How exactly would a class look like that would NOT benefit a group ?
See DAOC, Infiltrator. Sure, it had great DPS, but absolutely no group buffing or mob debuffing skills of any kind and people let you in their group out of pity more than anything else. Fortunately, since almost everyone had some sort of stealth alt they were leveling up most group leaders always included an infiltrator or archer (another almost useless grouping class) in their rotation (a big benefit of DAOC's 8 man group design) and the game mechanics were simple enough that the group could carrry them.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
How exactly would a class look like that would NOT benefit a group ?
Depends on what level you are talking about. If you are talking about full on pvp guild groups then anything less then the games top 'support classes' is not really beneficial.
@OP, again it depends on the group, if you are knowingly involving yourself in a pvp (or even to an extent a raid) centric guild then you should log on the toons that the guild group requires at that specific time. I'd have to question pvp centric guilds that don't have some 'enforcement' rules on the classes of it's players. But on the flipside of that it, such players who actively look to play in said guilds actually find enjoyment in that kind of gaming anyway.
I guess it depends on whether you are grouping in a pug or a casual guild. If that's the case then play whatever, if however you are rolling in a premade with a specific purpose then you should play a group centric class. But then if you didn't you wouldn't have been invited into the group/guild in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Should you spend valueable design time on sub-optimal roles for a class that firstly only a small amount of your playerbase will use and secondly create a lot of raging in groups? Or should you spend that design time on more usefull things?
It's not about it being impossible to work. It's about it taking a lot of time to make it work. Time that could be spend on other things that would improve the game a lot more then adding sub-optimal roles to classes would.
You're working on the assumption that bad balance is intentional. It clearly isn't.
There will clearly be "bad choices" in specialization, but if the developers are doing their jobs right they will balance things so that "choosing to be a tank" is not a bad choice for a cleric. That doesn't mean "choosing to be a tank while spending a lot of points in healing talents" will be a good choice -- it probably won't (you'd water down your mitigation/threat capabilities too much.)
But we're not talking about making every single spec possible be balanced. We're talking about giving Clerics at least one endgame-viable tanking spec (and DPS spec, and healing spec.) You don't achieve playstyle variety without a willingness and effort investment into putting a bunch of specs on the table and then balancing the hell out of them.
The simple mathematics and psychology backfires when you realize that some of the time Billy the Cleric is willing to tank to make the group work, therefore more groups work with flexible roles than static ones. Additionally, Billy likes DPS and Clerics can DPS too -- having the flexibility to play a role he enjoys even more (without re-rolling an entirely new class from scratch, which is a huge undertaking) is a really big deal in terms of fun factor. Additionally, the fact that Billy wasn't forced to level up originally in heal spec (ugh) was the reason Billy had enough fun to reach endgame in the first place.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Should you spend valueable design time on sub-optimal roles for a class that firstly only a small amount of your playerbase will use and secondly create a lot of raging in groups? Or should you spend that design time on more usefull things?
It's not about it being impossible to work. It's about it taking a lot of time to make it work. Time that could be spend on other things that would improve the game a lot more then adding sub-optimal roles to classes would.
You're working on the assumption that bad balance is intentional. It clearly isn't.
There will clearly be "bad choices" in specialization, but if the developers are doing their jobs right they will balance things so that "choosing to be a tank" is not a bad choice for a cleric. That doesn't mean "choosing to be a tank while spending a lot of points in healing talents" will be a good choice -- it probably won't (you'd water down your mitigation/threat capabilities too much.)
But we're not talking about making every single spec possible be balanced. We're talking about giving Clerics at least one endgame-viable tanking spec (and DPS spec, and healing spec.) You don't achieve playstyle variety without a willingness and effort investment into putting a bunch of specs on the table and then balancing the hell out of them.
The simple mathematics and psychology backfires when you realize that some of the time Billy the Cleric is willing to tank to make the group work, therefore more groups work with flexible roles than static ones. Additionally, Billy likes DPS and Clerics can DPS too -- having the flexibility to play a role he enjoys even more (without re-rolling an entirely new class from scratch, which is a huge undertaking) is a really big deal in terms of fun factor. Additionally, the fact that Billy wasn't forced to level up originally in heal spec (ugh) was the reason Billy had enough fun to reach endgame in the first place.
I'm working on the assumption that bad balance is inevitable. Compared to all other classes that cleric will be either a worse or better tank then most classes, there will never be 2 equal tanks unless they are exactly the same. Even though billy had fun levelling up to end-game. At end-game he'll know that if he keeps playing his cleric as a tank he's not pulling his full weight in a group, that he could be adding much more to the group as a healer, that other classes would be better suited to tanking. The people he's playing with would know that they're just tolerating billy as a tank. That really they'd be better off if billy would heal on his cleric.
