I remember playing early EQ as an enchanter on a PVP server, and no one was playing them as they were so weak, and did little damage and I was always the target of anyone who wanted an easy kill.
Then I got up to a level where I could turn my char into a water elemental and sit safely next to a whole lot of Water elemental mobs, charm a player on the boat going past and have the water elementals kill 5 - 6 player at a time. I got my revenge, but so many complained (mainly as their corpses were also at the body of the sea.)
The enchanter got nerfed hard (charm got made so weak)
There will always be a play style the dev's did not think off which will be over powerful and need to be changed.
If there is PVP, there will be class balancing (and rebalancing forever)
I remember those days. I was charmed as were guildies of mine. There was a group of enchanters in North or South Ro that would charm us and make us go underwater and drown.
I played EQ on rallos zek (pvp) for years, and still play classic EQ pvp today (yes, I said classic - look it up).
I liked the EQ system of diversity - often ignorantly referred to as "imbalanced". Yes, some classes weren't a pvp threat or were less of a threat than others, but they were all still boss to have in group pvp. A cleric for instance, wasn't likely to kill you, but also could heal through most any attacks when played properly. Most melees were vulnerable outdoors when a caster got the jump, but in close quarters they had just as much of an advantage over a caster. When I played melee, I'd lure players dungeons and buildings. If I played a caster, I'd take advantage of levitate and wide open spaces. It was all about knowing your class and playing it accordingly. We didn't whine because we got beat out of our element, we just learned to play smarter.
Everyone had their places, sure not all classes were "created equal" in every situation, but they all had their place and when played well, complimented each other in a way that has yet to be emulated in an MMO since.
So I agree, keep diversity and a complimentary class system rather than trying to make sure every class is "balanced". Make players learn their classes and play smart, rather than trying to give everyone an even footing in every situation.
for i have to agree, im so god damned sick of this that every class have absorbs and shield and heals and summoned allies to aid. it removes the uniqueness of the unique class. if kiddos whine about why my warrior can healz gimme healz to my wooorrior! why not play some class that have heals and then lack of some other ares while those who dont have heals are good for something else than that healing class is not , so simple.
this lets give everyone everything is perfect example of today peeps wanting everything now and here no patience.
Trust me OP ,i am with you on this but money talks so don't expect it.
You see FFXI players that did basically have forced grouping,went in turmoil when Square changed the game to be more mainstream.However games like FFXI and EQ1 never had anymore than maybe 500k gamers.When Wow came on board the MMO industry saw about 10 million instant new gamer's and another 10 million over the years that ONLY know of the main stream type gaming.
Devs no longer want those 100-300k numbers they are trying to find ways to get 1 million plus,a bigger piece of the pie.Smedley gave up on that and decided a better way was to get more money from it's players through cash shop rather than trying to sway gamer's over from WOW,who at one time garnered 65% of the market.
Point is i would not be the least surprised if SOE goes full main stream now and has everyone heal everyone dps and everyone tank.A smart developer should realize you don't NEED to go that route and FFXI proved it.by use of a sub class system,that way players can still solo and you can still have an unbalanced system.However SOE has never watched the creative games ,they always seem to be watching Blizzard.
I agree with this guys opening paragraph. This isnt 1999 or 2000 or 2001 into 04 and 05 anymore. We're in a completely different gaming age. I'm no sandbox expert, but wouldnt forcing grouping be opposite of a sandbox? Besides being able to change the world, isnt a sandbox by a lot of players standards "not having to follow a specific guide/route/ruleset" and forcing people to group like EQ1 is restricting in that sense. I want grouping to be important, but I'm not sure how you can call that sandbox if soloing is a terrible idea or not able to be pulled off. Unless Smedley has an extremely loose definition of what Sandbox means to him, and that could be possible.
Everquest Next isnt targeting just the Everquest players, you guys need to remember that. In fact, Georgeson has said specifically he isnt afraid of EQN killing off EQ1 or EQ2 because EQN is going to be so different from those two games and he never sees any reason to shut down the EQ1 or EQ2 servers and knows there will be people who dont leave those games no matter what. So in reality, they want a cheap cop out to get the vet/ex EQ players (the Everquest title does that) but I'd assume they're targeting the whole MMORPG genre and people who have never gotten into the genre. If all they do is hold the EQ1/EQ2 crowd, then I doubt their game is big enough. Smedley has claimed the future of SOE is literally dependant on how Everquest Next does, so they can't afford to shun the wider groups. They can only hope their ideas are so good they love it, and hope for the best they still get a lot of EQ people in the process because if its name
Trust me OP ,i am with you on this but money talks so don't expect it.
You see FFXI players that did basically have forced grouping,went in turmoil when Square changed the game to be more mainstream.However games like FFXI and EQ1 never had anymore than maybe 500k gamers.When Wow came on board the MMO industry saw about 10 million instant new gamer's and another 10 million over the years that ONLY know of the main stream type gaming.
Devs no longer want those 100-300k numbers they are trying to find ways to get 1 million plus,a bigger piece of the pie.Smedley gave up on that and decided a better way was to get more money from it's players through cash shop rather than trying to sway gamer's over from WOW,who at one time garnered 65% of the market.
