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.
See, that as a condition I don't agree with. Being able to find a group is a very subjective issue. A lot of peoples problems finding groups are often the player, not the class. Also, there are the problems with social fad think where morons spout off some fallacy and a bunch of sheepish idiots latch on and go along with it, completely ignorant of the facts of a given issue. (ie this is the best class for that, you can't do this without x,y,z... etc...).
Seen such idiocy have a very negative effect on that ever elusive creature called "class balance".
This is why you don't balance classes to class, you balance to content and insure your content provides a need for a given classes abilities.
As I said, when a complaint then arises, your focus is then on providing either more content or adjusting a class to deal with existing content. You still give basic roles and directions to a class, but you don't make it policy, rather more of a guideline. That way, if a class steps over the line in a given situation, it isn't an issue because classes aren't designed to be "tit for tat" balanced.
We agree more than we disagree Sinist, and I don't want all classes designed equally either. You never answered my VG point, so I'm assuming you haven't played it, because if you have, you'd understand more of what I want. Classes were unique, had strengths, played "much" differently, but still fit into an archetype; although, they typically had a secondary one as well. Example: Bloodmage healed, but it was through using damaging spells to heal. So primary healer/secondary DPS with additional utility added. EQ did the same, Warrior was a primary tank/secondary DPS - they just didn't use the terms at the time.
And, I don't disagree with you if you're looking at balancing through the guise of modern MMOs where everything becomes homogenized. I'm discussing balancing in the guise of Brad's creativeness with developers on board that have played EQ/VG and understand the importance of interdependence, uniqueness, and balancing without redundancy (D&D mold versus New MMOs).
And, I don't disregard the importance or value of utility. However, the problem with balancing utility with combat is utility importance is finite, even with ideas like levitate, unless zones are consistently developed with that utility in mind, and gear is never released that trivializes that utility (which has happened in every MMO - including EQ).
And, you're argument over labels is just semantics. EQ class definitions gave a class a "label" it just isn't overtly defined in the guise of the mainstream modern MMO labels that you detest. And, master of arms meant that a warrior could equip all weapons, not that they were the master of damage with those weapons. Dual wielding was better DPS as a warrior than the equivalent 2hander, so your discussion that the 2hander was "better damage" is irrelevant. So as I said above, that definition modernized meant that a warrior was a tank that could equip all armor and weapons and DPS with those weapons. Pantheon I'm sure will have similar class descriptions as EQ, but, the players will know what the "main" role would be whether it is defined or not. The only way to avoid this would be to create a true Sandbox game where a player starts with a role like a Freelancer and the class is defined based off character advancement, choice, etc.
We'll agree to disagree on the EQlaunch Warrior v. Hybrid.
Ultimately, it's going to be an endless debate until we see how the classes play in Alpha/Beta.
Both of you guys make some very good points. One thing I will say though Sinist is dont expect roles to go away. The devs clearly say Quadrinity. So that will happen. What extra they do to each class within a role and whether they balance to content remain to be seen.
And, you're argument over labels is just semantics. EQ class
definitions gave a class a "label" it just isn't overtly defined in the
guise of the mainstream modern MMO labels that you detest. And, master
of arms meant that a warrior could equip all weapons, not that they were
the master of damage with those weapons. Dual wielding was better DPS
as a warrior than the equivalent 2hander, so your discussion that the
2hander was "better damage" is irrelevant.
I didn't say it made them a master of DPS, I said that it did not exclude them from providing DPS. Remember, you are arguing "best of" in a role (which is the problem I am trying to get at), I am merely pointing out that EQ provided a "guideline" to a basic focus of play for a class, that is why the descriptions were not subject to simply "He heals, He takes damage, He does damage!". They were more akin to D&D descriptions than they were assignments of roles to which we know today.
Also, Dual wielding is not traditionally a defensive weapon style, and that was my point with two handed not again to argue the pigeon holed role you are assigning it. Look at the D&D description of a warrior. They were a combat expert in all weapons and armor. EQ didn't take the route of weapon specialization such as D&D did, but they did however take a similar focus with double and triple attack.
Again, as I said, EQ was heavily inspired by D&D, it is not unreasonable to think the warrior was more than just the mainstream label of meat shield, that it was not simply a "one trick pony". Heck, I never thought of them as just a "tank" when I first started EQ, but then I was coming from a background of D&D and the traditional design of what a warrior was.
All of this discussion, you keep pigeon holing the class into a very specific role. Again, as I said, I am not saying a warrior should not be able to tank (or that they should compete with more offensive focused classes), what I am saying is that balancing classes by the simplistic nature of "tank/healer/DPS" is folly, and primarily a mainstream thought process, one that is wrought with consistent failure over the years. EQ was not balanced around that idea as I explained and if we are going to achieve the spirit of EQ, it won't be done by copying what EQ became, but rather what it initially was.
Both of you guys make some very good points. One thing I will say though Sinist is dont expect roles to go away. The devs clearly say Quadrinity. So that will happen. What extra they do to each class within a role and whether they balance to content remain to be seen.
I am not Amsai, and if you guys think I am arguing that, then I have completely failed in expressing my point to you guys. At this point, I don't know what else to say on that. /shrug
The devs will do what they feel is best, but that does not mean it is best or that they are right. I am not a fan boy, nor am I a detractor, I express my positions and leave it at that.
I figured my response in regards to class balance is looked over. Perhaps most of you should go back and read it. It would be enlightening for some of you.
I figured my response in regards to class balance is looked over. Perhaps most of you should go back and read it. It would be enlightening for some of you.
I read it, I disagree on too many of your points though, some of your description of how EQ roles were and your basic methodology of how to design and attend to the various elements of class balance. /shrug
I figured my response in regards to class balance is looked over. Perhaps most of you should go back and read it. It would be enlightening for some of you.
I read it, I disagree on too many of your points though, some of your description of how EQ roles were and your basic methodology of how to design and attend to the various elements of class balance. /shrug
So you spend your time on disagreeing on other peoples replies but you can't give the respect to explain why you disagree with my philosophy? And you can't formulate a response to your alternative of class balance/design? Or is it because you don't really have a detailed response? I don't mind if you disagree with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do you even have any experience in regards to class design or balance?
You keep interjecting your own hate of modernity into my posts. I was not discussing pigeonholing a warrior into simply a tank in my post, but rather, that a warrior was a Hybrid of roles in EQ at launch - Tank/DPS, it just wasn't listed as such. I'm also not saying anyone should be the "best of" but that classes should be balanced around the archetype to avoid the "best of" issues, which is why I'm more in agreement with you than disagreement.