Instead however all that time spent on attempting to balance making all classes tanks, healers and DPS could also be spend on making more fun and inventive content. Content that would allow healers and tanks to level without the pains they go through now. So that billy can instead have fun levelling up his cleric and when he reaches end-game he knows that he's filling the optimal role for his class. So that billy has more then enough content left so that should he want to level an alt to experience some other roles he gets a totally new experience. They could even use this time to ensure that there's plenty of fun other classes around, classes that aren't held back in the balancing department because it could possibly be OP for a class to fill multiple roles as well as other classes do.
Flexibility is great. But if you want flexibility then go with a character system that truly supports it. A trinity system will not provide that flexibility that a skill-based or non-trinity class system will provide. So why go through all the effort of taking all the corners out of this triangle when there's perfectly good circles lying around?
In a perfect world where MMOs are developed with infinite production time and patches fix any balance problems mere seconds after they're detected you'd be totally right. But with the development constraints that exist on MMOs and any game for that matter I believe you'd be much better off not getting yourself in the balancing nightmare of making every class equally good at every role and instead spend that time on more usefull things.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Should people play the roles to benefit the group instead of ones they enjoy?
The poll is flawed. People should play the role they enjoy and the group leader should invite members that can benefit the group. That, unless your a mmo masochist and your form of entertainment and pleasure is failure and game-play punishment
"Well, we need to group in the right exact group for the most efficiency"
I don't really give a damn, just make sure that there's one healer. If it's to the point where no one wants to be healer... I wouldn't play that one.
"It's our choice! We should be able to pick!"
Yo. It is your choice, it's also your choice to be more ineffective, no one really cares.
My theory is, that the game's flawed, not the grouping system or the players. Look at newer games coming out, every class can do anything. They're more solo orientated. If your buddies wanna play 4 witch doctors and a barb, no one's gonna bitch about you not going healer, because there's no real issue with that. Same with GW2, everyone gets a healing skill.
Why should a game force a situation upon someone when they don't want it?
"i have a lvl 26 maplestory warrior lvl 9 asda story archer and a adventure quest mage lvl 15 and my xfire is my bro's"
I understand your sentiments, but you have to many people who play MMO's like they are single player XBOX games and refuse 100% to accept that in a multiplayer enviroment EVERYONE has to make sacrifices somewhere in order for the WHOLE to get the end reward. Its pretty much analglous with sociecty as a whole. People want to do what they want and screw everyone else, but at the same time benefit from the rewards that everyone else carries them too.
I understand your sentiments, but you have to many people who play MMO's like they are single player XBOX games and refuse 100% to accept that in a multiplayer enviroment EVERYONE has to make sacrifices somewhere in order for the WHOLE to get the end reward. Its pretty much analglous with sociecty as a whole. People want to do what they want and screw everyone else, but at the same time benefit from the rewards that everyone else carries them too.
Making sacrifices ... in an ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT ... why?
We are not talking about charity here. We are not talking about work here. We are not takling about the good of society here. We are talking about games that entertain people.
There is no reason why people cannot play in whatever way they want to. The good news is that you don't have to group with anyone you don't like either. That is what the "leave group" button is for.
I understand your sentiments, but you have to many people who play MMO's like they are single player XBOX games and refuse 100% to accept that in a multiplayer enviroment EVERYONE has to make sacrifices somewhere in order for the WHOLE to get the end reward. Its pretty much analglous with sociecty as a whole. People want to do what they want and screw everyone else, but at the same time benefit from the rewards that everyone else carries them too.
Making sacrifices ... in an ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT ... why?
We are not talking about charity here. We are not talking about work here. We are not takling about the good of society here. We are talking about games that entertain people.
There is no reason why people cannot play in whatever way they want to. The good news is that you don't have to group with anyone you don't like either. That is what the "leave group" button is for.
Were talking about a multiplayer game where a group of people have to work together to achieve a common goal. We are talking about a game where if all the required parts are not present, then NO ONE gets the goods in the end. You can play a single player game or you can solo in a MMO any way you want. But if you expect to take part in a group content then yes, you have to sometimes make a sacrifce between fun, and whats gets the job done, otherwise its not fun for anyone to beay their heads against a brick wall because no one will budge a inch from there "its all about me, even though its a group attempt" mentaility.
If you want to be anti-social and play how you want to play and screw everyone else, then STAY OUT OF GROUP CONTENT...period. You cant have the best of both worlds in group play, there is no play for only yourself but still help the group succeed. Its why DPS meter watchers in MMO cause groups to fail because they care only about there own personal glory and dont move out of fire or refuse to switch to a required target to down a boss.
If one person in a public RIFT group can heal, and no one else can, then yes, he should make the attempt to heal. Why? because if he does not then no one in the raid will succeed, and in the end, ITS A GROUP ATTEMPT. Why should a whole group fail because one guy wants to play only for himself? That kind of mentality is better left for solo play or in the situation where there is someone else who is willing to heal, even if they are not as suited for it. Im not talking that just because your the best healer then you should heal over a lesser healer that volunteered. But in a go or nogo situation where without you healing then the other 15 people cant win, then suck it up and deal with it or stop joining public raids.
