Minus depraved i feel you guys have not played a proper pvp mmorpg in like a looooong time. You think large guilds are going to be brainless zergs that don't know what the are doing. And not one of the strongest guilds that keeps people and has good organizers, shot callers and some of the best players. And think we are going to stick it to the large guilds and one up them. You literally will not.
nah i never thought that, but lots of people in this forum think that if you have a big guild / zerg everyone in that guild / zerg is automatically bad and only small guilds have good players. more often than not, its the opposite ;3
That is why i said minus you, you are playing these games currently lol. not to mention you are legit in one of thoose guilds and you would understand lol. Small guilds are not the one with the experienced players, the amount of work to make that guild work and grow is not something most people do.
Ya you get it but people don't understand the landscape of pvp and what they will be in for. People out here preparing for this mmorpg for years and grinding. Both in member count, skill, and coordination.
Dying doesn't mean the battle end, it just means you lost a fight as it should be and a price you need to pay xp / distance time. The group that win rez's their allies and gets back to grinding. Not this ok i die but now I'm going to respawn and we are going to see who wants to waste the most time with 0 time consequence.
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case? We get scrolls, right?
And I haven't seen Weakness or Brink of Death or anything like that, so it's the same anyway.
Time scale of their use. Instantaneous or sequential. Ultimately single target shorter cd rezzes (scrolls included) are way more op than a mass rez, because mass rez is usually a last resort in hopes of turning stuff around, while solo ones are the "party life upkeep". So in a way, Ashes already has a more op mechanic than what Mag is scared of
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case? We get scrolls, right?
And I haven't seen Weakness or Brink of Death or anything like that, so it's the same anyway.
Time scale of their use. Instantaneous or sequential. Ultimately single target shorter cd rezzes (scrolls included) are way more op than a mass rez, because mass rez is usually a last resort in hopes of turning stuff around, while solo ones are the "party life upkeep". So in a way, Ashes already has a more op mechanic than what Mag is scared of
People our here thinking everyone is getting instant single target combat rezes on short cds. Kind of wild. Do you guys play games?
People our here thinking everyone is getting instant single target combat rezes on short cds. Kind of wild. Do you guys play games?
I expect none of those things. Nor do I expect mass rez to be an instant cast or cheap (and I already suggested it to be a synergy multi-party ability). But even if rez scrolls have a cd - that's still 8 rezzes within seconds + the cleric rez.
People our here thinking everyone is getting instant single target combat rezes on short cds. Kind of wild. Do you guys play games?
I expect none of those things. Nor do I expect mass rez to be an instant cast or cheap (and I already suggested it to be a synergy multi-party ability). But even if rez scrolls have a cd - that's still 8 rezzes within seconds + the cleric rez.
None of that sounds realistic in a fight. Half your team is dead on the ground in the middle of the battlefield as you are being attacked. And you are going to somehow walk up to the body, sit for the cast time and rez someone while in combat.
How do you even know those scrolls will work in combat on top of that??
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
None of that sounds realistic in a fight. Half your team is dead on the ground in the middle of the battlefield as you are being attacked. And you are going to somehow walk up to the body, sit for the cast time and rez someone while in combat.
Yes, I've done so countless times during all kinds of fights. Obviously it doesn't always work, but it is possible, especially in bigger fights.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
Yeah, I do agree that there should be smth similar in Ashes, especially considering that flagged death gives lower death penalties and most deaths will happen to flagged people.
As always, it's all about the A2 testing and feedback. And I already know Mag's feedback for A2
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
None of that sounds realistic in a fight. Half your team is dead on the ground in the middle of the battlefield as you are being attacked. And you are going to somehow walk up to the body, sit for the cast time and rez someone while in combat.
Yes, I've done so countless times during all kinds of fights. Obviously it doesn't always work, but it is possible, especially in bigger fights.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
Yeah, I do agree that there should be smth similar in Ashes, especially considering that flagged death gives lower death penalties and most deaths will happen to flagged people.
As always, it's all about the A2 testing and feedback. And I already know Mag's feedback for A2
Doing that id older mmorpgs and doing this with modern gameplay is not the same thing. The fact you think you can get away with that is silly. A single random revive if you managed to do the impossible does not do much bringing one person back while you end you risking losing more in the end.
Again you are little looking at things through nostalgia glasses reaching for anything you can and thinking that it is proof it is the "same" By the logic you would say any rez means it is the same as L2.
Their designs are still being worked on, them saying you will have different forms of rez's could mean that mass rez can be tied to maybe a artifact item you get from a boss that works once, it could mean "Out of combat rez" when they say "Certain types".
This idea of yours that mass rez / guild rez you are going to get up and be back in combat after some buffs is not going to happen. Any general person will say that is a broken ability seeing a group of 40 wipe and they just stand back up from rez "in combat".
Mass res out of combat i don't feel is a issue with a long CD. If we are talking about a augmented res skill on cleric /rogue that does some kind of mass res in combat allowing people to fight for 10 secs with reduced dmg / hp / life before dying again as a high lvl spell that would make more sense. (also a type of mass res).
This isn't just my feedback btw, this is general people that play high end pvp in mmorpgs.
Their designs are still being worked on, them saying you will have different forms of rez's could mean that mass rez can be tied to maybe a artifact item you get from a boss that works once, it could mean "Out of combat rez" when they say "Certain types".
