Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here

If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.

Do not exaggerate rotation abilities

2»

Comments

  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Adamson wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Classes should be balanced so that if your class is harder to play well, you get better results.

    I couldn't disagree more. There should be no "hard" or "easy" classes, all classes should reward more skilled play, and "penalize" (with less dps, healing through put, etc.) poor situational use or timing of abilities.

    "Hard" classes that perform better just lead to a boring META that everyone will use.

    This mentality is what leads to homogenization and the death of a game’s fun. Complex rotations cannot be mastered by everyone, why shouldn’t a game reward those who can master them. Why the hell would anyone play a complex class if its potential didn’t beat out the potential of simple class by a decent margin?

    By definition of a class having a high skill cap, not everyone can use it effectively. A mediocre player will get better results from a simple class than they will from a complex class. But a skilled player will get better results from a complex class than they could from a simple class. That is a good thing and should be present in every game.
  • BotBot Member
    Ideally each class has a core max output rotation whether it's damage, cc, or healing/shielding that's around 4-5 abilities with variations that come into play. For example in Archeage the original Darkrunner had 2 different main combos with a single ideal chain combo of about 8-10 skills or so with the two combos within being 4-5 skills each. However you couldn't just go into every fight and do the same combo every single time if you were fighting a good player. You had to switch up your setup depending on your enemy and their class. Factors like what cc they have, their mobility, their cc breaks, and etc meant that you had to adapt. I think having a core 4-5 skills makes it so you can have at least another 5 skills as setups and utility like mobility and cc to make each fight different. As long as the game isn't just who can press 1234567890 faster it'll be interesting.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Adamson wrote: »
    "Hard" classes that perform better just lead to a boring META that everyone will use.
    This is not true at all.

    In games that have classes that are somewhat harder but perform better, and have easier classes that perform reasonably, the bulk of the playerbase go for the easier class.

    Archeage is a prime example of this, Darkrunner and Daggerspell were never the best classes, just the easiest.

    This means that the players that take the harder classes have even more ability to shine, but it also meant that people seeing a different class dominate them and try to emulate that without knowing what they were doing would fail miserably (and often make statements about cheating).

    If you think that the meta of a game revolves around the best output rather than around the easiest class, then you haven't been paying attention.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Adamson wrote: »
    "Hard" classes that perform better just lead to a boring META that everyone will use.
    This is not true at all.

    In games that have classes that are somewhat harder but perform better, and have easier classes that perform reasonably, the bulk of the playerbase go for the easier class.

    Archeage is a prime example of this, Darkrunner and Daggerspell were never the best classes, just the easiest.

    This means that the players that take the harder classes have even more ability to shine, but it also meant that people seeing a different class dominate them and try to emulate that without knowing what they were doing would fail miserably (and often make statements about cheating).

    If you think that the meta of a game revolves around the best output rather than around the easiest class, then you haven't been paying attention.

    I think you are twisting the meaning of what meta means. Its not the most popular spec, meta is the spec or build that allows you to preform the best in a certain situation. The meta for raiding will be different than the meta for pvping.
    Just because everyone plays an easy class does not mean its the best class. Thus if all the hard classes performed better than the easy classes you would have all the competitive players playing the hard classes creating a meta of only bringing the hard classes for whatever situation they perform the best in.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Adamson wrote: »
    "Hard" classes that perform better just lead to a boring META that everyone will use.
    This is not true at all.

    In games that have classes that are somewhat harder but perform better, and have easier classes that perform reasonably, the bulk of the playerbase go for the easier class.

    Archeage is a prime example of this, Darkrunner and Daggerspell were never the best classes, just the easiest.

    This means that the players that take the harder classes have even more ability to shine, but it also meant that people seeing a different class dominate them and try to emulate that without knowing what they were doing would fail miserably (and often make statements about cheating).

    If you think that the meta of a game revolves around the best output rather than around the easiest class, then you haven't been paying attention.

    I think you are twisting the meaning of what meta means. Its not the most popular spec, meta is the spec or build that allows you to preform the best in a certain situation. The meta for raiding will be different than the meta for pvping.
    Just because everyone plays an easy class does not mean its the best class. Thus if all the hard classes performed better than the easy classes you would have all the competitive players playing the hard classes creating a meta of only bringing the hard classes for whatever situation they perform the best in.

    I was replying to the fact the poster seemed to suggest that if there was an easy class that performed fairly well, and a harder class that performed better, the meta would be everyone playing the harder class.

    This is not the case.

