Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Skill bar "availability" suggestion

    • 1714 posts
    December 20, 2019 11:57 PM PST

    Gameplay is what matters. When things get tedious, and they will, as much as we're all going to play, having to swap ablities in and out "all the time" in the name of strategy I think is a hollow argument that will be a net negative. Given the disadvantages a small team like VR already has, I doubt they have it in them to make a limited action set a meaningful part of gameplay. What is more important, imo, is to not inflate the number of abilities in the first place. Less is more in this case, and if that's the path they take, it lessens the importance of this argument. Don't spam watered down skills at us, and we won't need to worry so much about having 10 slots or 20. And don't spend precious, precious resources on some strategy angle with the LAS that is likely going to lead directly to tedium. On paper people think it's fun to have to prepare for basic fights, but this isn't a D&D game(anymore), we're going to be repeating the same encounters over and over. Penalizing a group because a bard had fire resist song up instead of poison and the mob randomly spawned with the "wrong" one isn't fun. Give us our abilities and let us use them, but don't water them down so we need WOW style 80 slots. Just let us play. 


    This post was edited by Keno Monster at December 21, 2019 12:08 AM PST
    • 413 posts
    December 21, 2019 4:57 AM PST

    Keno Monster said:

    Gameplay is what matters. When things get tedious, and they will, as much as we're all going to play, having to swap ablities in and out "all the time" in the name of strategy I think is a hollow argument that will be a net negative. Given the disadvantages a small team like VR already has, I doubt they have it in them to make a limited action set a meaningful part of gameplay. What is more important, imo, is to not inflate the number of abilities in the first place. Less is more in this case, and if that's the path they take, it lessens the importance of this argument. Don't spam watered down skills at us, and we won't need to worry so much about having 10 slots or 20. And don't spend precious, precious resources on some strategy angle with the LAS that is likely going to lead directly to tedium. On paper people think it's fun to have to prepare for basic fights, but this isn't a D&D game(anymore), we're going to be repeating the same encounters over and over. Penalizing a group because a bard had fire resist song up instead of poison and the mob randomly spawned with the "wrong" one isn't fun. Give us our abilities and let us use them, but don't water them down so we need WOW style 80 slots. Just let us play. 

    Yeah this isn't D&D any more and the evolution of MMORPGs took a bad turn.  That a bigger discussion though.  Having a bunch of choices to choose from is fun.   Planning and preparation is fun.  Winning a battle with planning and preparation statagy and tactics is rewarding.  Observing your target's nature and tactics, then adapting, changing and defeating them is fun.  Losing a battle, then prepare, equip and adapt a new statagy, communicate that statagy to the group, then winning the battle is super rewarding.

    When you must make choices for a given battle it is more realistic.  For example: Encumbrance should be something to deal with.   Swimming in heavy armor should be a problem.  Maybe you have to have a breath underwater spell and walk the bottom of a underwater cave if you have heavy armor on.  Climbing, how high does your climbing skill have to be to climb in heavy armor?  How high should your strength be to climb in heavy armor?  Where do find the balance?

    EQ was not a MMORPG, but it helped to spawned the birth of MMORPGs and it was down-hill ever since, even though technology, graphics and networking protocols got better.  Why?  Because the focus shifted from creating a realistic virtual worlds to creating a them park MMORPG.

    You create a virtual world, with it's own set of physics, laws of magic, creatures and biomes.  Give the player a limited set of tools, friends and ingenuity.  Let the players figure out to adapt to the world around them. That is what made EQ great.
     
    Adapting the world around the player is asking for failure.  Such as, being able to access all abilites in a single instance.

     


    This post was edited by Zevlin at December 21, 2019 5:05 AM PST
    • 1479 posts
    December 21, 2019 6:19 AM PST

    Caine said:

    EQ was not a MMORPG, but it helped to spawned the birth of MMORPGs and it was down-hill ever since, even though technology, graphics and networking protocols got better. 

