I'm quite excited by this game, in particular the design philosphy of focusing on strategic depth rather than the traditional boring button rotation that tends to occur in MMO's. However, in order for the devs to achieve this it is necessary to design mob encounters that encourage that strategic depth. Take for example Wizard design, and specifically the player choice behind using a mana efficient but lower damage spell, versus a less efficient but high damage burst spell. In order for this choice to be meaningful, devs MUST design some encounters where it is optimal to use the mana effecient version and some encounters where it is optimal to use the less efficient but high damage burst version. Without proper encounter design, no amount of tweaking to the spell stats is going to make this choice meaningful, instead there will always be a single optimal choice that applies to 99% of encounters and the game will feel boring once again.
I bring this up because the discussion on these forums (and dev round tables) tends to focus on specifics of the class itself without any context regarding how diversity of encounters will unlock the strategic depth. This is not to say there is no discussion on designing diverse encounters (dispositions sound great) but I rarely see the two discussed together. How should we design encounters so sometimes a fire elemental pet is best and other times the air element pet is best? How do we design areas where sometimes the cleric damage shield healing shines, while others the shaman healing over time shines? My hopes in thread is for the community to start brainstorming specific examples of how encounter design and class design TOGETHER can unlock this strategic depth.
I'll start with my Wizard example of high damage burst spells vs slower mana efficient spells. My feeling is the mana efficient lower damage spells are typically preferred as they will (given their superior mana efficiency) always give the highest sustained DPS assuming a steady stream of mob pulls. So how do we design encounters where sometimes the wizard wants to burst? One thought is encounters with multiple mobs simulataneously, but one of the mobs has low max HP but high dps. In this case the burst spell will shine, maybe the wizard has the unique ability to one shot this high dps mob. It's less mana efficient for the wizard, but it's better for the group b/c you save your healer significant mana by avoiding the damage. Additionally, other group members having faith in their trusty wizard can plan around this. Maybe the enc knows the wizard can take care of that low hp mob and not waste a mez on it.
What are your thoughts? Would love to see discussion of other specific examples.
Traits, dispositions, fractures, mob level, and available working space. All these on their own should suffice for that varied gameplay it seems you are looking for. Whoever is calling the ball should identify the priority target order and whether or not a burn will be required. How fast the group is taking down mobs and the desire to minimize inter-pull downtime would dictate the overarching strategy employed in efficient/burn tactics.
You wanted specific examples, but your wizard synopsis seems to cover the bases pretty well.
My concern will be just how much more efficient will the melee DPS be in contrast to the mana-dependent casters?
I would think that any intentional planning for efficiency vs burn encounters will be relegated to named/boss-like affairs.
Thunderleg said:My concern will be just how much more efficient will the melee DPS be in contrast to the mana-dependent casters?
Regarding specific examples, maybe this is discussion is best delegated to class specific forums, but in many examples discussed by devs I genuinely don't see how they are designing mobs/dungeons to make their desired class distinction meaningful. Take the cleric damage shield vs shaman heal over time. At face value it seems like in most situtations the Shaman is going to shine but it by design is going to have the most mana efficient healing over time---so if say we are able to pull mobs 1 by 1 why would we ever want a cleric? Even in cases where multiple pulls will occur, if we have a good enchanter do we care about cleric? How do we design mobs/dungeons that reward the cleric style healing that is by design less mana efficient?
Kamlor said:the discussion on these forums (and dev round tables) tends to focus on specifics of the class itself without any context regarding how diversity of encounters will unlock the strategic depth. This is not to say there is no discussion on designing diverse encounters (dispositions sound great) but I rarely see the two discussed together.
Hi Kamlor, welcome to the forums.
IMO the reason you don't often hear those two aspects discussed together - at least in any detail - is that from most fans' view, they are significantly different subjects. Discussing a class in detail can easily occupy an entire stream - as it often has - and the players taking the most interest are naturally those who in are attracted to playing that class. Discussing encounter mechanics is a much more generalized discussion about the ongoing development of Pantheon, relevant to all players of every class.
