I don't understand why there SHOULD be a limit on hotbars.
I have a few reasons... but could go into too much detail (and probably have already)
Because if there's not, everyone would need to use all their hotbars or they would not be as effective/efficient - and in a group-centric game, you have to keep up or you won't be invited to groups. But that in and of itself is not a reason to limit them... see below:
Realism: Is it less realistic that you remember everything that you've ever learned, or that you have to take a few seconds to "memorize" a spell and refresh your memory of how to use it? Think of any job you've ever worked - most efficient people have cheat sheets on things to refresh their memory, if I knew how to cast 1000+ spells, you better believe I would be using a cheat sheet. When viewed from this perspective, the gameplay benefits that can result out of limiting spells/abilities is huge.
Gameplay: Because limiting hotbars adds more to the strategy/difficulty of encounters. In EQ, you could tell the good players from the bad very quick just based off the spell rotations they would use. Yes, you may have a few spells wrong at first, but if your grouped /mem another. If you're soloing, you're right, it could be a death sentence - which is good another reason to group and adds to the risk/reward of grouping versus soloing. An example from a group perspective: Most necromancers only dotted/drained; however, a great necromancer provided ghetto heals to the group versus just DPS and could manage their hp/mana where they didn't have to be healed by the dedicated healers saving their mana and improving group efficiency. Yes, they may be losing some DPS by having to remove a spell gem for the heal, but they added a lot of utility to the group. With limited spell slots, you had to maximize your efficiency based off the encounter and your group dynamics.
If everyone could mem everything, players would still be bad and not use all their skills/spells effectively, but it's just another feature that invites laziness and trivializes player skill/class knowledge and removes a lot of the memorable EQ "oh crap" moments. Yes, you have to actively pay attention more to what spells you have available, but I want players to be engaged versus just being able to be a mindless drone through encounters/dungeons.
That's untrue, because everyone knew the Meta in EQ and everyone knew the rotations. Rotations in EQ, especially early on, were pretty barebones because there were so few spells worth casting in a lot of situations. In many cases a Mage or Wizard would cast 1-2 nukes per MOB and then sit down to regain mana. Even later on, the rotations simply were not that difficult. I played a Mage, Wizard, and Necromancer in a competitive Raiding Guild through PoR. It was not hard, and that was hardly a way to tell a good player from a bad one, especially in a grouping situation.
Avoiding pulling a MOB was something most EQ players learned through experience, and even with a new tank you learned within 15 minutes how to handle agro without Agro Meters and Alarms going off.
Doing progressively more damage in EQ was more about gear than skill, because it wasn't a hard game to play and it wasn't a hard game to DPS in for anyone that was at least decently casual in the game. It was a true MMORPG. It wasn't about how amazing YOU were. It was about how amazing your Character were. A Mage in Kunark could be as amazing as ever, but he wasn't going to outDPS a mage in the same gear, who had the Epic Pet, when he didn't.
The focus away from the character and to the player is only something that came later on when the next generation of players came to the genre.
Friar from DAOC was quite fun. It was a buffing / staff Melee DPS class with some minor healing (mostly hots). The combination of buffs, hots, and melee dps really made the class quite interesting. It was also a very valuable class in a group (assuming you knew what you were doing with it).
Something that really made the class shine was the positional attacks and combo system. But that was something DAOC had for every class, so it wasn't specific to friars. For instance, you had a side attack that might slow the enemy, if that landed you could use two other possible attacks. If either of those landed it branched out again. Very similar to how monks work in FFXIV.
Friar from DAOC was quite fun. It was a buffing / staff Melee DPS class with some minor healing (mostly hots). The combination of buffs, hots, and melee dps really made the class quite interesting. It was also a very valuable class in a group (assuming you knew what you were doing with it).
Something that really made the class shine was the positional attacks and combo system. But that was something DAOC had for every class, so it wasn't specific to friars. For instance, you had a side attack that might slow the enemy, if that landed you could use two other possible attacks. If either of those landed it branched out again. Very similar to how monks work in FFXIV.
