@ Sinist..................... so you want to ensure emergent gameplay? (Monk example). Im fine with this if they "balance" it a certain way but people are smart enough to figure other things out for a class then so be it.
On the other hand the team has said the reason why they want specific role sets it to capitalize on class uniqueness and interdependence. I dont think they want too many overlapping roles, nor do they want classes to be able to do too many things on their own or be able to fill any role. So they are probably trying to ensure no classes are all-in-ones. Thats not too say that a monk that is mostly dps/pulling and can tank all the sudden becomes this uberclass that can be all/do all. But that might be the reason why they delayed Bard because its usually a badass hybrid?
Unfortunately as much as ive tried to squeeze info out, we just have no idea what the final version of classes will be. Hopefully they will release more detailed class info soon.
Content should be flexible. Maybe you need a tank for most group content, but you should NEVER need a warrior over a paladin for group content. Content vs classes should never be balanced such that you need a specific class.
Ill just add that classes dont need perfect balance but you should have enough balance that all the druids dont delete their characters because no one wants a druid in the groups. If all healers reroll to the best healer class because it is TOO good then your game fails class balance.
Let them. In most cases, people who rush to the flavor of the month class are just people often too inattentive to learn the strengths and weaknesses of a given class. My friends and I used to shake our heads at these fad hoppers because they would jump to a class that was all the fad because someone figured out some new trick with it, then jump to another class doing the same, only to come back to their original class for the very same reason. You can't please them, let them run around like chickens with their heads cut off.
I can promise you this, if you chase FOTM class hoppers as an indication of class balance, you will destroy the game. In every game that I have played that has attempted to cater tot his, the game has become a joke.
We have years of all the errors of this silly need to chase class balance, yet like a broken record, the same solutions get applied every time. What makes people think it will work this time? /boggle
@ Sinist..................... so you want to ensure emergent gameplay? (Monk example). Im fine with this if they "balance" it a certain way but people are smart enough to figure other things out for a class then so be it.
On the other hand the team has said the reason why they want specific role sets it to capitalize on class uniqueness and interdependence. I dont think they want too many overlapping roles, nor do they want classes to be able to do too many things on their own or be able to fill any role. So they are probably trying to ensure no classes are all-in-ones. Thats not too say that a monk that is mostly dps/pulling and can tank all the sudden becomes this uberclass that can be all/do all. But that might be the reason why they delayed Bard because its usually a badass hybrid?
Unfortunately as much as ive tried to squeeze info out, we just have no idea what the final version of classes will be. Hopefully they will release more detailed class info soon.
Balancing to content achieves "uniqueness and interdependence" as I described with an example. You avoid overlapping roles by insuring that each classes content balance is unique to a given style or solution that such a class provides.
DRG and BST were fixed later on , Drg was a beast after the 2h buff , and BST was always a solo , farm job but lots of QoL changes , even pets with good traits (TH)
The point is that no1 can balance 3 tanks so each other is equal , there will always 1 that is better or better for AoE , magic or w/e
same goes for heals and dps , 1 dps will always be the best in signle other in AoE , other will haver better sustained , other better burst ect... in the end u can only try
CC classes are "cool" until u start raiding , then this CC goes out the window and u become a support job that buffs/debuffs and look pretty.
Whats wrong with buffing/debuffing and looking pretty? Loved me some XI Bard.
Also there is no reason why you cant have CC in Raiding. What about adds?
And just because I wasnt specific enough I guess? Yes I know Beast and Goon were fixed some later, but that took years. So its kind of doesnt matter. My point wasnt that they never improved. My point was that If a class is going to be designed badly from the get go, then it would probably have been better off never being created. Especially if the devs have no intention of patching it until years down the road. Of course in this case it might be less class balance and more just poor implementation that Im worried about.
@Sinist Might that make classes too niche? Like you need X class for this one specific thing only they can do in X encounter? (No way around an encounter unless you have Silence period)
Or do you mean it the other way? Something along the lines of there being more than one way to skin a cat? Like if you have X class you could handle it this way, but If you have Y class you could handle it another (Kiting the mob vs Tanking)
Because otherwise you end up having classes that wont get played, since they are seriously underpowered and the players simply feel they're useless.
Even a quite well balanced game like Vanguard already had pretty steep differences between classes. Warrior felt downright fragile solo - while I called Disciple the "god mode" of Vanguard.
Yeah but isn't that something you could fix with better designed content? If you have a world that doesn't only reward one class for that role then you don't have to balance the classes and it becomes more about player taste. If you make a world that needs a Sentinel Guardian with Boots of 'Bitchin in order to defeat bosses, guess what people will make?
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Because otherwise you end up having classes that wont get played, since they are seriously underpowered and the players simply feel they're useless.
Even a quite well balanced game like Vanguard already had pretty steep differences between classes. Warrior felt downright fragile solo - while I called Disciple the "god mode" of Vanguard.
There's a cave of spiders which poisons players, though all poisons ingame are freaking weak and can be ignored because they only last 10 seconds and just do minimal damage.
The druid is the only class being able to cure poisons
Class based balance: since no one is using curing poisons the *cure poison spell* is just transformed into *cure debuffs* which cures poisons, diseases and curses, adds walking on water, ignore falling damage, see invisible enemies and of course doubles xp gain...
Environment based balance: stronger poisons, last longer, add effects like snares, weakening, add more poison triggers: mobs, food, bushes. make *poison* a real threat. No changes made to the class.
Err ... I cant see how you could have possibly designed a class in Vanguard that would be easily killable by a Warrior, but hard to kill by a Disciple.
Disciple was the dedicated single target healer and they could heal without end using Jin. I think that even still worked if silenced ? They also had quite impressive defenses, especially also against magic. Their damage output was also really good, I think better than my Phoenix Shaman (who had NO defenses) and only second to Blood Mages (who had no defenses but a ***load of hitpoints).
Warrior on the other hand was the most straightforward class possible, aside from the fact that it came with a ***load of special circumstances abilities. Their defenses of course have been perfect. Their damage output was okay. And that was all. No healing whatsoever. No special tricks like runspeed for kiting. Warriors have been the "bard" type of tank, without a group they just sucked.
Why must there be class vs class balance? If you balance class vs content, will that not make a class useful and properly powered?
Maybe. Do you remember P&P dungeonmasters struggling to make Thieves relevant? Probably not, but it went something like this:
Every door has a trapped lock. Every chest has a 2x trapped uberhard lock. Every corridor has a secret passage. Every group of badguys conveniently has at least one back to you, ooh, it's time for the sneaky-sneak. Look, a tightrope that obviously needs walking to the far side...where a monkeybar agility test awaits! Yay!
A "puller". Oh, look at all of the handy nooks for the party to wait in. Ooh, and so many big, open areas with so MANY groups of bad guys, in conveniently small, easily-handled chunks. But only if you can get a skilled puller to fetch one (just one) convenient chunk of badguy.
Class vs Content will almost certainly lead to the same kinds of
artificial "make Timmy feel his class is really, really valued" additions to the
content. And the more classe/roles you try to enable... well, the more muddled
mess results.