Why should a whole group fail because one guy wants to play only for himself?
Oh stop. Every player in that group is being selfish by insisting that the one guy play the game their way so that they can enjoy themselves. It's terribly hypocritical. Simply because they are in the majority doesn't put them in the right.
The OP already stated how many times he has tanked even when its not his prefered playstyle becuse the public group needed a tank. I play a warrior and i have done the same thing.
Your response is flawed: First to assume that everyone in the raid is playing for themselves. While everyone wants to get gear and items for themselves, a lot of players know that they cant do it alone. And Second, just because joeblow over there is an anti-social anti-group helping player, does not mean that everyone else should be also. Stop trying to hide your flaws behind the excuse that "everyone else does it". That is childish and does nothing at all to help fix anything.
And in any event, even if all you care about is yourself, then know that you wont get jack shit from the raid if you dont heal if your the only one that can. You must not are about yourself much at all then.
Back in vanilla wow, I used to play a pally who refused to heal. People got pissed at my on a daily basis because I was spec'd "Ret" and they though I should be playing it differently.
Did I change? Hell no. I play to have fun, and healing is not fun for me.
Your response is flawed: First to assume that everyone in the raid is playing for themselves.
It doesn't matter whether they're playing for themselves or some selfless pursuit. They have an agenda, and they are saying that another player is subservient to their agenda. That's selfish because it declares the individual player's agenda as insignificant. Respect his agenda as much as you respect your own.
And I suspect that the guy wanted to contribute to the team just as much as anyone else. He just didn't want to contribute by healing. Respect that.
I understand your sentiments, but you have to many people who play MMO's like they are single player XBOX games and refuse 100% to accept that in a multiplayer enviroment EVERYONE has to make sacrifices somewhere in order for the WHOLE to get the end reward. Its pretty much analglous with sociecty as a whole. People want to do what they want and screw everyone else, but at the same time benefit from the rewards that everyone else carries them too.
Making sacrifices ... in an ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT ... why?
We are not talking about charity here. We are not talking about work here. We are not takling about the good of society here. We are talking about games that entertain people.
There is no reason why people cannot play in whatever way they want to. The good news is that you don't have to group with anyone you don't like either. That is what the "leave group" button is for.
Were talking about a multiplayer game where a group of people have to work together to achieve a common goal. We are talking about a game where if all the required parts are not present, then NO ONE gets the goods in the end. You can play a single player game or you can solo in a MMO any way you want. But if you expect to take part in a group content then yes, you have to sometimes make a sacrifce between fun, and whats gets the job done, otherwise its not fun for anyone to beay their heads against a brick wall because no one will budge a inch from there "its all about me, even though its a group attempt" mentaility.
If you want to be anti-social and play how you want to play and screw everyone else, then STAY OUT OF GROUP CONTENT...period. You cant have the best of both worlds in group play, there is no play for only yourself but still help the group succeed. Its why DPS meter watchers in MMO cause groups to fail because they care only about there own personal glory and dont move out of fire or refuse to switch to a required target to down a boss.
If one person in a public RIFT group can heal, and no one else can, then yes, he should make the attempt to heal. Why? because if he does not then no one in the raid will succeed, and in the end, ITS A GROUP ATTEMPT. Why should a whole group fail because one guy wants to play only for himself? That kind of mentality is better left for solo play or in the situation where there is someone else who is willing to heal, even if they are not as suited for it. Im not talking that just because your the best healer then you should heal over a lesser healer that volunteered. But in a go or nogo situation where without you healing then the other 15 people cant win, then suck it up and deal with it or stop joining public raids.
No. You can always find a new group. That is why people rage-quit groups.
The group should find roles that benefit them for what they need.
Like mentioned already, why should we sacrifice our entertainment for the group, especially if its content were paying for.
If a group wants a healer, or dd/dps or tank, then go look for one. You dont invite someone/stay in a group if theyre/your not what they need.
Find the suitable role, not force the players role to be suitable.
And thats only if the games mechanics allow it.
Now.... If your a healer up front, trying to be a dd, or a tank who prefers to heal only, or thinking you can tank as a caster in a game that just cant support the idea by giving you the needed skills to pull it off, then yea, feckin smarten up or /ragequit
A game is just that... a game, not an emotional crutch.
Back in vanilla wow, I used to play a pally who refused to heal. People got pissed at my on a daily basis because I was spec'd "Ret" and they though I should be playing it differently.
Did I change? Hell no. I play to have fun, and healing is not fun for me.