All of this sounds like the exact copium you accuse me of partaking You are the one who hopes that Steven will do everything that "the modern games do", because "that's just what you gotta do in a modern game".
I'm simply compiling all the references to older games (though pretty much L2 so far) and saying "oh, that sounds a whole of a lot like L2's design". And considering that Steven is closer to that experience, when it comes to his inspirations, I feel like my brand of copium has a higher chance of becoming the reality.
Of course there's always a chance that he'll just change his mind on half the mechanics and designs, in order to appeal to others like you, but so far that remains to be seen imo (considering that the mass rez mention was from july last year).
I do hope you realize that your own preferences and biases come off the same way a wow player's do. All the wow players also keep saying "are you crazy, who the hell would design a game this way?! There's no way they'd do that!!"
And that's why I'll just keep pointing out the similarities in Steven's designs and L2's ones and keep saying that I prefer them the way they currently seem. And when the dev question thread about mass rez comes up (if ever) - I'll be there to tell them "I want mass combat rez with limited range and potentially multi-party synergistic design". And you're free to tell them they're crazy to even consider such a feature
Their designs are still being worked on, them saying you will have different forms of rez's could mean that mass rez can be tied to maybe a artifact item you get from a boss that works once, it could mean "Out of combat rez" when they say "Certain types".
All of this sounds like the exact copium you accuse me of partaking You are the one who hopes that Steven will do everything that "the modern games do", because "that's just what you gotta do in a modern game".
I'm simply compiling all the references to older games (though pretty much L2 so far) and saying "oh, that sounds a whole of a lot like L2's design". And considering that Steven is closer to that experience, when it comes to his inspirations, I feel like my brand of copium has a higher chance of becoming the reality.
Of course there's always a chance that he'll just change his mind on half the mechanics and designs, in order to appeal to others like you, but so far that remains to be seen imo (considering that the mass rez mention was from july last year).
I do hope you realize that your own preferences and biases come off the same way a wow player's ones do. All the wow players also keep saying "are you crazy, who the hell would design a game this way?! There's no way they'd do that!!"
And that's why I'll just keep pointing out the similarities in Steven's designs and L2's ones and keep saying that I prefer them the way they currently seem. And when the dev question thread about mass rez comes up (if ever) - I'll be there to tell them "I want mass combat rez with limited range and potentially multi-party synergistic design". And you're free to tell them they're crazy to even consider such a feature
You can literally see the design if you look at the combat and gameplay lol, the copium would be you my friend because you refuse to see it as anything other than L2 (that is TL). Even with the glaring differences in combat design that are as clear as day.
Rez has nothing to do with L2 again its a general thing in mmorpgs. Talking about Rez does not mean L2, nor does that mean they are copying the style that is you making assumptions based on hearing a word without context. Generally you would make the assumption of balance based on the combat (even more so if the combat is of modern design meaning it lean towards modern).
Also i feel you are not giving credit to the other 270 that work at the studio. Designers create a lot of that type of content and have their own influence and own experiences. This point of yours you follow that Steven played L2 so the game is L2 does not really hold up since you have people that played a lot of mmorpgs and steven did not sololy play just L2.
Ill repeat my other post in short form since i prob missed it. Talking about a Rez does not mean it automatically assume it works the way you want that would end up creating a imbalanced designed and bad meta. They are going to design things in a way that makes sense, if it does end up being included where did they say it was a in combat rez, you are making that assumption instantly going to an extreme end of unbalanced gameplay.
My expectations are based on what i see with the combat and the combat they are adding into the game and showcasing being modern. You are reaching trying compare like viewing two differences kinds of fruits but saying they are both fruit so its L2.
Your view point I think honestly is a bit silly in both how you view mass rez works, why you want it, and the reality of what would happen and who would gain the most from it being guilds with numbers. (In the term of mass rez and going right back into combat).
I'd expect designers to sit down think about the elements and create it based around balance. They won't have the same nostalgia as you so you can't really use that as a logical argument mass rez just cause.
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Do y'all only play with sucky mages? Or in games with poor tactics? I know Depraved doesn't.
L2 is taken as a focus because it's basically one of, if not the best PvP MMO of its era. Is L2's mass Resurrection some huge AoE with a short cooldown?
If it takes five seconds to cast a reasonable AoE Resurrection, you just have your mages time their Black Hole or whatever to blast the hell out of the entire group of raised people.
NiKr this is your fault for trying to use a leading abstraction in a conversation with Mag, y'know...
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Do y'all only play with sucky mages? Or in games with poor tactics? I know Depraved doesn't.
L2 is taken as a focus because it's basically one of, if not the best PvP MMO of its era. Is L2's mass Resurrection some huge AoE with a short cooldown?
If it takes five seconds to cast a reasonable AoE Resurrection, you just have your mages time their Black Hole or whatever to blast the hell out of the entire group of raised people.
NiKr this is your fault for trying to use a leading abstraction in a conversation with Mag, y'know...
This comes from the whole point of nikr not wanting people to be on the ground (dead) and fights until all your resources are used. So if you are dying instantly and on the ground still i feel that is against the whole point.
But I'm not trying to make points on killing people that you res right away since there could be equally ways to prevent the team to do that and than its a different kind of argument without knowing what skills will do what dps and protect, cc, etc.
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Do y'all only play with sucky mages? Or in games with poor tactics? I know Depraved doesn't.