DAoC was fun, I played a Bonedancer there. However some of the combat mechanics were horrible. Stealthier were also overpowered and I either had to have 2+ healer minions or stick to a group to have a chance to survive as anyone by themselves would get picked off by OP Stealthers in record time.
I'm not sure how it is NOW, but obviously it's too late to make any sweeping changes to balance and "win" for them. I think RvR was fun when it wasn't zergy (which was often), but the game fell short in a number of ways.
I do think some of the class designs were interesting, though, and many people adored the sheer number of classes to choose from (though they were faction-locked). I think focusing on fewer would have been better from a balance perspective, but it's kind of important to give decent choices on all sides otherwise the factions become imbalanced (this is why WoW basically gave each faction the same classes).
I met some nice people there, though. Always find a lot of people willing to go out of their way to help in those older games. They ran me through dungeons and everything. Community-wise I was extremely pleased with it. I thought the PvE was way too easy and the PvP wasn't even approaching balanced.
This was around 2006, IIRC, and I played it a few months while waiting for Warhammer Online to release.
Because if there's not, everyone would need to use all their hotbars or they would not be as effective/efficient - and in a group-centric game, you have to keep up or you won't be invited to groups. But that in and of itself is not a reason to limit them... see below:
Only true if the game is designed around that. Just make the optimal rotation 5-10 skills. "Problem" solved. Now you can be most efficient if you hate hotbars and STILL shine because you could adjust if something unexpected happens.
Realism: Is it less realistic that you remember everything that you've ever learned, or that you have to take a few seconds to "memorize" a spell and refresh your memory of how to use it? Think of any job you've ever worked - most efficient people have cheat sheets on things to refresh their memory, if I knew how to cast 1000+ spells, you better believe I would be using a cheat sheet. When viewed from this perspective, the gameplay benefits that can result out of limiting spells/abilities is huge.
Actually i don't see any realism in not knowing how to build a PC for the whole day, just because i started to build a car this morning. So no, i can not follow this one at all. Also i don't see where you got the idea of "huge benefits" from. I still don't see a benefit.
Gameplay: Because limiting hotbars adds more to the strategy/difficulty of encounters. In EQ, you could tell the good players from the bad very quick just based off the spell rotations they would use. Yes, you may have a few spells wrong at first, but if your grouped /mem another. If you're soloing, you're right, it could be a death sentence - which is good another reason to group and adds to the risk/reward of grouping versus soloing. An example from a group perspective: Most necromancers only dotted/drained; however, a great necromancer provided ghetto heals to the group versus just DPS and could manage their hp/mana where they didn't have to be healed by the dedicated healers saving their mana and improving group efficiency. Yes, they may be losing some DPS by having to remove a spell gem for the heal, but they added a lot of utility to the group. With limited spell slots, you had to maximize your efficiency based off the encounter and your group dynamics.
The strategy/difficulty in copy pasting an optimal rotation is bigger with limited space because,...? You can do that either way. You are leavinng out freedom of adjusting tho. So that makes it easier actually. No need to think out of the box or adjust. Just push your rotation and be done with it? I see that as a drawback. A huge one at that.
If everyone could mem everything, players would still be bad and not use all their skills/spells effectively, but it's just another feature that invites laziness and trivializes player skill/class knowledge and removes a lot of the memorable EQ "oh crap" moments. Yes, you have to actively pay attention more to what spells you have available, but I want players to be engaged versus just being able to be a mindless drone through encounters/dungeons.
Laziness and trivialization come from limited space. Copy optimal, hit the same buttons over and over, don't think about adjusting. You DON't have to "actively pay attention if you can not do something else anyways.
For some reason i really see all your points. I really do and actually agree on all of them. I do however draw a conclusion that is 180degree in the other direction. Reading your examples i always had the picture of sun in my mind. "If the sun shines it will be COLDER,... if you want to have some higher temps you have to wait for the night!". Seriously sorry to say this, not wanting to be rude. Nothing of all that made sence to me at all.