LOL, Warrior club is over that way ----->
Even Ret Pallys could do some healing, though I agree, if you mean raid healing then no, I can see why you'd not want any part of it. But in small groups or PVP, an occasional heal can only help your team.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We keep coming back full circle to the "I pay for the game, so its all about me" mentality....IN A MULTIPLAYER GAME!
And we are not talking about any group that you make, then invite someone to do one thing then force then to change because the raid needs it. In that case you invite what you need.
i am talking mainly about RIFT's public raids. where when a rift opens up, anyone can run to it and click the join public raid button and whalaa, they are in the raid. Problem with this, now you have 16 "i want i want, its all about me" players and your raid gets face wiped because no one wants to step back and realize, "hey, I joined this public raid, i am the only one that can heal it, maybe i should i dont know try to heal it? rather then saying fuck everyone else lets make this GROUP attempt fail because i want to play how i want."
If you cant see the problem, then you have no place in an MMO anyways. You cant have public groups full of individuals PLAYING like they are in a solo team, and expect a positive outcome. Im not saying pick on the only cleric in the raid, even if there is a mage or rogue that can heal, but it should be resonable to expect at least ONE of those that can heal, to heal for the benefit of the entire raid. Likewise if your short a tank, or even a CC.
Lets just get rid of the damn "i pay for it" mantra, because if you payed for an MMO expecting to be able to play however you want and not realize that your in a game that may require group based dynamics, then you need to get your money back because your in the wrong game. Just because you payed for something does not mean you get entiled to unrealistic ideas about what you payed for. You dont pay for a fast car, and when you get pulled over you try to tell the cop "hey i payed for this car so I can go fast..I PAYED FOR IT i get to do what i want!" <----unrealistic expectation.
Solo playstyle in a group objective based encounter, also unrealistic.
The important take away from this discussion is that GOOD players will play to the strengths of a class to their, and others benefits. You need a healer, but he's only interested in dps, even though he may be the only one the potential to assist the group, then kick him and find someone else or just refuse to assist them. Let the guy draw aggro and die.
I've encountered these types before and they either learn or they don't, it's not your place to teach them, but it's also not your place to waste your hard earned sub dollars carrying them either.
Normally I'm an elitist but a shadow priest may be no more equipped or experienced at healing than a warlock, even if the shadowpriest has the spec available.
>.> Kick the warlock, he doesn't even have dispersion.
There's a lot of reasons you might be carrying them, including "they're missing an important talent for the tree they want to play", but you are not carrying someone strictly because you need a healer and they won't heal. As matter of fact, you're not doing anything because noone will heal.
"Learn a new spec, or else!" is as ludicrous as saying "Get on your shaman alt, or else!".
(I only play tanks and healers, I love the responsibility and the control and I also hate when I'm in support of my dps friends who may and often do dps better than me. I'd no sooner switch to dps than some of them would switch to tank, healer, or in diffferent games, other support classes like bard and summoner.)
While my comments may seem harsh in an instanced dungeon environment, in an open party mechanic like Rifts or Public Quests from Warhammer it is a different story. When parties are so free form, having a reasonable expectation of players based on their class is not asking too much, plus getting someone else to fullfill the missing role is generally much easier than getting someone to commit to hours of dungeon grinding. When an event, such as a Rift or PQ goes by so quickly, it is much more reasonable to set aside your prefered playestyle for a few minutes than to argue the point. They are more than welcome to keep banging their head against it, it is a freeform event after all, they just wont get a boss taunted off of them by me unless they are willing to toss me a heal or 2.
We keep coming back full circle to the "I pay for the game, so its all about me" mentality....IN A MULTIPLAYER GAME!
And we are not talking about any group that you make, then invite someone to do one thing then force then to change because the raid needs it. In that case you invite what you need.
i am talking mainly about RIFT's public raids. where when a rift opens up, anyone can run to it and click the join public raid button and whalaa, they are in the raid. Problem with this, now you have 16 "i want i want, its all about me" players and your raid gets face wiped because no one wants to step back and realize, "hey, I joined this public raid, i am the only one that can heal it, maybe i should i dont know try to heal it? rather then saying fuck everyone else lets make this GROUP attempt fail because i want to play how i want."
If you cant see the problem, then you have no place in an MMO anyways. You cant have public groups full of individuals PLAYING like they are in a solo team, and expect a positive outcome. Im not saying pick on the only cleric in the raid, even if there is a mage or rogue that can heal, but it should be resonable to expect at least ONE of those that can heal, to heal for the benefit of the entire raid. Likewise if your short a tank, or even a CC.
Lets just get rid of the damn "i pay for it" mantra, because if you payed for an MMO expecting to be able to play however you want and not realize that your in a game that may require group based dynamics, then you need to get your money back because your in the wrong game. Just because you payed for something does not mean you get entiled to unrealistic ideas about what you payed for. You dont pay for a fast car, and when you get pulled over you try to tell the cop "hey i payed for this car so I can go fast..I PAYED FOR IT i get to do what i want!" <----unrealistic expectation.