Thinking about encounter depth, I realize that many of the intersting aspects of mob behavior have been told to us individually, when Devs were speaking about various aspects of other systems. Like discussion of traits and dispostions as you referred to. So getting a good understanding of that is more challenging than just looking up the dedicated stream for Monk or Dire Lord or whatever.
The most informative stream about encounters I know of is "NPC Combat Tactics" from last June. https://youtu.be/2Urv4JvKgdM
One thought is encounters with multiple mobs simulataneously, but one of the mobs has low max HP but high dps.
That particular type of mob is already in the game. I believe Joppa called them 'ambient mobs'. Specifically intended to be quick to kill, but capable of high damage so they become 1st priority when a group encounters them. I'm not sure if it was the first time they were ever mentioned, but I know Joppa described them to Cohh right here in this stream from Apr 2019 https://youtu.be/UNbcrIWk8B4?t=1154
That particular type of mob is already in the game. I believe Joppa called them 'ambient mobs'. Specifically intended to be quick to kill, but capable of high damage so they become 1st priority when a group encounters them. I'm not sure if it was the first time they were ever mentioned, but I know Joppa described them to Cohh right here in this stream from Apr 2019 https://youtu.be/UNbcrIWk8B4?t=1154
Less sustain DPS is not the same thing as less damage though, so it's not a good thing to be concerned with.
While I do suspect there will be certain cases for each class to shine I don't expect combat design to be so granular that specific classes are required, in fact that would go against a lot of what we have learned. I imagine it would also become just a separate "rotation" sort of thing vs creative gameplay.
Take the cleric damage shield vs shaman heal over time. At face value it seems like in most situtations the Shaman is going to shine but it by design is going to have the most mana efficient healing over time---so if say we are able to pull mobs 1 by 1 why would we ever want a cleric? Even in cases where multiple pulls will occur, if we have a good enchanter do we care about cleric? How do we design mobs/dungeons that reward the cleric style healing that is by design less mana efficient?
At face value we don't know near enough about these classes and their spells/costs/cooldowns etc. They have long said anyone of a given role should be interchangable and have parity in that role for most if not all content in the game.
Iksar said:At face value we don't know near enough about these classes and their spells/costs/cooldowns etc. They have long said anyone of a given role should be interchangable and have parity in that role for most if not all content in the game.
Kamlor said: I couldn't help but think about this though regarding the commuity discussion between rogue and wizard in the "Wizard Damage Concern" thread in the wizard forums. Everyone was focused on how the wizard had lower sustained dps than the rogue in the group, as if that's the only stat that matters.
Two things you may not be aware of.
1. VR admitted later that the Rogue was OP at that point.
2. VR has often talked about their development process and given examples of their order of priorities. Their process is to first get a system built, then make sure it is working as planned in relation to all the other processes it has to interact with. And lastly, they will tinker with the exact numbers of the stats that influence that process. As related to this discussion, VR has told us more than once to not worry about the exact amount of damage or heals we see on streams because those values won't be final until very late in developement, like in Beta.
It's an interesting OP and I'm sure there are lots of great class-encounter tactics people will come up with. Personally, though, I think it's still quite early. VR have been talking in general terms quite a lot, yes, but that's because they haven't really wanted to show us detailed specifics of all the classes yet, never mind talk about how they might design encounters around their tactical strengths and weaknesses.
I mean they have given us a pretty good amount of info on classes to get the appetites whetted and conversations going, but maybe not enough to start worrying about particulars of encounter tactics.
I will talk about the concept of distinction and 'interchangeability' though, since it's come up.
It's a fine line.
Of course, we want classes, even within a role, to be distinct, but we don't want encounters per class so different that one class will fail and a different class, but of the same role, find it easy.
Also, I think it's ok that some of what makes a class distinct in its role is effectively flavour and playstyle and not always hard situational capability or tactical variance.
For example, there will be some players that prefer heal-over-time to direct heals simply because they know they don't have great reaction speeds but have great tactical planning instincts. Almost no matter the encounter they will cope better with a tactical class than a reactive one.