L2 is taken as a focus because it's basically one of, if not the best PvP MMO of its era. Is L2's mass Resurrection some huge AoE with a short cooldown?
If it takes five seconds to cast a reasonable AoE Resurrection, you just have your mages time their Black Hole or whatever to blast the hell out of the entire group of raised people.
NiKr this is your fault for trying to use a leading abstraction in a conversation with Mag, y'know...
This comes from the whole point of nikr not wanting people to be on the ground (dead) and fights until all your resources are used. So if you are dying instantly and on the ground still i feel that is against the whole point.
But I'm not trying to make points on killing people that you res right away since there could be equally ways to prevent the team to do that and than its a different kind of argument without knowing what skills will do what dps and protect, cc, etc.
I'll leave this to NiKr, then, but you're proving my point I think.
NiKr was thinking about a battle tactic situation that goes beyond that, and you somehow simplified it down to 'NiKr wants people to not be dead in battles'. I'll leave it to NiKr to clarify if you just straight up 'made up something you think someone else said and are now arguing with it' like usual.
Wait, what's the difference between Mass Revive and 'many single revives' in this case?
compiling vs interpreting
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Do y'all only play with sucky mages? Or in games with poor tactics? I know Depraved doesn't.
L2 is taken as a focus because it's basically one of, if not the best PvP MMO of its era. Is L2's mass Resurrection some huge AoE with a short cooldown?
If it takes five seconds to cast a reasonable AoE Resurrection, you just have your mages time their Black Hole or whatever to blast the hell out of the entire group of raised people.
NiKr this is your fault for trying to use a leading abstraction in a conversation with Mag, y'know...
This comes from the whole point of nikr not wanting people to be on the ground (dead) and fights until all your resources are used. So if you are dying instantly and on the ground still i feel that is against the whole point.
But I'm not trying to make points on killing people that you res right away since there could be equally ways to prevent the team to do that and than its a different kind of argument without knowing what skills will do what dps and protect, cc, etc.
I'll leave this to NiKr, then, but you're proving my point I think.
NiKr was thinking about a battle tactic situation that goes beyond that, and you somehow simplified it down to 'NiKr wants people to not be dead in battles'. I'll leave it to NiKr to clarify if you just straight up 'made up something you think someone else said and are now arguing with it' like usual.
I feel like you are just here to disagree with me than read the original point of this discussion on what we were talking about and our disagreement with the pvp elements as the whole point of the pro mass res was to keep fighting going without breaks....
NiKr was thinking about a battle tactic situation that goes beyond that, and you somehow simplified it down to 'NiKr wants people to not be dead in battles'. I'll leave it to NiKr to clarify if you just straight up 'made up something you think someone else said and are now arguing with it' like usual.
I'm not sure if I'm even able to clarify it more. I want ebb and flow to the battles, where mass rez can revive someone in the back, while the fight is going on upfront (due to a potential push in order to revive those dudes). To me mass rez is simply a tool that makes the pvp more fun, because it makes pvp longer and requires more resources to finish. Mag obviously dislikes that.
As for range/cast on mass rez, here're base stats
And here's practical application from the pov of a healer with pretty much a full buff (the cast bar is center screen above hp, the mass rez icon is 11th on the second row) at 1:03. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2Pqz4v7Bo
As I've said before, L2's range is definitely a bit too far imo (max spell range pretty much) and as you can see in practice, cd and cast time is really fast too. I prefer those last 2 that way, but I'd be totally fine with a much longer cast and a higher mechanical requirement.
L2's regrouping consisted of "respawn in town after death -> rebuff -> tp to the location -> maybe run for a bit if you don't have better tp". Right now we don't know the range of respawn options for Ashes. It might be a super varied range where your enemies can't simply camp you at respawn or it might be a limited one, where you gotta respawn all the way at the node center.
In case of the latter one - I feel like mass rez is almost a requirement for my preferred style of pvp, because any given big fight will be more about running to the spot than the pvp itself. If it's the former - the situation is a bit better, but I'd still prefer pvp to be more concentrated until one side totally wipes.
Talking about a Rez does not mean it automatically assume it works the way you want that would end up creating a imbalanced designed and bad meta. They are going to design things in a way that makes sense, if it does end up being included where did they say it was a in combat rez, you are making that assumption instantly going to an extreme end of unbalanced gameplay.
Afaik rez worked in combat in A2, so their default was already that. And like I already said, I see no point in limiting an already working mechanic at its extrapolation. We have heals - we have aoe heals. We have attack spells - we have aoes. To me it's only logical to have a combat aoe rez if we already have a single target one.
NiKr was thinking about a battle tactic situation that goes beyond that, and you somehow simplified it down to 'NiKr wants people to not be dead in battles'. I'll leave it to NiKr to clarify if you just straight up 'made up something you think someone else said and are now arguing with it' like usual.
I'm not sure if I'm even able to clarify it more. I want ebb and flow to the battles, where mass rez can revive someone in the back, while the fight is going on upfront (due to a potential push in order to revive those dudes). To me mass rez is simply a tool that makes the pvp more fun, because it makes pvp longer and requires more resources to finish. Mag obviously dislikes that.
As for range/cast on mass rez, here're base stats
And here's practical application from the pov of a healer with pretty much a full buff (the cast bar is center screen above hp, the mass rez icon is 11th on the second row) at 1:03. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2Pqz4v7Bo
As I've said before, L2's range is definitely a bit too far imo (max spell range pretty much) and as you can see in practice, cd and cast time is really fast too. I prefer those last 2 that way, but I'd be totally fine with a much longer cast and a higher mechanical requirement.