Where we differ it appears is that you're always wanting the the warrior being the "Best of" in certain situations, versus the Paladin in others, versus the Shadowknight in others. Where I differ is that the ability to tank/taunt should be closer in Pantheon than it was in EQ with the differences between classes being more evident in their secondary roles/utility - such as DPS for warrior, or combat utility for Shadowknight/Paladins (Lifetaps/Stuns/snare, etc.). It doesn't mean that certain situations such as dealing with the undead couldn't be considered as well, but that shouldn't be the sole determining factor that would result in a group always seeking one class versus another in an Undead zone, but you would see benefit in selecting one. Basically, give a variety of ways to accomplish the content with some classes being better than others, but not so much better that content is "designed" with always needing those classes.
Example: A paladin could still be better versus casters (especially Undead) because of stuns and Turn Undead spells, but I wouldn't want to trivialize the paladin's tanking ability because of it. I'd rather situationally have the warrior have to try to slam/bash like EQ with the ability to burn the mob down quicker due to better DPS (and maybe be more effective on low HP mobs like Archers). But, at base value, they should be within an acceptable +/- tanking range to not trivialize one class over the other.
And I agree with you that EQ did not have the modern roles defined at launch, but that doesn't change the fact that classes didn't fall into defined modern roles at EQlaunch:
Again, where I Agree with you is that utility played a huge role in EQ, but, out of combat utility shouldn't be the used when balancing combat. Also, keep in mind that Pantheon will most likely have many more skills for warriors that also could be beneficial to the group that did not exist in EQ. The only outlier in my above list is that warrior offered "no" utility. Where the emergent gameplay was derived in EQ was from the utility the classes provided. Root Parking from Clerics/Wizards/Druids. Fear Kiting from Shadowknights/Necromancer. Root Rotting with Shamans/Necromancers/Druids.
Give warriors utility such as War Cry to a group or Rampage individually etc. and they could be used in a secondary role as DPS where a Paladin may be a better tank (in an Undead zone).
I did read your reply - and I think we're in more agreement than disagreement, but I don't like how you defined the layers. I believe the term "hybrid" should just be removed as in MMOs all classes work in a hybrid of roles - see above list, the problem is in how to balance that utility and roles such as you said to be unique enough to have a need in groups, but also not to overpower/trivialize them to make them either always necessary or unnecessary.
Basically, how I view Hybrid would be that a Paladins skillset is a combination or derived from a Warrior/Cleric, but they would still perform as a tank with utility and DPS capability at base value.
So you spend your time on disagreeing on other peoples replies but you can't give the respect to explain why you disagree with my philosophy? And you can't formulate a response to your alternative of class balance/design? Or is it because you don't really have a detailed response? I don't mind if you disagree with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I have issues with your description of class roles and how they occurred in EQ. For instance, you claim "Obviously the Cleric was the best Healer in game." which was not the case. The clerics heals were specific to a type of style of healing. They had much longer cast times, and so required a tank that had even slow mitigation. A cleric could not heal a monk tanking very well as the monks damage spikes were far too volatile for the cast times of a clerics heals.
A druid on the other hand, or a shaman were ideal for healing a monk tank. A druid had short quick cast burst heals, and stacking regens that provided means for a monk to easily heal up between avoiding attacks. A shaman, while not quite as adept at healing as the druid with raw spell ability, was able to compensate this with slows combined with regen buffs and spell casts.
This type of play is completely lost on the standard "Tank/Healer/DPS" role design. Obviously, a monk was not considered a real tank, and even you point out that the best healer was a cleric, so then in such a situation, to a laymen who knew nothing about the classes, a cleric being unable to heal a monk while a druid can is a violation of such balance right? The monk shouldn't be tanking, that is the "tanks(tm)" role, while the druid should certainly not be out healing the cleric, I mean... the cleric is supposed to be the best healer right?
In your steps of balancing, you take the role of tank and then show how each tank must be balanced to tank the same, but bring something different, at each level, you keep iterating the need to keep and retain balance, but at the same time providing a difference.
At this point either I am misunderstanding you, or your examples are too vague to give proper effect. Maybe you could provide an actual example. For instance, take your tank example. How do you balance between a Warrior, Paladin, and SK? Use EQ descriptions of design as a guide. In your process, explain how you deal with 1) Tanking as a role 2) The differences you mention you wish to bring for each class. Also, taking into consideration the utilities they have.
You see, your method puts a lot of effort on trying to insure each "tank" is really a tank, but different, but not so different that the other tanks can't be a tank as well to anything that tank can tank.
What I see the result is either three carbon copies with fake differences of each other or... some (usually the hybrids) having advantage because the utilities are not considered in the equation as to unintended use or basic supplemental advantage to the class.
In the end, this "balancing" does not achieve diveristy, it achieves sameness to insure no other class who might share s similarity of role does not some how insult another player who wants to feel special and can't stand that another class might do better in something in a given situation than them. I see this as more of a "participation trophy" design common in games today.
As I said, when you look at EQ, their core descriptions, their inspiration (D&D), concern is not put into making sure each class has equal footing to every situation that they might share, rather the concern is on the class providing its own unique style and approach to the game. As long as the class is balanced to the content for unique application, then you avoid redundancy in classes and insure class interdependence.
The constant need to balance in modern design is really more of a desire to appeal to social natures than really any concern about game play, in my opinion.
Besides, I think my comments in many of my posts to many people here have been clear in outlining my points, I didn't see the need to try an regurgitate them here but alas... here we are.
You keep interjecting your own hate of modernity into my posts. I was not discussing pigeonholing a warrior into simply a tank in my post, but rather, that a warrior was a Hybrid of roles in EQ at launch - Tank/DPS, it just wasn't listed as such. I'm also not saying anyone should be the "best of" but that classes should be balanced around the archetype to avoid the "best of" issues, which is why I'm more in agreement with you than disagreement.
Where we differ it appears is that you're always wanting the the warrior being the "Best of" in certain situations, versus the Paladin in others, versus the Shadowknight in others. Where I differ is that the ability to tank/taunt should be closer in Pantheon than it was in EQ with the differences between classes being more evident in their secondary roles/utility - such as DPS for warrior, or combat utility for Shadowknight/Paladins (Lifetaps/Stuns/snare, etc.). It doesn't mean that certain situations such as dealing with the undead couldn't be considered as well, but that shouldn't be the sole determining factor that would result in a group always seeking one class versus another in an Undead zone, but you would see benefit in selecting one. Basically, give a variety of ways to accomplish the content with some classes being better than others, but not so much better that content is "designed" with always needing those classes.
