Dekaden said:Liav said:I think EQ did this best, believe it or not.
Good interplay between class abilities is more implicit in the combat system than it is explicit.
Examples of what I mean by "implicit" (from EQ):
- Not breaking mezzes with attacks
- Shamans using Malo to prolong the duration/success of Charm spells
- Holding your largest burst Disciplines/Abilities until you see the approprioate supplemental effects used (Shaman epic 2.0 click, etc.)
This is as opposed to a more explicit system, such as:
- Weaknesses in Vanguard - A secondary effect tied to specific abilities that will add supplemental effects to other specific abilities, either from the same or different classes
- Combos that require a specific ability/series of abilities to be used constantly to optimize performance
I think the biggest argument I have against explicit ability synergy is that it allows for less nuance in the way you play, instead opting for a more rigid system.
Agreed 100%. Implicit > Explicit. Let us find the "combos" and use them for the benefit they provide rather than because there is a UI mechanic telling us what to do. Less playing the UI, more playing Pantheon, IMO. If the devs create the environment for implicit spells to synergize, we'll figure it out what works best. We're smart players. No need to hold hands or put a box around the process for us -- it just makes the game feel more guided and artifical.
I have to say................ I dont really understand this Implicit vs Explicit argument. To me what Liav is basically saying no deeper levels (explicit) and to just keep normal gameplay (implicit). Or maybe its because XI had both of these. But I would consider any of the bold section or anything involving situational awareness or class interaction there completely NORMAL gameplay and things like skill chains just an additional layer. So what? Just keep normal gameplay because you dont like skillchains and what not? Because if thats the case just say it that way. Afterall I fully expect all the things and more like it that you mention in your "Implicit" section to be par for the course at this point.
Amsai said:I have to say................ I dont really understand this Implicit vs Explicit argument. To me what Liav is basically saying no deeper levels (explicit) and to just keep normal gameplay (implicit). Or maybe its because XI had both of these. But I would consider any of the bold section or anything involving situational awareness or class interaction there completely NORMAL gameplay and things like skill chains just an additional layer. So what? Just keep normal gameplay because you dont like skillchains and what not? Because if thats the case just say it that way. Afterall I fully expect all the things and more like it that you mention in your "Implicit" section to be par for the course at this point.
Maybe think of it more of active versus passive forms of cooperative play. While implicit isn't totally passive, its more about knowing how to play with other classes rather than actively watching and responding to particular abilities.
Personally, I want both. I'd love to see logical combinations of class abilities that we have to actively watch for. A wizard may have a Chill effect on a Frost nuke that he uses prior to his Ice comet; Instead of it only benefiting the wizard's personal spell, I think it should enhance everyone's cold-based abilities. A rogue should know to then also use his Icy Shank or a shaman his Blizzard blast. I think its also a more active combat system like this that will ultimately discourage boxing the most.
I don't really know if it would discourage boxing seeing as the effects would likely be supplemental at best, not necessary mandatory.
Vanguard had the Weakness system and while I think it was sorta weakly implemented it didn't really seem to improve the gameplay much. What Dullahan is describing sounds more akin to implicit imo.
When I think of "skill chain" I think of things like the horrible Heroic Opportunity system from EQ2, not just "use cold abilities when the mob is cold debuffed".
viirin said:
Wolfsong said:
Limit Breaks in XIV... eh. In all my time playing, I think I've seen a non-DPS limit break used exactly once.. and that was the healer using it for mass heals. Have never seen the tank LB in use. Not a fan of that system, really.
In my experience, non-DPS limit breaks aren't THAT rare, and there are definite times when a healer limit break is necessary (the L3 full party rez can save a party from certain defeat)... but your point is a good one, FFXIV limit breaks don't add much dynamic to gameplay, because a party that is doing the fight correctly and not making mistakes never has a reason to do anything but the DPS LB.
To be fair this isn't strictly true. There are a few boss fights in XIV where Tank L3 LBs are actually required to survive the insane AoE DPS the boss does in certain forms. Not that that's good game design mind you.
Liav said:I don't really know if it would discourage boxing seeing as the effects would likely be supplemental at best, not necessary mandatory.