L2's regrouping consisted of "respawn in town after death -> rebuff -> tp to the location -> maybe run for a bit if you don't have better tp". Right now we don't know the range of respawn options for Ashes. It might be a super varied range where your enemies can't simply camp you at respawn or it might be a limited one, where you gotta respawn all the way at the node center.
In case of the latter one - I feel like mass rez is almost a requirement for my preferred style of pvp, because any given big fight will be more about running to the spot than the pvp itself. If it's the former - the situation is a bit better, but I'd still prefer pvp to be more concentrated until one side totally wipes.
Talking about a Rez does not mean it automatically assume it works the way you want that would end up creating a imbalanced designed and bad meta. They are going to design things in a way that makes sense, if it does end up being included where did they say it was a in combat rez, you are making that assumption instantly going to an extreme end of unbalanced gameplay.
Afaik rez worked in combat in A2, so their default was already that. And like I already said, I see no point in limiting an already working mechanic at its extrapolation. We have heals - we have aoe heals. We have attack spells - we have aoes. To me it's only logical to have a combat aoe rez if we already have a single target one.
Combat rex and mass combat rez are 2 different and not in the same boat of realms even slightly. No one says you can't have single target combat rez, and a party combat rex would be done while a party is not in combat.
But if you looose the fight the winning them should get a benefit ie being able to deal dmg to a boss, kill a boss, do a dungeon, get deeper in. This idea of just rezed back up after losing sounds far more akin to griefing since you had lost the fight. Even more so if corruption is at play or other elements (but like i said before I'm not getting into all details).
Just don't lose the fight and you are good and won't need to run back from town. Granted i don't think hey are going to go old school where you can only respawn at town (even in old school you could respawn at certain other locations in a pvp mmo). It most likely with be town and set other respawn locations varied around the map with a few choices so you can't be spawn camped.
This idea of just rezed back up after losing sounds far more akin to griefing since you had lost the fight.
If in 2v2 of cleric+fighter fighterA dies, but then is rezed by clericA and manages to kill clericB and then fighterB, did that fighterA "lose the fight" after dying the first time?
What if clericA is super thick, while fighterA is weak as fuck, so fighterA manages to die and get rezed 5 times throughout that single battle and only on the 6th death clericA finally dies. Did team A lose on the first death of their fighter or on the last?
What if instead of 2v2 it's a 5v5, where teamA loses and rezes people several times but then manages to wipe teamB with a good combo. Who lost that fight?
What if it's 2 strong parties vs 3 weak parties. The fight is really prolonged and one of the strong parties wipes before the fight moves a bit to the side (say, a different room in the dungeon). And a rogue from the second strong party returns to the first party, uses a scroll to rez that healer and the healer mass rezes the party. And then 2 strong parties finish off the 3 weak ones.
Was there ever a loss throughout this encounter or was it just the flow of the overall battle?
My point here being, combat rezes are part of the overall encounter. The fight doesn't end until one of the sides cannot rez up on the spot. It is exactly the same as your cleric running out of mana and not being able to heal your group anymore. The tool is gone (mana for heals in that case) so you ultimately lose.
There was a joke among L2 healers: "A rez is cheaper than a heal". It meant that sometimes it's better to lose a player who's being heavily targeted, instead of wasting a shitton of mana on trying to keep him alive. And it's better because you can resurrect him a second later and your enemy would've spent more resources on him than what they might've wanted. It was a viable strategy, though not a preferable one.
Even A1's rez revived people at 75/25% hp/mana (at rank 3 of the skill btw), so even then rezes were mostly the last resort in a fight. Mass rez works in the same way. It's not a "I win now" button. It's your last tool in the fight, which, when used at a very appropriate time, might sometimes lead you to victory.
I'd bet money (if I had any) that tank will have some "big party def buff", healers will have "spend a shitton of resources to heal party for a ton" spell and other archetypes will have something along those lines. Things that will only be used at very precise moments in time. Mass rez is the same kind of tool, except with potentially even lower payoff. Yet I somehow sure that you won't be arguing against a tank buff as much as you're arguing about this
This idea of just rezed back up after losing sounds far more akin to griefing since you had lost the fight.
If in 2v2 of cleric+fighter fighterA dies, but then is rezed by clericA and manages to kill clericB and then fighterB, did that fighterA "lose the fight" after dying the first time?
What if clericA is super thick, while fighterA is weak as fuck, so fighterA manages to die and get rezed 5 times throughout that single battle and only on the 6th death clericA finally dies. Did team A lose on the first death of their fighter or on the last?
What if instead of 2v2 it's a 5v5, where teamA loses and rezes people several times but then manages to wipe teamB with a good combo. Who lost that fight?
What if it's 2 strong parties vs 3 weak parties. The fight is really prolonged and one of the strong parties wipes before the fight moves a bit to the side (say, a different room in the dungeon). And a rogue from the second strong party returns to the first party, uses a scroll to rez that healer and the healer mass rezes the party. And then 2 strong parties finish off the 3 weak ones.
Was there ever a loss throughout this encounter or was it just the flow of the overall battle?