Solo playstyle in a group objective based encounter, also unrealistic.
So the raid fails. What is so unrealistic about it? If a player insists playing the way they want to, there is nothing you can do about it .. except quit and find another public quest.
This is actually no different than TB in wow .. sometimes you may join a great grp, sometimes not. It is unrealistic to assume others will do what you want them to do. Failure is a more likely outcome.
I don't see why people cannot play however they want, fully knowing that sometimes it will fail.
Should you spend valueable design time on sub-optimal roles for a class that firstly only a small amount of your playerbase will use and secondly create a lot of raging in groups? Or should you spend that design time on more usefull things?
It's not about it being impossible to work. It's about it taking a lot of time to make it work. Time that could be spend on other things that would improve the game a lot more then adding sub-optimal roles to classes would.
You're working on the assumption that bad balance is intentional. It clearly isn't.
There will clearly be "bad choices" in specialization, but if the developers are doing their jobs right they will balance things so that "choosing to be a tank" is not a bad choice for a cleric. That doesn't mean "choosing to be a tank while spending a lot of points in healing talents" will be a good choice -- it probably won't (you'd water down your mitigation/threat capabilities too much.)
But we're not talking about making every single spec possible be balanced. We're talking about giving Clerics at least one endgame-viable tanking spec (and DPS spec, and healing spec.) You don't achieve playstyle variety without a willingness and effort investment into putting a bunch of specs on the table and then balancing the hell out of them.
The simple mathematics and psychology backfires when you realize that some of the time Billy the Cleric is willing to tank to make the group work, therefore more groups work with flexible roles than static ones. Additionally, Billy likes DPS and Clerics can DPS too -- having the flexibility to play a role he enjoys even more (without re-rolling an entirely new class from scratch, which is a huge undertaking) is a really big deal in terms of fun factor. Additionally, the fact that Billy wasn't forced to level up originally in heal spec (ugh) was the reason Billy had enough fun to reach endgame in the first place.
I'm working on the assumption that bad balance is inevitable. Compared to all other classes that cleric will be either a worse or better tank then most classes, there will never be 2 equal tanks unless they are exactly the same. Even though billy had fun levelling up to end-game. At end-game he'll know that if he keeps playing his cleric as a tank he's not pulling his full weight in a group, that he could be adding much more to the group as a healer, that other classes would be better suited to tanking. The people he's playing with would know that they're just tolerating billy as a tank. That really they'd be better off if billy would heal on his cleric.
Instead however all that time spent on attempting to balance making all classes tanks, healers and DPS could also be spend on making more fun and inventive content. Content that would allow healers and tanks to level without the pains they go through now. So that billy can instead have fun levelling up his cleric and when he reaches end-game he knows that he's filling the optimal role for his class. So that billy has more then enough content left so that should he want to level an alt to experience some other roles he gets a totally new experience. They could even use this time to ensure that there's plenty of fun other classes around, classes that aren't held back in the balancing department because it could possibly be OP for a class to fill multiple roles as well as other classes do.
Flexibility is great. But if you want flexibility then go with a character system that truly supports it. A trinity system will not provide that flexibility that a skill-based or non-trinity class system will provide. So why go through all the effort of taking all the corners out of this triangle when there's perfectly good circles lying around?
In a perfect world where MMOs are developed with infinite production time and patches fix any balance problems mere seconds after they're detected you'd be totally right. But with the development constraints that exist on MMOs and any game for that matter I believe you'd be much better off not getting yourself in the balancing nightmare of making every class equally good at every role and instead spend that time on more usefull things.
1. Balance isn't binary, in terms of how players care about it. It's measured by the difference between the worst and best class, and using RIFT as an example I will take any tank into a dungeon because I know the difference between the best/worst tanks isn't that extreme (and all of them have been capable of tanking the dungeons I've run.
2. Balance doesn't have to be 100% at release. WOW had ~20 non-viable playstyles at release and ~10 viable ones. It did quite well. Why did it work? Because no matter what your class was there was a viable playstyle available for it.
3. Working on playstyle variety is very clearly the low-hanging fruit for devs. It's the way the game becomes more fun with th eleast amount of effort. So there's no "go work on other things" for devs: this is the most efficient way of making the game more fun.
4. Class-based role-switching supports flexibility plenty well. Both WOW and Rift are shining examples of the formula working. Can you even provide an example of a skill-based system doing it at all (let alone doing it better?) If anything, skill-based systems water the potential playstyles down too much and prevent them from feeling as distinct as possible (and while RIFT trips up here too, WOW is a great example of every class being very distinct (at least until the last 2 years where they perhaps over-homogenized)...something which just isn't possible in a skill-based soup.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My main problem is when I yell "LF healer" then someone whispers to me "Priest LFG" I EXPECT it to be a healer. Not a dps specced priest who refuses to heal. Ive run into that countless times and tbh its just annoying!