Example: A paladin could still be better versus casters (especially Undead) because of stuns and Turn Undead spells, but I wouldn't want to trivialize the paladin's tanking ability because of it. I'd rather situationally have the warrior have to try to slam/bash like EQ with the ability to burn the mob down quicker due to better DPS (and maybe be more effective on low HP mobs like Archers). But, at base value, they should be within an acceptable +/- tanking range to not trivialize one class over the other.
And I agree with you that EQ did not have the modern roles defined at launch, but that doesn't change the fact that classes didn't fall into defined modern roles at EQlaunch:
Again, where I Agree with you is that utility played a huge role in EQ, but, out of combat utility shouldn't be the used when balancing combat. Also, keep in mind that Pantheon will most likely have many more skills for warriors that also could be beneficial to the group that did not exist in EQ. The only outlier in my above list is that warrior offered "no" utility. Where the emergent gameplay was derived in EQ was from the utility the classes provided. Root Parking from Clerics/Wizards/Druids. Fear Kiting from Shadowknights/Necromancer. Root Rotting with Shamans/Necromancers/Druids.
Give warriors utility such as War Cry to a group or Rampage individually etc. and they could be used in a secondary role as DPS where a Paladin may be a better tank (in an Undead zone).
The reason why I want the paladin to be a better tank in some situations, a warrior in others, sk in others, is because It adds to more game play development opportunities through content and class interaction while also providing uniqueness to a given class.
Different classes should tank better or worse based on environment, situation, etc... What reasoning establishes that a warrior, a paladin and an SK all have equal ability when it comes to tanking? Each study in different ways, apply different methodologies to their combat, and train differently, so naturally they would have pros/cons in a given situation in how well they might mitigate. A paladin and SK have to split their time learning other disciplines as well, such as the arcane or the divine, so they won't have the same skills as a warrior in combat and the warrior will lack knowledge and skill in dealing with the divine and arcane in situations as well.
As I said, DPS is a terrible classification. All classes do damage, labeling it DPS means you then have to demand a hierarchy in who is allowed to do more or less damage (complete nightmare, please kill me know before the whines drive me into insanity). There were no DPS classes in D&D, there were none of the modern "roles" in D&D. A tank did not exist in it as the idea that you could get the GM to sit there and focus on a low damage hunk of metal while the real threats were pounding away at him was absurd.
The problem as I said with EQ was that not all classes were fully fleshed out. The warrior should have had some more utility added to them, which I think Pantheon is going to attend to. Heck, WoW improved upon the warrior by giving it combat utility with things like bleeds, stuns, crippling blows (snare). Also, more attention should have been put to non-combat utility for such melee classes.
In the end though, my main point has always been that balance in terms of class vs class is irrelevant, only class to content with unique solutions and you create all the need and interdependence you could want.
One thing though, I am not saying make content the other classes can't do, I was pretty clear about that. I am saying you balance to content where one class may be ideal for, while another has to come up with a work around. That sort of design results in lots of emergent play.
Sinist said: Different classes should tank better or worse based on environment, situation, etc... What reasoning establishes that a warrior, a paladin and an SK all have equal ability when it comes to tanking?
They all wear plate, have a max defensive cap of 200, and the same max defensive skills such as dodge/parry/riposte. Now, if there are class specific skills/training/hp caps/stances, etc. that differ, then they could be different. But, if they are, there has to be viable reasons to bring all "types" of tanks on raids/groups or they will be overlooked (so as you said, content would have to be created).
Sinist said: As I said, DPS is a terrible classification. All classes do damage, labeling it DPS means you then have to demand a hierarchy in who is allowed to do more or less damage (complete nightmare, please kill me know before the whines drive me into insanity). There were no DPS classes in D&D, there were none of the modern "roles" in D&D. A tank did not exist in it as the idea that you could get the GM to sit there and focus on a low damage hunk of metal while the real threats were pounding away at him was absurd.
Call it what you want, damage dealing, etc. in all games, including D&D there's been a hierarchy of classes that deal more damage than others. The difference with D&D is all classes had viable utility as well. And, while EQ was based on D&D/MUDs, they really aren't directly comparable as being able to create and manage a group in single player games is different than finding a group in an MMO experience. Although, I'm still hoping Pantheon returns more to the D&D roots and offers all classes viable in and out of combat utility.
Sinist said: The problem as I said with EQ was that not all classes were fully fleshed out. The warrior should have had some more utility added to them, which I think Pantheon is going to attend to. Heck, WoW improved upon the warrior by giving it combat utility with things like bleeds, stuns, crippling blows (snare). Also, more attention should have been put to non-combat utility for such melee classes.
Agreed
Sinist said: In the end though, my main point has always been that balance in terms of class vs class is irrelevant, only class to content with unique solutions and you create all the need and interdependence you could want. One thing though, I am not saying make content the other classes can't do, I was pretty clear about that. I am saying you balance to content where one class may be ideal for, while another has to come up with a work around. That sort of design results in lots of emergent play.
Then I mainly agree - and, we are much closer in agreement than disagreement. I think these discussions will be much more relevant once classes are released and testing of them can take place.
So you spend your time on disagreeing on other peoples replies but you can't give the respect to explain why you disagree with my philosophy? And you can't formulate a response to your alternative of class balance/design? Or is it because you don't really have a detailed response? I don't mind if you disagree with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I have issues with your description of class roles and how they occurred in EQ. For instance, you claim "Obviously the Cleric was the best Healer in game." which was not the case. The clerics heals were specific to a type of style of healing. They had much longer cast times, and so required a tank that had even slow mitigation. A cleric could not heal a monk tanking very well as the monks damage spikes were far too volatile for the cast times of a clerics heals.
A druid on the other hand, or a shaman were ideal for healing a monk tank. A druid had short quick cast burst heals, and stacking regens that provided means for a monk to easily heal up between avoiding attacks. A shaman, while not quite as adept at healing as the druid with raw spell ability, was able to compensate this with slows combined with regen buffs and spell casts.
other stuff...
No, the cleric was most definitely the best healer. Things changed down the line I'm sure when they found ways to nerf CH or give some version of it to other healers, but originally it was no contest. A level 39 cleric with complete heal was a more powerful healer than a level 60 druid or shaman, at least until the shaman got Torpor. Even then, CH was still way overpowered.
On another related topic, I'm actually a little worried about the healing role in Pantheon. Though they've said shamans and druids will have healing, those 2 classes usually have quite a bit of damage and utility capabilities. My point is, I don't want to see another game where every group wants that one healer for their groups. Min maxing is bigger than ever today and unless we see healers that can compete with the cleric, theres going to be 90% of the population looking for "the good healer."