    I'm not sure what the point of your last paragraph here is, to be honest.

    Those of us that are more competitive (or more accurately, those of us more successful in being competitive) are this way because we drop the ego at the door, and make the best decisions we can.

    Since Ashes PvP content will mostly not be restricted by player count, guilds are not going to *only* take specific players along - they will take everyone available to them. If those players are making the correct decision rather than the decision that best suits their egos, most of them would be playing the easier class rather than the harder one, as even top guilds are made up largely of average players.

    Those that do make decisions based on ego will likely drag their guild down, which is how it should be.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Adamson wrote: »
    "Hard" classes that perform better just lead to a boring META that everyone will use.
    This is not true at all.

    In games that have classes that are somewhat harder but perform better, and have easier classes that perform reasonably, the bulk of the playerbase go for the easier class.

    Archeage is a prime example of this, Darkrunner and Daggerspell were never the best classes, just the easiest.

    This means that the players that take the harder classes have even more ability to shine, but it also meant that people seeing a different class dominate them and try to emulate that without knowing what they were doing would fail miserably (and often make statements about cheating).

    If you think that the meta of a game revolves around the best output rather than around the easiest class, then you haven't been paying attention.

    I think you are twisting the meaning of what meta means. Its not the most popular spec, meta is the spec or build that allows you to preform the best in a certain situation. The meta for raiding will be different than the meta for pvping.
    Just because everyone plays an easy class does not mean its the best class. Thus if all the hard classes performed better than the easy classes you would have all the competitive players playing the hard classes creating a meta of only bringing the hard classes for whatever situation they perform the best in.

    I was replying to the fact the poster seemed to suggest that if there was an easy class that performed fairly well, and a harder class that performed better, the meta would be everyone playing the harder class.

    This is not the case.

    I'm not sure what the point of your last paragraph here is, to be honest.

    Those of us that are more competitive (or more accurately, those of us more successful in being competitive) are this way because we drop the ego at the door, and make the best decisions we can.

    Since Ashes PvP content will mostly not be restricted by player count, guilds are not going to *only* take specific players along - they will take everyone available to them. If those players are making the correct decision rather than the decision that best suits their egos, most of them would be playing the easier class rather than the harder one, as even top guilds are made up largely of average players.

    Those that do make decisions based on ego will likely drag their guild down, which is how it should be.

    You vastly underestimate how meta games can get especially when there is no limit to how many players can be brought.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    You vastly underestimate how meta games can get especially when there is no limit to how many players can be brought.
    And I think you are not understanding what I am saying.

    If there is a build that is easy to use, those guilds bringing many people along will use that easy build to a very high degree. They may not start off using it, but it is the build they will have the best results with - because when you have large numbers of players, you have a greater probability of having an average ratio of average players.

    This average ratio of average players simply isn't going to be able to function well with the complex build, leaving the guild in a position where they have three choices: keep running the difficult build and be a large amount below their theoretical best; switch to the easier build and be closer to their theoretical best; drop the players that aren't good enough to run the harder build and greatly reduce their theoritecal best.

    There is only one of these three options that is even remotely viable.

    If a guild is going to focus on a meta, and is going to ask/demand players run specific builds, the build they will get the best results out of is the easier build. If the classes are designed well, and this large group of players with an average ratio of average players tried to use a build that is harder to master, the results would likely be fairly poor.

    Basically, this works as a punishment to guilds that demand players follow the meta - though many guilds absolutely still will.
  • DemidreamerDemidreamer Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Option 4. Just let people play the spec they feel most comfortable in. More diversity may not rely on single exploit, but everybody exploiting their strengths. This also would make your group less cornholeable if your meta meets the most effective counter tactic.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Option 4. Just let people play the spec they feel most comfortable in. More diversity may not rely on single exploit, but everybody exploiting their strengths. This also would make your group less cornholeable if your meta meets the most effective counter tactic.

    That is the optionI would go with - only assessing the output.

    I was not super clear above that I was talking about guilds that insist on sticking to the meta.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    You should not talk of rotation if you have not played GW2 in competetive raiding groups.
    EXAMPLE 1:
    The elementalist sword power build has a 38 step rotation.

    EXAMPLE 2:
    Chronomancer Power Boon Support has a 24 step opener and a 3 part 16 step rotation.

    Example 3:
    Power Rogue has a 5 step opener and a 3 step rotation. Love that class. xD
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Damokles wrote: »
    You should not talk of rotation if you have not played GW2 in competetive raiding groups.