DRG and BST were fixed later on , Drg was a beast after the 2h buff , and BST was always a solo , farm job but lots of QoL changes , even pets with good traits (TH)
The point is that no1 can balance 3 tanks so each other is equal , there will always 1 that is better or better for AoE , magic or w/e
same goes for heals and dps , 1 dps will always be the best in signle other in AoE , other will haver better sustained , other better burst ect... in the end u can only try
CC classes are "cool" until u start raiding , then this CC goes out the window and u become a support job that buffs/debuffs and look pretty.
Did you raid in EQ? Or early EQ? CC classes such as the Enchanter were pivotal to raiding and were a necessity. Not only for their buffs, both haste and mana regen but their debuffs which could completely make a mob go from very difficult to doable and most imporantly their CC was needed and utilized and if not done right or well, would wipe a raid so they were more then just a "support job that buffs/debuffs and look pretty" I played one for many years and loved every second of it. That's back when mobs were actually difficult and people didn't AoE everything else you died. In fact, Plane of Time, Enchanters specifically were needed in the different wave events else you would wipe left and right. Enchanter's were the weakest yet, most POWERFUL class in the game in the hands of the right person. The only class I have played to this day where you had risk vs reward. I could charm mobs that would utterly destroy players or mobs in a few swings but if charm broke you were screwed unless you were quick on mezzing/re-charming the mob.
If done right, not only the class but the gameplay mechanics enabling such CC to be needed, cc classes could make a return but that's also relying on players to actually allow for it to happen in-game, meaning, not Aoeing everything to hell and back how it currently is.
@Sinist Might that make classes too niche? Like you need X class for this one specific thing only they can do in X encounter? (No way around an encounter unless you have Silence period)
Or do you mean it the other way? Something along the lines of there being more than one way to skin a cat? Like if you have X class you could handle it this way, but If you have Y class you could handle it another (Kiting the mob vs Tanking)
Not a single solution, just the more efficient one. If you look back through my discussion ( I will add depth and expand on this idea to explain) I gave a scenario where a paladin had a unique ability/spell/nature to resist or be immune to undead taint (a disease with a slowly building dot). This made them ideal to handling these mobs, the perfect solution to the situation, but... a druid (or maybe a shaman) could use a salve or special regen (useful for many types of poisons and magical taints) to stave off the early effects of the dot (temporarily) and a cleric could cure it every so often when it became needed (they couldn't just spam cure on the tank as the disease has a period where if you apply too many successive cures, the disease becomes resistant and eventually immune to the cure spell).
So, you get various solutions, some ideal, others less than ideal to which require a culmination of efforts from different classes to achieve a solution. All build class interdependence, some better than others (ie giving certain classes uniqueness and superiority to a given situation).
Balancing class vs content focuses on game play solutions and actually, truly giving useful and practical purpose to a class as opposed to the more negative balancing aspect of "tit for tat" class vs class balancing.
Why must there be class vs class balance? If you balance class vs content, will that not make a class useful and properly powered?
Maybe. Do you remember P&P dungeonmasters struggling to make Thieves relevant? Probably not, but it went something like this:
Every door has a trapped lock. Every chest has a 2x trapped uberhard lock. Every corridor has a secret passage. Every group of badguys conveniently has at least one back to you, ooh, it's time for the sneaky-sneak. Look, a tightrope that obviously needs walking to the far side...where a monkeybar agility test awaits! Yay!
A "puller". Oh, look at all of the handy nooks for the party to wait in. Ooh, and so many big, open areas with so MANY groups of bad guys, in conveniently small, easily-handled chunks. But only if you can get a skilled puller to fetch one (just one) convenient chunk of badguy.
Class vs Content will almost certainly lead to the same kinds of
artificial "make Timmy feel his class is really, really valued" additions to the
content. And the more classe/roles you try to enable... well, the more muddled
mess results.
Please clarify, I am not understanding your point.
Or are you saying that by having certain strengths as a class that by designing content to provide advantage for these, it is "artificial"? Would that be the same "artificial" designs such as requiring a tank for a given encounter? Or requiring healer for a given event? That type of artificial? Or do you prescribe to the school of design where every solution is a winner and no solution is a loser, ie "participation trophy" game design, aka "mainstream game design"?
For example, Tanks in Vanguard: Warrior, Paladin and Dread Knight have been close enough that nobody cared which they got, as long as they had a tank. I never ever even once noticed anybody who said "no I dont want a Dread Knight, they stink" or something like that. Yeah DK was ever so slightly behind in aggro generation, so what, people waited a second or two more before hitting the mob. And I kept stealing other tanks aggro on my DK all the time, even if the other guy had better gear, and gear was something very important for tanks in VG.
Of course I met a heck of a lot clueless people who asked for a "Cleric" instead of for a healer, but that was simply habit from other games. Well, that, and Cleric had the most general set of buffs, while Shaman had a compareable but somewhat more specialized set, Disciple had hardly any buffs at all, and Blood Mage had the very unusual buffs.
Similar to what Adamantine said, you don't balance around classes, but the core archetypes. Mainly the Tank/Healing/DPS in Pantheon - I'm guessing Bard/Enchanter will be unique enough in and of themselves. And, as I discussed in the Pantheon thread with Kilsin, I don't want every class within the archetype to be/play the same while only changing the names of the skill/spell sets. I'm not asking for classes to all be "equal" but they have to perform their core archtype role well enough or classes will be deemed meaningless - and utility spells like ports don't trump combat effectiveness/abilities/spells. With that said...
VG had the class design right, but the gameplay implementation wrong - ( it lacked slow strategic combat/progression/downtime/mob hps etc. that we have discussed previously in your other threads).
I'll agree - some small/non-ideal trinity groups performed well in EQ like Necro/Shaman or Druid + a couple and it was enjoyable, but there were also endless threads of whining in EQ on X class not being able to tank as well, or X class not being able to heal as well. Where EQ launch survived was due to the unrestricted raids. If there had been a raid cap of 24 - all the "lesser" classes that offered utility over expertise within the Tank/Cleric/DPS would have been passed up and the whining really would have began.
And, on your point of balancing class vs. content, it would have it's share of consequences also. Obviously a Paladin/Cleric would be easy - better aganist undead. Or a Ranger/Druid - better outdoors. But, what would a warrior be better aganist? Everything? You run into some tough balancing issues that way as well, because, if warriors skills were better aganist X mobs, Paladin better against Undead, Dire Lord - Living, then they would have to have the skillset to match. Then, you basically trivialize that character in zones that aren't its specialization creating a very linear progression path.
Basically, it's not easy, and whatever is decided will need to be thoroughly tested.
I don't like the term CC,i always cringe when i see it. Reason is that it sort of suggest we have to have 3/6/9/12 enemies at the same time all the time which makes no sense and ruins immersion for me. Then if you don't the CC character feels it doesn't have a role and is not needed.I prefer to have a more in depth game than just pull 6 mobs and one player auto sleeps them or auto mesmerizes them.Why pull 6 to begin with if your just going to eliminate the others anyhow.
Well for obvious reasons,the game tied all the mobs onto the same AI ,which is a huge no for me,it ruins all immersion again to think those 3/6 mobs were working on the same brain lol.That same peeve bothered me when i played Vanguard.I would carefully sneak up to a fort with 20-30 Orcs then all of a sudden i touch one pixel of land and the entire fort is coming at me at the exact same time,it looked so stupid,i wanted to blow the entire fort up and delete it from the game.