     

    Where does this even come from ? how could one of the game defining the MMORPG genre be tagged as "not one" ?


    This post was edited by Mauvais_Oeil at December 21, 2019 6:19 AM PST
    • 245 posts
    December 21, 2019 8:26 AM PST

    disposalist said:

    This discussion has happened a few times. To me, it comes down to balancing planning and dynamism, strategy and variety and which you prefer. It's one of a very few things I disagree with VR about (though, of course, it isn't finalised yet).

    Limited ability slot systems lead to frustration for me. Any skill needed rarely would be used even more rarely (or never) because you just don't load them up unless you are absolutely sure they are about to be needed. And if you *do* know you need them, it's hardly a big strategic choice to load them. You are just choosing what good ability *not* to load in their favour. All very negative.

    It is very frustrating to get new skills and know you will possibly never use them, even if you come across the rare situation they would be useful, because you never ordinarily have them loaded.

    I vastly prefer the challenge of learning all my skills and having to choose from them all appropriately in a pressured (combat) situation, to getting into a combat and realising you would have a much better time with some abilities you don't have loaded.

    Having said that, if the skills are designed well, you won't need 100 slots, but 12 is too few.

    VR need to take a good hard look at this idea and decide if the 'planning' related to a limited toolbar is worth the frustration of having skills that you've earned and need be unavailable. There is still plenty of planning and strategy in combat without limiting variety and utility (and some would say 'fun').

    Also, designing encounters to be challenging with limited toolbars has got to be much harder. If they design them with non-optimal toolbars in mind, they will tend to be too easy for those that are prepared/experienced and if they design them with optimal toolbars in mind they will tend to be too hard and stifle exploration and risk-taking.  To design them knowing exactly what skills people have available has got to be much easier and better?

     

    You have a personal preference to have all your abilities available because you don't want to or feel incapable of making ability choices.

    Your point about encounter design makes no sense. How is it possibly easier to make tricky encounters when you assume all classes have constant access to all their abilities compared to if they only had a limited selection?

     

    • 3237 posts
    December 21, 2019 8:48 AM PST

    There are several more recent threads where this topic was discussed:

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10688/concern-regarding-number-of-abilities/

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/9899/should-spells-buffs-persist-after-removed-from-bar/

    I'm glad that we're finally at the point where the viability of the LAS is being questioned from a design perspective.  It was never set in stone anyway.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at December 21, 2019 8:48 AM PST
    • 1428 posts
    December 21, 2019 9:48 AM PST

    with las12, there's less player expression, meaning the difference between two healers is their prep and resource management.

     

    what about execution?

    we all can agree that pantheon combat is much slower pace than many mmos out there(this is perfectly fine), however, there should be more ways for individuality to shine through.  otherwise, we end up with a playstyle in which the class drives the player and not vice versa.

     

    here's a simple apm test

    https://www.arealme.com/apm-actions-per-minute-test/en/

    i clock in at 144, 142, 162(trying really hard)

    i'm probably considered above average(professional gamers clock in at 200+apm and yes even 10 apm makes a difference)

    one thing to consider is that certain classes, regardless of las12, will demand a bit more apm, healers and ccers come to mind.  let's just say that the hardest of encounters with a high apm class peaks out at 60apm.  it's not going to be engaging after the first time or if i have knowledge on the encounters.  with how easy information flows on the internet now, these things will become trivial pretty quickly.(basically i'm going to be in a relaxed or bored state because the influence i have is limited and out of my hands)

     

    i would say take deeper look into and define what execution is with an las12 locked in.

    we could say resource management, on fly decision making, timing, coordination.  in the case of slower combat, the thing that stands out is timing.

    timing with cast times, instant casts, cooldowns and gcd are things i'd look into as a designer.

     

    after watching the 12/12 stream- how they folded the warrior banners into the las12- and observing the combat, i really think they need to put gcds in.

    • 413 posts
    December 21, 2019 10:28 AM PST

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Caine said:

    EQ was not a MMORPG, but it helped to spawned the birth of MMORPGs and it was down-hill ever since, even though technology, graphics and networking protocols got better. 