Less freedom to adjust to an ecounter does not make it harder. It makes it EASIER. The only thing that makes encounters hard AT ALL is the need to adjust to situations. The less possibilities you get to adjust, the easier it will become. Encounters will have to be tuned for a max of x skills. And people will find the optimal x skills very fast. From this point on it is trivial. If you don't have a limit on skills an enounter can have WAY more "oh shit!" moments of way more varienty.
Simple example. You get 6 skill slots. Your optimal DPS rotation for single target is 6 skills also. Enemy encounter can not have AoE situations. Can not have CC situations, can not have kite / offheal situations.
IF it would have one of those situations anyways, you would have to sacrifice optimal single DPS. Not a big deal, sure. But the encounter would have to be designed to need less DPS in return. Now think about an enounter that has all of those situations. Your 6 skills would not allow for that at all, even tho you may have the potential to offer support for all of those situations. So the encounter would be "easy" on the DPS side, "easy" on the CC side, "easy" on AoE.... challenging? Not really.
Think about the same encounter with a WELL DESIGNED skill system. You can use your optimal 6 skill DPS rotation, switch to a solid AoE rotation, kite, CC, Offheal, offtank... whatever. And since the enounter is not designed about limited skills it could really test ALL of those areas in a very HARD manner. So for one encounter you would have to master different situations.
Now tell me again: Is it really harder with limited or unlimited skills?
That being said, note the green marked text. This is important. It needs to be well designed. If you need 20 keys for an optimal rotation, that sucks. If you need 10 keys for CC that is bad design. I dislike that as well. But having all your possibilities at hand at all times, while needing maybe 4-6 at a time BUT being able to adjust on the fly... that is actually fun.
Is it easier design to just limit skills? Sure it is. But have you seen a game that is challenging and fun that has done it? lol, no.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Less freedom to adjust to an ecounter does not make it harder. It makes it EASIER. The only thing that makes encounters hard AT ALL is the need to adjust to situations. The less possibilities you get to adjust, the easier it will become. Encounters will have to be tuned for a max of x skills. And people will find the optimal x skills very fast. From this point on it is trivial. If you don't have a limit on skills an enounter can have WAY more "oh shit!" moments of way more varienty.
But that's the thing - as a poster said above me. Just because EQ limited your set of skills at one time, doesn't mean you have less freedom to adjust (unless your spells can't be adjusted during combat, which I would disagree with). It took <5 seconds to memorize a new spell. I just prefer to plan/think about the encounter in advance versus having all my skills/spells at my fingertips.
We basically just disagree completely, which is ok as just because I prefer it doesn't mean it has to be right. I won't be convinced either that having access to all my skills/spells conveniently located on hotbars where I can hotkey them/click them etc. makes encounters harder.
Either way isn't a dealbreaker for me as far as playing a game, I just prefer the limited set.
That's untrue, because everyone knew the Meta in EQ and everyone knew the rotations. Rotations in EQ, especially early on, were pretty barebones because there were so few spells worth casting in a lot of situations. In many cases a Mage or Wizard would cast 1-2 nukes per MOB and then sit down to regain mana. Even later on, the rotations simply were not that difficult. I played a Mage, Wizard, and Necromancer in a competitive Raiding Guild through PoR. It was not hard, and that was hardly a way to tell a good player from a bad one, especially in a grouping situation.
Using a competitive raiding guild as an example to see if a player was good isn't the best argument. I hope they all are good players and knew how to use their spells/skills, which is why you most likely invited those players to the guild as they knew their class. And, your argument becomes less valid once you use a mage/wizard, which were the two casters who had the least utility at EQlaunch. Mage/Wizard/Rogue/Warrior weren't difficult at all, you're right, but that is not due to having limited spell sets, that was due to poor class design. I would much prefer VG's class design with EQ's limited spell/skill sets.
I played with plenty of players in EQ that were poor players and often had the wrong (maybe less effective/efficient a better term) spells memorized. And, I'm not only talking about min/maxing rotations of spells for damage.