Point is i would not be the least surprised if SOE goes full main stream now and has everyone heal everyone dps and everyone tank.A smart developer should realize you don't NEED to go that route and FFXI proved it.by use of a sub class system,that way players can still solo and you can still have an unbalanced system.However SOE has never watched the creative games ,they always seem to be watching Blizzard.
Those numbers are really more inflated than people know. In reality EQ had half a million players from the west (ie, not china etc). The internet obviously grew a great deal from 1999-2004, so MMOs grew exponentially, but when you talk about an instant 10 million new gamers, thats not what happened. If you consider MMO subs from the west or just the US, you're talking about a fraction of that "10 million."
At the moment, only one MMO is sporting a playerbase over 1 million players.
Trust me OP ,i am with you on this but money talks so don't expect it.
You see FFXI players that did basically have forced grouping,went in turmoil when Square changed the game to be more mainstream.However games like FFXI and EQ1 never had anymore than maybe 500k gamers.When Wow came on board the MMO industry saw about 10 million instant new gamer's and another 10 million over the years that ONLY know of the main stream type gaming.
Devs no longer want those 100-300k numbers they are trying to find ways to get 1 million plus,a bigger piece of the pie.Smedley gave up on that and decided a better way was to get more money from it's players through cash shop rather than trying to sway gamer's over from WOW,who at one time garnered 65% of the market.
Point is i would not be the least surprised if SOE goes full main stream now and has everyone heal everyone dps and everyone tank.A smart developer should realize you don't NEED to go that route and FFXI proved it.by use of a sub class system,that way players can still solo and you can still have an unbalanced system.However SOE has never watched the creative games ,they always seem to be watching Blizzard.
Those numbers are really more inflated than people know. In reality EQ had half a million players from the west (ie, not china etc). The internet obviously grew a great deal from 1999-2004, so MMOs grew exponentially, but when you talk about an instant 10 million new gamers, thats not what happened. If you consider MMO subs from the west or just the US, you're talking about a fraction of that "10 million."
At the moment, only one MMO is sporting a playerbase over 1 million players.
Originally posted by Telilyes i know you may all think that is a crazy staement but hear me out.Fans of the original Everquest lived in a world where we relied upon each other for many activities.You needed a Healer to heal, a Tank to tank and a dps to...well dps. Yes lots of classes found thier own way to solo hunt, heck my Ranger soloed most of his career. But for some adventures we had to pull together or grab friends and take down a coman enemy as a group.Now i am not saying lets have forced grouping, but EQ did it in a way that you could choose how you entered a battle by using the con system. you could go to crushbone when all mobs were yellow, you just needed a group, ex would be amazing and you would have great fun. or you could wait a few levels and eneter when mobs were blue. you would get good exp and have great fun. but esentially the most fun was to be gained with friends.The great thing about this system was that there was no class balance. because of this you could enter certain areas and know you would be in demand as a certain class.But enter PVP. imagine an unbalanced pvp class system ( yes i know all games are haha ) how would this play? well my opinion is that it would be great. there would be no more running about a pvp arena solo, as you know you could only solo certain classes. but if you grouped and worked as a team it would end up being a pvp group battle. something that you dont often see in games these days.What are your thoughts on class balance?go on hurt me!
Problem is, with the unbalanced system (which I loved in EQ), nowadays everyone would just play the 'OP' class. You would see groups full of whatever class was the best for pvp.
Off topic: I think EQ's enemy NPC system was what made players able to solo or group. There weren't 'elite' enemies. Just different enemies with different levels.
i totally agree with the OP and i will tell you why. first of all, if its anything like EQ people will definitely not be making "flavor of the month" alts that are the most powerful currently because you have way too much to lose by re-rolling due to the heavy time sink.
secondly, if this is a group focused game like EQ was, classes don't need to be balanced for solo pvp because you are in a group fighting against another group.
there were classes that were basically useless in a solo pvp encounter unless they vastly out geared their opponent.
but in a group they were much more powerful and needed, especially healers.
they do need to tweak some things though, they simply cannot handle resists the same way it was handled in EQ1.
in EQ1 you had a chance to totally resist spells so if you were geared and had high resistance, spells would not land on you.
i was a shaman and this was very frustrating, i would throw my unresistable resists debuff on them and my spells still wouldn't land on them, except for my poison and disease based spells (those elements typically didn't get stacked as much as the others)
i used to have nightmares about bards with their sick regen and resists, so hard to kill but they usually couldn't kill me either lol
i remember being in pvp battles for hours, literally.
Class balance is usually meant to describe in pvp, to mean one class can't just simply bend over everyone it comes to. but I understand what you are saying.
You're meaning you want them to keep the holy quadrology. Because technically there wasn't just healers to heal, tanks to tank, and dps to dps. There was also bards and enchanters to support / cc.
I hope they do not go the route that GW2 did, where people can solo everything because they are a tank, a dps, and a healer all in one. Having dedicated roles is needed to really bring you in to the game. I really doubt that EQ Next would do that though. I expect to see a holy quadrology.