     

    Where does this even come from ? how could one of the game defining the MMORPG genre be tagged as "not one" ?

    Because when Brad and the Sony team created EQ it was basically it's own thing.  it was not base on some MMORPG template.  Sure there were other influences, but the term MMORPG did not exist.  Creating a virtual world was first and foremost.  Now, you have fan bases where players advocate and basically "Lobby" their preferences and play styles.  Everyone wants "their thing" in the game.  
     
    VR should create a virtual world with it's own set of dynamic systems.  Just let it be it's own thing.  In this way it can't be wrong.  Balancing and patching will happen as the game-play evolves and as players find really cool ways to tackle the PvE.
     
    Let something new happen again.   Instead of creating the same old garbage that I (and many of my close friends) get bored with in a month.
    • 2752 posts
    December 21, 2019 1:42 PM PST

    Caine said:

    Because when Brad and the Sony team created EQ it was basically it's own thing.  it was not base on some MMORPG template.  Sure there were other influences, but the term MMORPG did not exist.  Creating a virtual world was first and foremost.  Now, you have fan bases where players advocate and basically "Lobby" their preferences and play styles.  Everyone wants "their thing" in the game.  
     
    VR should create a virtual world with it's own set of dynamic systems.  Just let it be it's own thing.  In this way it can't be wrong.  Balancing and patching will happen as the game-play evolves and as players find really cool ways to tackle the PvE.
     
    Let something new happen again.   Instead of creating the same old garbage that I (and many of my close friends) get bored with in a month.

    Really? Wow. Someone should probably go back in time and tell them to take "massively multiplayer online fantasy roleplaying game" off the original EQ box then.

    • 370 posts
    December 21, 2019 1:43 PM PST

    Iksar said:

    Caine said:

    Because when Brad and the Sony team created EQ it was basically it's own thing.  it was not base on some MMORPG template.  Sure there were other influences, but the term MMORPG did not exist.  Creating a virtual world was first and foremost.  Now, you have fan bases where players advocate and basically "Lobby" their preferences and play styles.  Everyone wants "their thing" in the game.  
     
    VR should create a virtual world with it's own set of dynamic systems.  Just let it be it's own thing.  In this way it can't be wrong.  Balancing and patching will happen as the game-play evolves and as players find really cool ways to tackle the PvE.
     
    Let something new happen again.   Instead of creating the same old garbage that I (and many of my close friends) get bored with in a month.

    Really? Wow. Someone should probably go back in time and tell them to take "massively multiplayer online fantasy roleplaying game" off the original EQ box then.

     

    Yeah I don't know what someone is trying to accomplish by claiming EQ wasn't a MMORPG. That doesn't make sense. 

    • 413 posts
    December 21, 2019 2:06 PM PST

    I am real sure that during the developement and design phaze they were not thinking in the same terms as MMORPGs that we know today.  Don't have to take my word on in.  Brad did an interview about when he first started working on it.  Yes you can go a head and pick fly poop out of pepper if you like.  But the bottom line is MMORPGs of today are not that good.  If you using today's MMORPG as a template, you will probally make a crap game.  Virtual Worlds are better than creating MMOs  it a particular mind set.

     

    I sure someone will post the interview.  I am cooking tacos now.

    • 1428 posts
    December 21, 2019 3:14 PM PST

    Caine said:

    I am real sure that during the developement and design phaze they were not thinking in the same terms as MMORPGs that we know today.  Don't have to take my word on in.  Brad did an interview about when he first started working on it.  Yes you can go a head and pick fly poop out of pepper if you like.  But the bottom line is MMORPGs of today are not that good.  If you using today's MMORPG as a template, you will probally make a crap game.  Virtual Worlds are better than creating MMOs  it a particular mind set.