To me that is just very lazy and weak game design,i hope this game does not have any of that type of game design.I am not the nostalgic type but at the same time ,i don't mind grabbing ideas from old games as long as they are good ideas not just nostalgic that brings back my fond memories of a game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Similar to what Adamantine said, you don't balance around classes, but the core archetypes. Mainly the Tank/Healing/DPS in Pantheon - I'm guessing Bard/Enchanter will be unique enough in and of themselves. And, as I discussed in the Pantheon thread with Kilsin, I don't want every class within the archetype to be/play the same while only changing the names of the skill/spell sets. I'm not asking for classes to all be "equal" but they have to perform their core archtype role well enough or classes will be deemed meaningless - and utility spells like ports don't trump combat effectiveness/abilities/spells. With that said...
VG had the class design right, but the gameplay implementation wrong - ( it lacked slow strategic combat/progression/downtime/mob hps etc. that we have discussed previously in your other threads).
I'll agree - some small/non-ideal trinity groups performed well in EQ like Necro/Shaman or Druid + a couple and it was enjoyable, but there were also endless threads of whining in EQ on X class not being able to tank as well, or X class not being able to heal as well. Where EQ launch survived was due to the unrestricted raids. If there had been a raid cap of 24 - all the "lesser" classes that offered utility over expertise within the Tank/Cleric/DPS would have been passed up and the whining really would have began.
And, on your point of balancing class vs. content, it would have it's share of consequences also. Obviously a Paladin/Cleric would be easy - better aganist undead. Or a Ranger/Druid - better outdoors. But, what would a warrior be better aganist? Everything? You run into some tough balancing issues that way as well, because, if warriors skills were better aganist X mobs, Paladin better against Undead, Dire Lord - Living, then they would have to have the skillset to match. Then, you basically trivialize that character in zones that aren't its specialization creating a very linear progression path.
Basically, it's not easy, and whatever is decided will need to be thoroughly tested.
Role based balancing is the same as class based balancing. It still is a box you are putting a character into and then attempting to punish them when they step outside of it. It is the core principal to which drives class envy arguments, that is the "I am a tank, I am supposed to be a better tank, but that guy over there is not supposed to tank as well, but I am supposed to be blah blah blah...". We then chase these complaints about this class infringing on that class, etc...
Roles such as tank/healer/dps are mainstream design mechanics, they are narrowed forced play perspectives. A warrior in EQ was described as:
Warriors are the masters of armed combat and defense, taking the point
in battles and going head-to-head with the most dangerous creatures of
Norrath. Warriors are a melee class with the ability to wear plate armor
and wield all types of weapons.
Not a tank.
The point is, classes were described based on not a "role" for the group specifically to be pigeon holed into, but to describe the pro/cons of their class, the "tools" they provided to dealing with various content. Role based forced design is what got us into the state we are today where everything is a silly class envy argument.
Content based design is similar to role design, but... it is more narrowed to the "tool", not some general streamlined claim of function and it because it is narrowed as such, it does not discontinue the flexibility of allowing a class to shine outside of its general focus, such as maybe a very special situation that due the warriors type of skills, weapons and design, they actually might do pretty good damage on a very specific encounter or situation. Balancing a class around being a "tank" solidifies them as not able to do any DPS (which is not for instance what the EQ warrior description above is saying) as if they do happen to achieve such in any situation, they must be nerfed because DPS is XYZ's role.
That is what needs to be avoided. As for your mention about a negative for the paladin, ABSOLUTELY! Not only should there be instances where a certain classes abilities shine in a given content environment, but there should be places or situations where those can be detrimental, maybe for instance a spell has a very odd and powerful effect on a given mob or in a given environment, but in another area or situation, it has a negative effect, maybe even a wild catastrophic effect that is detrimental to the party.
Maybe, in keeping with our tanking example, there are anti-Paladin mobs who have increased damage or debuffs when fighting a paladin, point is... sky is the limit.
As for balancing like you are mentioning, again that is "tit for tat" balancing. Yes, some balancing in occurrence should exist, such as making sure there are not more negatives or positives aspects to a class than another class, but those are generic, not tit for tat balancing. It is only concerned with the fact that there is sufficient content to give those classes depth and purpose.
One comment about the Utility dismissals. Ignoring utility ability and only focusing on combat balance is a disservice to classes who have limited utility and we end back up with the issue of one class being similar to the other, but having tons of useful "out of combat" abilities that ultimately help combat situations. For instance, invisibility is not a combat spell, but to claim it is not extremely useful in a dungeon environment would be dishonest.
Combat is part of the equation in a classes power. Many aspects of a classes strengths are abilities outside of combat, which is why EQ had numerous emergent play approaches develop. All too often people would dismiss a certain spell or ability as useless until someone figured out a way to apply it to great effect to aid in a combat situation (spells like levitate to fight over lava, water, tree form to med in dangerous animal areas, etc..). So you have to consider them, but then how do you quantify them as they have no measurable value as a heal or damage mitigation ability?
See, this is the same folly designers walk into every time. Consider that most designers today have zero experience with utility systems and I see many who dismiss them as not relevant to the balancing, but as I explained they are relevant and they are integral to the power and purpose to which made classes in EQ so interesting in play.
At the end of the day, balance is not important, only to the concern people have of classes being invalid, redundant, or useless. Balancing versus content insures this is limited, and if it turns out that a given class is lacking in desire because it lacks in purpose, then that comes down to the team implementing either content to attend to that classes skills, or adding/adjusting skills of the class to make use of current content.
The point is, none of that design approach falls into the trap of class envy because if they achieve the goal of having an appropriate amount of content for all classes that gives each class benefit and need from other classes, then you have no useless classes, and retain class interdependence.
In my opinion, chasing the class vs class design focus will end up running the devs into the same problems every game has today, which will result in the desire to achieve the same solutions as today (simplifying classes, simplifying roles, simplifying content) so they can more easily "balance" the classes. /shrug
I'm not sure how EQ's class description proves your point. That's the basic definition of a warrior still. The only "role" the EQlaunch warrior fit into was a tank (I played one). I'd argue the only reason that tank wasn't in the class description was because that term wasn't widely used until after EQ. The "Term" tank is mainstream, but the role is not. A Warrior was a master of arms because they could wear all equipment, not because of DPS (unless twinked or max Raid gear - but even comparatively - low DPS compared to other raid geared). They had zero utility, which is why they "had" to be the best tanks.
And, EQ had very distinct roles as well, even if they weren't defined as Tank/Healer/DPS/CC at the time
Example: Even though Paladins/Shadowknights were considered "hybrids" they were basically tanks with additional utility. Paladins/Shadowknights were better tanks in groups than a warrior who was better at raid tanking (mainly due to higher HPs). Paladins/Shadowknights held agro "much" better in groups than a warrior's /taunt and the only way a warrior could keep up at launch in groups was dual wielding two proccing weapons or telling the other classes to not /taunt or cast certain spells.