    They must have changed the game a lot since launch if this is almost a thing.
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • Cold 0ne FTBCold 0ne FTB Member, Alpha One, Adventurer, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I think another important factor to keep in mind is the cast times of most abilities we have seen so far are very long and awkward. There could be a lot of abilities that require 2-3 seconds. So if a rotation involves 6 or skills and the time to kill is about 30 seconds, it could take 12-18 seconds just to get your dots up. That's almost half the fight. That's also assume you don't get stopped mid rotation by your opponent ccing you or using some other defence mechanism to thwart your combo.
    ZxbhjES.gif

    That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited January 2021
    Damokles wrote: »
    You should not talk of rotation if you have not played GW2 in competetive raiding groups.


    They must have changed the game a lot since launch if this is almost a thing.

    At least for raiding groups. It was... traumatizing, especially because your dps REALLY felt it when you missed your rotation.
  • BlackBronyBlackBrony Member, Alpha Two
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    Totally agree, a combat system made where rotations simply aren't viable, leaving players to have to use a priority system is far superior.

    I've only seen it in one game to date myself (EQ2), though I am sure there would be other games out there with it.
  • Cold 0ne FTBCold 0ne FTB Member, Alpha One, Adventurer, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    I think you overestimating how difficult learning a rotation is. Something I think ashes should consider is implementing a system of dynamic rotations. Dynamic rotations are rotations that change and are different everytime. A really good example is a magsorc from eso. Magsorcs have an ability that has a 20% chance of getting enhanced everytime you cast another ability. This enhanced version is significantly better than the non enhanced and essentially you want to cast this ability enhanced as much as you can and ideally never cast unenhanced.

    What it does it reduces the tedious nature of memorizing a rotation as everytime you do it will be slightly different.

    The problem with skill priority is usually one skill is significantly better than the rest. If it lacks a cooldown people will only spam that one ability and if it has a cooldown you end up using it on cooldown. Which in the end becomes rotation as that's really what rotation is. Lining up your dots so you get the most out of them and prioritizing skills based on their effects or damage done. It's about the timing your skills so when they expire you have either maximized their duration or using the best ones as much as possible.
    ZxbhjES.gif

    That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Something I think ashes should consider is implementing a system of dynamic rotations. Dynamic rotations are rotations that change and are different everytime. A really good example is a magsorc from eso. Magsorcs have an ability that has a 20% chance of getting enhanced everytime you cast another ability. This enhanced version is significantly better than the non enhanced and essentially you want to cast this ability enhanced as much as you can and ideally never cast unenhanced.
    This is the basics of how a spell priority system breaks away from being a spell rotation system, except a good system will have up to a half dozen such things going on, rather than just one.

    An example of this is the oft referenced (by me, at least) EQ2.

    As a wizard, I had a few major spells, a few abilities to maximize damage from spells, and a few short duration buffs from other classes to even further maximize spells.

    Of my two major spells, one had a standard 45 second cooldown (able to be reduced to 22.5 seconds) and the other had a 180 second recast timer (able to be reduced to 90). The short cooldown ability was single target, the longer one was an AoE of sorts that fired in a cone shape, but only had a 5 meter range from the caster, and could only hit 3 targets max - but it did a lot of damage to all targets.

    To play the class well, you had to try to always use the abilities to enhance spells with these two specific spells, but you also needed to try and have both (ideally) ready to cast when you were about to get that short duration buff from a raid member. But, in order to not be shit, you still had to use these abilities all the time - it wasn't worth holding off on casting one of these abilities for more than 10 -12 seconds.

    On top of that, there were various buffs and item procs that would make spells have halve the cooldown.

    Between these two factors and the dozen or so other abilities the class had, it meant you were never able to plan more than 2 or 3 spells ahead, and you had to make decisions about spell priorities and character positioning essentially on the fly.

    Basically, a good spell priority system is ESO's Magsorc on steroids.
  • Cold 0ne FTBCold 0ne FTB Member, Alpha One, Adventurer, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Something I think ashes should consider is implementing a system of dynamic rotations. Dynamic rotations are rotations that change and are different everytime. A really good example is a magsorc from eso. Magsorcs have an ability that has a 20% chance of getting enhanced everytime you cast another ability. This enhanced version is significantly better than the non enhanced and essentially you want to cast this ability enhanced as much as you can and ideally never cast unenhanced.
    This is the basics of how a spell priority system breaks away from being a spell rotation system, except a good system will have up to a half dozen such things going on, rather than just one.

