why does there have to be a "right" way or wrong way to achieve victory? 



    If I read things correctly. People want dynamic content, but not dynamic combat? IE - Only 1 win condition.

    • 762 posts
    March 16, 2020 6:41 PM PDT

    Saicred said:

    oneADseven said:

      If having the right hotbar loaded translates to winning, we all lose. 

     

    Why would a single hotbar loaded ever translate to winning?

     

    Do we assume things will be designed so specifically that there can only be one way to achieve victory?

     

    Why does there have to be a "right" way or wrong way to achieve victory? 



    If I read things correctly. People want dynamic content, but not dynamic combat? IE - Only 1 win condition.

    We also have 2 camps arguing against the current LAS, one wants a larger LAS(12) and the other wants unlimited bars.

    I think it comes from a belief that more skills equals more creativity on how to beat the content.  However more skills at once to me does the opposite, creativity comes from a reduced toolkit, making somthing more unusual work.

    eg. 

    "CC dead, don’t worry EVERYONE else in the group has CC on their unlimited hotbar".

    as opposed to... 


    "CC dead, what do we do... druid throw up a speed buff and kite that mob away" (its not the perfect response, it puts a lot of pressure on the group, but damn it makes for a tense moment.

    • 1347 posts
    March 16, 2020 6:42 PM PDT

    Saicred said:

    Why would a single hotbar loaded ever translate to winning?

    Do we assume things will be designed so specifically that there can only be one way to achieve victory?

    Why does there have to be a "right" way or wrong way to achieve victory? 

    If I read things correctly. People want dynamic content, but not dynamic combat? IE - Only 1 win condition.

    1) Because we're being forced (at least initially) into a single 8 active-slots in-combat-only hotbar.  It's terrible, and I don't want it.  Dunno about others, but some don't.  The point I took away from oneADsevens phrase there was that if it's so narrow that the encounter can only be won by "exactly these" 8 abilities or spells, per class, and nothing else, that's not fun.

    2) Yes, because if you don't counter the disposition, or multi-disposition boss, you fail.  Binary state.

    3) There doesn't, but that's the current design.

    4) Not me.  I want both dynamic content and dynamic combat.  But you ain't gettin' that with the 8 active-slot LAS. :)


    This post was edited by vjek at March 16, 2020 6:46 PM PDT
    • 3380 posts
    March 16, 2020 6:55 PM PDT

    Saicred said:

    Why would a single hotbar loaded ever translate to winning?

     

    Do we assume things will be designed so specifically that there can only be one way to achieve victory?

     

    Why does there have to be a "right" way or wrong way to achieve victory? 



    If I read things correctly. People want dynamic content, but not dynamic combat? IE - Only 1 win condition.

    I didn't intend for that to be taken as an absolute.  There was a correlation between that and the quote from the DND article linked above it.  The point is that if players know to prepare fire/acid against trolls, it shouldn't make them easy.  If preparing fire/acid against trolls does make them easy, especially relative to any other options that are available with how you prepare your LAS loadout, preparing for that content will be meta-gamed.  If not having fire/acid spells prepared make that same encounter next to impossible (as alluded to in that article) that is awful gameplay.  If preparing for content is supposed to be a part of the challenge, spoiler sites become an incredibly powerful resource.  I'd like to reemphasize this particular excerpt:

    "The problem is that a challenge that can be “broken” by a specific piece of information is a poorly designed challenge.  There isn’t anything interesting about rolling a random die roll, acting at random to figure something out, or else getting screwed.  It isn’t fun gameplay.  The question is always this: “does this challenge become MORE interesting if the players know the information or LESS interesting.”

    A single troll becomes really boring if the players know its vulnerability.  Unless fire is a limited resource.  For example, fireballs are limited resources.  Oil is a limited resource.  If the party has to deal with a cave full of trolls, the fact that they need to either come prepared with literal FIREpower or manage their resources well makes the adventure interesting.  A troll shaman that can shield his allies from fire makes the information MORE interesting.  A mine filled with gas pockets that will explode if exposed to fire makes the information MORE interesting."

    In the context of Pantheon ... it would be far more interesting to see an emphasis on dynamic content.  When a boss summons a troll minion (as opposed to one of several other potential minions each with their own strengths/vulnerabilities), a wise summoner would strongly consider getting their Fury pet into the fold, depending on a variety of factors.  If that option isn't available because that pet wasn't on their bar, that isn't fun or interesting.  Simply put, a wide variety of factors cannot be considered because they were rendered impossible the moment that combat started.  That is nothing more than lucky/unlucky RNG.  If players know that the boss only summons troll minions, and they are a major aspect of the fight ... it isn't really all that fun or interesting to go through the motions and load your Fury pet in advance.  There is a huge difference between making decisions during a heated/tense battle (that have variable opportunity cost) and making them from relative safety without variable opportunity cost.