The problem lies, a warrior without being properly equipped (group/raid) offered "nothing" to a group that a Paladin/Shadowknight couldn't do better. And, a Paladin/Shadowknight in EQ weren't necessary on raids as a tank where a warrior was. It wasn't an issue in EQ as there were no raid caps and groups weren't constantly min/maxing like they are today (with DPS meters, etc.). Yes there many mechanics that exist off the stat sheet in EQ like CC that I hope makes a triumphant return in Pantheon, but gamers are much more experienced than at EQlaunch and will be able to identify worthless classes much easier.
So, how does that change? Well, that's where I hope Pantheon implements VG style classes with EQ gameplay so classes can't constantly spam skills and a need for resource management exists. Classes played differently enough in VG that all classes didn't "feel" the same - I'm not sure how much you played (or if you played VG).
And, regardless of the model you use to balance or define classes, you will be putting them into some sort of box. With your example, you're just using another form of "tit vs tat" balancing. Class A is good in Zone 1 but bad in zone 2. Where class B is good in zone 2 but bad in zone 1. And, whining will start when class A has 10 zones where they're good in and Class B only has 5. Class A has 3 Raids, Class B 1, etc. Class A has more useful skills/abilities in their specialized zones than Class B does. In the end, you're still having whining/complaining, but now, you're restricting classes to 1/3 or 1/4 of the zones (if there are 4 "tanks"). And to "balance" the classes, the developers will add content to meet or /nerf classes. And, you'll see /shouts of Hedge Group needs tank - paladin preferred. /Warrior sends hedge group tell, I'm LFG. "Sorry man" we're waiting on a Paladin
And, I don't disagree that utility plays a huge role, but outside of FD pulling with a pre-nerf circlet of shadows (which was nerfed because it was identified as game-breaking), invisibility didn't add to a character's "power." It helped with navigation within the dungeon.
But, if you're balancing combat against class utility and warriors have none, then, like EQ they "should" have to be the best tank or there's no point to play them.
It's really a separate discussion, but I'd rather have Combat v. Combat balanced. And Utility v. Utility.
We had a thread awhile back on the main site on what are all the possible utility ideas that classes could bring to a group and add to group interdependence, such as...
And, using this idea, some classes would need to be brought to different zones due to the utility they bring to the group, but, you wouldn't "restrict" grouping by saying we have to have "X" class because we're facing Undead. Variance in classes can exist, but it can't exist to the point where it makes classes worthless.
TLDR: Classes need to be created based off the 4 core archetypes, and variance added within that archetype, with unique utility added which makes classes "needed" and adds to interdependence.
I should add that I don't want any classes to be "balanced" with soloing in mind and that Pantheon should only design group content, and, if soloing occurs in Pantheon I would want it to be emergent like EQ. Or, that based on class design, some classes solo better than others (guessing summoner). Another failure of VG was the ability of all classes to solo, but, again, that could have been controlled through the need for resource management.
I don't like the term CC,i always cringe when i see it. Reason is that it sort of suggest we have to have 3/6/9/12 enemies at the same time all the time which makes no sense and ruins immersion for me. Then if you don't the CC character feels it doesn't have a role and is not needed.I prefer to have a more in depth game than just pull 6 mobs and one player auto sleeps them or auto mesmerizes them.Why pull 6 to begin with if your just going to eliminate the others anyhow.
Bards/Enchanters offered much more to a group in EQ other than just mes, and, I would guess that wouldn't differ in Pantheon either. And, much content as previous posters suggested could be tackled in a variety of ways, through FD, CC, Lulls, etc.
I definitely don't want all mobs to be linked though as you suggested was in VG. So, if you never played EQ, it was different than VG, and not always mass AOE mes with linked mobs.
Why must there be class vs class balance? If you balance class vs content, will that not make a class useful and properly powered?
Maybe. Do you remember P&P dungeonmasters struggling to make Thieves relevant? Probably not, but it went something like this:
Every door has a trapped lock. Every chest has a 2x trapped uberhard lock. Every corridor has a secret passage. Every group of badguys conveniently has at least one back to you, ooh, it's time for the sneaky-sneak. Look, a tightrope that obviously needs walking to the far side...where a monkeybar agility test awaits! Yay!
A "puller". Oh, look at all of the handy nooks for the party to wait in. Ooh, and so many big, open areas with so MANY groups of bad guys, in conveniently small, easily-handled chunks. But only if you can get a skilled puller to fetch one (just one) convenient chunk of badguy.
Class vs Content will almost certainly lead to the same kinds of
artificial "make Timmy feel his class is really, really valued" additions to the
content. And the more classe/roles you try to enable... well, the more muddled
mess results.
Please clarify, I am not understanding your point.
Little Timmy's class isn't necessarily vitally important, unless we add in lots of content specifically designed to make Timmy feel special and equal in his role.
Thieves were a god-awful boring class to play; substandard fighters bearly superior to a wizard in hand to hand combat.
Unless the system intentionally pours heaps of 'Timmy is Special' into the game, so he could feel like a darkity-dark ninja master mechanic trap-clearing door unlocking stealthmaster as often as possible. You need to make his stealth powers equivalent to invisibility. BACKSTAB! zomg wheee! (Instead of feeling like what he actually is: a third-string warrior on a starvation diet.)
"Pullers" is an equally lame role; gone by the wayside (thank heaven).
"Crowd Control" implies that mechanically this game will have heaps and gobs of trash mobs that need controlling.
"Buffer" role implies that your tank role is a paper rhino. I'll be ready to go, but only once I have loads of external aid!
"Bards," oh don't get me started on how badly mmo's have always borked up bards.
If you have to work too hard to shoehorn in another "role", you inevitably end up with another filler class that doesn't get invited to instance runs.
It doesnt need total balance, but every class needs to be good enough that they can find groups. And that doesnt mean bringing your friends from home so they have to take you.
I'm not sure how EQ's class description proves your point.
That's the basic definition of a warrior still. The only "role" the
EQlaunch warrior fit into was a tank (I played one). I'd argue the only
reason that tank wasn't in the class description was because that term
wasn't widely used until after EQ. The "Term" tank is mainstream, but
the role is not. A Warrior was a master of arms because they could
wear all equipment, not because of DPS (unless twinked or max Raid gear -
but even comparatively - low DPS compared to other raid geared). They
had zero utility, which is why they "had" to be the best tanks.
A tank is not a definition of a warrior, it is one of the tools or basic abilities of a warrior. Master of Arms implies such as a two handed weapon is not a defensive weapon. You can't claim that they are a master of all arms and then imply that has nothing to do with damage ability. I am not calling a tank a DPS role, you are, you are terming in mainstream terms which are limited and focused to that expectation (ie tank is a meat shield, dps just puts out damage, healer just heals) which is why we have issue.
This issue isn't new, EQ is where it began. The whole class role arguments blew up in EQ and were what led to the mainstream designs. So I am not arguing that players did not begin socially terming such things, part of the problem was that they did so, ignoring the base aspect of a classes design and purpose. Early class descriptions were a hot bed of arguments in early EQ, I had numerous arguments with people over the monk who wanted to pigeon hole the monk class into a DPS role.
Keep in mind that a lot of EQs design was inspired from D&D and a warrior in D&D was not a "meat shield", that "role" of just being some blob who absorbs damage was a distinction created by class envy arguments.