    An example of this is the oft referenced (by me, at least) EQ2.

    As a wizard, I had a few major spells, a few abilities to maximize damage from spells, and a few short duration buffs from other classes to even further maximize spells.

    Of my two major spells, one had a standard 45 second cooldown (able to be reduced to 22.5 seconds) and the other had a 180 second recast timer (able to be reduced to 90). The short cooldown ability was single target, the longer one was an AoE of sorts that fired in a cone shape, but only had a 5 meter range from the caster, and could only hit 3 targets max - but it did a lot of damage to all targets.

    To play the class well, you had to try to always use the abilities to enhance spells with these two specific spells, but you also needed to try and have both (ideally) ready to cast when you were about to get that short duration buff from a raid member. But, in order to not be shit, you still had to use these abilities all the time - it wasn't worth holding off on casting one of these abilities for more than 10 -12 seconds.

    On top of that, there were various buffs and item procs that would make spells have halve the cooldown.

    Between these two factors and the dozen or so other abilities the class had, it meant you were never able to plan more than 2 or 3 spells ahead, and you had to make decisions about spell priorities and character positioning essentially on the fly.

    Basically, a good spell priority system is ESO's Magsorc on steroids.

    That sounds badass as fuck. Imma check that out.
    ZxbhjES.gif

    That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    Something I think ashes should consider is implementing a system of dynamic rotations. Dynamic rotations are rotations that change and are different everytime. A really good example is a magsorc from eso. Magsorcs have an ability that has a 20% chance of getting enhanced everytime you cast another ability. This enhanced version is significantly better than the non enhanced and essentially you want to cast this ability enhanced as much as you can and ideally never cast unenhanced.
    This is the basics of how a spell priority system breaks away from being a spell rotation system, except a good system will have up to a half dozen such things going on, rather than just one.

    An example of this is the oft referenced (by me, at least) EQ2.

    As a wizard, I had a few major spells, a few abilities to maximize damage from spells, and a few short duration buffs from other classes to even further maximize spells.

    Of my two major spells, one had a standard 45 second cooldown (able to be reduced to 22.5 seconds) and the other had a 180 second recast timer (able to be reduced to 90). The short cooldown ability was single target, the longer one was an AoE of sorts that fired in a cone shape, but only had a 5 meter range from the caster, and could only hit 3 targets max - but it did a lot of damage to all targets.

    To play the class well, you had to try to always use the abilities to enhance spells with these two specific spells, but you also needed to try and have both (ideally) ready to cast when you were about to get that short duration buff from a raid member. But, in order to not be shit, you still had to use these abilities all the time - it wasn't worth holding off on casting one of these abilities for more than 10 -12 seconds.

    On top of that, there were various buffs and item procs that would make spells have halve the cooldown.

    Between these two factors and the dozen or so other abilities the class had, it meant you were never able to plan more than 2 or 3 spells ahead, and you had to make decisions about spell priorities and character positioning essentially on the fly.

    Basically, a good spell priority system is ESO's Magsorc on steroids.

    That sounds badass as fuck. Imma check that out.

    I honestly cant suggest to anyone to attempt to get in to EQ2 at this stage.

    It is a great game, but it will take a whole lot of effort to get to the point where you are able to actually see the game in that specific light, and that is assuming you are able to find a reliable raid guild - which isn't a given.

    The game honestly has the best combat of any MMO. No qualifiers or exceptions to that statement, and honestly second place (FFXIV is my current second place) is not even close.

    The issue with the game is that it is on its 16th or 17th expansion, each adding a new layer of complexity, and unlike WoW, EQ2 dont assume their players need things simplified for them.

    This means the game is cumbersome and overwhelming to newcomers - even those with years of MMO experience.

    If EQ2 ever do another round d of fresh start servers though, it absolutely would be worth spending some time to play.
  • DaRougarouxDaRougaroux Member
    edited January 2021
    Marzzo wrote: »
    Eventually a meta will form and most classes will have a basic rotation. In some games, this rotation can be a bit too much. What I mean by too much is that there are too many abilities in this rotation which can make it bothersome.

    I have nothing against unique abilities, but too many generic abilities that you need to use constantly is bothersom and can be a problem. For example, if one class has 2-3 rotation abilities, and one has 9, it will be very hard to balance this. The former willl be regarded as a braindead class, while the later will be regarded as a class that requires 2x effort for same results.