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
You actually had some good options there...well done!
As a player who starts more groups than I join, I will tell you I "TRY" to fill the group needs first, but under NO circumstance do I NOT do something because we don't have the correct "roles".
You actually had some good options there...well done!
As a player who starts more groups than I join, I will tell you I "TRY" to fill the group needs first, but under NO circumstance do I NOT do something because we don't have the correct "roles".
I dont need all roles filled but I will never make a group thats doomed to fail. like a group with 5 glasscannons
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
My main problem is when I yell "LF healer" then someone whispers to me "Priest LFG" I EXPECT it to be a healer. Not a dps specced priest who refuses to heal. Ive run into that countless times and tbh its just annoying!
Exactly right, but that is the opposite of the OP's position. He seems to believe that all Priests should be healers for the good of the group. Which I think we agree, is the wrong assumption to make.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
See DAOC, Infiltrator. Sure, it had great DPS, but absolutely no group buffing or mob debuffing skills of any kind and people let you in their group out of pity more than anything else. Fortunately, since almost everyone had some sort of stealth alt they were leveling up most group leaders always included an infiltrator or archer (another almost useless grouping class) in their rotation (a big benefit of DAOC's 8 man group design) and the game mechanics were simple enough that the group could carrry them.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Depends on what level you are talking about. If you are talking about full on pvp guild groups then anything less then the games top 'support classes' is not really beneficial.
@OP, again it depends on the group, if you are knowingly involving yourself in a pvp (or even to an extent a raid) centric guild then you should log on the toons that the guild group requires at that specific time. I'd have to question pvp centric guilds that don't have some 'enforcement' rules on the classes of it's players. But on the flipside of that it, such players who actively look to play in said guilds actually find enjoyment in that kind of gaming anyway.
I guess it depends on whether you are grouping in a pug or a casual guild. If that's the case then play whatever, if however you are rolling in a premade with a specific purpose then you should play a group centric class. But then if you didn't you wouldn't have been invited into the group/guild in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You're working on the assumption that bad balance is intentional. It clearly isn't.
There will clearly be "bad choices" in specialization, but if the developers are doing their jobs right they will balance things so that "choosing to be a tank" is not a bad choice for a cleric. That doesn't mean "choosing to be a tank while spending a lot of points in healing talents" will be a good choice -- it probably won't (you'd water down your mitigation/threat capabilities too much.)
But we're not talking about making every single spec possible be balanced. We're talking about giving Clerics at least one endgame-viable tanking spec (and DPS spec, and healing spec.) You don't achieve playstyle variety without a willingness and effort investment into putting a bunch of specs on the table and then balancing the hell out of them.
The simple mathematics and psychology backfires when you realize that some of the time Billy the Cleric is willing to tank to make the group work, therefore more groups work with flexible roles than static ones. Additionally, Billy likes DPS and Clerics can DPS too -- having the flexibility to play a role he enjoys even more (without re-rolling an entirely new class from scratch, which is a huge undertaking) is a really big deal in terms of fun factor. Additionally, the fact that Billy wasn't forced to level up originally in heal spec (ugh) was the reason Billy had enough fun to reach endgame in the first place.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm working on the assumption that bad balance is inevitable. Compared to all other classes that cleric will be either a worse or better tank then most classes, there will never be 2 equal tanks unless they are exactly the same. Even though billy had fun levelling up to end-game. At end-game he'll know that if he keeps playing his cleric as a tank he's not pulling his full weight in a group, that he could be adding much more to the group as a healer, that other classes would be better suited to tanking. The people he's playing with would know that they're just tolerating billy as a tank. That really they'd be better off if billy would heal on his cleric.
Instead however all that time spent on attempting to balance making all classes tanks, healers and DPS could also be spend on making more fun and inventive content. Content that would allow healers and tanks to level without the pains they go through now. So that billy can instead have fun levelling up his cleric and when he reaches end-game he knows that he's filling the optimal role for his class. So that billy has more then enough content left so that should he want to level an alt to experience some other roles he gets a totally new experience. They could even use this time to ensure that there's plenty of fun other classes around, classes that aren't held back in the balancing department because it could possibly be OP for a class to fill multiple roles as well as other classes do.
Flexibility is great. But if you want flexibility then go with a character system that truly supports it. A trinity system will not provide that flexibility that a skill-based or non-trinity class system will provide. So why go through all the effort of taking all the corners out of this triangle when there's perfectly good circles lying around?
In a perfect world where MMOs are developed with infinite production time and patches fix any balance problems mere seconds after they're detected you'd be totally right. But with the development constraints that exist on MMOs and any game for that matter I believe you'd be much better off not getting yourself in the balancing nightmare of making every class equally good at every role and instead spend that time on more usefull things.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
The poll is flawed. People should play the role they enjoy and the group leader should invite members that can benefit the group. That, unless your a mmo masochist and your form of entertainment and pleasure is failure and game-play punishment
It's shit like this that pisses me off.
