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.
Good example, but not in favour of LAS.
In my D&D playing over many years almost all DMs I knew relaxed the spell memorising/casting rules in various ways (or threw scrolls and wands around like candy) because it made it very boring and frustrating for casters.
It felt like non-casters got to use multiple skills every round in or out of combat and casters got to do one or two things per day.
You very rarely had a clue of what to prepare with and ended up simply memming the most generally useful and being frustrated when you needed something else that you knew how to do but just couldn't because [artificial-feeling game mechanic barrier].
Just like LAS but worse. EQ was much less restrictive than D&D, thankfully, but still was regularly frustrating for casters. Pantheon has the potential to be worse since *all* classes are effectively casters.
As for "just buzzing through combat because I always have my cool stuff available for every situation" there is no reason that should be the enevitable result of a less limited set. In fact encounters can be designed to be much more challenging because devs don't have to worry about making it possible for badly prepared LAS groups to have a chance but also still challenging for well prepared groups. They know what classes can do and can balance accordingly and much more consistently.
The alternative is to dish out regular death and failure to people taking on anything unfamiliar or dynamic. And to expect players to click-switch spells for every single encounter they *do* recognise as they vary. Not to mention having to discuss their choices with every other group member every encounter. Or make them not vary much at all so you are not switching spells every encounter. None of which sound good.
"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!"
So... have the frustration and annoyance of regular hotbar spell-switching group discussions, but still have stuff happen you can't possibly prepare for or counter. Yay?
Disclaimer: I'd actually be ok with trying some LAS, but 8 sounds horribly restrictive given the number of class skills we have already seen never mind the actual full compliment.
Disclaimer 2: I'm actually willing to try and see, because I think there will be more to it than the equivalent of EQ without re-memming, which is the assumption some people are working on, but assumptions the other way aren't too useful either.
Reading about cooldowns versus LAS has me thinking, again, that a hybrid might be good.
If you *do* have a regular LAS hotbar, but need something from your Codex, then you cast direct from your Codex but the cooldown/mana/casting time is quite nasty - maybe there's a single cooldown for the whole cast-from-Codex ability?
Surely it doesn't have to be either UAS *or* LAS and nothing in-between or out-of-the-box?
We've gone from having 1 hotbar to 4 in only a few months.
I think allowing people to swap out stuff during combat/whenever they want (witha small 1 or 2 second "writing" window that can be interupted by mobs) with 1 hotbar, would be a better solution than having 4 hotbars. It would fix the issue of having abilities available whenever you want (like people want) but also keep the limited action set (which most of us want) because you can't swap them out if you are getting beat on or whatever since you need to wait between writing them into the slot.
bigdogchris said:We've gone from having 1 hotbar to 4 in only a few months.
I don't think this is a fair assessment, at least in the context being discussed. This would be a more accurate picture of what has happened in the past couple months:
PA4:
12 Slot All-Purpose Hotbar
Current:
8 Slot Active In-Combat Hotbar
6 Slot Utility In-Combat Hotbar
8 Slot Out-Of-Combat Hotbar
8 Slot Out-Of-Combat Hotbar
Effective Change between PA4 - Current:
In-Combat slots have been changed from 12 to 14, but new restrictions have been added to determine which abilities/spells are considered active/utility
Out-Of-Combat slots have been added for long-duration buffs, out-of-combat utility, clickies, and consumables, but will disappear when a player enters combat
bigdogchris said:I think allowing people to swap out stuff during combat/whenever they want (witha small 1 or 2 second "writing" window that can be interupted by mobs) with 1 hotbar, would be a better solution than having 4 hotbars. It would fix the issue of having abilities available whenever you want (like people want) but also keep the limited action set (which most of us want) because you can't swap them out if you are getting beat on or whatever since you need to wait between writing them into the slot.
As Joppa correctly stated on page 1:
"Ultimately, I would describe EverQuest as being a hybrid: it is fundamentally a UAS (unlimited action set) that leans towards an LAS under specific conditions, with an incredibly clunky way of accessing your abilities.
It is fundamentally a UAS because technically you have access to all of your abilities at your choosing, in and out of combat. It leans towards an LAS because you could only have 8 usable at a time and the fine motor skills required to quickly exchange one ability for another in critical situations was actually difficult to do."
In other words ... allowing players to swap abilities around during combat (the same way it worked in EQ) is fundamentally and technically a UAS that leans toward an LAS under specific conditions. A true LAS appears to be something that most players do not want. It is also inaccurate to say that "people want to have access to abilities whenever they want" -- this has been refuted multiple times. By emphasizing the tactical nature of resource costs, extended cooldowns, and conditional logic, players would not have access to abilities whenever they want. The resource management aspect assumes that they do have access to the abilities at a given point in time but may not have the resources to use them. Even if they do, they must still weigh the relative opportunity cost of doing so in the heat of the moment. The cooldown and conditional logic aspect assumes that players do not have access to the abilities at a given point because the cooldown was already used, or the required conditional logic associated with the ability has not been met. In other words, it is a UAS (similar to EQ) that leans toward an LAS under specific conditions, but without the incredible clunkiness of the spell-swapping mechanic observed in EQ. Instead of emphasizing fine motor skills being required to "quickly exchange one ability for another in critical situations" -- the fine motor skills are required to "assess a dynamic in-combat landscape and determine which abilities should (or should not) be used in critical situations while measuring the variable opportunity cost of each choice." This is considered skillful play without the clunkiness and since gratification from player skill is super important, this is what I hope to ultimately see.
Man, you guys all have nicer DMs than I am. I never relax the spell slot/prepared slot requirements in D&D. The system is designEd for resource management and that's a big part of the challenge.
The key implementation to make LAS work is too simply not have so many abilities that you need 8 action bars. That's one of things I hated about EQ2. Between so many redundant abilities and clickies, you had to have a full screen of hot bars. Then you spent combat staring at the bars instead of the fight.
I hope that each ability that a player has is significantly different and worth considering. A fire mage doesn't need 9 different fire damage spells, each verynsiml to the other.
Fighting ability/clicky bloat is the best way to make LAS work.
vjek said: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. :)
1) you may not win it wotu your *, but the 8 on the 5 other members may do it. you may change 4 of your 8 next time, stil might not be optimal but will be different, and you wont know how the other 5 changed theirs. the random element of individual choice will most likely be bneficial.
2) only if you are soloing against the boss with no help if I understand your P.O.V correctly
3) I don't know that.
4) but the other 5 group members each have 8 active slot LAS they can dynamically react to the situation.
Beefcake said:Man, you guys all have nicer DMs than I am. I never relax the spell slot/prepared slot requirements in D&D. The system is designEd for resource management and that's a big part of the challenge.
Not meaning to be argumentative, but what resource did warriors and thieves worry about? In campaigns I was in you hardly ever got a single class caster if the casting was by the book. Players would multiclass or have another character so they had something to do and treat their spellcasting like an infrequently used but sometimes handy utility. You'd have to get to level 30 or something to have a decent number of spells available and, even then, you'd still constantly be butting your head against situations where you once again didn't have the one you need memmed and it wasn't safe to rest for hours.
Beefcake said:The key implementation to make LAS work is too simply not have so many abilities that you need 8 action bars. That's one of things I hated about EQ2. Between so many redundant abilities and clickies, you had to have a full screen of hot bars. Then you spent combat staring at the bars instead of the fight.
I hope that each ability that a player has is significantly different and worth considering. A fire mage doesn't need 9 different fire damage spells, each verynsiml to the other.
Fighting ability/clicky bloat is the best way to make LAS work.
You could just as easily say, the key thing to make UAS work *well* is to not have so many abilities (and badly worked out resources and cooldowns). Fighting ability/clicky bloat is the best way to make UAS work *well*.
I agree that lazy UAS is not good and maybe as bad as overly restrictive LAS (though it's subjective), but I think good skill design should be pretty much independant of LAS/UAS. It would make the whole issue moot (in which case LAS is just a UI overhead).
disposalist said:Beefcake said:Man, you guys all have nicer DMs than I am. I never relax the spell slot/prepared slot requirements in D&D. The system is designEd for resource management and that's a big part of the challenge.
Not meaning to be argumentative, but what resource did warriors and thieves worry about? In campaigns I was in you hardly ever got a single class caster if the casting was by the book. Players would multiclass or have another character so they had something to do and treat their spellcasting like an infrequently used but sometimes handy utility. You'd have to get to level 30 or something to have a decent number of spells available and, even then, you'd still constantly be butting your head against situations where you once again didn't have the one you need memmed and it wasn't safe to rest for hours.
Although I admit that non-casters in D&D not as resource management intensive as casters, at least in 5E, the Main resources for non-casters involve the action economy (bonus actions, reactions, etc) and positioning. But that's getting off point.
I think the casters are a better analogy for most MMOs.
Imo, a lot of the dialogue surrounding LAS is simply not compelling one way or the other. Focusing on violations of tenets and other stuff is really just missing some very obvious, surface level reasons why the LAS is bad.
The LAS just doesn't achieve the goal it's setting out to achieve. How would EQ's gameplay have differed if casters could load up their bars with abilities? Not too differently, honestly. Presumably the game's content would be tuned a little bit differently to account for that, but it wouldn't fundamentally change how the game is played.
Humans are more than capable of making errors on their own without being put in a small box where making the wrong choice isn't possible anyway, because the choice has been removed. From my perspective, limiting abilities only serves to reduce the skill ceiling of the game.
On average, people suck at games. Give them the opportunity to suck. They're going to suck anyway even with an LAS, but I am personally a fan of giving people the ability to fall into an abyss rather than artificially limiting the bad decisions they can potentially make.
I love how this thread was congratulating someone for doing a very good job of asking good questions and getting a ton of information, and giving the fans more face time with Joppa, and in turned became another opportunity for the UAS and LAS debate to completely fill up the pages again, and again. Stop, this clearly wasn't the place to do this, we literally have multiple threads of where this has clearly been beaten to death, it doesn't need to be beaten to death on a thread where people are congratulating a content creator doing a good job or the community might stop doing that as well, lord knows we are already losing people posting like ever on these forums in general no reason to give them others a reason to stop as well. Plus arguing over LAS and how it goes against the tenets, when I know for a fact the devs are far more passionate than anyone else when it comes to this game I also find quite distasteful, and completely out of line.
Liav said:Yep. Good summary.Imo, a lot of the dialogue surrounding LAS is simply not compelling one way or the other. Focusing on violations of tenets and other stuff is really just missing some very obvious, surface level reasons why the LAS is bad.
The LAS just doesn't achieve the goal it's setting out to achieve. How would EQ's gameplay have differed if casters could load up their bars with abilities? Not too differently, honestly. Presumably the game's content would be tuned a little bit differently to account for that, but it ultimately wouldn't fundamentally change how the game is played.
Riahuf22 said:Really? How can any judgement on a topic be good at all if it hasn't been tested? Or are you just being completely biased in your opinion and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously, simply for being biased, just curious.For myself, I've already gone through this before, twice, personally. What, you ask? Using a punitive / negative / restrictive combat UI in an effort to positively distinguish your niche MMO. Didn't work previously, won't work now.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/why-card-deck-combat-will-be-skill-based.7348/page-3#post-125892 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-8#post-126804 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/starr-long-discusses-chaotic-aspects-of-sota-combat.3660/page-19#post-116450 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/constructive-criticism-of-6-month-demo-combat-card-system.3774/page-7#post-69729 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/6-month-demo.3772/page-21#post-67889 .
And for reference? They ultimately wasted years and months, and went with a hybrid system that was entirely unlike their original intent of a restrictive combat UI. You'll also note in those threads the exact same principles being argued for and against (fighitng the UI, restricting player choice, more). Also, those arguing that you can't guess or imagine or criticize before you see it. And the devs were completely, entirely, 100% wrong. Imagine that, eh? Less than 15 people didn't have the collective perspective of thousands. I know, weird, right? :)
In the end, they stopped interacting with the community, moved the restrictive combat UI to testing, and it was met with an almost universal loathing, seething hatred. Not just because it objectively sucked rocks, but because they ignored the community and wasted so much time.
As with other folks in this thread, I'm comfortable constructing a mental model or using my imagination to critically assess something, objectively or logically, without seeing it first hand.
However, I have learned over the years that when it comes to MMO theorycrafting and critical assessment, not everyone is willing to use their imagination in this manner. Often it a very prominent dividing line in the community of interest.
vjek said:Riahuf22 said:Really? How can any judgement on a topic be good at all if it hasn't been tested? Or are you just being completely biased in your opinion and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously, simply for being biased, just curious.For myself, I've already gone through this before, twice, personally. What, you ask? Using a punitive / negative / restrictive combat UI in an effort to positively distinguish your niche MMO. Didn't work previously, won't work now.https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/why-card-deck-combat-will-be-skill-based.7348/page-3#post-125892 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-8#post-126804 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/starr-long-discusses-chaotic-aspects-of-sota-combat.3660/page-19#post-116450 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/constructive-criticism-of-6-month-demo-combat-card-system.3774/page-7#post-69729 .
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/6-month-demo.3772/page-21#post-67889 .
And for reference? They ultimately wasted years and months, and went with a hybrid system that was entirely unlike their original intent of a restrictive combat UI. You'll also note in those threads the exact same principles being argued for and against (fighitng the UI, restricting player choice, more). Also, those arguing that you can't guess or imagine or criticize before you see it. And the devs were completely, entirely, 100% wrong. Imagine that, eh? Less than 15 people didn't have the collective perspective of thousands. I know, weird, right? :)
In the end, they stopped interacting with the community, moved the restrictive combat UI to testing, and it was met with an almost universal loathing, seething hatred. Not just because it objectively sucked rocks, but because they ignored the community and wasted so much time.As with other folks in this thread, I'm comfortable constructing a mental model or using my imagination to critically assess something, objectively or logically, without seeing it first hand.
However, I have learned over the years that when it comes to MMO theorycrafting and critical assessment, not everyone is willing to use their imagination in this manner. Often it a very prominent dividing line in the community of interest.
So just because another gane failed at implementing it you think it simply just doesn't work? Well I can say if that's the case UAS doesn't work either because many games have failed at doing that too.
I am more than willing to eat my words if my assessment of the LAS is incorrect, and somehow everything ends up being better than it would be without such restrictions. However, based on a combination of past experience and the ability to think about stuff, I don't really have anything positive to say about it.
Throwing out the word "bias" is pretty bizarre in this context. In what way is assessing something and coming away with a negative opinion of it considered bias? If your position differs from mine, you can offer up an explanation.
However, I doubt anyone has anything novel to say on the subject. I'm simply regurgitating the same talking points I have used against the LAS for quite a long time, because my assessment of the system is consistently negative every time a thread pops up trying to convince me otherwise.
Maybe you can offer a counterargument instead of accusing people of bias. "We haven't tested it yet" is not a counterargument. You have a brain, use it.
Riahuf22 said: So just because another gane failed at implementing it you think it simply just doesn't work? Well I can say if that's the case UAS doesn't work either because many games have failed at doing that too.
How does UAS not work? heheh. It works just fine in accomplishing some design goals, and many UAS games make a profit.
It doesn't accomplish the LAS design goals, because it's not LAS. That's clear enough.
But yes, just because another game failed to do it means it likely doesn't work. Hence it being called a failure.
Why repeat the failures of history? Why not learn from them, instead? Especially when it's not your money you're burning.
I get the value in LAS (already said that, earlier in the thread) I just don't think this much UI restriction is appropriate given the competing design goals of dynamic combat, dynamic content, dispositions, multi-dispositions, environments, atmospheres, unique roles, fun, and more.
The community suggestions in this thread alone, as positive superior solutions, are worth exploring before 8 active hotbar slots, imo.
I will voice my opinion on the manner when I get the chance to TEST it, and not simply voice my opinion on something I have no idea about because I don't know how it will feel with a different game, much like I like FPS more than TPS but I know I like some TPS games, and hate some FPS games.
Riahuf22 said:I will voice my opinion on the manner when I get the chance to TEST it, and not simply voice my opinion on something I have no idea about because I don't know how it will feel with a different game, much like I like FPS more than TPS but I know I like some TPS games, and hate some FPS games.
I cannot speak to just how long you have been following this game, or if you're one of the people who have been invovled in Pre-Alpha, but there are quite a few people out there who have been following this for 6 years and have been in all the Pre-Alpha stages. It is those people who saw and experience the initial action set of 12, experienced the ramifications of being unable to change spells/abilities while in combat even before the introduction of the disposition mechanic. We can be assured that those people made it quite clear to VR that the 12 slot 'can't change in combat' LAS was in direct conflict with many of the selling points of this game, points which have been mentioned previously in this thread.