No, the cleric was most definitely the best healer. Things changed down
the line I'm sure when they found ways to nerf CH or give some version
of it to other healers, but originally it was no contest. A level 39
cleric with complete heal was a more powerful healer than a level 60
druid or shaman, at least until the shaman got Torpor. Even then, CH was
still way overpowered.
They couldn't heal monks as well as a druid or shaman. As I said, their
heals were far too long casting to keep up with the avoidance based
spike damage. The clerics used to piss and moan healing me (this was
before AC became godly in Velious+ with monks hitting 1800-2000+ AC) because complete heal took too long to cast, while the druids could easily keep
up with their fast casts, regen buffs and HOT casts. I ran with a druid pretty much most of EQ and was often the tank in many of the groups until the monk nerf.
Clerics were best at healing even mitigation damage. If the damage was too spikey and needed fast casts, they ran into issues.
On another related topic, I'm actually a little worried about the
healing role in Pantheon. Though they've said shamans and druids will
have healing, those 2 classes usually have quite a bit of damage and
utility capabilities. My point is, I don't want to see another game
where every group wants that one healer for their groups. Min
maxing is bigger than ever today and unless we see healers that can
compete with the cleric, theres going to be 90% of the population
looking for "the good healer."
That is why I think class to content focused balancing is key. As Raidan_EQ pointed out, even though EQ didn't specify direct roles with the EQ descriptions, players summed up and did it themselves. So it is going to happen regardless if VR pigeon holes a class or not. That said, if VR directly designs the classes based on direct "roles" rather than taking a more general description similar to EQ, then it will make it even harder to deal with as it only encourages the players to rope every role off and condemn any that even appear to step on the line of another.
Now if they focus on clear class to content focus as I was talking about, where being a cleric doesn't mean you are "The Healer" *queue religious music and bright light from above*, but a class that has many tools to which are ideal in healing many types of situations and environments, then they aren't encouraging the class war BS, they are saying... "Hey, you have a lot of healing abilities, and sure... you are likely to be good at many focuses, but don't get your panties in a bunch if another class finds a niche where they excel over you under those specific circumstances!"
We are still going to have the snobs who think they have to have the "ideal" tool for every solution, but that won't be for every situation and the more diverse you make your environments, the more obstacles you place to give use to the many classes, running with the same boring makeup won't be "ideal", and so people will be looking for different makeups depending on where they are going and what they are fighting.
Now as I said in previous discussions, you don't have to have the "ideal" class for these things, you can adapt and find ways to use other class abilities to work different solutions, or... player skill might be good enough to get by (like my guild did in many groups and raids) or.. maybe the class finds an item that helps with that. Point is, there will always be different solutions to apply, but in the end, there will always be the idiots who think they have to have the perfect group on paper.
Funny thing is though, I never met a player worth a damn who would complain about needing the perfect group.
No, the cleric was most definitely the best healer. Things changed down
the line I'm sure when they found ways to nerf CH or give some version
of it to other healers, but originally it was no contest. A level 39
cleric with complete heal was a more powerful healer than a level 60
druid or shaman, at least until the shaman got Torpor. Even then, CH was
still way overpowered.
They couldn't heal monks as well as a druid or shaman. As I said, their
heals were far too long casting to keep up with the avoidance based
spike damage. The clerics used to piss and moan healing me (this was
before AC became godly in Velious+ with monks hitting 1800-2000+ AC) because complete heal took too long to cast, while the druids could easily keep
up with their fast casts, regen buffs and HOT casts. I ran with a druid pretty much most of EQ and was often the tank in many of the groups until the monk nerf.
This simply isn't true. Clerics got the same line of spells for general healing that druids and shamans got, except they healed for even more (probably because of healing specialization). Even if you are referring to things like chloroblast and other fast healing velious and later, clerics had other powerful heals and HoTs that were just as efficient or more (celestial lines).
What you are talking about is the power of a monk shaman duo, which is a real thing. A shaman's buffs and slows + their regen and healing made them more complimentary to melee for duoing.
I'm talking about straight up healing power for groups and raids. CH is what made clerics so ridiculously important to the point they were basically the only class referred to as a healer for the first 4+ years of EQ. Just as an example, on P99 I took a group of 5 60s to farm monk epic pipe in karnor's castle. The only healer we could find was a random level 39 cleric. With just that cleric in mediocre, non-planar armor, we were able to keep the entire castle cleared with only his well timed complete heals. Neither a level 60 shaman or druid in raid gear could have kept up the healing on a 4.5k hp warrior or a charmed pet. Superior healing or even torpor would not suffice. Even if the shaman could have kept up mana and healing by constantly using torpor, the slow effect would have decreased our efficiency.
No, the cleric was most definitely the best healer. Things changed down
the line I'm sure when they found ways to nerf CH or give some version
of it to other healers, but originally it was no contest. A level 39
cleric with complete heal was a more powerful healer than a level 60
druid or shaman, at least until the shaman got Torpor. Even then, CH was
still way overpowered.
They couldn't heal monks as well as a druid or shaman. As I said, their
heals were far too long casting to keep up with the avoidance based
spike damage. The clerics used to piss and moan healing me (this was
before AC became godly in Velious+ with monks hitting 1800-2000+ AC) because complete heal took too long to cast, while the druids could easily keep
up with their fast casts, regen buffs and HOT casts. I ran with a druid pretty much most of EQ and was often the tank in many of the groups until the monk nerf.
This simply isn't true. Clerics got the same line of spells for general healing that druids and shamans got, except they healed for even more (probably because of healing specialization). Even if you are referring to things like chloroblast and other fast healing velious and later, clerics had other powerful heals and HoTs that were just as efficient or more (celestial lines).
What you are talking about is the power of a monk shaman duo, which is a real thing. A shaman's buffs and slows + their regen and healing made them more complimentary to melee for duoing.
I'm talking about straight up healing power for groups and raids. CH is what made clerics so ridiculously important to the point they were basically the only class referred to as a healer for the first 4+ years of EQ. Just as an example, on P99 I took a group of 5 60s to farm monk epic pipe in karnor's castle. The only healer we could find was a random level 39 cleric. With just that cleric in mediocre, non-planar armor, we were able to keep the entire castle cleared with only his well timed complete heals. Neither a level 60 shaman or druid in raid gear could have kept up the healing on a 4.5k hp warrior or a charmed pet. Superior healing or even torpor would not suffice. Even if the shaman could have kept up mana and healing by constantly using torpor, the slow effect would have decreased our efficiency.