And, EQ had very distinct roles as well, even if they weren't defined as Tank/Healer/DPS/CC at the time
Keep in mind that a lot of EQs design was inspired from D&D and a
warrior in D&D was not a "meat shield", that "role" of just being
some blob who absorbs damage was a distinction created by class envy
arguments. Warriors in D&D were melee combatants, with specializations and ability to master weapons and armor because that alone was their key advantage.
Those roles (tank/healer/DPS) where dictated by the player community, not the class descriptions. Each description had a purpose, a general flow of abilities and tools as I described. Players are the ones who started the whole class envy and went on and on about who was best for what, etc... Those same players are what led to the many class wars in EQ and consistent attempts by developers to "social justice" their way to proper class balance (remember the monk mitigation nerf?).
Example: Even though Paladins/Shadowknights were considered
"hybrids" they were basically tanks with additional utility.
Paladins/Shadowknights were better tanks in groups than a warrior who
was better at raid tanking (mainly due to higher HPs).
Paladins/Shadowknights held agro "much" better in groups than a
warrior's /taunt and the only way a warrior could keep up at launch in
groups was dual wielding two proccing weapons or telling the other
classes to not /taunt or cast certain spells.
Not at release. In fact, remember the hybrid wars at release where paladins and sks complained about being "useless" and not "wanted" in groups because they couldn't mitigate as well as the warrior. I remember, and I remember none of them willing to give up the numerous utilities they had to gain that. They consistently wanted to have their mitigation balanced around only combat defense skills only.
What you describe was after they applied such changes and then your class became a redundancy as most of hybrids could tank better and taunt with less skill through spells (to a point as most warriors who couldn't hold agro was because they didn't understand how taunt worked and spammed it like an idiot). Thing about taunt with Pallies and SKs was that their ability taunt was not a design focus, but an emergent form of play. The spells they used had enormous agro because of the nature of the type of spell they were, not because they were intended to be used as a taunt. The unatural ability of a pally or SK to hold agro making agro management pointless was a bug, a flaw in the design.
TLDR: Classes need to
be created based off the 4 core archetypes, and variance added within
that archetype, with unique utility added which makes classes "needed"
and adds to interdependence.
I disagree, I think by placing labels and attempting to force classes into limited generic roles, you limit innovation, you limit emergent play, and you stifle true interactive environments. By doing so, you chase generic concepts to keep everyone happy in thier base role while attacking anyone that strays from it. It is exactly the problem of games today. This issue was the beginning of mainstream design focus where developers attended to social drama rather than specifically attending to the content, and mark my words, the class envy drama will be epic if they follow this path due to the years of tantrums and expectations that everyone know their place and shut up and do their role.
It really is just a bad application of design and it has been proven so game after game, year after year.
and, I don't disagree that utility plays a huge role, but outside
of FD pulling with a pre-nerf circlet of shadows (which was nerfed
because it was identified as game-breaking), invisibility didn't add to a
character's "power." It helped with navigation within the dungeon.
But,
if you're balancing combat against class utility and warriors have
none, then, like EQ they "should" have to be the best tank or there's no
point to play them.
Levitate is a direct application of a non-combat utility to in
combat allowing a class to have certain abilities that other classes are
unable to achieve. The same is with run speed as some classes were able
to handle content that others without the ability to run fast could
not. Invisibility is not a direct application, but an indirect one. By
being able to invis, a class is more easily able to rest in a dungeon,
move through easily allowing them to find areas where they can more
easily handle content that one without invis would not be able to.
Some
illusion spells allowed an enchanter to safely handle certain camps
because of the way aggro worked with faction and the like making pulls
easier and allowing them to avoid adds at unexpected times.
We
are talking about going back to a time of games where utility meant
something and it was those utilities in EQ that provided power to a
class. If you ignore utility, you create the hybrid god syndrome again. I
have seen it over and over in ever game, the hybrid becomes the king of
all content because people are too narrowly focused on main combat
roles, which misses all the power and benefit that utility spells and
abilities provide.
I used to listen to people scoff at a class
and go "That class sucks, this FOTM class is the best!" only to watch
the flipping idiots whine once they found that the other class figured
out some nice trick with that unfavorable class.
Ignoring the power of utility if one is going to apply class vs class balance is absolute folly.
I should add that I don't want any classes to be "balanced" with soloing in mind and that Pantheon should only design group content, and, if soloing occurs in Pantheon I would want it to be emergent like EQ. Or, that based on class design, some classes solo better than others (guessing summoner). Another failure of VG was the ability of all classes to solo, but, again, that could have been controlled through the need for resource management.
Soling is not my concern. It will happen regardless, try as VR might, people will figure out how to do it, it is inevitable. As long as they stay focused on a group game and ignore attempting to design for it, we can avoid that nightmare.
They are going to have enough problems dealing with the consistent complaints and whines of one class to another and that is one thing Old EQ players and main streamers share in common. They are no stranger to temper tantrums. I mean... hell... someone get Furor a freaking pacifier and a bib already (wahaa waaa monks are overpowered, nerf monks waaaa waaaa) /facepalm
Why must there be class vs class balance? If you balance class vs content, will that not make a class useful and properly powered?
Maybe. Do you remember P&P dungeonmasters struggling to make Thieves relevant? Probably not, but it went something like this:
Every door has a trapped lock. Every chest has a 2x trapped uberhard lock. Every corridor has a secret passage. Every group of badguys conveniently has at least one back to you, ooh, it's time for the sneaky-sneak. Look, a tightrope that obviously needs walking to the far side...where a monkeybar agility test awaits! Yay!
A "puller". Oh, look at all of the handy nooks for the party to wait in. Ooh, and so many big, open areas with so MANY groups of bad guys, in conveniently small, easily-handled chunks. But only if you can get a skilled puller to fetch one (just one) convenient chunk of badguy.
Class vs Content will almost certainly lead to the same kinds of
artificial "make Timmy feel his class is really, really valued" additions to the
content. And the more classe/roles you try to enable... well, the more muddled
mess results.
Please clarify, I am not understanding your point.
Little Timmy's class isn't necessarily vitally important, unless we add in lots of content specifically designed to make Timmy feel special and equal in his role.
Thieves were a god-awful boring class to play; substandard fighters bearly superior to a wizard in hand to hand combat.
Unless the system intentionally pours heaps of 'Timmy is Special' into the game, so he could feel like a darkity-dark ninja master mechanic trap-clearing door unlocking stealthmaster as often as possible. You need to make his stealth powers equivalent to invisibility. BACKSTAB! zomg wheee! (Instead of feeling like what he actually is: a third-string warrior on a starvation diet.)
"Pullers" is an equally lame role; gone by the wayside (thank heaven).
"Crowd Control" implies that mechanically this game will have heaps and gobs of trash mobs that need controlling.
"Buffer" role implies that your tank role is a paper rhino. I'll be ready to go, but only once I have loads of external aid!
"Bards," oh don't get me started on how badly mmo's have always borked up bards.
If you have to work too hard to shoehorn in another "role", you inevitably end up with another filler class that doesn't get invited to instance runs.
So you prefer mainstream design of homogenization. Ok, I understand now, one of the reasons that I can't stand any games today. Your past arguments make sense now. /shrug
Comments
On the other hand the team has said the reason why they want specific role sets it to capitalize on class uniqueness and interdependence. I dont think they want too many overlapping roles, nor do they want classes to be able to do too many things on their own or be able to fill any role. So they are probably trying to ensure no classes are all-in-ones. Thats not too say that a monk that is mostly dps/pulling and can tank all the sudden becomes this uberclass that can be all/do all. But that might be the reason why they delayed Bard because its usually a badass hybrid?