It does not take a genius to look at the LAS, even the new one, with an eye to the what VR is saying combat should provide the players and realize those two things are mutually exclusive. Yes, VR is already making some adjustments, as mentioned in the lasted dev whatever and future slides to a better solution may very well happen.
Yes, actual testers need to get their hands on this sooner rather than later. I just hope that VR will actually remain open-minded and willing to do an about-face on this should the testers overwhelming demonstrate that the LAS is harmful to the overall success of the game.
Vandraad said:Riahuf22 said:I will voice my opinion on the manner when I get the chance to TEST it, and not simply voice my opinion on something I have no idea about because I don't know how it will feel with a different game, much like I like FPS more than TPS but I know I like some TPS games, and hate some FPS games.
I cannot speak to just how long you have been following this game, or if you're one of the people who have been invovled in Pre-Alpha, but there are quite a few people out there who have been following this for 6 years and have been in all the Pre-Alpha stages. It is those people who saw and experience the initial action set of 12, experienced the ramifications of being unable to change spells/abilities while in combat even before the introduction of the disposition mechanic. We can be assured that those people made it quite clear to VR that the 12 slot 'can't change in combat' LAS was in direct conflict with many of the selling points of this game, points which have been mentioned previously in this thread.
It does not take a genius to look at the LAS, even the new one, with an eye to the what VR is saying combat should provide the players and realize those two things are mutually exclusive. Yes, VR is already making some adjustments, as mentioned in the lasted dev whatever and future slides to a better solution may very well happen.
Yes, actual testers need to get their hands on this sooner rather than later. I just hope that VR will actually remain open-minded and willing to do an about-face on this should the testers overwhelming demonstrate that the LAS is harmful to the overall success of the game.
Yeah I understand that but Joppa also clearly said that you can change out spells for as long as you don't have threat, and you can't have threat unless you were the initial puller or have done something to cuase threat so if you see something is pulled and you need to change spells you can, until you start helping to kill the said target.
vjek said:Riahuf22 said:... so if you see something is pulled and you need to change spells ...And when you're in-combat and that happens? :)
That's sort of the whole issue, not when you're out-of-combat.
You muscle through, mez the target to get out of combat, me up some spells and continue on, like you do on eq.
Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:I highly doubt that mezzing a target cleared all threat values in EQ.
Well huh it did, so I mean yeah.
No, it didn't. EQ did not have combat states until The Serpent's Spine, which was way late in the game's life. Also, the only thing the TSS combat states dictated was if you received additional flat (% based) out of combat regen, it did not affect your ability to mem spells.
Mez had a very small chance to memblur when it wore off, which would clear aggro, but mez did not "clear aggro" in EQ. Mez actually generates an immense amount of aggro in EQ. How do you not know this?
The only prerequisite to swap a spell in EQ was to not take damage while you were in the process of memming it, otherwise it would kick you out of your attempt at memming. There was no such thing as "clearing aggro" to do something like that.
Edit: A quick addition, which is that later mezzes from Enchanters did have higher memblur chance, but it was never guaranteed. On P99, Rapture has a 40% chance to memblur.
Liav said:Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:I highly doubt that mezzing a target cleared all threat values in EQ.
Well huh it did, so I mean yeah.
No, it didn't. EQ did not have combat states until The Serpent's Spine, which was way late in the game's life.
Mez had a very small chance to memblur when it wore off, which would clear aggro, but mez did not "clear aggro" in EQ. Mez actually generates an immense amount of aggro in EQ. How do you not know this?
The only prerequisite to swap a spell in EQ was to not take damage while you were in the process of memming it, otherwise it would kick you out of your attempt at memming. There was no such thing as "clearing aggro" to do something like that.
Well I wasn't actually saying in eq you were able to mem spells because the target was mem specially but that there was a clear state of control put in place to change something out, or you merely took the chance and it worked or it didn't.
But I'm sure if you mez a target or put a target in a trance in pantheon there could be opportunities to switch out spells, or at least figure out what to do while he's mezzes with what you got, as the spells/skills aren't a be all end all scenario, they would only make the particular fight easier, as it should be, and thinking that using a spell that is ineffective against a mob at a particular point was the reason why you died, though didn't help but it wasn't the complete reason.