Vanguard had the Weakness system and while I think it was sorta weakly implemented it didn't really seem to improve the gameplay much. What Dullahan is describing sounds more akin to implicit imo.
When I think of "skill chain" I think of things like the horrible Heroic Opportunity system from EQ2, not just "use cold abilities when the mob is cold debuffed".
I personally don't see any problem with skill chaining as long as it's more complex than a simple QTE. You could have each skill be labeled as odd, or an even, or a x3 or something of the sort and keep a counter on the mob so that matching the type of skill to the number shown could increase/change the number. Then you could have tiered rewards based on the number of successes including anything from bonus damage to bonus exp to extra loot. Players would still need to respect the abilities of other classes but can get bonus rewards for playing into the system. If you need to backstab why not wait until the number goes up a few, saccrificing pure DPS for more rewards (including the possibility of more DPS on the next backstab)?
Mostly because those types of combat mechanics tend to run antithetical to gameplay like EQ, where communication and such is desired and mandatory. Instead of playing the game you're just staring at your user interface to make sure you're mashing the right buttons.
It seems like exactly the kind of gameplay that a lot of people here would oppose because of the potentially "spammy" nature of it. That isn't to say that such a system necessarily precludes spammy gameplay, just that it has a reasonable potential to become that way.
EQ had implicit indicators that you should do something, but it didn't tell you what to do. You'd see "A lizard justicar begins to cast a spell", and a blue alteration graphic would start swirling around it. The game didn't pop up an icon on your screen that said SLAM or highlight your stun spell. You had to make the connection yourself. There's no need to be told explicitly what to do. Let people with situational awareness, experience, teamwork and communication figure out what to do and when to do it. The whole tank triggers ability 3-> dps triggers ablitity 2 -> healer triggers ablity 5 -> caster's next nuke is enhanced chaining is horrible and has no place in a game like this.
I don't like the idea of EQ2 Heroic Opportunities per say and the inherent Quick Time Event nature of them.
I think the best idea is something from FFXIV and the black mage class. They had spells where they would interplay between them by casting Fire spells and then switching to Ice and then back to Fire. This was used for a rotational basis for mana regen, but the concept could apply to the group dynamic.
If you have a Wizard casting a fire spell they might be susceptible to an ice spell from another wizard/druid/etc. Probably not something as overt as a debuff on the mob, but just something that if you cast an ice spell after a fire spell was used it might be just a bit stronger. The key would it would need to involve different characters instead of just a solo player to be effective.
In the Pantheon playset this might lend itself to the colored mana scheme the most. Someone using a Red mana spell followed by a Blue mana spell having an effect. Make it more intersting then just increased damage by adding a status effect to the mob due to the teamwork of the party such as a stun, slow, or other detrimental effect. Nothing in the user interface should specifically call out what is happening so that skilled groups can see something interesting happen and start asking each other what happened to discover the cause and effect. Randomness could be interjected such that maybe both of the spells need to be crits (back to back) for the effect to trigger, balanced around crit chances of course.
I love the Idea of chains like in FFXI. I really don't see why people are against this since it adds more depth to game play. In XI there were many ways to use the chains to do damage of different types. So you had to know which one (and there were a lot) and when to use it.
There seems to be some confusion/misunderstanding from some about exactly what Skillchains were in FFXI, or how they worked. It's understandable, particularly if someone never played XI, or did, but never really used them. On the other hand, some people are painting them with a negative connotation, characterizing them in ways that are not accurate at all.
Some of the replies/arguments seem to amount to "Something that would encourage players to pay attention, communicate and coordinate with other party members, above and beyond the typical/normal interaction, adding more variety and options to the game? No, I don't like that, so I don't want it in the game". Very odd.
Anyway, here's some points about FFXI's SCs, in particular - in no specific order.
1. Skillchains were not mandatory. They were optional. A group could very well defeat most any encounter without them. However, they *did* speed things up, and it was pretty darn satisfying to see a mob's health go down by 1/3 to 1/2 of its HP bar (depending on its strength) with a well-used SC.