I'm focused more on the emergent gameplay techniques like root-parking, etc. that wasn't always expected, but made a player stand out. I often acted as a ghetto enchanter / cleric as my necromancer with charm, hungry earth/root , dark empathy line, and life drains at EQlaunch - especially in Unrest, and, I do know from playing that the majority of necromancers did not use those skills because they wanted to keep their taps, harm shield, dots, etc. on their spell sets. I often had to re-memorize spells based off the encounter/group status, sometimes even during combat depending on how the encounter was going. And, I know I'm not nostalgic/re-calling it inappropriately as I have recently played P1999 as a necromancer again. And, if everyone had access to all the spells, it would be one less way to distinguish yourself as a good player. Is it the best determining factor of player skill, no, but it is just one more aspect that added to a player's reputation.
Lastly, you could tell a good from a bad player in a group in EQ much easier than a Raid. You typically only had one role in EQ raids, where in a group setting, you could access the full utility of your class. I know once players realized I was a good necromancer, I was invited to a lot more groups at EQlaunch and on P1999.
But after typing another novel, maybe the better term is class knowledge rather than skill, and you could tell who knew their class better based off the spells they had memorized, and because they did, they played their class more effectively.
One of the best things about Vanguard was the classes. Even people who didn't like the game otherwise often mention the classes (or crafting) from VG.
I think there are a few would really work well in Pantheon. To be quite honest, a fear I've had about Pantheon's classes has been the lack of a second "primary" healer. One of the biggest drawbacks to the class system in EQ, especially early on, was the fact that every group wanted a cleric and if you were stuck in a group without one, you basically didn't get anything done. When Vanguard rolled around, they were very adamant about trying to provide several options for each of the major class roles so that groups weren't struggling to fill a balanced group. Pantheon's druid and shaman are supposed to have some healing, but I wouldn't want to see those classes stripped down and lose their identity to force them into a role of main healer.
I think porting a disciple or bloodmage type class over from Vanguard would put my mind at ease about this. They both had some amazing mechanics, and were really fun for those who liked to play them. I love melee classes for instance, but I also like the challenge of keeping my group alive. Disciple was my all time favorite class in an MMORPG because it fused both of these abilities together. There were group heal abilities and chains and a number of debuffs and direct heals to keep combat engaging. It would be my dream to see this sort of gameplay again.
Besides, healers should get variety in their chosen profession, just like all the other classes. The style of healing can make or break a class in regards to who will play them and how popular those healer classes can be compared to the other classes and their variations.
I do think limiting the amount of abilities to your hotbar will be a good thing tbh. I know on my Necro in VG I literally had like 5-6 hotbars PACKED with stuff. Granted, some of the abilities/item triggers I prob could've done without, but the more I think about it, the more I'd like to actually see the game rather than focusing on my hotbar and its 60 cooldowns.
It will be interesting to see the abilities the class specializations in Pantheon will have at their disposal. Maybe there will be a wide enough range of encounters to where healing isn't always required by the group and damage mitigation or avoidance can be used instead.
See i enjoyed VG hotbar system as opposed to EQ's limited hotbars, but that's just my personal preference, i enjoy having choices and options during combat.
But I'm happy to see what comes out in the end, as long as they us more skills then ESO I'll be happy
I personally never liked having to use 25 abilities in a single fight. It was actually horrible, despite loving the classes. That and combat became more spammy and resource management was less of an issue than I'd like.
I really like the more tactical type of rpg combat where you choose what you are going to fight with in a given situation. To me Everquest was perfect as a caster. If they could only give melees a similar skill system where they actually had 8 useful abilities instead of just kick/bash/disarm. Perhaps 8 abilities with a few of those abilities being capable of chaining into something more powerful.
Lets see EQ had 8 slots, IMHO ESO benefited from having 5. Yes, ESO was a bit limited in that respect, but still I think I'd rather have that than be able to use all abilities at once. I am a fan of making people choose, making them strategize.
If you can use all 25 abilities at once, you don't really have to choose or strategize. You basically just use any ability you need, whenever you need it.
Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you When I learned ESO had only 5 slots I was pleased, and it did force you to make choices. The sheet number of threads about builds and what skills to focus on is a testament to how well the idea worked out.
There are similar hoards of threads about skills in WoW, Rift, Aion, EQ2, and other games despite them allowing you to have tons of action bars with virtually every skill your character has on them. In fact, there are entire forums designed to theory crafting around rotations and skills in games like WoW. The average WoW character using more skills on a Raid then ESO allows on one bar, and they still have utility skills that are useful on top of that. That leads to more dynamic gameplay that allows you to make more choices, more important choices, and gives opportunity cost to a lot more actions which makes each button press matter a little bit more.
I don't see how that matters.
At the end of the day, most MMORPG boil down to Meta Builds that use a small subset of the skills afforded to the character, anyways.
You enforce strategy through good design. Cool Downs, Shared Cooldowns, Damage Values/Scaling, etc.
Limiting skill hot bars does not force people to make choices any more than giving tons of action bars. In fact, for many people it makes the character more boring to play as the gameplay is less dynamic as a result, since some things your character may be able to do in the heat of battle could be totally out of commission due to the design of the game not allowing you to access it at that time, because you picked the wrong extremely limited number of skills to load onto those hot bars (and some skills force you to have them on the second one you can swap to, as well!). You have LESS choices to make because your choices are so limited.
I am not sure how that makes gameplay more dynamic, more fun, or more thoughtful to you. There really is no logical way to assert that other than "they wanted it that way," which is fine... except of course they probably also did it that way to make it as friendly to being ported to console as possible (which is what I believe, everything else they say is just hogwash about wanting a minimal UI and all that other bullshit)...
IMHO, there is a difference. In the case of Wow, most of the discussion on templates centers on which skills in the skill tree to focus on. It is a side effect of having a generous amount of skill customization, and isn't something you can change in combat or even in a short time out of combat. It creates an unalterable nature of the character. In ESO the template discussion center on which skills to slot. That is largely what defines a build, and it is situational.You can have a single character that can utilize multiple templates.
Slotting matters because limitations create strengths and weaknesses beyond those inherent in the class. In the case of ESO the limitation turns a very few classes into a large number of possible builds each very different from the next. You have to choose what to focus on because you can't do it all. The limitation creates interdependence too, in that what you can't slot creates a weakness that can be made up for by other group members. It is much more dynamic because you can theorize a new build and just try it out.
Your statement that "limiting skill hot bars does not force people to make choices" is just plain nonsense. Choosing what to slot is by definition a choice. It is a choice you would not have had to make if you could use them all. The sheer number of ESO templates based on what to put in a limited set of slots is obvious proof that your statement is just flat wrong on the fact of it.
Your argument sort of boils down to the idea that card games would be more dynamic and less boring if each player started with e full deck. That's nonsense, the limitation of the number of cards in a hand is fundamental to the need for strategy. Similarly, the need to choose which skills you take into combat creates the need to employ strategy in using the limited resources available. Before you claim the analogy is flawed consider that some developers have implied that the very concept of skill slots goes back to card games.
Your assertions fly in the face of so many games based on the management of limited resources that it is just stunning that you would even try to support it. It seems like you just want access to all skills because you you want it. I can understand not liking being faced with having to make choices, but guess what, making choices is what strategy is about.
One of the best things about Vanguard was the classes. Even people who didn't like the game otherwise often mention the classes (or crafting) from VG.
I think there are a few would really work well in Pantheon. To be quite honest, a fear I've had about Pantheon's classes has been the lack of a second "primary" healer. One of the biggest drawbacks to the class system in EQ, especially early on, was the fact that every group wanted a cleric and if you were stuck in a group without one, you basically didn't get anything done. When Vanguard rolled around, they were very adamant about trying to provide several options for each of the major class roles so that groups weren't struggling to fill a balanced group. Pantheon's druid and shaman are supposed to have some healing, but I wouldn't want to see those classes stripped down and lose their identity to force them into a role of main healer.