You know what, you are absolutely right. My bad, I have so many games, classes, spells swirling around in my head that I was remembering wrong. For some reason I was forgetting about the clerics celestial lines of spells, thinking the were primarily held to CH and the base heals.
You know what, you are absolutely right. My bad, I have so many games, classes, spells swirling around in my head that I was remembering wrong. For some reason I was forgetting about the clerics celestial lines of spells, thinking the were primarily held to CH and the base heals.
I was talking to my friend who played the druid that healed me about this discussion, and he explained that I was wrong, but also right in a sense as well.
He said it wasn't that a cleric couldn't heal a monk, or that their tools were drastically different, the differences were subtle, but affected how the healer attended to healing which for a monk was a little tricky at times.
For instance, the druids heals like Regrowth vs the Clerics line of Celestial Elixir.
Regrowth:
Hastens your target's natural healing, regenerating 20 hit points every 6 seconds. (16+ mins duration)
Celestial Elixir:
Fills your target's body with celestial elixir, healing between 15 and 310 hit points every 6 seconds for 24 secs (4 ticks).
If you will notice that Regrowth is more of a passive line of spell. The druid doesn't need to give attention to this heal, it is always ticking away, while the clerics version of this heal is an active one, lasting only 4 ticks requiring them to pay close attention to time in a HoT as needed. With the monks damage spikes, this could be a little nerve rattling for the cleric, while the druid didn't have to actively time their HoT and manage such.
Again, while this did not make the druid or shaman a "better" healer, it did present the issues I mentioned concerning a monk tank.
My memory of this was vague, not surprising as I didn't play the healer. So while you were right in the cleric being the best healer, there were situations where another healing class such as the druid could excel or be better fit due to the type of healing they provided, Now obviously this wasn't the case in raids, clerics were hands down "the healer" in the game.
You're grasping at straws with the Druid v. Cleric healing argument. Regrowth wasn't a "healing" spell - it was a passive regeneration buff. And, in no way at high level content was using Regrowth a viable healing alternative (much like how the Fungi tunic was phased out of being a viable BiS tunic but was a great twink tunic).
Clerics could throw on a celestial heal on a monk + have better healing lines to heal while the celestial heal was still on the monk. There's no way a druid was a better healer unless the cleric was OOM or was a terrible cleric. You're also forgetting some major buffs that clerics had. The Resolution line + Symbol Line (Hp) + AC line which could provide a monk a ton more hps/AC than Druid buffs could. I get your point on wanting some classes to be better in some situations than others - but, you're just remembering this situation wrong.
While duoing, a shaman typically was always better due to the added DPS/Buffs/Utility (Slows).
So, back on point, and to agree with Dullahan, the cleric was known as "the" healer in EQ for several years, much like the warrior was "the" raid tank.
Only reason I even brought that up was to point out the issue with the healer role in EQ. When Vanguard came around, the situation with only 1 viable healer in EQ was addressed. To rectify that, they introduced some brand new healers with different styles of play but that were all very capable of healing a group in most scenarios. Some were a little better for raids, but all were useful and no one felt obligated to seek out only 1 particular healer.
I can't stress how crucial it is for this to be the case with Pantheon. I don't know what the plans are for the druid and shaman, but those are not traditionally pure healer classes. If they are in Pantheon, that's fine (I only hope that they retain their identities). If, however, they are going to be support with some healing, I think its time to come up with another pure healer class, because having 90% of the playerbase depending on 10% (clerics), meant a lot of time standing around waiting for a proper healer.
You're grasping at straws with the Druid v. Cleric healing argument. Regrowth wasn't a "healing" spell - it was a passive regeneration buff. And, in no way at high level content was using Regrowth a viable healing alternative (much like how the Fungi tunic was phased out of being a viable BiS tunic but was a great twink tunic).
Clerics could throw on a celestial heal on a monk + have better healing lines to heal while the celestial heal was still on the monk. There's no way a druid was a better healer unless the cleric was OOM or was a terrible cleric. You're also forgetting some major buffs that clerics had. The Resolution line + Symbol Line (Hp) + AC line which could provide a monk a ton more hps/AC than Druid buffs could. I get your point on wanting some classes to be better in some situations than others - but, you're just remembering this situation wrong.
While duoing, a shaman typically was always better due to the added DPS/Buffs/Utility (Slows).
So, back on point, and to agree with Dullahan, the cleric was known as "the" healer in EQ for several years, much like the warrior was "the" raid tank.
Didn't say the cleric was better or worse when I corrected. I said the cleric had a more active role vs the druids passive one. My points are valid in group content, not top end raid content or cutting edge gear. I always considered that level of a player to be in a completely different class because they were hitting soft/hard caps the average player was not.
Fair enough - we'll agree to disagree on EQ classes. And, I only raised my last point to emphasize and /agree with what Dullahan posted with the following:
Dullahan said: Only reason I even brought that up was to point out the issue with the healer role in EQ. When Vanguard came around, the situation with only 1 viable healer in EQ was addressed. To rectify that, they introduced some brand new healers with different styles of play but that were all very capable of healing a group in most scenarios. Some were a little better for raids, but all were useful and no one felt obligated to seek out only 1 particular healer.
Ya, without complete healing, the long term (group/end game) difference between cleric and everyone else would have been negligible. Each healer would have had a slightly different style and perks while all being viable. This was fully realized in Vanguard where you had 3 or 4 (depending on specializations) fully capable healers with very distinct styles or gameplay. That is what needs to happen with not only healing, but each role in Pantheon.
Ya, without complete healing, the long term (group/end game) difference between cleric and everyone else would have been negligible. Each healer would have had a slightly different style and perks while all being viable. This was fully realized in Vanguard where you had 3 or 4 (depending on specializations) fully capable healers with very distinct styles or gameplay. That is what needs to happen with not only healing, but each role in Pantheon.
I dislike that approach, always ends up with people whining back and forth about not being equal. At least in EQ, the non-specific stated descriptions and the fact that there wasn't any hard term to it, helped some in fighting off the pigeon hole demands of a class. (ie people claiming a monk was only a DPS class, not intended to do any situational or light tanking, all just about DPS which was not supported by the original release description due to its general nature of describing the tools and abilities of the class).
With the way it is today, with everyone used to the specific roles and having them drilled over the years with you can, you can't declarations. The forums are going to be a massive whine fest with people demanding buffs/nerfs. VR is really going to have to make sure they have their ducks in a row when it happens because I guarantee if they start listening to those whines, it will turn into a circus show ala WoW, which I personally have zero interest in. I just have no faith in that MMO approach to class design anymore.
