No rezzing, thoughts?

[Jairon Kalach]

I am one of those people that kills for sport though, and I want that choice.

Guess we'll have to wait and see on this one.

 

[Kyrana]

Really Bad Idea:

Even the best groups like Dem Hibbies, and Nolby Pride in the old days lost 1 or 2 members in there big fights but could get them up easy again to fight on. There just need to be a rez illness that cant be cured like it was in classic, and maybe a longer cast time from 10 second or something if they dont want to make it that easy.

No rez = FAIL for 8 man its that simple no discussion even possible.

Completely Agree!!!

 

[Tanos]

My intuition: Give it 6 sec cast time, 60% power cost, very short range and a 5 min 50% stat debuff on the target and you are well off.
You have a real chance to stay in action but it is a serious trade-off when to rezz.

 

[Zubei]

Like I said in the other post. I am all for no rezzing for the sole fact that attacking and defending keeps when the dead just get rezzed over and over and over again gets boring as shit, really fast. It turns into a game of "Who will get bored and leave first?" I do not want that for this game. IF a ressurect is given to healers, there needs to be a major drawback to it.

Also, people complaining about this killing 8 mans. Well, MJ said this game was not going to be balanced towards 8 mans anyways. He did say he wanted to them to be an option, but not THE option.

 

[Xrystofer]

I agree that there's should be a penalty, but it shouldn't be too harsh.
If you died a few in the row in DAoC the debuffs would stuck making you rather useless.

 

[Cazedy]

If there where no rezzing and say you lose someone in a fight that you won(which I'm sure will happen every fight) it's not like you would wait for your group member to walk back to you solo and probably without speed. You would suicide the people in your group on the nearest keep and get back all together again. In other words, you win the fight but suffer the same penalties as the ones who lost. All of this would just be frustrating and add nothing to the gameplay.


Adding a timer of say 8 seconds on your casted rezz and leave it interruptible and with some side effect like -25% all stats for 120 seconds or so on the target rezzed with maybe 10% reduced movement speed or whatever.
This would make your healer ineffective for 8+ seconds and if you would have been hit during the cast you would have to start casting it again.
This way it would add depth to the combat and you would have to come up with tactics to pull it of vs good groups. And you would have to come up with tactics to deny the other group to rezz their own by focusing their healers with interrupts etc when you down one of em.


I do know this is just MJ being MJ and talking about his thoughts straight up, I'm sure we will come up with something good once we're in this phase of testing but it's still interesting to hear ppls thought on it

 

[Cazedy]

Like I said in the other post. I am all for no rezzing for the sole fact that attacking and defending keeps when the dead just get rezzed over and over and over again gets boring as shit, really fast. It turns into a game of "Who will get bored and leave first?" I do not want that for this game. IF a ressurect is given to healers, there needs to be a major drawback to it.

Also, people complaining about this killing 8 mans. Well, MJ said this game was not going to be balanced towards 8 mans anyways. He did say he wanted to them to be an option, but not THE option.

I never experienced this "Who will get bored and leave first?" scenario you're describing in my days of daoc though. And tbh it's the first time I've heard about it. At least in terms of rezzing having anything to do with it

 

[Tanos]

I don't see a zerg rezzed and rezzed again with the limitations we talk about here. But i can imagine so many situations when having no rezz really makes me quit.

Cazedy, think of keep fights or, even worse, bridge fights in NF, as well as wallcamping in OF. Mostly was ended after hours by one side getting enough people coordinated for a rush or the third realm popping in.

 

[Zubei]

I never experienced this "Who will get bored and leave first?" scenario you're describing in my days of daoc though. And tbh it's the first time I've heard about it. At least in terms of rezzing having anything to do with it

Yoiu have never experienced an eternal battle where both the defenders and attackers rez the dead over and over? It turns into an endless battle that just becomes boring. The defenders should be able to kill the attackers without having to keep killing the same people endlessly. Same for the attackers, you kill someone on a wall? They will just be rezzed again and right back in the fight.