    Take afflicion warlocks from world of warcraft as an example. This is all the abilities they constantly need to do and reapply:

    Haunt: deals damage over time (18 sec)
    Unstable affliction: deals damage over time (21 sec)
    Agony: Deals damage over time (18 sec)
    Corruption: Deals damage over time (14 sec)
    Siphon life: deals damage over time (15 sec)
    Phantom singularity: Deals damage over time (14,9 sec)
    Soul rot: Deals damage over time (8 sec)
    Seed of corrutpiton: AOE ability
    Curse of XXX: Makes the enemy weaker in some way (30 sec)
    Malefic rapture: deals damage

    Now lets take a look at another class, the deathknight:
    Remorseless winter every 20 sec (aoe)
    Frost strike: Deals damage
    Obilirate: Deals damage
    Howling blast: procs randomly, deals damage

    Since both of these classes need to be balanced to do rougly the same amount of damage/utility during a raid its a nightmare to balance.

    The affliciton warlock, who also needs to cast his abilities, will need to perform 3-4 times better to stand a chance at permoning as the dk. This also creates some problems. Following that warlock rotation, while still following the boss tactics, or Pvping, is very hard to do correctly. This will create a situation for you developers where you will run into a trap.

    Based on the "difficulty" at playing the hard rotation class, many normal players will underperform, and many easy rotation classes will overperform.

    What will you devs do then? Well, you will buff the warlock until the avarage player performs as the other classes, and nerf the dk until it performs as the other classes.

    This will make good players who can abuse the hard rotation kit dominate high end pvp and pve. While making the deathknight completly useless in high end gameplay.

    What should you do then?
    You should make each class rotation vary in difficulty, but do not make them too hard to manage, or too easy to manage. Try to make each rotation interesting and deep in its own way. Offer ways to make your rotation easier/harder, but dont overdue it. Player feedback is key here.

    There should be the option to use a high skillcap build or lower skillcap build, these need to perform differently so they reward the player that dedicates himself to the higher skillcap build. But it must not be exaggerated.

    Agreed. I would also like to speak against front loaded damage and burst damage that depends on cool downs and global abilities, and instead encourage steady, consistant damage.

    Now this doesnt mean that there cant be burst classes, but dont homogenize all classes this way.
  • MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    Rotations are not an option. In the end, people will figure out which abilities to use and which order (by prioritizing as you say) and bam, we have a rotation.

    You cant avoid rotations, but you can make them fun and dynamic and different from fight to fight.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Marzzo wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    Rotations are not an option. In the end, people will figure out which abilities to use and which order (by prioritizing as you say) and bam, we have a rotation.

    You cant avoid rotations, but you can make them fun and dynamic and different from fight to fight.

    Sure you can avoid rotations.

    All you need to do is have enough going on that can change what ability you should use and the notion of a rotation looks as antiquated as it actually is.
  • MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Marzzo wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    Rotations are not an option. In the end, people will figure out which abilities to use and which order (by prioritizing as you say) and bam, we have a rotation.

    You cant avoid rotations, but you can make them fun and dynamic and different from fight to fight.

    Sure you can avoid rotations.

    All you need to do is have enough going on that can change what ability you should use and the notion of a rotation looks as antiquated as it actually is.

    Enough going on? 60+ abilities like some MMO classes have where good people still only use the same 5-7 spells in a rotation? Give me one example of a succesful MMO with more than 6 abilities per class that does not have a meta rotation please
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 2021
    Marzzo wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Marzzo wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    I don't like rotations, I rather have priorities on skills to use.
    Some on cooldown, others after another, but strict rotations end up being something someone else makes and I have to memorize.
    And I can't possible understand them because the person who did them knows everything because plays 24/7, and I don't, so I end up doing something just for the sake of getting the best DPS possible.

    Rotations are not an option. In the end, people will figure out which abilities to use and which order (by prioritizing as you say) and bam, we have a rotation.

    You cant avoid rotations, but you can make them fun and dynamic and different from fight to fight.

    Sure you can avoid rotations.

    All you need to do is have enough going on that can change what ability you should use and the notion of a rotation looks as antiquated as it actually is.

    Enough going on? 60+ abilities like some MMO classes have where good people still only use the same 5-7 spells in a rotation? Give me one example of a succesful MMO with more than 6 abilities per class that does not have a meta rotation please

    I've given one in this thread already, EQ2.

    Classes have an average of 24 abilities, and while there can be a rotation if you want to perform poorly, the top 50% of players all know better.

    The game doesn't even have standard "best" builds for each class, let alone rotations that need to be used. There are simply too many variables for these things to exist.
Sign In or Register to comment.