I agree that we do want to see situations/encounters where classes can/will shine or struggle, just not too much relative to one another, such that we get areas of the game where certain classes are not wanted compared to others of the same role.
Classes within a role should be 'interchangeable' but only by players improvising. By adjusting your toolbar action set. By working harder, but taking more breaks. By synergising differently with others. Classes should be broadly as capable or powerful but have to achieve things in different ways.
For example with the ambient monsters mentioned above that are high DPS but low HP, whilst a wizard that has an instant burst damage spell will be very handy, a rogue might have an instant smoke cloud that stuns them all for a few seconds so burst DPS isn't strictly 'needed' or 'better'.
We have seen that VR are going somehwat beyond 'normal' encounter variance with traits and dispositions, by basing monsters on classes with class-based abilities, etc. and I don't doubt there will be enough variability for classes to shine.
I'm sure there will be encounters where some classes are simply optimal. I doubt that it will be - and I don't think it should be - _much_ tougher for another class in that role though.
It comes to mind that it's another reason that it is good that the whole pace of combat is slower/longer in Pantheon than most MMORPGs these days. That allows for tactical variance and improvisation to take place. For actual reaction and change of strategy, mid-fight. VR can throw interesting curve balls, because combat is not all about speed, efficiency and button mashing. Classes can be distinct and vary somewhat in situational viability, because the group has time to compensate and mitigate. Efficiency can come from player skill and thoughfulness, not just optimal configuration.
Jothany said:Two things you may not be aware of.
1. VR admitted later that the Rogue was OP at that point.
2. VR has often talked about their development process and given examples of their order of priorities. Their process is to first get a system built, then make sure it is working as planned in relation to all the other processes it has to interact with. And lastly, they will tinker with the exact numbers of the stats that influence that process. As related to this discussion, VR has told us more than once to not worry about the exact amount of damage or heals we see on streams because those values won't be final until very late in developement, like in Beta.
disposalist said:For example with the ambient monsters mentioned above that are high DPS but low HP, whilst a wizard that has an instant burst damage spell will be very handy, a rogue might have an instant smoke cloud that stuns them all for a few seconds so burst DPS isn't strictly 'needed' or 'better'.
This is a great point and makes me rethink my argument regarding rogue vs wizard balance. Not sure how I got to on that topic b/c it's a separate concept from what I intended to discuss which was encouraging strategic decisions via dungeon design :).
Kamlor said:Fair point, it's probably not the best example because of course we'd expect blatent class imbalance this early in development. My higher level point though is I don't think rogue and wizard having equivalent DPS should be the design goal, when the stated objective is class balance and meaningful class distinction. So it should be possible to have the two classes balanced on average, but with rogue shining in situations where sustained DPS matters more, and wizards shining in situations where burst is more important. Balancing the classes then can be achieved via dungeon design by balancing how often the two situations occur. At least, this to me is the only way to achieve both goals simulataneously, but maybe I'm missing something regarding the design philosophy?
Yes, I think you are missing some of the design philosophy. VR's tenets emphasize class identity more than balance. Among all the classes, some are expected to solo way easier than others. Within a group role, every class is intended to have the capacity to fulfill that role's job, in any encounter. But each class is expected to "shine" in some situations, and potentially struggle to improve their skills in others. This has been the long term design goal. Since Rogue & Wizard are both DPS, their DPS has to be generally equivalent to keep them both wanted in group. But with enough variance that either one could outdo the other in any given situation.
Class balance (between classes within a given role) is one end of a spectrum, and class distinction is at the other end of that spectrum. Going too far one way makes generic, identical classes. Too far the other way makes one class the "best" at it's role and soon everyone knows that. VR is aiming to find the balance between those extremes.
Kamlor said:I'm quite excited by this game, in particular the design philosphy of focusing on strategic depth rather than the traditional boring button rotation that tends to occur in MMO's. However, in order for the devs to achieve this it is necessary to design mob encounters that encourage that strategic depth.
Make sure you watch the stream @Jothany already linked for you from last June: NPC Combat Tactics
The robustness of this NPC AI opens up so many options. Once you fully understand just how many things Enemies can take into account and change their actions based on; you can see just how much Strategic Depth the Dev's can add.