My point here being, combat rezes are part of the overall encounter. The fight doesn't end until one of the sides cannot rez up on the spot. It is exactly the same as your cleric running out of mana and not being able to heal your group anymore. The tool is gone (mana for heals in that case) so you ultimately lose.
There was a joke among L2 healers: "A rez is cheaper than a heal". It meant that sometimes it's better to lose a player who's being heavily targeted, instead of wasting a shitton of mana on trying to keep him alive. And it's better because you can resurrect him a second later and your enemy would've spent more resources on him than what they might've wanted. It was a viable strategy, though not a preferable one.
Even A1's rez revived people at 75/25% hp/mana (at rank 3 of the skill btw), so even then rezes were mostly the last resort in a fight. Mass rez works in the same way. It's not a "I win now" button. It's your last tool in the fight, which, when used at a very appropriate time, might sometimes lead you to victory.
I'd bet money (if I had any) that tank will have some "big party def buff", healers will have "spend a shitton of resources to heal party for a ton" spell and other archetypes will have something along those lines. Things that will only be used at very precise moments in time. Mass rez is the same kind of tool, except with potentially even lower payoff. Yet I somehow sure that you won't be arguing against a tank buff as much as you're arguing about this
If you die you lose the fight, you are simply rezing repeating until ou can eventually "win". Meaning you loses 5 times if you were rezed 5 times.
Also that sounds like dog and terrible. Just being rezed over and over until you win a fight, that is not normal. It sounds like a old broken mechanic that was in a few mmorpgs and died out over time because of the level of design because increased. Mass Rez doesn't even exist in the spiritual successor of L2 being TL.
You might want that but again they have a modern design for combat, and most people will agree if you ask out in the open that level of rezing is busted and does not create fun encounters. Idea of being rez'd over and over is someone that loses fights and keeps going until they can win one. It be a cancer meta on top of mass combat rez.
You have not really attempted to convince me why the designers creating AoC to be a big mmo are going to feel that is a good idea to add mass combat rez design wise. This literarily could end up being used as a griefing tool for pvpers, on top of imbalanced gameplay, zegs having huge benefits, and top guilds never losing fights.
Nothing should be argued more than your idea for mass combat rez. Because that means all those players get up and can use any powerful skills they have again because of mass combat rez.
If you die you lose the fight, you are simply rezing repeating until ou can eventually "win". Meaning you loses 5 times if you were rezed 5 times.
I feel like this is the biggest representation of the soloability of modern mmos. You think that everyone's playing alone so if you died - you lost, because you were the one who died.
I think in party-units, so until my party completely wipes - I can use all the tools the game provides me with to win the fight, rezes included.
You have not really attempted to convince me why the designers creating AoC to be a big mmo are going to feel that is a good idea to add mass combat rez design wise.
I've already said that it simply makes pvp more fun imo. Especially big party-based pvp, and not the "solo players in a random pug" situation. You disagree because you're used to those exact solo mmos.
If Intrepid designers didn't want to have mass rez, Steven would've said so when he was asked about rezes in general, yet he explicitly stated that mass rez(es) was planned. And default design for rezes in A1 was "available in combat", which tells me that mass rezes will be too.
Again, you seem to hope that the game will get changed to your preferences. I simply think that it will stay with Steven's preferences, which seem to be quite apparent so far.
If you so strongly believe that absolute majority of people will dislike mass rez, you're more than free to ping Vaknar and ask him to relay a suggestion for the team to make a dev thread about that. And then it'll be up to Intrepid and Steven to decide if they consider their design in line with mass rez or with the, presumed, dislike of it by the community.
This idea of just rezed back up after losing sounds far more akin to griefing since you had lost the fight.
If in 2v2 of cleric+fighter fighterA dies, but then is rezed by clericA and manages to kill clericB and then fighterB, did that fighterA "lose the fight" after dying the first time?
What if clericA is super thick, while fighterA is weak as fuck, so fighterA manages to die and get rezed 5 times throughout that single battle and only on the 6th death clericA finally dies. Did team A lose on the first death of their fighter or on the last?
What if instead of 2v2 it's a 5v5, where teamA loses and rezes people several times but then manages to wipe teamB with a good combo. Who lost that fight?
What if it's 2 strong parties vs 3 weak parties. The fight is really prolonged and one of the strong parties wipes before the fight moves a bit to the side (say, a different room in the dungeon). And a rogue from the second strong party returns to the first party, uses a scroll to rez that healer and the healer mass rezes the party. And then 2 strong parties finish off the 3 weak ones.
Was there ever a loss throughout this encounter or was it just the flow of the overall battle?
My point here being, combat rezes are part of the overall encounter. The fight doesn't end until one of the sides cannot rez up on the spot. It is exactly the same as your cleric running out of mana and not being able to heal your group anymore. The tool is gone (mana for heals in that case) so you ultimately lose.
There was a joke among L2 healers: "A rez is cheaper than a heal". It meant that sometimes it's better to lose a player who's being heavily targeted, instead of wasting a shitton of mana on trying to keep him alive. And it's better because you can resurrect him a second later and your enemy would've spent more resources on him than what they might've wanted. It was a viable strategy, though not a preferable one.
Even A1's rez revived people at 75/25% hp/mana (at rank 3 of the skill btw), so even then rezes were mostly the last resort in a fight. Mass rez works in the same way. It's not a "I win now" button. It's your last tool in the fight, which, when used at a very appropriate time, might sometimes lead you to victory.