2. Typically, a group would decide if they wanted to do SC's or not early in the group. Since all mobs in XI are aligned with an element, it would be decided which SCs could be used, based on what classes were in the group, and what WSs they had available. It would be decided, the WS order would be defined, and then it was just a matter of waiting for everyone to have enough TP, and then the opener would begin the chain, usually announcing it in chat via a macro that included some kind of sound-effect the game provided (no one really used voice chat yet back then).
If some people weren't interested, or comfortable with doing an organized SC, then it could fall to the individuals to simply throw in the right WS at the right time and create SCs anyway. I did that a lot. If the group hadn't specified what SCs we wanted to do against related mobs, I'd simply watch and see what Weapon Skills were being used by other players, and then choose the right one to follow-up with on my character, for the best effect. I didn't *have* to, but I enjoyed doing it, so I did. And, of course, no one ever complained about it :).
3. It was mentioned by someone that they didn't want to spend their time looking at their interface. Well, good news. You didn't have to. As I said in the previous point, in FFXI's case, macros could be made including sounds that would alert the party that the SC was being started. Of course, such alerts could be used for myriad other things, too. Pullers used them a lot, too.
Then, since each Weapon Skill had its own distinct visuals and sound effects, you would know when it was started just by watching the fight, and/or listening for it. If you were next, you'd simply count to 3, and then hit your WS. Voila... Skill Chain. If a Black Mage was there, they could close it with a Magic Burst, which would produce even more damage output. Again, it was very satisfying, and not at all a hassle to do, but with an awesome payoff. Just required a little bit of situational awareness, and good timing - the ability to pay attention, and count to 3, basically.
4. Regarding their usefulness. Well aside from helping mob HP drop significantly faster, they could be a life-saver in some situations. Say, if adds linked on during a pull, being able to successfully pull off a good SC/MB could turn the tide of a fight that was otherwise not going well. I'd been in many where we had adds that were slept, or not (spell missed or was resisted, etc), and so getting those mobs down as fast as possible so we could move on to the adds was critical. LB/MB were a big help in those situations. Not mandatory - most situations could be salvaged if players were on their toes enough, but having SCs available made a huge difference.
5. It made the fight that much more enjoyable seeing those Skillchain effects go off, nevermind a Magic Burst if a BLM closed the combo. The visual and aural feedback from a SC/MB alone was awesome, on top of seeing that mob's HP bar drop substantially. It just never got old. As someone else said earlier in the thread, a group that pulled them off consistently felt like a well-oiled machine, which also added to the enjoyment. You'd get into a group like that and, even if it was hours later, you just did not want it to end.
6. Someone made a comparison between "Implicit" and "Explicit" interaction earlier. I understand the concern, but it should be understood that the two were not mutually exclusive in XI, and a similar setup needn't be in Pantheon, either. All of the coordination, crowd-control, hate management, etc. etc... all the nuance that goes on in a standard encounter also existed in FFXI fights. FFXI just offered the additional option to utilize players' Weapon Skills in a way that would make them even more powerful than they were already. So it needn't be a matter of 'either or'. It can be, and should be, both. SC's didn't replace normal party dynamics and communication, etc. It augmented and enhanced them.
7. As for them being "QTEs". No. Just no, flat out. Not even close. For one thing, the pacing of SCs was not that fast. Like I said earlier, each person after the starter had a 3 or so second window to use their attack after the previous one was used. For another, if the timing was off and the SC wasn't successful... oh well! The worst that happened was you didn't get the extra effect and the additional damage spike. No one died, and you still got the combined damage from the separate Weapon Skills. Plus, if the fight was long enough for people to get enough TP back, you could try it again. There was really no down-side to using them.
On another note, frankly.. I freaking hate QTEs, and try to avoid any game that makes use of them. Still, I loved SCs in XI, and have really missed not having them in other MMOs I've played.
So, hopefully, that cleared up any misunderstandings of exactly what SC's were in FFXI, and how they worked.
I like skill chains because they can add depth and complexity to group combat. But EQ2's heroic opportunities were too much. I'd like for them to exist but they also have to be subtle. I don't want to have to wait for this big graphic in my UI to light up and basically count down for me when to play my part.