 

[Cazedy]

I guess it's just my memory blocking things like that But i still don't see how removing rezz completely would help more then hurt the overall game. Been some good suggestions in here that would prevent things like that happening. And maybe we get some tools to handle standoffs like those suggested, like other types of siege equipment that paralyzes casters or whatever(just the first thing that came up in my head )



I just feel that removing such an important part of the gameplay would be the lazy way to go at it

 

[bainteor]

I do think there has to be some form of resurrection in the game. Otherwise, as others have mentioned, it will be difficult for smaller groups to take on larger groups and maybe precipitate zerging for protection.

 

[Kyrana]

Like I said in the other post. I am all for no rezzing for the sole fact that attacking and defending keeps when the dead just get rezzed over and over and over again gets boring as shit, really fast. It turns into a game of "Who will get bored and leave first?" I do not want that for this game. IF a ressurect is given to healers, there needs to be a major drawback to it.

Also, people complaining about this killing 8 mans. Well, MJ said this game was not going to be balanced towards 8 mans anyways. He did say he wanted to them to be an option, but not THE option.

When did he say that about the 8 mans, he said that he wanted them to be a important part of RvR. Part of this Niche game is the 8 man play. You have a lot of us wanting that part of RvR.

 

[Vesir]

the way 8 mans worked in DAoC was in the beginning they were the counter to zerg bust grps. but eventually it just became it's own meta-game that just happened to take place inside DAoC. i personally prefer the original implimentation of 8v8's rather than the whole 'OMG YOU ASSJAMMED US IN OUR 8V8 FIGHT YOU #$@%#@$@'

 

[Kyrana]

I totally agree I liked a good 8 man fight but I did not like the fights where you pull up seeing a group of your realm mates dieing so you AJ to help them and get yelled at for 10 minutes. I never did play like that. I tried to get 8 on 8 or 8 on more but I wasn't one of those jackasses that farmed each other for RP. A true 8 man in my opinion is there to help the realm and roam when nothing is going on.

 

[Muylaetrix]

As long as its as far removed as possible from that ABOMINATION that passes for rezzing in GW2, ill be happy.

That one mechanic was the main contributor to the GW2 zerg superiority meta-game that evolved very quickly.

Bleeerrggg

oh, after reading a few words of that i started thinking about 'zombie rez' from the Heretic. then i realized you were talking about the broken GW2 rez mechanic...

GOA found my heretic's name "fokov anddie" unsuitable and it was changed :/

... zombie rez PL @ pygmies... send in the dead avolonian again ! it was funny.

 

[Cazedy]

oh, after reading a few words of that i started thinking about 'zombie rez' from the Heretic. then i realized you were talking about the broken GW2 rez mechanic...

GOA found my heretic's name "fokov anddie" unsuitable and it was changed :/

... zombie rez PL @ pygmies... send in the dead avolonian again ! it was funny.

Hehe that reminds me, foad got 'banned' to use here on fh in its prime right?

 

[Muylaetrix]

Yoiu have never experienced an eternal battle where both the defenders and attackers rez the dead over and over? It turns into an endless battle that just becomes boring. The defenders should be able to kill the attackers without having to keep killing the same people endlessly. Same for the attackers, you kill someone on a wall? They will just be rezzed again and right back in the fight.

my experience with DAoC was that i've never seen deadlocks in open field. in keeps or towers, if a deadlock happened at all in a tower or keep, it usually ended after the defender or attacker overexstended and suffer casualties that couldn't be rezzed.

DAoC rezzing system worked just fine imho. if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

 

[professor nomos]

Most discussions heading towards less rezz, not more. Personally i would be very well off with a modified DAoC system. The only valid concern is can see is endless, static fights, but i think you can handle this with variations of cast time/power cost/cast range.

The problem is the assumptions remain and we're confusing different with Innovation. In particular that we're discussing Rez as if its a zero sum game where the only class that will ever have the ability to rez are healers. Mind you I am not in favor of the GW2 model but by simply reducing/limiting healer rezzes all we are doing is debatingt he MMO equivalent of Supply side economics .