     

    I sure someone will post the interview.  I am cooking tacos now.

    this is straying off topic from what i wanted to discuss.

    i think what you mean is that brad and friends, when they made eq, didn't intend to label the game as an mmorpg.

    what you are trying to say is that vr and friends shouldn't conform to the current poopstorm of a mmorpg and do their own thing without the constraints of the defined genre.

    essentially, vr the music makers and vr the dreamers of dreams.

    basically what caine said was taken out of context. 

    hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding.  thoughts on skill bar?


    This post was edited by NoJuiceViscosity at December 21, 2019 3:20 PM PST
    • 379 posts
    December 21, 2019 6:14 PM PST

    Keno Monster said:

    Gameplay is what matters. When things get tedious, and they will, as much as we're all going to play, having to swap ablities in and out "all the time" in the name of strategy I think is a hollow argument that will be a net negative. Given the disadvantages a small team like VR already has, I doubt they have it in them to make a limited action set a meaningful part of gameplay. What is more important, imo, is to not inflate the number of abilities in the first place. Less is more in this case, and if that's the path they take, it lessens the importance of this argument. Don't spam watered down skills at us, and we won't need to worry so much about having 10 slots or 20. And don't spend precious, precious resources on some strategy angle with the LAS that is likely going to lead directly to tedium. On paper people think it's fun to have to prepare for basic fights, but this isn't a D&D game(anymore), we're going to be repeating the same encounters over and over. Penalizing a group because a bard had fire resist song up instead of poison and the mob randomly spawned with the "wrong" one isn't fun. Give us our abilities and let us use them, but don't water them down so we need WOW style 80 slots. Just let us play. 

    Quoted for truth. As I said in my reply - Class design, encounter (npc's) design, environment/dungeon design, & combat mechanics are what make it challenging (and fun). Swapping spells for buffing or for zone situations all the time isn't challenging or fun, just as Keno said, "let us play".

    • 1714 posts
    December 21, 2019 7:01 PM PST

    Caine said:

    Keno Monster said:

    Gameplay is what matters. When things get tedious, and they will, as much as we're all going to play, having to swap ablities in and out "all the time" in the name of strategy I think is a hollow argument that will be a net negative. Given the disadvantages a small team like VR already has, I doubt they have it in them to make a limited action set a meaningful part of gameplay. What is more important, imo, is to not inflate the number of abilities in the first place. Less is more in this case, and if that's the path they take, it lessens the importance of this argument. Don't spam watered down skills at us, and we won't need to worry so much about having 10 slots or 20. And don't spend precious, precious resources on some strategy angle with the LAS that is likely going to lead directly to tedium. On paper people think it's fun to have to prepare for basic fights, but this isn't a D&D game(anymore), we're going to be repeating the same encounters over and over. Penalizing a group because a bard had fire resist song up instead of poison and the mob randomly spawned with the "wrong" one isn't fun. Give us our abilities and let us use them, but don't water them down so we need WOW style 80 slots. Just let us play. 

    Yeah this isn't D&D any more and the evolution of MMORPGs took a bad turn.  That a bigger discussion though.  Having a bunch of choices to choose from is fun.   Planning and preparation is fun.  Winning a battle with planning and preparation statagy and tactics is rewarding.  Observing your target's nature and tactics, then adapting, changing and defeating them is fun.  Losing a battle, then prepare, equip and adapt a new statagy, communicate that statagy to the group, then winning the battle is super rewarding.

    When you must make choices for a given battle it is more realistic.  For example: Encumbrance should be something to deal with.   Swimming in heavy armor should be a problem.  Maybe you have to have a breath underwater spell and walk the bottom of a underwater cave if you have heavy armor on.  Climbing, how high does your climbing skill have to be to climb in heavy armor?  How high should your strength be to climb in heavy armor?  Where do find the balance?

    EQ was not a MMORPG, but it helped to spawned the birth of MMORPGs and it was down-hill ever since, even though technology, graphics and networking protocols got better.  Why?  Because the focus shifted from creating a realistic virtual worlds to creating a them park MMORPG.

    You create a virtual world, with it's own set of physics, laws of magic, creatures and biomes.  Give the player a limited set of tools, friends and ingenuity.  Let the players figure out to adapt to the world around them. That is what made EQ great.
     
    Adapting the world around the player is asking for failure.  Such as, being able to access all abilites in a single instance.

     

    I appreciate what you're saying.

    If we're in an area fighting wizards, we'll throw up our cold/fire/magic resists every half an hour and have at it. If we're fighting mobs that run, someone will snare. If we're fighting mobs that heal, people will use interrupts. If we're fighting mobs that can't be mezzed, people will root, or pull differently. However, if we're entering hour 3 of some camp, if I'm honest with myself, it is straight up not going to be fun to have to sit down and load up a different preset every other fight because I need 12 abilities but can only use 10. I don't feel like being made to choose between having an anti shaman spell up or an anti wizard spell up is a meaningful descision in an area full of shamans and wizards. It's just going to be annoying. It's going to be limiting for no reason other than in the name of "strategy". Everything needs to be done in the name of fun, and feeling like my character is being forced to be weaker is not fun, and neither is it fun gameplay to have to constantly be swapping abilities around. Of course we will need to learn the areas and encounters and deal with the different dispositions, but this isn't a single player game you can just reload and try something new, or a turn based game where you can sit and think for 90 seconds between rounds. The gameplay needs to reflect immediacy, imo. Reserve high level micro management for Civ and X-COM. 

    • 1399 posts
    December 21, 2019 7:34 PM PST

    Keno Monster said:

     However, if we're entering hour 3 of some camp, if I'm honest with myself, it is straight up not going to be fun to have to sit down and load up a different preset every other fight because I need 12 abilities but can only use 10. I don't feel like being made to choose between having an anti shaman spell up or an anti wizard spell up is a meaningful descision in an area full of shamans and wizards. It's just going to be annoying. It's going to be limiting for no reason other than in the name of "strategy". Everything needs to be done in the name of fun, and feeling like my character is being forced to be weaker is not fun, and neither is it fun gameplay to have to constantly be swapping abilities around. 

    This statement really concerns me. For many (you perhaps?) Predictable hack and slash is fun, for me, not so much. I find strategy fun, I find trial and error fun, I find unpredictability fun. Not so much being on the loosing side of any of those but when I finally come out on the winning side of them it's more than any "fun" no strategy hack and slash game out there (most of them) 

    I guess I could agree "Everything needs to be done in the name of fun" but VR needs to be careful defining what "fun" is. I want exceptional fun on occasion, not mediocre fun (read boring) all the time.

    • 1714 posts
    December 21, 2019 8:12 PM PST

    Zorkon said:

    Keno Monster said:

     However, if we're entering hour 3 of some camp, if I'm honest with myself, it is straight up not going to be fun to have to sit down and load up a different preset every other fight because I need 12 abilities but can only use 10. I don't feel like being made to choose between having an anti shaman spell up or an anti wizard spell up is a meaningful descision in an area full of shamans and wizards. It's just going to be annoying. It's going to be limiting for no reason other than in the name of "strategy". Everything needs to be done in the name of fun, and feeling like my character is being forced to be weaker is not fun, and neither is it fun gameplay to have to constantly be swapping abilities around. 

    This statement really concerns me. For many (you perhaps?) Predictable hack and slash is fun, for me, not so much. I find strategy fun, I find trial and error fun, I find unpredictability fun. Not so much being on the loosing side of any of those but when I finally come out on the winning side of them it's more than any "fun" no strategy hack and slash game out there (most of them) 

    I guess I could agree "Everything needs to be done in the name of fun" but VR needs to be careful defining what "fun" is. I want exceptional fun on occasion, not mediocre fun (read boring) all the time.

    I understand what you're saying and I knew someone would comment on that statement. 

    I don't think what makes MMOs fun is micromanagement. There are avenues towards strategic gameplay other than limiting what players can do. Don't stand in the fire, time your stuns, etc, etc. 

    If the game is going to be unpredictable, it's even more of an argument to have our full array of abilities available. Otherwise it's just a random luck of the draw punishment. You weren't a better player because you had root memorized instead of mez and the mob spawned on your group with the no CC disposition, you were just lucky. A meaningful decision to me is knowingly making a sacrifice, and that can be done other ways than with a LAS. 

    • 2756 posts
    December 22, 2019 4:14 AM PST

    Ezrael said:

    disposalist said:

    This discussion has happened a few times. To me, it comes down to balancing planning and dynamism, strategy and variety and which you prefer. It's one of a very few things I disagree with VR about (though, of course, it isn't finalised yet).

    Limited ability slot systems lead to frustration for me. Any skill needed rarely would be used even more rarely (or never) because you just don't load them up unless you are absolutely sure they are about to be needed. And if you *do* know you need them, it's hardly a big strategic choice to load them. You are just choosing what good ability *not* to load in their favour. All very negative.

    It is very frustrating to get new skills and know you will possibly never use them, even if you come across the rare situation they would be useful, because you never ordinarily have them loaded.

    I vastly prefer the challenge of learning all my skills and having to choose from them all appropriately in a pressured (combat) situation, to getting into a combat and realising you would have a much better time with some abilities you don't have loaded.

    Having said that, if the skills are designed well, you won't need 100 slots, but 12 is too few.

    VR need to take a good hard look at this idea and decide if the 'planning' related to a limited toolbar is worth the frustration of having skills that you've earned and need be unavailable. There is still plenty of planning and strategy in combat without limiting variety and utility (and some would say 'fun').

    Also, designing encounters to be challenging with limited toolbars has got to be much harder. If they design them with non-optimal toolbars in mind, they will tend to be too easy for those that are prepared/experienced and if they design them with optimal toolbars in mind they will tend to be too hard and stifle exploration and risk-taking.  To design them knowing exactly what skills people have available has got to be much easier and better?

    You have a personal preference to have all your abilities available because you don't want to or feel incapable of making ability choices.

    Your point about encounter design makes no sense. How is it possibly easier to make tricky encounters when you assume all classes have constant access to all their abilities compared to if they only had a limited selection?

    I should clarify: It is easier to make challenging encounters when the capability of the players is a known and not something that might vary considerably.

    With a limited ability set the encounter still has to cope with all possible abilities, because the player *could* load any, but its difficulty may vary wildly depending on what the player loads, so designing the challenge level is very hard.

    Say an encounter is supposed to be 'hard' so the monsters are made poisonous and fire-resistant. Say players have poison resistence and alternatives to their usual fire damage spells loaded. If the encounter is designed to be 'hard' even with these abilities loaded, then to players who don't have them loaded the encounter might be impossible. If the encounter is designed to be 'hard' for players who don't have them loaded, then for players who do, the encounter might be easy.

    The challenge level of the encounter is hard to set, because the devs cannot know what abilities will be available to the players.

    The more limited the ability set and the more hard choices that need to be made before an encounter even begins, the more the players will either feel punished for not knowing or will get an unchallenging fight because they did know in advance.

    I suppose it depends what you prefer.  I would prefer the devs were able to make encounters more challenging and more dynamic because players are able to change their tactics and react during the encounter.  If the challenge level depends on pre-selection of abilities, then the encounters have to be less dynamic and have to be either easier, so the badly prepared have a chance, or more difficult, so the well prepared still have a challenging fight.

    Consider that with Pantheon's Disposition system that may vary the abilities and resistences of monsters from spawn to spawn, players cannot prepare for all possibilities. This is good for maintaining interest and dynamism in the game. It makes the encounters more challenging, but will it be fun with a limited toolbar if it simply feels like a punishment because you literally cannot prepare for all possibilities of the Dispositions even if you have all the appropriate counters and attacks possible to your class but can't load them all.