"Well, we need to group in the right exact group for the most efficiency"
I don't really give a damn, just make sure that there's one healer. If it's to the point where no one wants to be healer... I wouldn't play that one.
"It's our choice! We should be able to pick!"
Yo. It is your choice, it's also your choice to be more ineffective, no one really cares.
My theory is, that the game's flawed, not the grouping system or the players. Look at newer games coming out, every class can do anything. They're more solo orientated. If your buddies wanna play 4 witch doctors and a barb, no one's gonna bitch about you not going healer, because there's no real issue with that. Same with GW2, everyone gets a healing skill.
Why should a game force a situation upon someone when they don't want it?
"i have a lvl 26 maplestory warrior lvl 9 asda story archer and a adventure quest mage lvl 15 and my xfire is my bro's"
Give it up buddy,
I understand your sentiments, but you have to many people who play MMO's like they are single player XBOX games and refuse 100% to accept that in a multiplayer enviroment EVERYONE has to make sacrifices somewhere in order for the WHOLE to get the end reward. Its pretty much analglous with sociecty as a whole. People want to do what they want and screw everyone else, but at the same time benefit from the rewards that everyone else carries them too.
Making sacrifices ... in an ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT ... why?
We are not talking about charity here. We are not talking about work here. We are not takling about the good of society here. We are talking about games that entertain people.
There is no reason why people cannot play in whatever way they want to. The good news is that you don't have to group with anyone you don't like either. That is what the "leave group" button is for.
Were talking about a multiplayer game where a group of people have to work together to achieve a common goal. We are talking about a game where if all the required parts are not present, then NO ONE gets the goods in the end. You can play a single player game or you can solo in a MMO any way you want. But if you expect to take part in a group content then yes, you have to sometimes make a sacrifce between fun, and whats gets the job done, otherwise its not fun for anyone to beay their heads against a brick wall because no one will budge a inch from there "its all about me, even though its a group attempt" mentaility.
If you want to be anti-social and play how you want to play and screw everyone else, then STAY OUT OF GROUP CONTENT...period. You cant have the best of both worlds in group play, there is no play for only yourself but still help the group succeed. Its why DPS meter watchers in MMO cause groups to fail because they care only about there own personal glory and dont move out of fire or refuse to switch to a required target to down a boss.
If one person in a public RIFT group can heal, and no one else can, then yes, he should make the attempt to heal. Why? because if he does not then no one in the raid will succeed, and in the end, ITS A GROUP ATTEMPT. Why should a whole group fail because one guy wants to play only for himself? That kind of mentality is better left for solo play or in the situation where there is someone else who is willing to heal, even if they are not as suited for it. Im not talking that just because your the best healer then you should heal over a lesser healer that volunteered. But in a go or nogo situation where without you healing then the other 15 people cant win, then suck it up and deal with it or stop joining public raids.
Oh stop. Every player in that group is being selfish by insisting that the one guy play the game their way so that they can enjoy themselves. It's terribly hypocritical. Simply because they are in the majority doesn't put them in the right.
The OP already stated how many times he has tanked even when its not his prefered playstyle becuse the public group needed a tank. I play a warrior and i have done the same thing.
Your response is flawed: First to assume that everyone in the raid is playing for themselves. While everyone wants to get gear and items for themselves, a lot of players know that they cant do it alone. And Second, just because joeblow over there is an anti-social anti-group helping player, does not mean that everyone else should be also. Stop trying to hide your flaws behind the excuse that "everyone else does it". That is childish and does nothing at all to help fix anything.
And in any event, even if all you care about is yourself, then know that you wont get jack shit from the raid if you dont heal if your the only one that can. You must not are about yourself much at all then.
Back in vanilla wow, I used to play a pally who refused to heal. People got pissed at my on a daily basis because I was spec'd "Ret" and they though I should be playing it differently.
Did I change? Hell no. I play to have fun, and healing is not fun for me.
It doesn't matter whether they're playing for themselves or some selfless pursuit. They have an agenda, and they are saying that another player is subservient to their agenda. That's selfish because it declares the individual player's agenda as insignificant. Respect his agenda as much as you respect your own.
And I suspect that the guy wanted to contribute to the team just as much as anyone else. He just didn't want to contribute by healing. Respect that.
No. You can always find a new group. That is why people rage-quit groups.
Depends;
Play roles to benefit the group? No.
The group should find roles that benefit them for what they need.
Like mentioned already, why should we sacrifice our entertainment for the group, especially if its content were paying for.
If a group wants a healer, or dd/dps or tank, then go look for one. You dont invite someone/stay in a group if theyre/your not what they need.
Find the suitable role, not force the players role to be suitable.
And thats only if the games mechanics allow it.
