Death Animation Feedback : Different States of Death

Short and sweet feedback on the current state of the visuals surrounding death. We witnessed Steven go off on Keenan and murder him during the Ranger Showcase. Currently on death the player collapses into a burning pile of ash. Personally, I think this could be changed to provide better tactical feedback battlefield immersion.

I think that, when reaching zero HP, the player instead should collapse on the spot, leaving their body as it is completely visible on the ground. When the player is revived, such as through a Cleric's Resurrection spell, their body should burn brightly as they are raised back to life. If instead they opt to release back to a respawn point, then their body should burn up and leave behind a pile of smoldering ash. Naturally, this ash should despawn after some time.

This provides visual feedback for players in PvE and PvP to determine at a glance the value of raising a companion who has fallen - or guarding the body to prevent resurrection from an enemy raid. Having these variants of the death state also helps determine at a glance whether there are additional threats during a PvP battle. Are there healers lurking, waiting to revive this team so they can come back for a second attack? Is it worth sticking around the battlefield to make sure the battle is truly finished?

Subjectively, I just think it would look cooler. Having a body lay still, with ash particles slowly drift from their form - symbolic of their flame having burned out, in a sense - only to suddenly spark up with the flames of a phoenix and return to life once more is such a strong visual that ties in to the game's current themes of death and rebirth.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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...

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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....

You are free to go back over our comments...

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

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

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Also that sounds like dog and terrible. Just being rezed over and over until you win a fight, that is not normal.

And to me it simply shows that my opponent wasn't strong enough to properly wipe my party.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Depraved

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Mag7spy

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 are making assumptions on people playing "alone" this has nothing to do with any point of mine. Just because you have a teammate alive doesn't mean your whole group just gets to respawn on you and fight again. Your "TEAM" has effectively lost the fight, ratting to revive in combat forcing a second fight after you just lost and repeating until you win is not a fight. You are using a broken ability as a crutch for your inability to win.

And to me it simply shows that my opponent wasn't strong enough to properly wipe my party.

That does not show opponents aren't stop enough, it shows how broken ability mass res is, ontop of annoying.

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.

I don't know why you are making assumptions of solo mmorpgs when I'm talking about PvP group fights ????

Hearing mas rez is planned in varying forms does not mean mass rez in the middle of combat. You are taking words out of context for what you want, while they are still in the middle of designing those elements around their current combat / design.

Game to be changed??? I'm going off based on the modern combat they are currently showcasing in their livestreams while having logical reasoning and backing it up and not just saying "for fun mass rez" On top of asking what design reason would they do it towards you.

The thing is most people and almost everyone else could be convinced mass res in the middle of combat would not be good and a broken level ability. Does that mean they would realize right away no certain types would realize some wouldn't care until they experienced it in game and felt killing people is impossible with some of these guilds that will be around.

A lot of things get said, a lot of things get changed, and things that get said again does not mean you know the function of how it will work. You have no quote saying Mass rez will work same as L2 and you can rez everyone in combat constantly on a mass scale. That is literally you assuming because of nostalgia while nothing shown in game leading to mass combat rez for any of the skills. If it was truly just like healing they would have shown you can do mass combat rez's already. Clearly there is more thought going into the element of rezing a player design wise around their type of combat.

Ludullu

Depraved wrote: »

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

Yeah, that can be said about almost every other class in the game, some with bigger benefit some with smaller. But as you said,

Depraved wrote: »

on the other hand. resurrecting in l2 during combat isnt as powerful as resurrecting in combat in a "solo" mmorpg until noble.

Usually those pocket alts were just a +pvp, especially considering that they'd usually be off-clan and most of the time in shitty gear.

CroakerRPG

Glad to see you guys worked all that out of your systems!

Depraved

NiKr wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

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

Yeah, that can be said about almost every other class in the game, so with bigger benefit some with smaller. But as you said,

Depraved wrote: »

on the other hand. resurrecting in l2 during combat isnt as powerful as resurrecting in combat in a "solo" mmorpg until noble.

Usually those pocket alts were just a +pvp, especially considering that they'd usually be off-clan and most of the time in shitty gear.

true except in korea where alts got +16 weapons lmao T_T

anyways, the best thing is to kill the dude who resed lmao, then the purple buffer haha. smart ppl would wait until their names turned white to res lol, had to pk the buffer sometimes. it was annoying if ur buffr n u died deep in a dungeon hahaha.

Child Item