Let's take your Wizard 'Efficiency vs Burst' example.
Let's imagine an Enemy that has a devastating combat ability that he only starts using if players around him are low on mana. So you are fighting away and the Enemy seems rather harmless, but then the Wizard or Cleric in the group drops under 30% mana and Bam suddenly the Enemy starts pummeling the poor tank into the ground with some super strong attack. In this scenario it would be to the advantage of the group for the Mana users to be very efficient with their ability use.
Now let's imagine an opposite situation. Now you encounter an Enemy who is mana crazed and lashes out randomly at players with high mana. But as you expend your mana and the overall mana pools of the group members goes down, the Enemy becomes calmer and less erratic, allowing the Tank to get more control over aggro and can keep the Enemies attention. In this scenario it might be advantageous for Wizards and Summoners to dump their high burst but very mana costly spells into the Target in order to quickly tamp down the random aggression of the Enemy.
This is just 2 examples to fit your scenario. The NPC AI allows for all sorts of neat tricks the Dev's can pull.
Enemies who pounce on any target who does more than 3% of their HP in one hit, thus punishing Rogues who are using Backstabs and encouraging them to switch to slower poison type damage instead.
Enemies who might start healing themselves whenever they are cold, thus punishing players using Frost type effects.
Perhaps the enemy casts a buff that makes their skin Harden whenever they are hit with Fire attack, so Armor goes up.
Maybe if you use a 3+ second cast time spell the Enemy will suddenly throw a rock at you that stuns you out of your cast. But if you stick to short quick spells they won't ever inturrupt.
Or perhaps enemies are Lulled by casting and whenever a Player is casting a channeled spell it will slow the Enemies Melee attacks.
This NPC Combat Awareness system is such a boon for the Dev's and you can see how excited they were in that video when they showed off just some of the things they can do with it.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:
Enemies who pounce on any target who does more than 3% of their HP in one hit, thus punishing Rogues who are using Backstabs and encouraging them to switch to slower poison type damage instead.
Enemies who might start healing themselves whenever they are cold, thus punishing players using Frost type effects.
Perhaps the enemy casts a buff that makes their skin Harden whenever they are hit with Fire attack, so Armor goes up.
Maybe if you use a 3+ second cast time spell the Enemy will suddenly throw a rock at you that stuns you out of your cast. But if you stick to short quick spells they won't ever inturrupt.
Or perhaps enemies are Lulled by casting and whenever a Player is casting a channeled spell it will slow the Enemies Melee attacks.
I got so excited reading this, and watched the stream you suggested and got even more excited! This gives me confidence the dev's are thinking about this in the right way. I can't wait for more specific examples as they flesh out the game more :).
I think the whole premis of designing any encounter will be extremely rare. The whole point of dispositions of mobs means that the first group (say 1pm)in Halnir Cave will be different compared to what the 3:00pm group faces. With the many different NPC AIs and the many possible player group make ups I don't see VR "designing" many encounters. Perhaps only a boss mob.
Questaar said:I think the whole premis of designing any encounter will be extremely rare. The whole point of dispositions of mobs means that the first group (say 1pm)in Halnir Cave will be different compared to what the 3:00pm group faces. With the many different NPC AIs and the many possible player group make ups I don't see VR "designing" many encounters. Perhaps only a boss mob.
The other aspect of combat to consider is the 'state' or 'conditions' system. They have shown us in the past that various abilities on various classes will add 'states' to a target.
For example the Shaman can cast a spell called Headwinds that does no damage, but it causes the 'Windswept' state on the target for a short duration. This basically means that the target is currently being buffeted by high winds.
They then have a Fire based spell that has advantage vs Windswept state. When cast normally it will do a certain amount of Fire damage over time... but when cast on a Target which is effected by Windswept state, this will Frontload Burst the full damage of the DoT all at once and also makes it Crit, thus doubling the total damage of the spell; assuming Crits are x2 dmg which may not be how they work Crits but you get the point.