This is why I like the class vs content balance approach as when someone whines, about class vs class balance, the response should be "and so?" because the goal is to balance for content. Then, the effort becomes to insure there is plenty of content that makes a class useful which is far less shocking to players as the only nerfs you do are those where a class is trivializing content and the buffs are focused on making a class more viable. Since no other class is directly related in the development focus, there are fewer tantrums.
Fair enough - we'll agree to disagree on EQ classes. And, I only raised my last point to emphasize and /agree with what Dullahan posted with the following:
Dullahan said: Only reason I even brought that up was to point out the issue with the healer role in EQ. When Vanguard came around, the situation with only 1 viable healer in EQ was addressed. To rectify that, they introduced some brand new healers with different styles of play but that were all very capable of healing a group in most scenarios. Some were a little better for raids, but all were useful and no one felt obligated to seek out only 1 particular healer.
Sure, I would be worried if we didn't disagree from time to time. I think some of the discussion is lost to the details though as well, not to mention timelines and situations of when these points are sound or not.
I am leery of the balancing act of trying to make three different classes "balanced" when they have distinctly different abilities, utilities, etc... I still think class to content balance avoids all the need for that and puts a stronger focus on the game rather than to appealing to peoples egos (a lot of the class complaints are so subjective at times it is infuriating, it is like trying to balance to the idea of "fun").
Comments
Seen such idiocy have a very negative effect on that ever elusive creature called "class balance".
This is why you don't balance classes to class, you balance to content and insure your content provides a need for a given classes abilities.
As I said, when a complaint then arises, your focus is then on providing either more content or adjusting a class to deal with existing content. You still give basic roles and directions to a class, but you don't make it policy, rather more of a guideline. That way, if a class steps over the line in a given situation, it isn't an issue because classes aren't designed to be "tit for tat" balanced.
And, I don't disagree with you if you're looking at balancing through the guise of modern MMOs where everything becomes homogenized. I'm discussing balancing in the guise of Brad's creativeness with developers on board that have played EQ/VG and understand the importance of interdependence, uniqueness, and balancing without redundancy (D&D mold versus New MMOs).
And, I don't disregard the importance or value of utility. However, the problem with balancing utility with combat is utility importance is finite, even with ideas like levitate, unless zones are consistently developed with that utility in mind, and gear is never released that trivializes that utility (which has happened in every MMO - including EQ).
And, you're argument over labels is just semantics. EQ class definitions gave a class a "label" it just isn't overtly defined in the guise of the mainstream modern MMO labels that you detest. And, master of arms meant that a warrior could equip all weapons, not that they were the master of damage with those weapons. Dual wielding was better DPS as a warrior than the equivalent 2hander, so your discussion that the 2hander was "better damage" is irrelevant. So as I said above, that definition modernized meant that a warrior was a tank that could equip all armor and weapons and DPS with those weapons. Pantheon I'm sure will have similar class descriptions as EQ, but, the players will know what the "main" role would be whether it is defined or not. The only way to avoid this would be to create a true Sandbox game where a player starts with a role like a Freelancer and the class is defined based off character advancement, choice, etc.
We'll agree to disagree on the EQlaunch Warrior v. Hybrid.
Ultimately, it's going to be an endless debate until we see how the classes play in Alpha/Beta.
@Raidan_EQ ;
Both of you guys make some very good points. One thing I will say though Sinist is dont expect roles to go away. The devs clearly say Quadrinity. So that will happen. What extra they do to each class within a role and whether they balance to content remain to be seen.
I didn't say it made them a master of DPS, I said that it did not exclude them from providing DPS. Remember, you are arguing "best of" in a role (which is the problem I am trying to get at), I am merely pointing out that EQ provided a "guideline" to a basic focus of play for a class, that is why the descriptions were not subject to simply "He heals, He takes damage, He does damage!". They were more akin to D&D descriptions than they were assignments of roles to which we know today.
Also, Dual wielding is not traditionally a defensive weapon style, and that was my point with two handed not again to argue the pigeon holed role you are assigning it. Look at the D&D description of a warrior. They were a combat expert in all weapons and armor. EQ didn't take the route of weapon specialization such as D&D did, but they did however take a similar focus with double and triple attack.
Again, as I said, EQ was heavily inspired by D&D, it is not unreasonable to think the warrior was more than just the mainstream label of meat shield, that it was not simply a "one trick pony". Heck, I never thought of them as just a "tank" when I first started EQ, but then I was coming from a background of D&D and the traditional design of what a warrior was.
All of this discussion, you keep pigeon holing the class into a very specific role. Again, as I said, I am not saying a warrior should not be able to tank (or that they should compete with more offensive focused classes), what I am saying is that balancing classes by the simplistic nature of "tank/healer/DPS" is folly, and primarily a mainstream thought process, one that is wrought with consistent failure over the years. EQ was not balanced around that idea as I explained and if we are going to achieve the spirit of EQ, it won't be done by copying what EQ became, but rather what it initially was.
The devs will do what they feel is best, but that does not mean it is best or that they are right. I am not a fan boy, nor am I a detractor, I express my positions and leave it at that.
You keep interjecting your own hate of modernity into my posts. I was not discussing pigeonholing a warrior into simply a tank in my post, but rather, that a warrior was a Hybrid of roles in EQ at launch - Tank/DPS, it just wasn't listed as such. I'm also not saying anyone should be the "best of" but that classes should be balanced around the archetype to avoid the "best of" issues, which is why I'm more in agreement with you than disagreement.
Where we differ it appears is that you're always wanting the the warrior being the "Best of" in certain situations, versus the Paladin in others, versus the Shadowknight in others. Where I differ is that the ability to tank/taunt should be closer in Pantheon than it was in EQ with the differences between classes being more evident in their secondary roles/utility - such as DPS for warrior, or combat utility for Shadowknight/Paladins (Lifetaps/Stuns/snare, etc.). It doesn't mean that certain situations such as dealing with the undead couldn't be considered as well, but that shouldn't be the sole determining factor that would result in a group always seeking one class versus another in an Undead zone, but you would see benefit in selecting one. Basically, give a variety of ways to accomplish the content with some classes being better than others, but not so much better that content is "designed" with always needing those classes.
Example: A paladin could still be better versus casters (especially Undead) because of stuns and Turn Undead spells, but I wouldn't want to trivialize the paladin's tanking ability because of it. I'd rather situationally have the warrior have to try to slam/bash like EQ with the ability to burn the mob down quicker due to better DPS (and maybe be more effective on low HP mobs like Archers). But, at base value, they should be within an acceptable +/- tanking range to not trivialize one class over the other.