I think porting a disciple or bloodmage type class over from Vanguard would put my mind at ease about this. They both had some amazing mechanics, and were really fun for those who liked to play them. I love melee classes for instance, but I also like the challenge of keeping my group alive. Disciple was my all time favorite class in an MMORPG because it fused both of these abilities together. There were group heal abilities and chains and a number of debuffs and direct heals to keep combat engaging. It would be my dream to see this sort of gameplay again.
Besides, healers should get variety in their chosen profession, just like all the other classes. The style of healing can make or break a class in regards to who will play them and how popular those healer classes can be compared to the other classes and their variations.
Theres only so much variety within one class. I love the fact that there will be diversity through the specialization system, but I can see it being problematic if everyone wants a pure healer in every group like in EQ. Right now its a 11:1 ratio. I really hope the healer role gets some love and they announce another class to balance things out.
EQ always had a limit, but not a very harsh one. You could also change spells midfight. This is actually the absolut extreme end that id consider "ok". Strict limit to skills per fight? Hell no.
Id much rather shine and rock a fight... WHILE fighting, then "shining" before the fight by googeling up the best combo and mem it without the risk of having to react mid fight. Not needing to adjust mid fight is just a way to dumb down content and making it easier to design.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
EQ always had a limit, but not a very harsh one. You could also change spells midfight. This is actually the absolut extreme end that id consider "ok". Strict limit to skills per fight? Hell no.
Id much rather shine and rock a fight... WHILE fighting, then "shining" before the fight by googeling up the best combo and mem it without the risk of having to react mid fight. Not needing to adjust mid fight is just a way to dumb down content and making it easier to design.
Agreed. ESO sounds more limiting, but it seemed less that way in practice. You could swap weapons and skill sets mid fight, so with a little planning you could put spells to help recover or escape on the second bar. Plus you had ultimate abilities that you could pull out if you needed them. Still, it did get to be a bit restrictive and ideally it would be nice to have at least as many as EQ and be able to swap in mid-fight.
Comments
That's untrue, because everyone knew the Meta in EQ and everyone knew the rotations. Rotations in EQ, especially early on, were pretty barebones because there were so few spells worth casting in a lot of situations. In many cases a Mage or Wizard would cast 1-2 nukes per MOB and then sit down to regain mana. Even later on, the rotations simply were not that difficult. I played a Mage, Wizard, and Necromancer in a competitive Raiding Guild through PoR. It was not hard, and that was hardly a way to tell a good player from a bad one, especially in a grouping situation.
Avoiding pulling a MOB was something most EQ players learned through experience, and even with a new tank you learned within 15 minutes how to handle agro without Agro Meters and Alarms going off.
Doing progressively more damage in EQ was more about gear than skill, because it wasn't a hard game to play and it wasn't a hard game to DPS in for anyone that was at least decently casual in the game. It was a true MMORPG. It wasn't about how amazing YOU were. It was about how amazing your Character were. A Mage in Kunark could be as amazing as ever, but he wasn't going to outDPS a mage in the same gear, who had the Epic Pet, when he didn't.
The focus away from the character and to the player is only something that came later on when the next generation of players came to the genre.
Friar from DAOC was quite fun. It was a buffing / staff Melee DPS class with some minor healing (mostly hots). The combination of buffs, hots, and melee dps really made the class quite interesting. It was also a very valuable class in a group (assuming you knew what you were doing with it).
Something that really made the class shine was the positional attacks and combo system. But that was something DAOC had for every class, so it wasn't specific to friars. For instance, you had a side attack that might slow the enemy, if that landed you could use two other possible attacks. If either of those landed it branched out again. Very similar to how monks work in FFXIV.
DAoC was fun, I played a Bonedancer there. However some of the combat mechanics were horrible. Stealthier were also overpowered and I either had to have 2+ healer minions or stick to a group to have a chance to survive as anyone by themselves would get picked off by OP Stealthers in record time.
I'm not sure how it is NOW, but obviously it's too late to make any sweeping changes to balance and "win" for them. I think RvR was fun when it wasn't zergy (which was often), but the game fell short in a number of ways.