The idea being that the Wind buffeting the target causes the fire damage to Flare up just like a campfire will flare up when a gust of wind blows extra oxygen onto it, thus burning it's full duration all at once.
Now this is just an example of the Shaman using his State manipulation abilities to assist himself by first casting Headwinds and then their Fire based spell to capitalize. But other classes will also have abilities that can benefit from these kinds of States. For example, a Summoner may have a Pebble Storm spell which causes Damage over Time on a target by pelting them with shards of rock. But when cast on an enemy who is 'Windswept' this causes those Pebbles to speed up in that buffeting wind and cause double damage per tick.
So now... the Shaman + Summoner combo can make that Pebble Storm spell much more efficient. Yet when there is no Shaman around the Summoner may find a different spell more useful that might synergize with a different memeber of the group who causes an totally different 'State' in the target.
They showcased all this in a stream from: April 2020.
There are so many options they can add. There are dozens of different 'States' they have planned already.
I think alot of what the OP is going for is also embedded in the LAS. I assume you will have those choices to choose from in setting up the LAS and if not optimal, the spell set itself bleeds over into each other enough that you can adapt to what is there. Especially considering the bonus charge-up boost that is artfully displayed in the small and unobtrusive heads up display under the characters name and health/mana/etc bars.
So, while you discover Ice is not the best, and have your whopper ice spell taking up a slot. You can zing the lighter fire spells you have in most of your slots and in so doing charge up the...thing...and flop the doozy of a fire spell with a somewhat manageable cool-down. So instead of consistent Howitzer fire, you have the careful and lengthy M50's and then charge up the 8inch "crater-maker" but which takes a while to re-load.
I don't think EVERY single encounter needs to be 100% designed to be uniquely engaging. It would be so incredibly time consuming to create extremely specific blueprints for each individual PVE battle on a class by class basis. Sure, there could absolutely be elements that change the difficulty of battle if managed/mismanaged properly.
As other have discussed, the idea of mixing different combinations of class abilities through synergy make the gameplay more than a button rotation smasher.
The Wizard example of mana conservation is kind of a weird one to use. The way the class plays at it's core should be engaging regardless of the specific encounter. A better example would be something like an ice bolt attack having synergy with another classes timed ability. Timing these spells in order to deal more damage or cause a powerful debuff make battles inherently engaging. The Shaman / Summoner example Joppa talked about is kinda where I'm going with this. There are many different configurations of class groups and skills that could be utilized this way to keep things interesting.
I think that strategic gameplay goes beyond encounter design. True strategic gameplay involves accessing your team's weaknesses and conditions at all times.
(These examples are reasons that you might want to burst)
Example: You have 2 mobs on your tank. Your tank is at 50% hp and your healer is almost out of mana. One mob is at 50% hp the other mob is at 80% hp. You have the ability to blow up the mob at 50% hp, but you would only be able to drop the mob at 80% to 30%. What do you do?
Answer: You blow up the 50% mob and reduce the incoming damage on the tank. This will hopefully allow the healer to get enough mana to save the tank while the team works on dispatching the 80% mob.
Dispositions are also something that will need to be considered. I think it's been said that mobs may have hidden dispositions that only activate once specific conditions are met.
Examples: The avenging disposition can activate when an enemy mob dies near another enemy mob. This disposition causes that mob to enrage. Once this disposition has been activated, this mob will probably need to be focused down fairly quickly. There is also a mana-crazed disposition that was mentioned in the past. This disposition basically ignores threat generation and targets party members who have mana. It is another disposition that would need to be taken out fast.
I think that choosing if and when to burst, is an element of strategic gameplay that is going to come down to the encounter and player judgment. A good player is going to be able to weigh the pros and cons of bursting vs sustaining. There are also supposed to be quick load-outs that will allow players to quickly change abilities before combat. This can help if you know your current loadout isn't suited for a specific encounter.
I shan't touch on what many others have posted regarding what's already planned, but I will list a few suggestions that can better be handled by burst or sustained since we want many different challenges.
Burst preferred:
Sustained preferred: