I played a sci-fi wow-esque MMO a few years ago that had an interesting take on CC for intentionally difficult mobs, and I think it's an idea worth carrying over into other MMOs.
Mobs above a solo difficulty had 'CC Resilience' that you had to wear down to land and maintain CC effects upon them. I like this better than a binary system, or having to stack MR debuffs ala EQ, and possibly can get other classes involved in CC in a more minor capability to the dedicated roles. You could also improve stackability of Enchanters/Bards if multiple of them were needed to CC parts of raid encounters.
I'd find it very interesting to see a Paladin stunning to drop the CC resilience down and tank while a pair of Enchanters work together to wear the mob down into mez.
I'd like to see something a bit different than that. It just feels kind of crappy to have to "waste" entire spells to get stacks of resilience down for that spell to land.
I'd rather see a system of flexible cooldowns for CC spells. For instance you may have a 3 second stun and it would land for a 3 second stun but would also have a long cooldown of a minute+, but after around 25 seconds you can use the ability at reduced effectiveness for a 1 second stun. Or a 30 second mez being reuseable for a 10 second mez unless you wait for the full cooldown and so on for other hard CC spells.
I would like to C.. heh, something like transforming abilities just for group content. Like maybe when the Enchanter is alone, or with a duo partner, their abilities aren't crowd-control centric, but as soon as maybe a tank and a healer join the group, those abilities become more crowd-control centric through something like auras. Maybe what was once a brief stun with a damage component can become a long mez with an AoE component instead, when the Enchanter is grouped with two or more other players. Or with at least two classes from other archetypes. Just to make it less cheesable.
Then you could just sort of stack the group benefit counters to whatever is meaningful for specific encounters and ignore ground level balance issues. If you kept the skills restricted to specific rules, you could set the bar insanely high for possible "group only" effects. Like maybe you have a sacrificial healing class, combined with a Necromancer and the both Burn for a massive guaranteed burst, as long as there is a tank to shield them from harm while they recover. That sort of thing.
I don't want to notice restrictions whenever that is possible. Group specific abilities that only work when an Aura with 3 or more parts would turn what feels like a wall, "group only", into what feels like an opportunity "group enhanced".
What I mean is maybe each skill has a layered sheet of effects just like Set Bonuses on typical MMO gear. Only it says "1 healer, 1 tank, 1 nuker, 1 striker" etc and each tier changes the effect of the basic skill.
Then you could train skills in a more linear way and force a more hardcore skill development model at a steep curve between solo and group skills. Further adding to the "value of the group" rather than emphasizing the weakness of being without a group.
Limits need to be imposed, but no one says the player needs to feel them. Personally I would rather be inspired to join a group for the chance to grow my powers, than feel like there is no other choice.
If we consider what Iksar says in light of a limited spell-palette
Iksar said:I'd like to see something a bit different than that. It just feels kind of crappy to have to "waste" entire spells to get stacks of resilience down for that spell to land.
and consider then, that to avoid the binary 'resilience left'/'CC-able', we move towards discussing whether all mobs should be 'equally mezzable' in a different light. We can even extend this to consider whether mez can be broken (both by player or AI driven NPCs). Some of this is discussed in:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/4538/what-if-npcs-could-break-mez
where I posted a possible method of innovating crowd-control:
---8<-----+Clip taken from above listed thread+-----
Divide CC/Mez into different types! ....
.... call them 'Mental vs Physical', 'Illusory vs Stunning' or whatever you want as categories.
1. PHYSICAL BRAIN ATTACKS
Those with Stun/Disorientation/Brain-attack components:
a. This would include a Rogue sapping a mob from behind, I guess.
b. These kind of effects are pretty much with you for the duration.
c. Mobs that HEAL the target my reduce the duration, perhaps?
2. MENTAL BRAIN ATTACKS
Those purely of sleep/daze/dream/lull components:
a. These should certainly be suceptible to being broken by a slap to the face (or cold water even).
b. This mechanic may not be 'certain', but may offer a 'repeat RR at +bonus' to break mez
c. Only intelligent mobs will realise this (though AoE spells my accidently do the same)
3. WHOLE BODY ATTACKS
E.g. Those with Frozen/Stasis type effects: includes 'blindness'
a. Seems to me, nothing short of a dispel is going to help these poor suckers.
b. Perhaps massive damage might 'knock them free', but the cure is worse than the problem!
Conclusion:
This way, the chanter gets to choose between 'long effect mezzes' that smart mobs may work to shorten/remove, or 'shorter effect mezzes' that are almost impossible to remove since they aggressively attack the brain. This gives them another set of tactics in choosing their tools, rather than 'just load up the biggest duration mez i have'. For non-chanter CC'ers, it is likely they have fewer tools than chanters and so will have to pick the mobs, and situations, they use their particular flavour of mez on carefully!
PS: Is it possible that some creatures can be mezzed by one type and not the other?
Do gelatinous cubes have a brain?
Wouldn't we see it floating about inside?
Why has nobody researched this yet?
Can we send a Gnome spelunker inside one to find out?
Evoras, is full of ideas for the use of Gnomes!
But why does any of that matter? The palette of skills is limited, so why not just stack desired multiple effects on some skills that change based on group comp instead of applying a set of rules to mobs for a single facet of possible combat mechanics? If you can only use a long AoE mez in a group of the right make-up, aren't all the other issues mostly moot?
And yes, if you Punt them, with a sharp helmet on, they slide right in a solid meter or more.
Personally, I would love perks for various class synergies.
5-10% greater buff strength if you have one of 3-5 classes or roles in your group? Even better if it lends itself to combat casting/skill synergies.
Sympathetic and co-operative bonuses & perks would make a great addition to pantheon, imo.
We're already going to have a limited spell set with limited hotbar space, gaining new spells on a new additional/bonus "when grouped only" hotbar? Sure, bring it on.
vjek is pickin up what I am putting down. Synergetic combinations just add a level of depth to what is already happening. There would never be a, ridiculously stupid, monk-only scenario outside of delusional semantic arguments that serve no constructive purpose.
Adding different "Archetypes" to the group would just add more bonus, or change the effect, of some spells. Which would be very simple, very effective, and provide an alternative perspective to group restrictions. It also lets the Developer focus on a deeper layer of content balance that does not require an entire system of rolls and checks that specifically counter CCs.
If you can't CC things unless you are in a group, there is no reason to try and balance CC ability against solo mechanics. At all.
Monk-only can easily be interchanged with any archetype. "Sorry, I can't cast this buff because we don't have the crowd control archetype in the group." How would you explain it lorewise?
I just don't see how adding bonuses for certain party makeups is necessary, and how it wouldn't be to the detriment of unique/out of the norm party compositions.
I'm all for having class abilities or ability types interact together and work synergistically, something that builds upon what FFXI had with skillchains. But having the class abilities/spells themselves be uncertain and changing based on group, especially if they take up a skill slot? I'd prefer not. No matter what, adding something like either of these only adds far more levels of balancing to look at compared to classic static abilities by class.
What makes you think it would matter? And what would be uncertain? If you have 1 skill with tiers of group bonus that alter that skill to fit a group role, you just add more effects to that base skill. You can have as many tiers as you want. Or as many combinations as you want. Even if just two are enough.
Just think about skills you could transform into something else to fit a group role. That is all it is. You can imagine it as complicated as you want.
The point is to make the player see that their abilities are "more powerful" in a group. And if the group is balanced according to the 4 Archetypes, you can justify even more powerful amplifications. Or you could even have multiple paths a skill can branch into based on the specific group, and make it extremely complicated and strategy oriented. For instance, if the entire group is Enchanters, maybe those skills directly amplify the base values. This would allow for a large scale mechanic where groups of 1 specific class are acting as a single member of a mega group in some sort of specilized raid content or open world event.
For the love of Pie use your imagination for something. It is super easy.
And try to think about what other effects this would have on the game that are not negative. You know like, how it would add a rarely used mechanic, or how it could encourage grouping by motivating the player to be stronger, rather than kicking them in the soft spot because they are too weak. I know that's a tall order, but I have faith in you especially. Yer a leezard...
edit:also there is this quote from Brad,
Your group composition and how you work with others and not just individually should matter too. The buffs you apply to yourself and party should matter. Group positioning (both initial positioning and then re-positioning either based on a plan or in reaction to something the mob did or is about to do), depending on class, DPS, ability to tank or off-tank, etc. should be very important. What we're trying to implement and reward are real tactics that give you an advantage over the party who just rushes in blindly with little to no thoughtful preparation.
Which also happens to be where Brad explains that ideas, and intention are more important right now than specific details, and why that is the case. But I digress. This clearly establishes the possibility of these types of mechanics being used. So there is no good reason not to talk about them. And expand it to our imagination's content. Right?
I don't think there is a need for a set of/extension of spells that intrinsically are 'group only' castable. It may overly complicate spell creation and lead to these 'multi-form' spells always being the ones loaded, rather than leading to more 'tactical decisions' having to be made (as ZennExile points out above)..
However there is some merit in spells/abilities created with the pre-planned intention of being ones that are only really practical, or that shine, in (certain) groups. I.e. have some spells, or 'more powerful versions' of them, designed to make them less appealing to use in a solo environment ... but which may truly shine brightly in a group!
Rather than discuss in the abstract, which may obscure my meaning, ...
... I will give a few specific examples from which the intent can be inferred.
#1 Spell: "Ectoplasmic Invasion"
Classes : Necromancer(30), Dire Lord(50)
Consumable : pet of type: abomination
Desc: This spell causes the (friendly target) pet (of type: abomination) to slowly liquify and be projected as a stream at an enemy (enemy target) where it will seek to invade their brain through any available orifice. The enemy will lose brain function while the stream runs, then be ejected shortly afterwards once the stream has ended. The caster must remain static and focused to maintain the stream. The stream is cancelled should he lose focus or the pet be fully liquified (the ally target can be changed if done before the pet is fully liquified).
#2 Spell: "Word of God"
Classes : Cleric (35), Paladin (45), Dire Lord (45)
Consumable : Caster's (Blessed) Holy Symbol
Desc: This spell invokes a lesser name of the caster's deity in a loud booming voice. It causes undead/living (depending on good/evil deity) as well as any of the stated 'enemy' of the deity in range to be stunned and deafened. This stun lasts a moderate time and interrupts/breaks any active control/focus spells/pets. The deafness lasts a very long time and slightly disorients them. It generates a high amount of aggro on any in range who resist the effects and a very high (biblical) level of aggro on those actually affected.
#3 Spell: "Spontaneous Human(oid) Combustion"
Classes: Wizard
Desc: Causes the human(oid) target to spontaneously combust. This causes moderate damage immediately plus further moderate damage over time for a very long time (or until dead). The mob acts as a torch for the purposes of lighting and igniting things. The Mobs resistance to fire is reduced and his movement gets increasingly impaired after a significant time. Any significant water/wind/cold effects have a chance to stop the burning. It has a much higher mana/dmg cost than regular spells and the target resists as if it were +8 levels.
#4 Ability: "Flourish"
Class: Rogue(20), Monk(25), Bard(30)
Desc: This is the intermittant flourishing of your weapon(s) with the intent of keeping the focus of an enemy on yourself, while slightly disorienting the enemy by causing them tunnel vision as they try to keep your weapon(s) in view. It has the effect of pulsing (moderate, short duration) aggro on the mob while the tunnel vision significantly reduces it's aggro radius for anything other than another flourish attack. It heavily reduces the player's attack rate since they waste time doing the flourishes.
All of these would have limited appeal for solo work:
#1 would lose the Necro his pet to gain some time.
#2 would probably ensure the cleric his near immediate untimely demise.
#3 Would not be cost effective in mana ... assuming the spell even lands.
#4 would lower your DPS significanlty.
But, in a group scenario, they may well be awesome!
#1: Consider if there were 2 Necros or a necro + DireLord?
#2: With timing of a Warrior's main taunts or a timely evac ....
#3: Grouped with somebody able to fire debuff significantly?...
#4: imagine the mob surrounded by monks/bards/rogues spinning ...
TL;DR Consider spells/abilities which underperform without group synergy.
Evoras, doesn't always post about gnome-icide ....
But gnome-icide is the best icide there is...
The only qualifier I would argue though, is that a skill would somehow not be used, or situationally used. That would never need to be the case. No base skill would need to be group-only. The base effect would be a skill you can use solo, or in a small group. That skill would just evolve into something else when the right archetypes are in the group.
Like maybe, the base skill is "Stun for 2 seconds + 15 Damage", then if you have a group partner, the skill becomes "AoE stun for 2 seconds + 5 damage", and then maybe with a balanced group with all 4 archetypes, that same skill becomes "AoE Mez for 30 seconds + a damage bonus that triggers for 5 seconds when Mez is broken".
Something, just like any old set bonus on gear, except for Skills.
I donno, I thought it was a simple way to avoid a whole pile of wasted effort and increase the "wow-factor" when it comes to the synergy potential of situational skills. And especially group skills. There are so many players that say things like "if I am forced to group I won't play", or "finding groups is too hard", and I wonder how many of them would choose to play if they saw it as "being in a group makes all my skills stronger"?
Player motivations mean almost as much to the Development process as the vision and scope of the Developers themselves. I feel like the more ways that you attempt to manipulate positive motivation, the more quality content you can deliver.
@Evoras, @ZennExile The heart of what you're both saying is skills with group synergy are important. How they implement that is also important, and I like both approaches. The third would be to have skills apply buffs/debuffs that are consumed by another classes skill (ala Vanguard, GW2).
The pitfalls they'll need to avoid:
The toughest part of all of this is the subjectivity. I'm sure there are plenty who disagree with my assessment so getting this "right" may not be "possible".
That said, I've enjoyed this thread very much and look forward to what Pantheon offers in this regard.
I EQ it was either they resited the mez or not. Gaint class mobs made Enchanters useless, unless you wanted to try charm.
I would like to see mez have the possiblity to partally effect the mob, in that its attack, movement and casting speed is slowed if they partally resist the mez.
This would be based on the percentage of the resist, so if they resisted 25% of the mez they would move, cast and attack 75% slower.
If the mob already has a movement effect on it then whichever is greater, also based on level, would take effect for movement and this would work the same way for attack speed.
For casting speed I can not remember a spell that reduced a mobs casting speed in EQ, been to long.
rkwiles said:I EQ it was either they resited the mez or not. Gaint class mobs made Enchanters useless, unless you wanted to try charm.
I would like to see mez have the possiblity to partally effect the mob, in that its attack, movement and casting speed is slowed if they partally resist the mez.
This would be based on the percentage of the resist, so if they resisted 25% of the mez they would move, cast and attack 75% slower.
If the mob already has a movement effect on it then whichever is greater, also based on level, would take effect for movement and this would work the same way for attack speed.
For casting speed I can not remember a spell that reduced a mobs casting speed in EQ, been to long.
I may be completely missing the point, but wasn't synergy of some kind attempted in EQ2? One class would start it, and you had to complete the circle in a particular order in order to get the desired effect? Some little wheel would pop up on your screen when someone initiated the link? Is that kinda what you're talking about here, or am I just hungover?
Tralyan said:I may be completely missing the point, but wasn't synergy of some kind attempted in EQ2? One class would start it, and you had to complete the circle in a particular order in order to get the desired effect? Some little wheel would pop up on your screen when someone initiated the link? Is that kinda what you're talking about here, or am I just hungover?
Heroic Opportunies, yep. LOTRO has/had them as well. Other games have/had similar systems, but what I'm talking about at least (others may disagree) is permanent bonuses/buffs/additional spells/skills from your presence in a group. Period. There are four roles. If you have one of each, you get all the cross-role bonuses you can, as a base for a great group. Add more of one kind or another, and ramp up offensive, defensive, or other skills.
Then, on top of that, you can have synergistic combat effects from performing your role, sure.
Heck, as far as grouping bonuses go, you could even make it so you could funnel a portion of your XP into group bonus amplification, to make your character more attractive to group with. Selflessness/Generosity rewarded? That'd be a novel concept compared to most/all/some/many MMO's.
vjek, using the imagination, hitting it out of the park. That is exactly the sort of framework meaningful synergy needs. It is hard to imagine upper limits on synergy combinations you could amplify or turn into meaningful secondary mechanics. The box is still sort of transparent and possibilities can't be assumed. That is where that "first time" feeling comes from we all want to replicate. That grey area in vjek's imagination.