And I agree with you that EQ did not have the modern roles defined at launch, but that doesn't change the fact that classes didn't fall into defined modern roles at EQlaunch:
Warrior - Tank/DPS
Paladin - Tank/Utility/DPS
Shadowknight - Tank/Utility/DPS
Cleric - Healing/DPS/Utility
Enchanter - CC/Utility/DPS
Ranger - DPS/Utility
Rogue - DPS/Utility
Wizard - DPS/Utility
Mage - DPS/Utility
Monk - DPS/Utility/Tank
Bard - CC/Utility/DPS
Druid - Healing/DPS/Utility
Shaman - Healing/DPS/Utility
Necromancer - DPS/Utility
Again, where I Agree with you is that utility played a huge role in EQ, but, out of combat utility shouldn't be the used when balancing combat. Also, keep in mind that Pantheon will most likely have many more skills for warriors that also could be beneficial to the group that did not exist in EQ. The only outlier in my above list is that warrior offered "no" utility. Where the emergent gameplay was derived in EQ was from the utility the classes provided. Root Parking from Clerics/Wizards/Druids. Fear Kiting from Shadowknights/Necromancer. Root Rotting with Shamans/Necromancers/Druids.
Give warriors utility such as War Cry to a group or Rampage individually etc. and they could be used in a secondary role as DPS where a Paladin may be a better tank (in an Undead zone).
And,
@Eronakis
I did read your reply - and I think we're in more agreement than disagreement, but I don't like how you defined the layers. I believe the term "hybrid" should just be removed as in MMOs all classes work in a hybrid of roles - see above list, the problem is in how to balance that utility and roles such as you said to be unique enough to have a need in groups, but also not to overpower/trivialize them to make them either always necessary or unnecessary.
Basically, how I view Hybrid would be that a Paladins skillset is a combination or derived from a Warrior/Cleric, but they would still perform as a tank with utility and DPS capability at base value.
A druid on the other hand, or a shaman were ideal for healing a monk tank. A druid had short quick cast burst heals, and stacking regens that provided means for a monk to easily heal up between avoiding attacks. A shaman, while not quite as adept at healing as the druid with raw spell ability, was able to compensate this with slows combined with regen buffs and spell casts.
This type of play is completely lost on the standard "Tank/Healer/DPS" role design. Obviously, a monk was not considered a real tank, and even you point out that the best healer was a cleric, so then in such a situation, to a laymen who knew nothing about the classes, a cleric being unable to heal a monk while a druid can is a violation of such balance right? The monk shouldn't be tanking, that is the "tanks(tm)" role, while the druid should certainly not be out healing the cleric, I mean... the cleric is supposed to be the best healer right?
In your steps of balancing, you take the role of tank and then show how each tank must be balanced to tank the same, but bring something different, at each level, you keep iterating the need to keep and retain balance, but at the same time providing a difference.
At this point either I am misunderstanding you, or your examples are too vague to give proper effect. Maybe you could provide an actual example. For instance, take your tank example. How do you balance between a Warrior, Paladin, and SK? Use EQ descriptions of design as a guide. In your process, explain how you deal with 1) Tanking as a role 2) The differences you mention you wish to bring for each class. Also, taking into consideration the utilities they have.
You see, your method puts a lot of effort on trying to insure each "tank" is really a tank, but different, but not so different that the other tanks can't be a tank as well to anything that tank can tank.
What I see the result is either three carbon copies with fake differences of each other or... some (usually the hybrids) having advantage because the utilities are not considered in the equation as to unintended use or basic supplemental advantage to the class.
In the end, this "balancing" does not achieve diveristy, it achieves sameness to insure no other class who might share s similarity of role does not some how insult another player who wants to feel special and can't stand that another class might do better in something in a given situation than them. I see this as more of a "participation trophy" design common in games today.
As I said, when you look at EQ, their core descriptions, their inspiration (D&D), concern is not put into making sure each class has equal footing to every situation that they might share, rather the concern is on the class providing its own unique style and approach to the game. As long as the class is balanced to the content for unique application, then you avoid redundancy in classes and insure class interdependence.
The constant need to balance in modern design is really more of a desire to appeal to social natures than really any concern about game play, in my opinion.
Besides, I think my comments in many of my posts to many people here have been clear in outlining my points, I didn't see the need to try an regurgitate them here but alas... here we are.
Different classes should tank better or worse based on environment, situation, etc... What reasoning establishes that a warrior, a paladin and an SK all have equal ability when it comes to tanking? Each study in different ways, apply different methodologies to their combat, and train differently, so naturally they would have pros/cons in a given situation in how well they might mitigate. A paladin and SK have to split their time learning other disciplines as well, such as the arcane or the divine, so they won't have the same skills as a warrior in combat and the warrior will lack knowledge and skill in dealing with the divine and arcane in situations as well.
As I said, DPS is a terrible classification. All classes do damage, labeling it DPS means you then have to demand a hierarchy in who is allowed to do more or less damage (complete nightmare, please kill me know before the whines drive me into insanity). There were no DPS classes in D&D, there were none of the modern "roles" in D&D. A tank did not exist in it as the idea that you could get the GM to sit there and focus on a low damage hunk of metal while the real threats were pounding away at him was absurd.
The problem as I said with EQ was that not all classes were fully fleshed out. The warrior should have had some more utility added to them, which I think Pantheon is going to attend to. Heck, WoW improved upon the warrior by giving it combat utility with things like bleeds, stuns, crippling blows (snare). Also, more attention should have been put to non-combat utility for such melee classes.
In the end though, my main point has always been that balance in terms of class vs class is irrelevant, only class to content with unique solutions and you create all the need and interdependence you could want.
One thing though, I am not saying make content the other classes can't do, I was pretty clear about that. I am saying you balance to content where one class may be ideal for, while another has to come up with a work around. That sort of design results in lots of emergent play.
Call it what you want, damage dealing, etc. in all games, including D&D there's been a hierarchy of classes that deal more damage than others. The difference with D&D is all classes had viable utility as well. And, while EQ was based on D&D/MUDs, they really aren't directly comparable as being able to create and manage a group in single player games is different than finding a group in an MMO experience. Although, I'm still hoping Pantheon returns more to the D&D roots and offers all classes viable in and out of combat utility.
Agreed
Then I mainly agree - and, we are much closer in agreement than disagreement. I think these discussions will be much more relevant once classes are released and testing of them can take place.
