ShabuShabu's page

2 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Keovar wrote:
ShabuShabu wrote:

You can absolutely have taunting in pvp... If you base and balance pvp by group and not 1v1 or 2v2. Everquest 2 did this and it was fantastic pvp...

So no healer roles then ?

Mind describing how it worked in EQ2, rather than assuming everyone knows?

Seems to me that a PvP 'taunt' could work by applying a vulnerability debuff on the target which only works when they have someone else targeted. The vulnerability effect gives attack/damage/other bonuses to the one who applied the taunt. Let it stack up to a point, so the longer they try ignoring the taunter, the worse it gets. Once they have the taunter targeted in return, the debuff effect doesn't apply. It doesn't go away immediately, so people can't simply tab around to clear it. Like most debuffs, it'll fade off over time, or immediately if the taunter is defeated. There should probably be a way for the target to see who has applied taunts to them, and to what degree, since the whole point is to encourage them to deal with the characters using it. This sort of effect could even be used to let mobs taunt, since it is based on encouraging a change in behaviour rather than trying to control it.

Taunts in eq2 PVP were simple. You change the target of an opponent. For example, I played a healer in eq2 pvp/raiding. Often times healers are targeted first for the obvious reasons, but my tanks could TAUNT the opposing DPS off me, to them. So your physical target would change if you got taunted off... it makes combat more interesting for sure.

What was nice about applying group dymamics to PVP and I mean real group dynamics ala the trinty is they didn't have to balance pvp for 1v1 because everyone couldn't beat everyone 1v1 and it didn't matter.

It also adds some tactical strategy around approaching pvp as a group rather than, ok everyone kill healer.

Stephen Cheney wrote:

We're trying to avoid the trinity (and it doesn't work as well in PvP games anyway, since it relies so much on AI threat mechanics), and our intent isn't that you have to have a party of completely balanced roles to be successful... but our roles do say a lot about your capabilities, and we intend there to be synergies in a mixed party.

A player in PFO can switch fairly quickly to a different role... if she's a many-year veteran who's maxed multiple roles or someone who's deliberately slowed advancement in one role to be mid-level and roughly at the same strength in multiple ones. It's not instantaneous, and doing so in the field requires lugging around potentially a lot of extra gear (and the stuff you're not currently wearing can't be threaded). It's far more likely that this will, when used, be to adapt with forewarning to a changing tactical landscape (e.g., "that looks like a lot of undead, maybe we should field an extra cleric"), rather than to make one guy feel like his role isn't useful because someone else can cover it as needed and then go back to her normal role.

Pursuing multiple roles is a good thing to do early to figure out what you like doing (as the other panelists mentioned), and veterans will eventually have access to a lot of options, but in the moment, if you're not slotted as a pure role, it's because you've found something you feel is a synergistic multiclass useful enough to forego a dedication bonus. And even in that case, party members dedicated to the individual roles that make up your build should still be able to shine with the capabilities you've forgone.

You can absolutely have taunting in pvp... If you base and balance pvp by group and not 1v1 or 2v2. Everquest 2 did this and it was fantastic pvp...

So no healer roles then ?