I'd bet money (if I had any) that tank will have some "big party def buff", healers will have "spend a shitton of resources to heal party for a ton" spell and other archetypes will have something along those lines. Things that will only be used at very precise moments in time. Mass rez is the same kind of tool, except with potentially even lower payoff. Yet I somehow sure that you won't be arguing against a tank buff as much as you're arguing about this
well, to be fair single target reses can be quite annoying and broken. if the enemy party is dual boxing another elder or a pp for example, they can still res after you kill their 2 healers. they can basically win the fight by paying an extra sub and having an extra pc. so p2w res?xD
on the other hand. resurrecting in l2 during combat isnt as powerful as resurrecting in combat in a "solo" mmorpg until noble.
Comments
That is why i said minus you, you are playing these games currently lol. not to mention you are legit in one of thoose guilds and you would understand lol. Small guilds are not the one with the experienced players, the amount of work to make that guild work and grow is not something most people do.
Ya you get it but people don't understand the landscape of pvp and what they will be in for. People out here preparing for this mmorpg for years and grinding. Both in member count, skill, and coordination.
And I haven't seen Weakness or Brink of Death or anything like that, so it's the same anyway.
compiling vs interpreting
People our here thinking everyone is getting instant single target combat rezes on short cds. Kind of wild. Do you guys play games?
None of that sounds realistic in a fight. Half your team is dead on the ground in the middle of the battlefield as you are being attacked. And you are going to somehow walk up to the body, sit for the cast time and rez someone while in combat.
How do you even know those scrolls will work in combat on top of that??
Moreso asking because Mag went off on a tangent again in response to NiKr's question about dying to the two Rogues.
But in that situation you just need a scroll, a standard combat raise, etc. I'm used to a game (technically two) where 'being raised and dying consecutively' would make you ineffective eventually, Bard buffs or not. So my understanding aligns closer to NiKr's. You can raise, and then escape the fight for a while to come back, or jump back in and try not to die again.
If you die again, you 'run out of Raises'. You can still BE raised, but you're ineffective for the fight for a while. Once enough of an enemy group is in that state, you can assume you've won (i.e. even a pile of Clerics with infinite MP won't resolve the problem).
I don't really care about the weirdness being discussed now (it seems to be a derail from the thread anyway), but I know it's difficult to make 'single Resurrection in combat' actually very hard without this. A winning 'zerg' group just 'always wins' otherwise because you can't keep their key players out of combat.
There's a reason why old games have Resurrection Sickness, they didn't just randomly decide 'ah yes let's punish our players for death by making them less effective for some arbitrary period of time, that'll teach them a lesson!'
oh i forgot about that too. death penalty where your stats are lowered. you have that in l2 as well.
anyways the difference is reviving one person at a time vs everyone altogether. one person at a time is obviously less powerful
Ah yes, of course, why didn't I think of that.
Higher positive numbers are better than lower ones such as 'one'. I can't believe I missed it. Obviously I overthought it all and therefore asked a dumb question like I normally do when discussing things involving certain takes.
I thank you for opening my eyes to my inability to logic.
Simply because it would feel weird to have combat rez, but not on scrolls. If Steven wants to have it that way - oh well.
Also, I should've checked this from the very start. Steven literally said there'll be mass rez (he even used the plural form of the word)
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Resurrection_methods
You keep saying that Ashes is not L2, but I keep seeing literally L2 designs left and right (mb AA designs too? I dunno).
Yeah, I do agree that there should be smth similar in Ashes, especially considering that flagged death gives lower death penalties and most deaths will happen to flagged people.
As always, it's all about the A2 testing and feedback. And I already know Mag's feedback for A2
you are welcome sir
you know, you are being sarcastic but at the same time thats actually what happened. you didnt think it through.
assuming everything else equal (death penalty, buffs, etc. because those things will affect everyone who is being revived equally), the only difference left is numbers. if you have to revive 100 people one by one, and it would take you 5 seconds to revive each person, thats (500 / 60) 8+ minutes to revive everyone as opposed to reviving all 100 at once in 5 seconds. additionally, if you revive one person, its easier to pick on that dude and kill him than to kill 100 players at the same time.
so yeah...at the end of the day it comes down to one at a time vs everyone at the same time because all the other factors affect everyone who dies equally (even if they are chance based, like a death penalty for example). so maybe it wasnt that obvious?
Doing that id older mmorpgs and doing this with modern gameplay is not the same thing. The fact you think you can get away with that is silly. A single random revive if you managed to do the impossible does not do much bringing one person back while you end you risking losing more in the end.
Again you are little looking at things through nostalgia glasses reaching for anything you can and thinking that it is proof it is the "same" By the logic you would say any rez means it is the same as L2.
Their designs are still being worked on, them saying you will have different forms of rez's could mean that mass rez can be tied to maybe a artifact item you get from a boss that works once, it could mean "Out of combat rez" when they say "Certain types".
This idea of yours that mass rez / guild rez you are going to get up and be back in combat after some buffs is not going to happen. Any general person will say that is a broken ability seeing a group of 40 wipe and they just stand back up from rez "in combat".
Mass res out of combat i don't feel is a issue with a long CD. If we are talking about a augmented res skill on cleric /rogue that does some kind of mass res in combat allowing people to fight for 10 secs with reduced dmg / hp / life before dying again as a high lvl spell that would make more sense. (also a type of mass res).