On another related topic, I'm actually a little worried about the healing role in Pantheon. Though they've said shamans and druids will have healing, those 2 classes usually have quite a bit of damage and utility capabilities. My point is, I don't want to see another game where every group wants that one healer for their groups. Min maxing is bigger than ever today and unless we see healers that can compete with the cleric, theres going to be 90% of the population looking for "the good healer."
Clerics were best at healing even mitigation damage. If the damage was too spikey and needed fast casts, they ran into issues.
That is why I think class to content focused balancing is key. As Raidan_EQ pointed out, even though EQ didn't specify direct roles with the EQ descriptions, players summed up and did it themselves. So it is going to happen regardless if VR pigeon holes a class or not. That said, if VR directly designs the classes based on direct "roles" rather than taking a more general description similar to EQ, then it will make it even harder to deal with as it only encourages the players to rope every role off and condemn any that even appear to step on the line of another.
Now if they focus on clear class to content focus as I was talking about, where being a cleric doesn't mean you are "The Healer" *queue religious music and bright light from above*, but a class that has many tools to which are ideal in healing many types of situations and environments, then they aren't encouraging the class war BS, they are saying... "Hey, you have a lot of healing abilities, and sure... you are likely to be good at many focuses, but don't get your panties in a bunch if another class finds a niche where they excel over you under those specific circumstances!"
We are still going to have the snobs who think they have to have the "ideal" tool for every solution, but that won't be for every situation and the more diverse you make your environments, the more obstacles you place to give use to the many classes, running with the same boring makeup won't be "ideal", and so people will be looking for different makeups depending on where they are going and what they are fighting.
Now as I said in previous discussions, you don't have to have the "ideal" class for these things, you can adapt and find ways to use other class abilities to work different solutions, or... player skill might be good enough to get by (like my guild did in many groups and raids) or.. maybe the class finds an item that helps with that. Point is, there will always be different solutions to apply, but in the end, there will always be the idiots who think they have to have the perfect group on paper.
Funny thing is though, I never met a player worth a damn who would complain about needing the perfect group.
What you are talking about is the power of a monk shaman duo, which is a real thing. A shaman's buffs and slows + their regen and healing made them more complimentary to melee for duoing.
I'm talking about straight up healing power for groups and raids. CH is what made clerics so ridiculously important to the point they were basically the only class referred to as a healer for the first 4+ years of EQ. Just as an example, on P99 I took a group of 5 60s to farm monk epic pipe in karnor's castle. The only healer we could find was a random level 39 cleric. With just that cleric in mediocre, non-planar armor, we were able to keep the entire castle cleared with only his well timed complete heals. Neither a level 60 shaman or druid in raid gear could have kept up the healing on a 4.5k hp warrior or a charmed pet. Superior healing or even torpor would not suffice. Even if the shaman could have kept up mana and healing by constantly using torpor, the slow effect would have decreased our efficiency.
I was talking to my friend who played the druid that healed me about this discussion, and he explained that I was wrong, but also right in a sense as well.
He said it wasn't that a cleric couldn't heal a monk, or that their tools were drastically different, the differences were subtle, but affected how the healer attended to healing which for a monk was a little tricky at times.
For instance, the druids heals like Regrowth vs the Clerics line of Celestial Elixir.
Regrowth:
Celestial Elixir:
If you will notice that Regrowth is more of a passive line of spell. The druid doesn't need to give attention to this heal, it is always ticking away, while the clerics version of this heal is an active one, lasting only 4 ticks requiring them to pay close attention to time in a HoT as needed. With the monks damage spikes, this could be a little nerve rattling for the cleric, while the druid didn't have to actively time their HoT and manage such.
Again, while this did not make the druid or shaman a "better" healer, it did present the issues I mentioned concerning a monk tank.
My memory of this was vague, not surprising as I didn't play the healer. So while you were right in the cleric being the best healer, there were situations where another healing class such as the druid could excel or be better fit due to the type of healing they provided, Now obviously this wasn't the case in raids, clerics were hands down "the healer" in the game.
You're grasping at straws with the Druid v. Cleric healing argument. Regrowth wasn't a "healing" spell - it was a passive regeneration buff. And, in no way at high level content was using Regrowth a viable healing alternative (much like how the Fungi tunic was phased out of being a viable BiS tunic but was a great twink tunic).
Clerics could throw on a celestial heal on a monk + have better healing lines to heal while the celestial heal was still on the monk. There's no way a druid was a better healer unless the cleric was OOM or was a terrible cleric. You're also forgetting some major buffs that clerics had. The Resolution line + Symbol Line (Hp) + AC line which could provide a monk a ton more hps/AC than Druid buffs could. I get your point on wanting some classes to be better in some situations than others - but, you're just remembering this situation wrong.
While duoing, a shaman typically was always better due to the added DPS/Buffs/Utility (Slows).
So, back on point, and to agree with Dullahan, the cleric was known as "the" healer in EQ for several years, much like the warrior was "the" raid tank.
I can't stress how crucial it is for this to be the case with Pantheon. I don't know what the plans are for the druid and shaman, but those are not traditionally pure healer classes. If they are in Pantheon, that's fine (I only hope that they retain their identities). If, however, they are going to be support with some healing, I think its time to come up with another pure healer class, because having 90% of the playerbase depending on 10% (clerics), meant a lot of time standing around waiting for a proper healer.
Fair enough - we'll agree to disagree on EQ classes. And, I only raised my last point to emphasize and /agree with what Dullahan posted with the following:
With the way it is today, with everyone used to the specific roles and having them drilled over the years with you can, you can't declarations. The forums are going to be a massive whine fest with people demanding buffs/nerfs. VR is really going to have to make sure they have their ducks in a row when it happens because I guarantee if they start listening to those whines, it will turn into a circus show ala WoW, which I personally have zero interest in. I just have no faith in that MMO approach to class design anymore.
This is why I like the class vs content balance approach as when someone whines, about class vs class balance, the response should be "and so?" because the goal is to balance for content. Then, the effort becomes to insure there is plenty of content that makes a class useful which is far less shocking to players as the only nerfs you do are those where a class is trivializing content and the buffs are focused on making a class more viable. Since no other class is directly related in the development focus, there are fewer tantrums.
I am leery of the balancing act of trying to make three different classes "balanced" when they have distinctly different abilities, utilities, etc... I still think class to content balance avoids all the need for that and puts a stronger focus on the game rather than to appealing to peoples egos (a lot of the class complaints are so subjective at times it is infuriating, it is like trying to balance to the idea of "fun").