I like how VG handled it with their sympathy system (I believe that's what it was called). Basically as group members used abilities, certain skills would place a weakness on the mob and another member could exploit that weakness with certain skills they had in their repertoire. Unlike EQ2's HO where there were these huge chains where players joined in on their turn and could ultimately screw up the entire chain altogether, in VG you just had to pay attnetion to the subtle clues and exploit when given the chance. I admit they weren't these gigantic chained abilities with huge finishers. They were just simple little combos players could use to cause greater effect in group which was not attainable while solo.
What I remember about EQ2 HO's was making situations in which you became obligated to the same combo over and over again because anything else was less fruitful. I remember at the very start of the raiding game a combo could be done which gave everyone in the party mana. We did that same combo ever chance we could for the entire raid which could be like 20+ of the same HO back to back.
Even in the experience groups you would run into groups where they just wanted you so you could complete the HO and your only real job was to finish it for some bonus DD. Again you run into having to cast the same thing over and over because it yields the best outcome.
Like others have said I would rather just play my own character alongside my team mates and make my own decisions about how I might help them the best. Having any kind of joint UI mechanic feels lame to me. Like adding a mini game during combat.
Liav Stated:
Mostly because those types of combat mechanics tend to run antithetical to gameplay like EQ, where communication and such is desired and mandatory. Instead of playing the game you're just staring at your user interface to make sure you're mashing the right buttons.
It seems like exactly the kind of gameplay that a lot of people here would oppose because of the potentially "spammy" nature of it. That isn't to say that such a system necessarily precludes spammy gameplay, just that it has a reasonable potential to become that way.
I agree totally here. It is a slippery slope. The question is how do you implament and balance something like this without turning it into a keymashing mess?
Ox
X
Once in a while occurances of a group based chain where you can let people know it's coming and be ready to use your chaining ability seems OK. Sounds like what was in FFXI. Gives a boost for a named mob or just to kill a trash mob faster every now and then. Keeps it fresh and doesn't allow for the spammy nature referenced above. Perhaps a long internal cooldown would help.
FierinaFuryfist said:Once in a while occurances of a group based chain where you can let people know it's coming and be ready to use your chaining ability seems OK. Sounds like what was in FFXI. Gives a boost for a named mob or just to kill a trash mob faster every now and then. Keeps it fresh and doesn't allow for the spammy nature referenced above. Perhaps a long internal cooldown would help.
Good point! Doen't this still use the same mechanic?
Ox
Never once in my whole time of playing EQ2 did I see anyone ever use the stupid HO wheel. Not once. What I did enjoy was the way that Guild Wars 2 did it...If a caster put a wall of fire on the ground and a ranger shot an arrow through it there was added fire damage (or Blindness for smoke, etc etc)...
Liav said:I think EQ did this best, believe it or not.
Good interplay between class abilities is more implicit in the combat system than it is explicit.
Examples of what I mean by "implicit" (from EQ):
- Not breaking mezzes with attacks
- Shamans using Malo to prolong the duration/success of Charm spells
- Holding your largest burst Disciplines/Abilities until you see the approprioate supplemental effects used (Shaman epic 2.0 click, etc.)
This is as opposed to a more explicit system, such as:
- Weaknesses in Vanguard - A secondary effect tied to specific abilities that will add supplemental effects to other specific abilities, either from the same or different classes
- Combos that require a specific ability/series of abilities to be used constantly to optimize performance
I think the biggest argument I have against explicit ability synergy is that it allows for less nuance in the way you play, instead opting for a more rigid system.
I just couldn't agree more :)
Great thread!
We defintely want symbiotic moves and spells and such. Unfortunately I can't dive any deeper with you guys right now because we need to focus on individual abilities and spells right now and this stuff needs to be built on top of a solid individual system and implementation.
Aradune said:Great thread!
We defintely want symbiotic moves and spells and such. Unfortunately I can't dive any deeper with you guys right now because we need to focus on individual abilities and spells right now and this stuff needs to be built on top of a solid individual system and implementation.