This isn't just my feedback btw, this is general people that play high end pvp in mmorpgs.
I'm simply compiling all the references to older games (though pretty much L2 so far) and saying "oh, that sounds a whole of a lot like L2's design". And considering that Steven is closer to that experience, when it comes to his inspirations, I feel like my brand of copium has a higher chance of becoming the reality.
Of course there's always a chance that he'll just change his mind on half the mechanics and designs, in order to appeal to others like you, but so far that remains to be seen imo (considering that the mass rez mention was from july last year).
I do hope you realize that your own preferences and biases come off the same way a wow player's do. All the wow players also keep saying "are you crazy, who the hell would design a game this way?! There's no way they'd do that!!"
And that's why I'll just keep pointing out the similarities in Steven's designs and L2's ones and keep saying that I prefer them the way they currently seem. And when the dev question thread about mass rez comes up (if ever) - I'll be there to tell them "I want mass combat rez with limited range and potentially multi-party synergistic design". And you're free to tell them they're crazy to even consider such a feature
You can literally see the design if you look at the combat and gameplay lol, the copium would be you my friend because you refuse to see it as anything other than L2 (that is TL). Even with the glaring differences in combat design that are as clear as day.
Rez has nothing to do with L2 again its a general thing in mmorpgs. Talking about Rez does not mean L2, nor does that mean they are copying the style that is you making assumptions based on hearing a word without context. Generally you would make the assumption of balance based on the combat (even more so if the combat is of modern design meaning it lean towards modern).
Also i feel you are not giving credit to the other 270 that work at the studio. Designers create a lot of that type of content and have their own influence and own experiences. This point of yours you follow that Steven played L2 so the game is L2 does not really hold up since you have people that played a lot of mmorpgs and steven did not sololy play just L2.
Ill repeat my other post in short form since i prob missed it. Talking about a Rez does not mean it automatically assume it works the way you want that would end up creating a imbalanced designed and bad meta. They are going to design things in a way that makes sense, if it does end up being included where did they say it was a in combat rez, you are making that assumption instantly going to an extreme end of unbalanced gameplay.
My expectations are based on what i see with the combat and the combat they are adding into the game and showcasing being modern. You are reaching trying compare like viewing two differences kinds of fruits but saying they are both fruit so its L2.
Your view point I think honestly is a bit silly in both how you view mass rez works, why you want it, and the reality of what would happen and who would gain the most from it being guilds with numbers. (In the term of mass rez and going right back into combat).
I'd expect designers to sit down think about the elements and create it based around balance. They won't have the same nostalgia as you so you can't really use that as a logical argument mass rez just cause.
I don't know why people can't get this logic about mass rez (guild , multi group, etc) is a broken ability. And if the counter argument turns into they are nerfed for a set amount of time, are weakened, need significant time to get buffs back., etc.
It becomes there are breaks between fights still just the same so the fights isn't non stop like nikr is trying to argue for. Realistically that isn't the case for any fight, any competitive group is going to steam roll you if you aren't grouped properly and are constantly staggered from needing to wait for all debuffs, buffs, healing ,etc.
Do y'all only play with sucky mages? Or in games with poor tactics? I know Depraved doesn't.
L2 is taken as a focus because it's basically one of, if not the best PvP MMO of its era. Is L2's mass Resurrection some huge AoE with a short cooldown?
If it takes five seconds to cast a reasonable AoE Resurrection, you just have your mages time their Black Hole or whatever to blast the hell out of the entire group of raised people.
NiKr this is your fault for trying to use a leading abstraction in a conversation with Mag, y'know...
This comes from the whole point of nikr not wanting people to be on the ground (dead) and fights until all your resources are used. So if you are dying instantly and on the ground still i feel that is against the whole point.
But I'm not trying to make points on killing people that you res right away since there could be equally ways to prevent the team to do that and than its a different kind of argument without knowing what skills will do what dps and protect, cc, etc.
I'll leave this to NiKr, then, but you're proving my point I think.
NiKr was thinking about a battle tactic situation that goes beyond that, and you somehow simplified it down to 'NiKr wants people to not be dead in battles'. I'll leave it to NiKr to clarify if you just straight up 'made up something you think someone else said and are now arguing with it' like usual.
I feel like you are just here to disagree with me than read the original point of this discussion on what we were talking about and our disagreement with the pvp elements as the whole point of the pro mass res was to keep fighting going without breaks....
You are free to go back over our comments...
As for range/cast on mass rez, here're base stats
And here's practical application from the pov of a healer with pretty much a full buff (the cast bar is center screen above hp, the mass rez icon is 11th on the second row) at 1:03.
As I've said before, L2's range is definitely a bit too far imo (max spell range pretty much) and as you can see in practice, cd and cast time is really fast too. I prefer those last 2 that way, but I'd be totally fine with a much longer cast and a higher mechanical requirement.
L2's regrouping consisted of "respawn in town after death -> rebuff -> tp to the location -> maybe run for a bit if you don't have better tp". Right now we don't know the range of respawn options for Ashes. It might be a super varied range where your enemies can't simply camp you at respawn or it might be a limited one, where you gotta respawn all the way at the node center.
In case of the latter one - I feel like mass rez is almost a requirement for my preferred style of pvp, because any given big fight will be more about running to the spot than the pvp itself. If it's the former - the situation is a bit better, but I'd still prefer pvp to be more concentrated until one side totally wipes.