    Live combat creates dynamics that simply don't exist outside of combat.  If the summoner is in the middle of a long-duration channeled spell, they have to consider whether or not it's worth canceling it early (and losing the cooldown) in order to summon their Fury pet.  If the boss in question can summon a variety of minions throughout an extended fight, the summoner has to consider whether or not it's worth spending the mana (and time) to summon that pet right now, or if it's better to continue doing whatever they are currently occupied with and hold onto those resources for later.  These kind of in-the-moment decisions are a major aspect of skilled play and overall knowledge of the game.  Live combat that emphasizes dynamicity is the bane of spoiler sites and a breath of fresh air for players who seek fun/interesting/engaging/challenging gameplay.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at March 16, 2020 8:11 PM PDT
    • 2621 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:03 PM PDT

    Hokanu said:

    eg. 

    "CC dead, don’t worry EVERYONE else in the group has CC on their unlimited hotbar".

    This would only be true if the game applied the same flawed UAS as other MMOs, aka expanding ability access/hotbars without also balancing abilites as resources with longer cooldowns.

     

    Two people in the group with CC on 30 or even 60 second cooldowns (LAS begets low cooldowns in general) means your group has access to two to four interrupts/CC per fight (at the intended 45-60 seconds per mob).What does that look like if everyone in the group had a CC but on 6-8 minute cooldowns (and many abilities in general might be 3-8 minute cooldowns)?

    The more pulls your group makes (or the longer a single encounter) the more dangerous they become as resources (abilities in addition to mana/class specifc) are used up and on cooldown, the more mobs pulled the greater emphasis on teamwork and player skill becomes and the more creative groups must be to get out of the situations they find themselves in by using the full breadth of their abilities (much like you stated with kiting). Now add to that dispostions, adds, patrols, etc and things get far more interesting. This is a recipe for far more rewarding teamwork/group play and a high ceiling for player skill to shine all with fully realized classes instead of loadout based or "builds."

     

    I'd argue if one wanted to apply Dungeons and Dragons to Pantheon, UAS with long cooldowns would be much closer to replicating the need to use abilities/spells wisely from fight to fight and between short/long rests (downtime after a handfull of pulls, more pulls and/or more dangerous targets when a team really works together skillfully and communicates well). 


    This post was edited by Iksar at March 16, 2020 7:27 PM PDT
    • 762 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:12 PM PDT
    @Iksar But root type spells (probably the most common cc) is not likely going to be on a long cooldown right?
    • 2621 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:16 PM PDT

    Hokanu said: @Iksar But root type spells (probably the most common cc) is not likely going to be on a long cooldown right?

    I don't see why it wouldn't be.

    • 3380 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:24 PM PDT

    Hokanu said: @Iksar But root type spells (probably the most common cc) is not likely going to be on a long cooldown right?

    The point many of us have been making is that maybe they should be.  If the UAS model was embraced then yes, absolutely, cooldowns would need to be reconsidered across the board.  There would need to be an emphasis on managing resources (mana, battle points, arcamental control, celestial power/bonds, essence, Hirode, chakra, wrath, reckoning points, momentum, endurance, vision, resilience, focus, spell-weaving, colored mana, etc)  --  this would also include cooldowns.  Taunt doesn't have to be a 20-second cooldown.  It could be a 60-second cooldown.  Maybe maintaining aggro could actually be fun for a change and require me to tactically employ my full arsenal of abilities at opportune times and include damage dealt as an important metric.

    Maybe certain abilities are revised a bit to include conditional logic ... as in, in order for a summoner to root an NPC, there are prerequisite conditions.  Maybe the summoner's Titan pet can only root an NPC if they have a qualifying amount of "Solidity" which would first require the summoner to cast "Augment Arcamental: Density."  Maybe the "Hidden Snare" ability for rangers has a 3-minute cooldown ... and if the summoner/ranger both try to root the same mob at the same time, resources were wasted, time was wasted, cooldowns were wasted, and the power of communication between a cohesive group wasn't leveraged.  This narrative that the UAS allows players to have "everything available when they need it" is patently false.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at March 16, 2020 7:33 PM PDT
    • 1347 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:32 PM PDT

    Further to the conditional logic theme;

    Or maybe cooldowns can be adjusted dynamically based on status exploition that can only occur within a group.  That's the type of flexibility you CAN have, but is currently lacking.
    As in, if creatures are dazed, interrupted, or jolted, briefly by one role(class), then maybe two others can now AoE root or Mez regardless of their current/typical abilitiy cooldown.
    Then you have the Everquest tension moments where the Rogue uses dust cloud which, for a few seconds, allows all those mobs in the AE to be AE mezzed or rooted.  Otherwise?  You miss that chance and have to wait on the normal cooldown.  Apply positive effects to player actions the enables multiple victory conditions, instead of punitive RNG that ensures binary state failure.