Ultimately, what MJ and the crew at CSE should be looking at is ways to break the mold and actually Innovate rather that become obsessed with finding the perfet healer rezz coodownl.

 

[eksdee]

Here's an extremely simple way to make rezzing important, without being broken: only allow ressurection to work on a member of your group. Thereby it won't break sieging, it won't be OP in the hands of zergs and it won't ruin 1v1s.

 

[Tanos]

Made up my mind and i'm still thinking that removing rezz would be frustrating in to many situations. If you design it in a way that people are unluckly can rezzed during an ongoing fight you have the effect that they take care of their life and you avoid endless rezzing situations at keeps and towers. But you do not create the need for wasting time waiting or running back because a few, or maybe just one of you group died.

I also don't think you should want each and every part of the game to be innovative, BSC and "not like DAoC", because many backers where in love with DAoC and supporting this project because no other game brought back the feeling. Taking into account the souls concept and some ideas from other people, one could think of following mechanics:
To revive a dead mate from your group you need a healer and another member having a part of an enemies soul. Together they can perform some kind of ritual where they free the enemies soul in exchange to get their dead mate back to life. It will take some time, healers mana and they must stand next to the body for this ritual. Of course combinded with some sort of rezz sickness.

 

[Ogrelin Blodig]

I could imagine an out of combat ress for healers.

 

[Jairon Kalach]

Here's an extremely simple way to make rezzing important, without being broken: only allow ressurection to work on a member of your group. Thereby it won't break sieging, it won't be OP in the hands of zergs and it won't ruin 1v1s.

I like this one. Tucked it in the back of my brain for the discussion on the official boards.

 

[boxfetish]

Here's an extremely simple way to make rezzing important, without being broken: only allow ressurection to work on a member of your group. Thereby it won't break sieging, it won't be OP in the hands of zergs and it won't ruin 1v1s.

I assume that you mean the same 8-man group (or whatever size group we end up with) and not larger groups (warbands, raid groups, or what have you)? I suppose if you add to this that the enemy will have the ability to burn corpses (or maybe set up wards or AoE effects) to prevent rezzes, it would probably be sufficient.

I still prefer having rezzes (not death or release) cause 1% loss of XP (or the equivalent) to the character.

 

[Mordran]

rezzing was a nice way to make friends and strengthend the team feeling

 

[BloodOmen]

I could imagine an out of combat ress for healers.

I couldn't because it would screw over grp vs grp + it would feel like WoW all over again, you'd feel compelled to try and keep 1 resser out of combat as much as possible.

 

[Vesir]

ya, only have out of combat rezzes also wouldn't fix the siege thing he was talking about, since it'd be fairly easy to get out of combat during a siege and rez anyway

 

[Tanos]

Take a quick jump in as i read one thing over and over again: You need in combat rezz for 8vs8. Simply not true. If you balanced the game that there is nothing like the "pew pew dead" WL, group fights can be great without an in combat rezz. You just need something afterwards that prevents you from running back because one mate died.

 

[rynnor]

I like this one. Tucked it in the back of my brain for the discussion on the official boards.

It wouldnt actually stop the everlasting standoffs at keeps though - I dont think its on the right lines.

 

[Raven]

There are rarely ever lasting stand offs at keeps though. Though in the first few days of NF I remember a 3 way keep siege that lasted for about 12 hours with hundreds of people involved, was fantastic fun.

 

[professor nomos]

I also don't think you should want each and every part of the game to be innovative, BSC and "not like DAoC", because many backers where in love with DAoC and supporting this project because no other game brought back the feeling. Taking into account the souls concept and some ideas from other people, one could think of following mechanics:

Sure but I am pretty sure that making it just like DAoC will be a mistake. A large part of what made DAoC the game we loved was the way we each played the game. Whether it was 8v8 or relic raids, stealth wars or zergs, DAoC had the design flexibility to be a lot of things to a lot of people.

It would be a travesty to limit the design in such a way to only allow 8v8 or only allow large organized raids, to ignore stealth or even dare I say ignore the zerg.

As such Innovation is the only way to not limit the game design in such a way that there is only one way to play.