I do think some of the class designs were interesting, though, and many people adored the sheer number of classes to choose from (though they were faction-locked). I think focusing on fewer would have been better from a balance perspective, but it's kind of important to give decent choices on all sides otherwise the factions become imbalanced (this is why WoW basically gave each faction the same classes).
I met some nice people there, though. Always find a lot of people willing to go out of their way to help in those older games. They ran me through dungeons and everything. Community-wise I was extremely pleased with it. I thought the PvE was way too easy and the PvP wasn't even approaching balanced.
This was around 2006, IIRC, and I played it a few months while waiting for Warhammer Online to release.
For some reason i really see all your points. I really do and actually agree on all of them. I do however draw a conclusion that is 180degree in the other direction. Reading your examples i always had the picture of sun in my mind. "If the sun shines it will be COLDER,... if you want to have some higher temps you have to wait for the night!". Seriously sorry to say this, not wanting to be rude. Nothing of all that made sence to me at all.
Less freedom to adjust to an ecounter does not make it harder. It makes it EASIER. The only thing that makes encounters hard AT ALL is the need to adjust to situations. The less possibilities you get to adjust, the easier it will become. Encounters will have to be tuned for a max of x skills. And people will find the optimal x skills very fast. From this point on it is trivial. If you don't have a limit on skills an enounter can have WAY more "oh shit!" moments of way more varienty.
Simple example. You get 6 skill slots. Your optimal DPS rotation for single target is 6 skills also. Enemy encounter can not have AoE situations. Can not have CC situations, can not have kite / offheal situations.
IF it would have one of those situations anyways, you would have to sacrifice optimal single DPS. Not a big deal, sure. But the encounter would have to be designed to need less DPS in return. Now think about an enounter that has all of those situations. Your 6 skills would not allow for that at all, even tho you may have the potential to offer support for all of those situations. So the encounter would be "easy" on the DPS side, "easy" on the CC side, "easy" on AoE.... challenging? Not really.
Think about the same encounter with a WELL DESIGNED skill system. You can use your optimal 6 skill DPS rotation, switch to a solid AoE rotation, kite, CC, Offheal, offtank... whatever. And since the enounter is not designed about limited skills it could really test ALL of those areas in a very HARD manner. So for one encounter you would have to master different situations.
Now tell me again: Is it really harder with limited or unlimited skills?
That being said, note the green marked text. This is important. It needs to be well designed. If you need 20 keys for an optimal rotation, that sucks. If you need 10 keys for CC that is bad design. I dislike that as well. But having all your possibilities at hand at all times, while needing maybe 4-6 at a time BUT being able to adjust on the fly... that is actually fun.
Is it easier design to just limit skills? Sure it is. But have you seen a game that is challenging and fun that has done it? lol, no.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
But that's the thing - as a poster said above me. Just because EQ limited your set of skills at one time, doesn't mean you have less freedom to adjust (unless your spells can't be adjusted during combat, which I would disagree with). It took <5 seconds to memorize a new spell. I just prefer to plan/think about the encounter in advance versus having all my skills/spells at my fingertips.
We basically just disagree completely, which is ok as just because I prefer it doesn't mean it has to be right. I won't be convinced either that having access to all my skills/spells conveniently located on hotbars where I can hotkey them/click them etc. makes encounters harder.
Either way isn't a dealbreaker for me as far as playing a game, I just prefer the limited set.
Using a competitive raiding guild as an example to see if a player was good isn't the best argument. I hope they all are good players and knew how to use their spells/skills, which is why you most likely invited those players to the guild as they knew their class. And, your argument becomes less valid once you use a mage/wizard, which were the two casters who had the least utility at EQlaunch. Mage/Wizard/Rogue/Warrior weren't difficult at all, you're right, but that is not due to having limited spell sets, that was due to poor class design. I would much prefer VG's class design with EQ's limited spell/skill sets.
I played with plenty of players in EQ that were poor players and often had the wrong (maybe less effective/efficient a better term) spells memorized. And, I'm not only talking about min/maxing rotations of spells for damage.