Unfortunately as much as ive tried to squeeze info out, we just have no idea what the final version of classes will be. Hopefully they will release more detailed class info soon.
I can promise you this, if you chase FOTM class hoppers as an indication of class balance, you will destroy the game. In every game that I have played that has attempted to cater tot his, the game has become a joke.
We have years of all the errors of this silly need to chase class balance, yet like a broken record, the same solutions get applied every time. What makes people think it will work this time? /boggle
Balancing to content achieves "uniqueness and interdependence" as I described with an example. You avoid overlapping roles by insuring that each classes content balance is unique to a given style or solution that such a class provides.
The point is that no1 can balance 3 tanks so each other is equal , there will always 1 that is better or better for AoE , magic or w/e
same goes for heals and dps , 1 dps will always be the best in signle other in AoE , other will haver better sustained , other better burst ect... in the end u can only try
CC classes are "cool" until u start raiding , then this CC goes out the window and u become a support job that buffs/debuffs and look pretty.
Also there is no reason why you cant have CC in Raiding. What about adds?
And just because I wasnt specific enough I guess? Yes I know Beast and Goon were fixed some later, but that took years. So its kind of doesnt matter. My point wasnt that they never improved. My point was that If a class is going to be designed badly from the get go, then it would probably have been better off never being created. Especially if the devs have no intention of patching it until years down the road. Of course in this case it might be less class balance and more just poor implementation that Im worried about.
@Sinist
Might that make classes too niche? Like you need X class for this one specific thing only they can do in X encounter? (No way around an encounter unless you have Silence period)
Or do you mean it the other way? Something along the lines of there being more than one way to skin a cat? Like if you have X class you could handle it this way, but If you have Y class you could handle it another (Kiting the mob vs Tanking)
There's a cave of spiders which poisons players, though all poisons ingame are freaking weak and can be ignored because they only last 10 seconds and just do minimal damage.
The druid is the only class being able to cure poisons
Class based balance:
since no one is using curing poisons the *cure poison spell* is just transformed into *cure debuffs* which cures poisons, diseases and curses, adds walking on water, ignore falling damage, see invisible enemies and of course doubles xp gain...
Environment based balance:
stronger poisons, last longer, add effects like snares, weakening, add more poison triggers: mobs, food, bushes. make *poison* a real threat. No changes made to the class.
Disciple was the dedicated single target healer and they could heal without end using Jin. I think that even still worked if silenced ? They also had quite impressive defenses, especially also against magic. Their damage output was also really good, I think better than my Phoenix Shaman (who had NO defenses) and only second to Blood Mages (who had no defenses but a ***load of hitpoints).
Warrior on the other hand was the most straightforward class possible, aside from the fact that it came with a ***load of special circumstances abilities. Their defenses of course have been perfect. Their damage output was okay. And that was all. No healing whatsoever. No special tricks like runspeed for kiting. Warriors have been the "bard" type of tank, without a group they just sucked.
Every door has a trapped lock. Every chest has a 2x trapped uberhard lock. Every corridor has a secret passage. Every group of badguys conveniently has at least one back to you, ooh, it's time for the sneaky-sneak. Look, a tightrope that obviously needs walking to the far side...where a monkeybar agility test awaits! Yay!
A "puller". Oh, look at all of the handy nooks for the party to wait in. Ooh, and so many big, open areas with so MANY groups of bad guys, in conveniently small, easily-handled chunks. But only if you can get a skilled puller to fetch one (just one) convenient chunk of badguy.
Class vs Content will almost certainly lead to the same kinds of artificial "make Timmy feel his class is really, really valued" additions to the content. And the more classe/roles you try to enable... well, the more muddled mess results.
If done right, not only the class but the gameplay mechanics enabling such CC to be needed, cc classes could make a return but that's also relying on players to actually allow for it to happen in-game, meaning, not Aoeing everything to hell and back how it currently is.
Not a single solution, just the more efficient one. If you look back through my discussion ( I will add depth and expand on this idea to explain) I gave a scenario where a paladin had a unique ability/spell/nature to resist or be immune to undead taint (a disease with a slowly building dot). This made them ideal to handling these mobs, the perfect solution to the situation, but... a druid (or maybe a shaman) could use a salve or special regen (useful for many types of poisons and magical taints) to stave off the early effects of the dot (temporarily) and a cleric could cure it every so often when it became needed (they couldn't just spam cure on the tank as the disease has a period where if you apply too many successive cures, the disease becomes resistant and eventually immune to the cure spell).
So, you get various solutions, some ideal, others less than ideal to which require a culmination of efforts from different classes to achieve a solution. All build class interdependence, some better than others (ie giving certain classes uniqueness and superiority to a given situation).
Balancing class vs content focuses on game play solutions and actually, truly giving useful and practical purpose to a class as opposed to the more negative balancing aspect of "tit for tat" class vs class balancing.
Please clarify, I am not understanding your point.
Or are you saying that by having certain strengths as a class that by designing content to provide advantage for these, it is "artificial"? Would that be the same "artificial" designs such as requiring a tank for a given encounter? Or requiring healer for a given event? That type of artificial? Or do you prescribe to the school of design where every solution is a winner and no solution is a loser, ie "participation trophy" game design, aka "mainstream game design"?
For example, Tanks in Vanguard: Warrior, Paladin and Dread Knight have been close enough that nobody cared which they got, as long as they had a tank. I never ever even once noticed anybody who said "no I dont want a Dread Knight, they stink" or something like that. Yeah DK was ever so slightly behind in aggro generation, so what, people waited a second or two more before hitting the mob. And I kept stealing other tanks aggro on my DK all the time, even if the other guy had better gear, and gear was something very important for tanks in VG.
Of course I met a heck of a lot clueless people who asked for a "Cleric" instead of for a healer, but that was simply habit from other games. Well, that, and Cleric had the most general set of buffs, while Shaman had a compareable but somewhat more specialized set, Disciple had hardly any buffs at all, and Blood Mage had the very unusual buffs.
Similar to what Adamantine said, you don't balance around classes, but the core archetypes. Mainly the Tank/Healing/DPS in Pantheon - I'm guessing Bard/Enchanter will be unique enough in and of themselves. And, as I discussed in the Pantheon thread with Kilsin, I don't want every class within the archetype to be/play the same while only changing the names of the skill/spell sets. I'm not asking for classes to all be "equal" but they have to perform their core archtype role well enough or classes will be deemed meaningless - and utility spells like ports don't trump combat effectiveness/abilities/spells. With that said...
VG had the class design right, but the gameplay implementation wrong - ( it lacked slow strategic combat/progression/downtime/mob hps etc. that we have discussed previously in your other threads).
I'll agree - some small/non-ideal trinity groups performed well in EQ like Necro/Shaman or Druid + a couple and it was enjoyable, but there were also endless threads of whining in EQ on X class not being able to tank as well, or X class not being able to heal as well. Where EQ launch survived was due to the unrestricted raids. If there had been a raid cap of 24 - all the "lesser" classes that offered utility over expertise within the Tank/Cleric/DPS would have been passed up and the whining really would have began.