Let us know what you can when you can. This will be interesting to see how this unfolds. In anycase this is part of the adventure and its going to be fun!
Ox
I guess skill chains would not matter if a mob undergoes different resillences throughout the fight or counters certain types of magics, keeping the fight dynamic. The mob would have subtle indicators you would have to pick up on as a group.
This will take on a whole new meaning if your casting is extended or deminished while moving. I would certainly hope fights cause you to be situationally correct.
Say you fight a rock monster and he posts underneath a rocky overhang. As you fight him he moves around and eventually stomps the ground, causing falling boulders from above. You would certainly have to look up at this moment, especially if the boulders do significat damage. Now he might be naturally immune to earth type spells which you would have to know or scout ahead of time. I would imagine he would have other cool abilities that would keep you on your toes, like rock piling a group member to which you would have to melee them out. It is these types of fun encounters I hope we see.. It would be much harder to skill combo anything if you had to be situationally aware. WoW actually did this well (DID I ACTUALLY SAY THAT??) WoW had some really creative raid fights, one thing I miss.
Dekaden said:Liav said:I think EQ did this best, believe it or not.
Good interplay between class abilities is more implicit in the combat system than it is explicit.
Examples of what I mean by "implicit" (from EQ):
- Not breaking mezzes with attacks
- Shamans using Malo to prolong the duration/success of Charm spells
- Holding your largest burst Disciplines/Abilities until you see the approprioate supplemental effects used (Shaman epic 2.0 click, etc.)
This is as opposed to a more explicit system, such as:
- Weaknesses in Vanguard - A secondary effect tied to specific abilities that will add supplemental effects to other specific abilities, either from the same or different classes
- Combos that require a specific ability/series of abilities to be used constantly to optimize performance
I think the biggest argument I have against explicit ability synergy is that it allows for less nuance in the way you play, instead opting for a more rigid system.
Agreed 100%. Implicit > Explicit. Let us find the "combos" and use them for the benefit they provide rather than because there is a UI mechanic telling us what to do. Less playing the UI, more playing Pantheon, IMO. If the devs create the environment for implicit spells to synergize, we'll figure it out what works best. We're smart players. No need to hold hands or put a box around the process for us -- it just makes the game feel more guided and artifical.
I also agree 100% Let the players decide what works best with the experience gained from battle. Freedom from linked battles and linked spell combos would be nice. I want to see the classes at work and the ingenuity of the players. Please, please, don't put some goofy ass wheel of selection or something up on the screen spinning around and ruining my day. :)
Vandraad said:Are you referring to the Heroic Opportunities? Unless everyone in the group was really into those things they were just useless spam and rarely would I find a group that paid any attention to them. Such mechanics were affected greatly not only by high latency but also people hitting wrong buttons and screwing up the chain. Someone triggers and two people smach some button and the chain fails. I do not want my spells or abilities to be affected by someone elses inability to pay attention.
This was interesting to me.
While I understand your concern when it comes to having to rely on others performance, isn't that what this game is all about? Cooperative gameplay?
Yes, heroic opportunities in EQ2 were a waste of time. I'm not saying they should implement that system. But a skill chain in general, where you need to rely on your groupmates to succeed? I don't really see the harm in that. In fact, it sounds pretty awesome to me. That feeling of accomplishment when everyone in your group is just clicking with eachother. That synergy. It's a beautiful thing.
I'm pro skill-chain. Just make them something worth doing, and not just for increased DPS or burst damage.
Maybe a skill chain will increase the duration of the enchanters mezzes for 60 seconds.
Increases mana regen for a short time
Maybe one is a Luck of the Dice move. It could have beneficial, or detrimental effects.
Maybe one is a AOE Force Taunt that the tank starts.
Or it decreases the range of the mobs AoE attacks
The possibilities are endless, and I will never say no to a mechanic that could increase combat options.
-Tralyan
the problem with this, in everquest 2 especially they had way too many classes and people were so connected with their 50 spells and its such a problem when it comes with balancing i would recommend against it.
if it would be considered small bonuses to heal, mana or damage or ac should not change in percentage of what you cast but a direct number associated with your level.