Now.... If your a healer up front, trying to be a dd, or a tank who prefers to heal only, or thinking you can tank as a caster in a game that just cant support the idea by giving you the needed skills to pull it off, then yea, feckin smarten up or /ragequit
A game is just that... a game, not an emotional crutch.
LOL, Warrior club is over that way ----->
Even Ret Pallys could do some healing, though I agree, if you mean raid healing then no, I can see why you'd not want any part of it. But in small groups or PVP, an occasional heal can only help your team.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We keep coming back full circle to the "I pay for the game, so its all about me" mentality....IN A MULTIPLAYER GAME!
And we are not talking about any group that you make, then invite someone to do one thing then force then to change because the raid needs it. In that case you invite what you need.
i am talking mainly about RIFT's public raids. where when a rift opens up, anyone can run to it and click the join public raid button and whalaa, they are in the raid. Problem with this, now you have 16 "i want i want, its all about me" players and your raid gets face wiped because no one wants to step back and realize, "hey, I joined this public raid, i am the only one that can heal it, maybe i should i dont know try to heal it? rather then saying fuck everyone else lets make this GROUP attempt fail because i want to play how i want."
If you cant see the problem, then you have no place in an MMO anyways. You cant have public groups full of individuals PLAYING like they are in a solo team, and expect a positive outcome. Im not saying pick on the only cleric in the raid, even if there is a mage or rogue that can heal, but it should be resonable to expect at least ONE of those that can heal, to heal for the benefit of the entire raid. Likewise if your short a tank, or even a CC.
Lets just get rid of the damn "i pay for it" mantra, because if you payed for an MMO expecting to be able to play however you want and not realize that your in a game that may require group based dynamics, then you need to get your money back because your in the wrong game. Just because you payed for something does not mean you get entiled to unrealistic ideas about what you payed for. You dont pay for a fast car, and when you get pulled over you try to tell the cop "hey i payed for this car so I can go fast..I PAYED FOR IT i get to do what i want!" <----unrealistic expectation.
Solo playstyle in a group objective based encounter, also unrealistic.
While my comments may seem harsh in an instanced dungeon environment, in an open party mechanic like Rifts or Public Quests from Warhammer it is a different story. When parties are so free form, having a reasonable expectation of players based on their class is not asking too much, plus getting someone else to fullfill the missing role is generally much easier than getting someone to commit to hours of dungeon grinding. When an event, such as a Rift or PQ goes by so quickly, it is much more reasonable to set aside your prefered playestyle for a few minutes than to argue the point. They are more than welcome to keep banging their head against it, it is a freeform event after all, they just wont get a boss taunted off of them by me unless they are willing to toss me a heal or 2.
Warhammer fanatic since '85.
Who brought up that argument? I missed it.
So the raid fails. What is so unrealistic about it? If a player insists playing the way they want to, there is nothing you can do about it .. except quit and find another public quest.
This is actually no different than TB in wow .. sometimes you may join a great grp, sometimes not. It is unrealistic to assume others will do what you want them to do. Failure is a more likely outcome.
I don't see why people cannot play however they want, fully knowing that sometimes it will fail.
1. Balance isn't binary, in terms of how players care about it. It's measured by the difference between the worst and best class, and using RIFT as an example I will take any tank into a dungeon because I know the difference between the best/worst tanks isn't that extreme (and all of them have been capable of tanking the dungeons I've run.
2. Balance doesn't have to be 100% at release. WOW had ~20 non-viable playstyles at release and ~10 viable ones. It did quite well. Why did it work? Because no matter what your class was there was a viable playstyle available for it.
3. Working on playstyle variety is very clearly the low-hanging fruit for devs. It's the way the game becomes more fun with th eleast amount of effort. So there's no "go work on other things" for devs: this is the most efficient way of making the game more fun.
4. Class-based role-switching supports flexibility plenty well. Both WOW and Rift are shining examples of the formula working. Can you even provide an example of a skill-based system doing it at all (let alone doing it better?) If anything, skill-based systems water the potential playstyles down too much and prevent them from feeling as distinct as possible (and while RIFT trips up here too, WOW is a great example of every class being very distinct (at least until the last 2 years where they perhaps over-homogenized)...something which just isn't possible in a skill-based soup.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My main problem is when I yell "LF healer" then someone whispers to me "Priest LFG" I EXPECT it to be a healer. Not a dps specced priest who refuses to heal. Ive run into that countless times and tbh its just annoying!
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
You actually had some good options there...well done!
As a player who starts more groups than I join, I will tell you I "TRY" to fill the group needs first, but under NO circumstance do I NOT do something because we don't have the correct "roles".
I dont need all roles filled but I will never make a group thats doomed to fail. like a group with 5 glasscannons
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Exactly right, but that is the opposite of the OP's position. He seems to believe that all Priests should be healers for the good of the group. Which I think we agree, is the wrong assumption to make.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018