Afaik rez worked in combat in A2, so their default was already that. And like I already said, I see no point in limiting an already working mechanic at its extrapolation. We have heals - we have aoe heals. We have attack spells - we have aoes. To me it's only logical to have a combat aoe rez if we already have a single target one.
Combat rex and mass combat rez are 2 different and not in the same boat of realms even slightly. No one says you can't have single target combat rez, and a party combat rex would be done while a party is not in combat.
But if you looose the fight the winning them should get a benefit ie being able to deal dmg to a boss, kill a boss, do a dungeon, get deeper in. This idea of just rezed back up after losing sounds far more akin to griefing since you had lost the fight. Even more so if corruption is at play or other elements (but like i said before I'm not getting into all details).
Just don't lose the fight and you are good and won't need to run back from town. Granted i don't think hey are going to go old school where you can only respawn at town (even in old school you could respawn at certain other locations in a pvp mmo). It most likely with be town and set other respawn locations varied around the map with a few choices so you can't be spawn camped.
What if clericA is super thick, while fighterA is weak as fuck, so fighterA manages to die and get rezed 5 times throughout that single battle and only on the 6th death clericA finally dies. Did team A lose on the first death of their fighter or on the last?
What if instead of 2v2 it's a 5v5, where teamA loses and rezes people several times but then manages to wipe teamB with a good combo. Who lost that fight?
What if it's 2 strong parties vs 3 weak parties. The fight is really prolonged and one of the strong parties wipes before the fight moves a bit to the side (say, a different room in the dungeon). And a rogue from the second strong party returns to the first party, uses a scroll to rez that healer and the healer mass rezes the party. And then 2 strong parties finish off the 3 weak ones.
Was there ever a loss throughout this encounter or was it just the flow of the overall battle?
My point here being, combat rezes are part of the overall encounter. The fight doesn't end until one of the sides cannot rez up on the spot. It is exactly the same as your cleric running out of mana and not being able to heal your group anymore. The tool is gone (mana for heals in that case) so you ultimately lose.
There was a joke among L2 healers: "A rez is cheaper than a heal". It meant that sometimes it's better to lose a player who's being heavily targeted, instead of wasting a shitton of mana on trying to keep him alive. And it's better because you can resurrect him a second later and your enemy would've spent more resources on him than what they might've wanted. It was a viable strategy, though not a preferable one.
Even A1's rez revived people at 75/25% hp/mana (at rank 3 of the skill btw), so even then rezes were mostly the last resort in a fight. Mass rez works in the same way. It's not a "I win now" button. It's your last tool in the fight, which, when used at a very appropriate time, might sometimes lead you to victory.
I'd bet money (if I had any) that tank will have some "big party def buff", healers will have "spend a shitton of resources to heal party for a ton" spell and other archetypes will have something along those lines. Things that will only be used at very precise moments in time. Mass rez is the same kind of tool, except with potentially even lower payoff. Yet I somehow sure that you won't be arguing against a tank buff as much as you're arguing about this
If you die you lose the fight, you are simply rezing repeating until ou can eventually "win". Meaning you loses 5 times if you were rezed 5 times.
Also that sounds like dog and terrible. Just being rezed over and over until you win a fight, that is not normal. It sounds like a old broken mechanic that was in a few mmorpgs and died out over time because of the level of design because increased. Mass Rez doesn't even exist in the spiritual successor of L2 being TL.
You might want that but again they have a modern design for combat, and most people will agree if you ask out in the open that level of rezing is busted and does not create fun encounters. Idea of being rez'd over and over is someone that loses fights and keeps going until they can win one. It be a cancer meta on top of mass combat rez.
You have not really attempted to convince me why the designers creating AoC to be a big mmo are going to feel that is a good idea to add mass combat rez design wise. This literarily could end up being used as a griefing tool for pvpers, on top of imbalanced gameplay, zegs having huge benefits, and top guilds never losing fights.
Nothing should be argued more than your idea for mass combat rez. Because that means all those players get up and can use any powerful skills they have again because of mass combat rez.
I think in party-units, so until my party completely wipes - I can use all the tools the game provides me with to win the fight, rezes included.
And to me it simply shows that my opponent wasn't strong enough to properly wipe my party.
I've already said that it simply makes pvp more fun imo. Especially big party-based pvp, and not the "solo players in a random pug" situation. You disagree because you're used to those exact solo mmos.
If Intrepid designers didn't want to have mass rez, Steven would've said so when he was asked about rezes in general, yet he explicitly stated that mass rez(es) was planned. And default design for rezes in A1 was "available in combat", which tells me that mass rezes will be too.
Again, you seem to hope that the game will get changed to your preferences. I simply think that it will stay with Steven's preferences, which seem to be quite apparent so far.
If you so strongly believe that absolute majority of people will dislike mass rez, you're more than free to ping Vaknar and ask him to relay a suggestion for the team to make a dev thread about that. And then it'll be up to Intrepid and Steven to decide if they consider their design in line with mass rez or with the, presumed, dislike of it by the community.
well, to be fair single target reses can be quite annoying and broken. if the enemy party is dual boxing another elder or a pp for example, they can still res after you kill their 2 healers. they can basically win the fight by paying an extra sub and having an extra pc. so p2w res?xD
on the other hand. resurrecting in l2 during combat isnt as powerful as resurrecting in combat in a "solo" mmorpg until noble.