And, on your point of balancing class vs. content, it would have it's share of consequences also. Obviously a Paladin/Cleric would be easy - better aganist undead. Or a Ranger/Druid - better outdoors. But, what would a warrior be better aganist? Everything? You run into some tough balancing issues that way as well, because, if warriors skills were better aganist X mobs, Paladin better against Undead, Dire Lord - Living, then they would have to have the skillset to match. Then, you basically trivialize that character in zones that aren't its specialization creating a very linear progression path.
Basically, it's not easy, and whatever is decided will need to be thoroughly tested.
Reason is that it sort of suggest we have to have 3/6/9/12 enemies at the same time all the time which makes no sense and ruins immersion for me.
Then if you don't the CC character feels it doesn't have a role and is not needed.I prefer to have a more in depth game than just pull 6 mobs and one player auto sleeps them or auto mesmerizes them.Why pull 6 to begin with if your just going to eliminate the others anyhow.
Well for obvious reasons,the game tied all the mobs onto the same AI ,which is a huge no for me,it ruins all immersion again to think those 3/6 mobs were working on the same brain lol.That same peeve bothered me when i played Vanguard.I would carefully sneak up to a fort with 20-30 Orcs then all of a sudden i touch one pixel of land and the entire fort is coming at me at the exact same time,it looked so stupid,i wanted to blow the entire fort up and delete it from the game.
To me that is just very lazy and weak game design,i hope this game does not have any of that type of game design.I am not the nostalgic type but at the same time ,i don't mind grabbing ideas from old games as long as they are good ideas not just nostalgic that brings back my fond memories of a game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Role based balancing is the same as class based balancing. It still is a box you are putting a character into and then attempting to punish them when they step outside of it. It is the core principal to which drives class envy arguments, that is the "I am a tank, I am supposed to be a better tank, but that guy over there is not supposed to tank as well, but I am supposed to be blah blah blah...". We then chase these complaints about this class infringing on that class, etc...
Roles such as tank/healer/dps are mainstream design mechanics, they are narrowed forced play perspectives. A warrior in EQ was described as:
Not a tank.
The point is, classes were described based on not a "role" for the group specifically to be pigeon holed into, but to describe the pro/cons of their class, the "tools" they provided to dealing with various content. Role based forced design is what got us into the state we are today where everything is a silly class envy argument.
Content based design is similar to role design, but... it is more narrowed to the "tool", not some general streamlined claim of function and it because it is narrowed as such, it does not discontinue the flexibility of allowing a class to shine outside of its general focus, such as maybe a very special situation that due the warriors type of skills, weapons and design, they actually might do pretty good damage on a very specific encounter or situation. Balancing a class around being a "tank" solidifies them as not able to do any DPS (which is not for instance what the EQ warrior description above is saying) as if they do happen to achieve such in any situation, they must be nerfed because DPS is XYZ's role.
That is what needs to be avoided. As for your mention about a negative for the paladin, ABSOLUTELY! Not only should there be instances where a certain classes abilities shine in a given content environment, but there should be places or situations where those can be detrimental, maybe for instance a spell has a very odd and powerful effect on a given mob or in a given environment, but in another area or situation, it has a negative effect, maybe even a wild catastrophic effect that is detrimental to the party.
Maybe, in keeping with our tanking example, there are anti-Paladin mobs who have increased damage or debuffs when fighting a paladin, point is... sky is the limit.
As for balancing like you are mentioning, again that is "tit for tat" balancing. Yes, some balancing in occurrence should exist, such as making sure there are not more negatives or positives aspects to a class than another class, but those are generic, not tit for tat balancing. It is only concerned with the fact that there is sufficient content to give those classes depth and purpose.
One comment about the Utility dismissals. Ignoring utility ability and only focusing on combat balance is a disservice to classes who have limited utility and we end back up with the issue of one class being similar to the other, but having tons of useful "out of combat" abilities that ultimately help combat situations. For instance, invisibility is not a combat spell, but to claim it is not extremely useful in a dungeon environment would be dishonest.
Combat is part of the equation in a classes power. Many aspects of a classes strengths are abilities outside of combat, which is why EQ had numerous emergent play approaches develop. All too often people would dismiss a certain spell or ability as useless until someone figured out a way to apply it to great effect to aid in a combat situation (spells like levitate to fight over lava, water, tree form to med in dangerous animal areas, etc..). So you have to consider them, but then how do you quantify them as they have no measurable value as a heal or damage mitigation ability?
See, this is the same folly designers walk into every time. Consider that most designers today have zero experience with utility systems and I see many who dismiss them as not relevant to the balancing, but as I explained they are relevant and they are integral to the power and purpose to which made classes in EQ so interesting in play.
At the end of the day, balance is not important, only to the concern people have of classes being invalid, redundant, or useless. Balancing versus content insures this is limited, and if it turns out that a given class is lacking in desire because it lacks in purpose, then that comes down to the team implementing either content to attend to that classes skills, or adding/adjusting skills of the class to make use of current content.
The point is, none of that design approach falls into the trap of class envy because if they achieve the goal of having an appropriate amount of content for all classes that gives each class benefit and need from other classes, then you have no useless classes, and retain class interdependence.
In my opinion, chasing the class vs class design focus will end up running the devs into the same problems every game has today, which will result in the desire to achieve the same solutions as today (simplifying classes, simplifying roles, simplifying content) so they can more easily "balance" the classes. /shrug
I'm not sure how EQ's class description proves your point. That's the basic definition of a warrior still. The only "role" the EQlaunch warrior fit into was a tank (I played one). I'd argue the only reason that tank wasn't in the class description was because that term wasn't widely used until after EQ. The "Term" tank is mainstream, but the role is not. A Warrior was a master of arms because they could wear all equipment, not because of DPS (unless twinked or max Raid gear - but even comparatively - low DPS compared to other raid geared). They had zero utility, which is why they "had" to be the best tanks.
And, EQ had very distinct roles as well, even if they weren't defined as Tank/Healer/DPS/CC at the time
Example: Even though Paladins/Shadowknights were considered "hybrids" they were basically tanks with additional utility. Paladins/Shadowknights were better tanks in groups than a warrior who was better at raid tanking (mainly due to higher HPs). Paladins/Shadowknights held agro "much" better in groups than a warrior's /taunt and the only way a warrior could keep up at launch in groups was dual wielding two proccing weapons or telling the other classes to not /taunt or cast certain spells.
The problem lies, a warrior without being properly equipped (group/raid) offered "nothing" to a group that a Paladin/Shadowknight couldn't do better. And, a Paladin/Shadowknight in EQ weren't necessary on raids as a tank where a warrior was. It wasn't an issue in EQ as there were no raid caps and groups weren't constantly min/maxing like they are today (with DPS meters, etc.). Yes there many mechanics that exist off the stat sheet in EQ like CC that I hope makes a triumphant return in Pantheon, but gamers are much more experienced than at EQlaunch and will be able to identify worthless classes much easier.
So, how does that change? Well, that's where I hope Pantheon implements VG style classes with EQ gameplay so classes can't constantly spam skills and a need for resource management exists. Classes played differently enough in VG that all classes didn't "feel" the same - I'm not sure how much you played (or if you played VG).