    • 762 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:33 PM PDT

    I just imagine a long cooldown on CC in general would reak havoc for anyone trying to Duo / Solo

    • 3380 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:40 PM PDT

    Hokanu said:

    I just imagine a long cooldown on CC in general would reak havoc for anyone trying to Duo / Solo

    Considering that Pantheon is an intensely social and group/role interdependent game, it is what it is.  Long cooldowns wreaked havoc in FFXI for anyone trying to solo/duo and it resulted in the most group/role interdependent MMO ever made.  Situational solo viability was something that players grew into over a period of time ... after they acquired situational gear, advanced spells, and the experience to leverage their growing knowledge of their class and the various windows of opportunity that could be found in the world at large.  To expand on Vjek's last post, FFXI's skill-chain system did the same thing.  Solo players couldn't leverage the full potential of skill chains which made it more difficult to solo.  Full groups could leverage the full power of skill-chains and associated magic bursts which made grouping the ideal way to progress your character.  It also helped with balancing ... a black mage could unleash an incredibly powerful nuke as a magic burst after a weapon-based skill-chain was realized from other classes in the group.  If they would have been able to do that while solo the class would have been imbalanced and the emphasis on class/role interdependence compromised.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at March 16, 2020 9:54 PM PDT
    • 2621 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:43 PM PDT

    Hokanu said:

    I just imagine a long cooldown on CC in general would reak havoc for anyone trying to Duo / Solo

    When solo/duoing the players would likely have to rest after every fight (or every other depending on how low of /con they are taking) anyway, so the solo/duo would have to employ more of their class tools in more interesting ways for any given individual fight to achieve victory. Again once you add dispositions it really opens the door for creativity there even when solo/duo.

    • 762 posts
    March 16, 2020 7:56 PM PDT

    @Iksar & 1AD - Agree with you guys on all that regarding the cooldowns promoting group play with a UAS, and if we were going UAS in the end i'm all there for long CD's as a MUST!

    Its pretty exciting to see how it is all going to end up after testing! I'm sure we'll be able to land on some middle compromise.  I guess the best compromise for all parties is akin to what Vjek mentioned to me the other day that he was aiming for, LAS12 I think he said with the ability to swap out spells and an increased danger to the process of swapping out.

    I really like how this discussion has been super respectful, no need for cleaning up of thread, and it is a hotly contested issue, great work everyone! 

     

    • 2621 posts
    March 16, 2020 8:02 PM PDT

    Hokanu said:

    @Iksar & 1AD - Agree with you guys on all that regarding the cooldowns promoting group play with a UAS, and if we were going UAS in the end i'm all there for long CD's as a MUST!

    Its pretty exciting to see how it is all going to end up after testing! I'm sure we'll be able to land on some middle compromise.  I guess the best compromise for all parties is akin to what Vjek mentioned to me the other day that he was aiming for, LAS12 I think he said with the ability to swap out spells and an increased danger to the process of swapping out.

    I really like how this discussion has been super respectful, no need for cleaning up of thread, and it is a hotly contested issue, great work everyone! 

     

    It certainly is exciting, can't wait to see where testing leads this aspect of the game.

    • 487 posts
    March 16, 2020 8:35 PM PDT

    1) I am all for UAS, that's been obvious...but what I don't want are silly duration CD's on things that shouldn't have one - like in the Root example above. Root has a cast time, mana cost, and only certain classes have that ability - anything over 8-10 seconds is just absurd. That's just 1 small example. Balancing is key here.

    2) Also, in regards to the 'conditional logic' - I am just not a fan of that overall or skill chains. I am fine with ability_X auto-crits on a stunned target, but I don't want to resort to 'setting up' people or forcing a (class) meta for the best wombo combos.

    I just want to turn on auto-attack, use my dps/threat spells while watching the surroundings for what's going on around me. Not skill chaining abilites to get ultimate combos or feeling punished for Rooting the mob the enchanter didn't see. Just my class abilities/spells, class resourses, and realistic CD's for said spells/abilities.


    This post was edited by Fragile at March 16, 2020 9:57 PM PDT
    • 406 posts
    March 16, 2020 9:20 PM PDT

    Regardless, we all have to be *willing* to be flexible and bend on this in either direction.  Together we have to give the correct feedback and advice so that the combat will feel flexible, strategic, group-centric, and fun.  In the end, we all have only one launch to have this nailed down correctly so it appeals to the majority of people within the targeted niche.  Most of those people are not partaking in this disucssion or even the pre-launching testing I would guess.  I watched Wildstar's Devs stubbornly refuse to change course despite extensive feedback throughout beta about their telegraph combat system.  I watched Rift's Devs listen to the vocal minority in beta and completely alter their game's combat dynamics for the worse.  Both games suffered greatly post-launch.  Sometimes the Devs are right with their gut feelings, sometimes they are wrong.  But the same is also true for all of us giving feedback.  Just because one of us loves or hates something, doesn't mean it's the right path for the game.  It can be self-indulgent to believe that only our own individual opinion must be correct simply because it makes the most sense to us individually.  I prefer EQ1's style of changing spells mid combat with risk, but I am willing to accept LAS or UAS if it's better for the game.  My test for that will be what the majority of testers feel when they get their hands on it. At this point, we've all established pros and cons for the LAS, UAS, and EQ1s hybrid approach.  Now (soon) we test it and see which one fits best with the vision of Pantheon.

    • 762 posts
    March 16, 2020 10:32 PM PDT
    Soon TM :)