I'm focused more on the emergent gameplay techniques like root-parking, etc. that wasn't always expected, but made a player stand out. I often acted as a ghetto enchanter / cleric as my necromancer with charm, hungry earth/root , dark empathy line, and life drains at EQlaunch - especially in Unrest, and, I do know from playing that the majority of necromancers did not use those skills because they wanted to keep their taps, harm shield, dots, etc. on their spell sets. I often had to re-memorize spells based off the encounter/group status, sometimes even during combat depending on how the encounter was going. And, I know I'm not nostalgic/re-calling it inappropriately as I have recently played P1999 as a necromancer again. And, if everyone had access to all the spells, it would be one less way to distinguish yourself as a good player. Is it the best determining factor of player skill, no, but it is just one more aspect that added to a player's reputation.
Lastly, you could tell a good from a bad player in a group in EQ much easier than a Raid. You typically only had one role in EQ raids, where in a group setting, you could access the full utility of your class. I know once players realized I was a good necromancer, I was invited to a lot more groups at EQlaunch and on P1999.
But after typing another novel, maybe the better term is class knowledge rather than skill, and you could tell who knew their class better based off the spells they had memorized, and because they did, they played their class more effectively.
Besides, healers should get variety in their chosen profession, just like all the other classes. The style of healing can make or break a class in regards to who will play them and how popular those healer classes can be compared to the other classes and their variations.
IMHO, there is a difference. In the case of Wow, most of the discussion on templates centers on which skills in the skill tree to focus on. It is a side effect of having a generous amount of skill customization, and isn't something you can change in combat or even in a short time out of combat. It creates an unalterable nature of the character. In ESO the template discussion center on which skills to slot. That is largely what defines a build, and it is situational.You can have a single character that can utilize multiple templates.
Slotting matters because limitations create strengths and weaknesses beyond those inherent in the class. In the case of ESO the limitation turns a very few classes into a large number of possible builds each very different from the next. You have to choose what to focus on because you can't do it all. The limitation creates interdependence too, in that what you can't slot creates a weakness that can be made up for by other group members. It is much more dynamic because you can theorize a new build and just try it out.
Your statement that "limiting skill hot bars does not force people to make choices" is just plain nonsense. Choosing what to slot is by definition a choice. It is a choice you would not have had to make if you could use them all. The sheer number of ESO templates based on what to put in a limited set of slots is obvious proof that your statement is just flat wrong on the fact of it.
Your argument sort of boils down to the idea that card games would be more dynamic and less boring if each player started with e full deck. That's nonsense, the limitation of the number of cards in a hand is fundamental to the need for strategy. Similarly, the need to choose which skills you take into combat creates the need to employ strategy in using the limited resources available. Before you claim the analogy is flawed consider that some developers have implied that the very concept of skill slots goes back to card games.
Your assertions fly in the face of so many games based on the management of limited resources that it is just stunning that you would even try to support it. It seems like you just want access to all skills because you you want it. I can understand not liking being faced with having to make choices, but guess what, making choices is what strategy is about.
Theres only so much variety within one class. I love the fact that there will be diversity through the specialization system, but I can see it being problematic if everyone wants a pure healer in every group like in EQ. Right now its a 11:1 ratio. I really hope the healer role gets some love and they announce another class to balance things out.
EQ always had a limit, but not a very harsh one. You could also change spells midfight. This is actually the absolut extreme end that id consider "ok". Strict limit to skills per fight? Hell no.
Id much rather shine and rock a fight... WHILE fighting, then "shining" before the fight by googeling up the best combo and mem it without the risk of having to react mid fight. Not needing to adjust mid fight is just a way to dumb down content and making it easier to design.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Agreed. ESO sounds more limiting, but it seemed less that way in practice. You could swap weapons and skill sets mid fight, so with a little planning you could put spells to help recover or escape on the second bar. Plus you had ultimate abilities that you could pull out if you needed them. Still, it did get to be a bit restrictive and ideally it would be nice to have at least as many as EQ and be able to swap in mid-fight.