And, regardless of the model you use to balance or define classes, you will be putting them into some sort of box. With your example, you're just using another form of "tit vs tat" balancing. Class A is good in Zone 1 but bad in zone 2. Where class B is good in zone 2 but bad in zone 1. And, whining will start when class A has 10 zones where they're good in and Class B only has 5. Class A has 3 Raids, Class B 1, etc. Class A has more useful skills/abilities in their specialized zones than Class B does. In the end, you're still having whining/complaining, but now, you're restricting classes to 1/3 or 1/4 of the zones (if there are 4 "tanks"). And to "balance" the classes, the developers will add content to meet or /nerf classes. And, you'll see /shouts of Hedge Group needs tank - paladin preferred. /Warrior sends hedge group tell, I'm LFG. "Sorry man" we're waiting on a Paladin
And, I don't disagree that utility plays a huge role, but outside of FD pulling with a pre-nerf circlet of shadows (which was nerfed because it was identified as game-breaking), invisibility didn't add to a character's "power." It helped with navigation within the dungeon.
But, if you're balancing combat against class utility and warriors have none, then, like EQ they "should" have to be the best tank or there's no point to play them.
It's really a separate discussion, but I'd rather have Combat v. Combat balanced. And Utility v. Utility.
We had a thread awhile back on the main site on what are all the possible utility ideas that classes could bring to a group and add to group interdependence, such as...
Warrior - Bash/Slam Chests, Weak Walls, etc.
Druid - Ports/Evac/SoW
Rogue - Disarm Traps/Lockpicking/Hide/Sneak
And, using this idea, some classes would need to be brought to different zones due to the utility they bring to the group, but, you wouldn't "restrict" grouping by saying we have to have "X" class because we're facing Undead. Variance in classes can exist, but it can't exist to the point where it makes classes worthless.
TLDR: Classes need to be created based off the 4 core archetypes, and variance added within that archetype, with unique utility added which makes classes "needed" and adds to interdependence.
I definitely don't want all mobs to be linked though as you suggested was in VG. So, if you never played EQ, it was different than VG, and not always mass AOE mes with linked mobs.
Thieves were a god-awful boring class to play; substandard fighters bearly superior to a wizard in hand to hand combat.
Unless the system intentionally pours heaps of 'Timmy is Special' into the game, so he could feel like a darkity-dark ninja master mechanic trap-clearing door unlocking stealthmaster as often as possible. You need to make his stealth powers equivalent to invisibility. BACKSTAB! zomg wheee! (Instead of feeling like what he actually is: a third-string warrior on a starvation diet.)
"Pullers" is an equally lame role; gone by the wayside (thank heaven).
"Crowd Control" implies that mechanically this game will have heaps and gobs of trash mobs that need controlling.
"Buffer" role implies that your tank role is a paper rhino. I'll be ready to go, but only once I have loads of external aid!
"Bards," oh don't get me started on how badly mmo's have always borked up bards.
If you have to work too hard to shoehorn in another "role", you inevitably end up with another filler class that doesn't get invited to instance runs.
This issue isn't new, EQ is where it began. The whole class role arguments blew up in EQ and were what led to the mainstream designs. So I am not arguing that players did not begin socially terming such things, part of the problem was that they did so, ignoring the base aspect of a classes design and purpose. Early class descriptions were a hot bed of arguments in early EQ, I had numerous arguments with people over the monk who wanted to pigeon hole the monk class into a DPS role.
Keep in mind that a lot of EQs design was inspired from D&D and a warrior in D&D was not a "meat shield", that "role" of just being some blob who absorbs damage was a distinction created by class envy arguments.
Keep in mind that a lot of EQs design was inspired from D&D and a warrior in D&D was not a "meat shield", that "role" of just being some blob who absorbs damage was a distinction created by class envy arguments. Warriors in D&D were melee combatants, with specializations and ability to master weapons and armor because that alone was their key advantage.
Those roles (tank/healer/DPS) where dictated by the player community, not the class descriptions. Each description had a purpose, a general flow of abilities and tools as I described. Players are the ones who started the whole class envy and went on and on about who was best for what, etc... Those same players are what led to the many class wars in EQ and consistent attempts by developers to "social justice" their way to proper class balance (remember the monk mitigation nerf?).
Not at release. In fact, remember the hybrid wars at release where paladins and sks complained about being "useless" and not "wanted" in groups because they couldn't mitigate as well as the warrior. I remember, and I remember none of them willing to give up the numerous utilities they had to gain that. They consistently wanted to have their mitigation balanced around only combat defense skills only.
What you describe was after they applied such changes and then your class became a redundancy as most of hybrids could tank better and taunt with less skill through spells (to a point as most warriors who couldn't hold agro was because they didn't understand how taunt worked and spammed it like an idiot). Thing about taunt with Pallies and SKs was that their ability taunt was not a design focus, but an emergent form of play. The spells they used had enormous agro because of the nature of the type of spell they were, not because they were intended to be used as a taunt. The unatural ability of a pally or SK to hold agro making agro management pointless was a bug, a flaw in the design.
I disagree, I think by placing labels and attempting to force classes into limited generic roles, you limit innovation, you limit emergent play, and you stifle true interactive environments. By doing so, you chase generic concepts to keep everyone happy in thier base role while attacking anyone that strays from it. It is exactly the problem of games today. This issue was the beginning of mainstream design focus where developers attended to social drama rather than specifically attending to the content, and mark my words, the class envy drama will be epic if they follow this path due to the years of tantrums and expectations that everyone know their place and shut up and do their role.
It really is just a bad application of design and it has been proven so game after game, year after year.
Levitate is a direct application of a non-combat utility to in combat allowing a class to have certain abilities that other classes are unable to achieve. The same is with run speed as some classes were able to handle content that others without the ability to run fast could not. Invisibility is not a direct application, but an indirect one. By being able to invis, a class is more easily able to rest in a dungeon, move through easily allowing them to find areas where they can more easily handle content that one without invis would not be able to.
Some illusion spells allowed an enchanter to safely handle certain camps because of the way aggro worked with faction and the like making pulls easier and allowing them to avoid adds at unexpected times.
We are talking about going back to a time of games where utility meant something and it was those utilities in EQ that provided power to a class. If you ignore utility, you create the hybrid god syndrome again. I have seen it over and over in ever game, the hybrid becomes the king of all content because people are too narrowly focused on main combat roles, which misses all the power and benefit that utility spells and abilities provide.
I used to listen to people scoff at a class and go "That class sucks, this FOTM class is the best!" only to watch the flipping idiots whine once they found that the other class figured out some nice trick with that unfavorable class.
Ignoring the power of utility if one is going to apply class vs class balance is absolute folly.
They are going to have enough problems dealing with the consistent complaints and whines of one class to another and that is one thing Old EQ players and main streamers share in common. They are no stranger to temper tantrums. I mean... hell... someone get Furor a freaking pacifier and a bib already (wahaa waaa monks are overpowered, nerf monks waaaa waaaa) /facepalm
So you prefer mainstream design of homogenization. Ok, I understand now, one of the reasons that I can't stand any games today. Your past arguments make sense now. /shrug