    To be clear: I do "Trust In Pantheon (TM)" and I'm not saying there should be no limits, but the devs need to be very careful not to be too strict.


    This post was edited by disposalist at December 22, 2019 5:07 AM PST
    • 56 posts
    December 22, 2019 5:10 AM PST

    One thing that keeps popping up in the thread is what is FUN. The problem with that is what is fun for one is not fun for another. 

    I do not find playing Whack a Mole fun. That is what I feel I do when I carry around ever spell at my disposal with me every time I play. It becomes more of how fast I can find the proper spell on my bars and click them. Having LAPS helps with the future design of abilities for it while keeping the skill bloat from appearing on the screen.

     

    Since 1999 I have played mostly bards in EQ I was always switching out spells for different situations. It was what made the game fun to me. I had a tool for almost every situation but I stood out amongst other bards because I was good at knowing what tool to bring with me for what group. Not just for my speed of WEAVING. My wife still jokes with that I type in 3-second intervals do to years of weaving. One thing that will be a must is load-outs. Ability to have set load-outs that can be switched out of combat with speed to allow for various strategies is important. 

     

    I for one hope they keep the 12 abilities with a maybe a few exceptions here and there. It makes for better combat design in my eyes. Less twitch more thoughtful play. 

     

    • 370 posts
    December 22, 2019 10:39 PM PST

    By limiting the abilities each person can take forces the group to coordinate and communicate who will be doing what, eventually a meta will form where its obvious what classes will prioritize which abilities. This happened in EQ. I played an Enchanter and if I had a shaman in my group I knew they'd take care of slows, it freed up a spell slot for me. If multiple classes had snare, they would discuss who would cast snare. Sometimes I would be in a group with two enchanters and one would take haste while the other would take clarity. We'd decide who would be in charge of Mez and the other would charm and focus on DPS.

     

    It required the group discussing tactics and roles, and planning ahead. Have every ability at the ready at any given time makes every encounter easier because you always have the perfect tool for the perfect situation. Having to improvise because a situation occured that you didn't plan for will be part of the challenge.

    • 1714 posts
    December 22, 2019 10:56 PM PST

    EppE said:

    By limiting the abilities each person can take forces the group to coordinate and communicate who will be doing what, eventually a meta will form where its obvious what classes will prioritize which abilities. This happened in EQ. I played an Enchanter and if I had a shaman in my group I knew they'd take care of slows, it freed up a spell slot for me. If multiple classes had snare, they would discuss who would cast snare. Sometimes I would be in a group with two enchanters and one would take haste while the other would take clarity. We'd decide who would be in charge of Mez and the other would charm and focus on DPS.

     

    It required the group discussing tactics and roles, and planning ahead. Have every ability at the ready at any given time makes every encounter easier because you always have the perfect tool for the perfect situation. Having to improvise because a situation occured that you didn't plan for will be part of the challenge.

    And an argument could be made that none of that required any type of LAS. If 2 people could slow/snare/stun/heal/buff whatever, designating a primary and secondary materializes regardless. Just because it freed up a slot for someone doesn't mean the LAS had anything to do with people employing tactics. Communication and planning can be requisite without being forced to have only 8 abilities actives at any given time. 

    • 1428 posts
    December 23, 2019 10:41 AM PST

    without a gcd setup, it would be unwise to expand las12.  they really should be careful with how much they simplify the game.  hell you can look at eq2 dumbing everything down.  even wow retail is in this state where they are dumbing down so much trying to retain subs that all the highly skilled players are essentially adrift.

     

    i watched this video here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwwgJixA98M

     

    high level gameplay is what retains your base.  short term loss(takes a while to build the base) long term gain(loyal subs)

    simplified gameplay:

    short term gain(easy for people to get into) long term loss(high sub turnover)

     

    i say if they are going to keep las12 then they need to have a reason not to swap abilities so much, such as specializing in certain abilities.

    if they are going to expand to las24, then they need to add a robust gcd, not your run of the mill 1 second deal.