I rember one of my servers top bards bragging that nobody can beat him in pvp and i who never pvped said ok lets go to arena and see how good you are . i hit stun and snare both nearly unresistable and i then removed his head with a few swings of my huge axe.
That was one of the great things about EQ if you knew how to play your class near anything was posible.
But haveing unbalenced toons on a pvp server wont work cause all you will get is everybody makeing which ever the best toon is at pvp.
Trust me OP ,i am with you on this but money talks so don't expect it.
You see FFXI players that did basically have forced grouping,went in turmoil when Square changed the game to be more mainstream.However games like FFXI and EQ1 never had anymore than maybe 500k gamers.When Wow came on board the MMO industry saw about 10 million instant new gamer's and another 10 million over the years that ONLY know of the main stream type gaming.
Devs no longer want those 100-300k numbers they are trying to find ways to get 1 million plus,a bigger piece of the pie.Smedley gave up on that and decided a better way was to get more money from it's players through cash shop rather than trying to sway gamer's over from WOW,who at one time garnered 65% of the market.
Point is i would not be the least surprised if SOE goes full main stream now and has everyone heal everyone dps and everyone tank.A smart developer should realize you don't NEED to go that route and FFXI proved it.by use of a sub class system,that way players can still solo and you can still have an unbalanced system.However SOE has never watched the creative games ,they always seem to be watching Blizzard.
Those numbers are really more inflated than people know. In reality EQ had half a million players from the west (ie, not china etc). The internet obviously grew a great deal from 1999-2004, so MMOs grew exponentially, but when you talk about an instant 10 million new gamers, thats not what happened. If you consider MMO subs from the west or just the US, you're talking about a fraction of that "10 million."
At the moment, only one MMO is sporting a playerbase over 1 million players.
Just FYI and FYC
Sorry guy, that I very much doubt.
By inflated, I don't mean inflated in the sense that the figures are inaccurate, just that they don't represent the same playerbase (demographic) that played early MMORPGs. It also didn't happen over night; it was much more gradual as the internet became more widely available.
Jumping to conclusions by comparing the number of players in early MMOs like EQ, that were largely comprised of players from the west, with numbers today from players from all over the world, is fallacious. The point being, it wasn't some magical formula or game mechanic that took place in the industry, but rather a formula with mass appeal that took place at the perfect time when the internet became accessible to everyone.
Originally posted by keenber I rember one of my servers top bards bragging that nobody can beat him in pvp and i who never pvped said ok lets go to arena and see how good you are . i hit stun and snare both nearly unresistable and i then removed his head with a few swings of my huge axe.That was one of the great things about EQ if you knew how to play your class near anything was posible.But haveing unbalenced toons on a pvp server wont work cause all you will get is everybody makeing which ever the best toon is at pvp.
it worked in EQ though, because you were in a group and the best classes for solo pvp were not the most played usually.
even on the pvp servers pve still dominated and many many people still played warriors because they were the best pve tanks, but pretty garbage in pvp unless they were better geared.
besides, anyone who thinks classes will not get balanced at least a little bit, are kidding themselves. (assuming there are classes)
I agree with this guys opening paragraph. This isnt 1999 or 2000 or 2001 into 04 and 05 anymore. We're in a completely different gaming age. I'm no sandbox expert, but wouldnt forcing grouping be opposite of a sandbox? Besides being able to change the world, isnt a sandbox by a lot of players standards "not having to follow a specific guide/route/ruleset" and forcing people to group like EQ1 is restricting in that sense. I want grouping to be important, but I'm not sure how you can call that sandbox if soloing is a terrible idea or not able to be pulled off. Unless Smedley has an extremely loose definition of what Sandbox means to him, and that could be possible.
If you are to believe Smedley, we are at the end of a gaming age. This isn't 2004 either.
Just as sandbox does not mean FFA PVP, it also doesn't mean it has to accommodate solo play. That said there will undoubtedly be things you can do by yourself. Being in a group would probably make things easier.
Trust me OP ,i am with you on this but money talks so don't expect it.
You see FFXI players that did basically have forced grouping,went in turmoil when Square changed the game to be more mainstream.However games like FFXI and EQ1 never had anymore than maybe 500k gamers.When Wow came on board the MMO industry saw about 10 million instant new gamer's and another 10 million over the years that ONLY know of the main stream type gaming.
Devs no longer want those 100-300k numbers they are trying to find ways to get 1 million plus,a bigger piece of the pie.Smedley gave up on that and decided a better way was to get more money from it's players through cash shop rather than trying to sway gamer's over from WOW,who at one time garnered 65% of the market.
Point is i would not be the least surprised if SOE goes full main stream now and has everyone heal everyone dps and everyone tank.A smart developer should realize you don't NEED to go that route and FFXI proved it.by use of a sub class system,that way players can still solo and you can still have an unbalanced system.However SOE has never watched the creative games ,they always seem to be watching Blizzard.
Those numbers are really more inflated than people know. In reality EQ had half a million players from the west (ie, not china etc). The internet obviously grew a great deal from 1999-2004, so MMOs grew exponentially, but when you talk about an instant 10 million new gamers, thats not what happened. If you consider MMO subs from the west or just the US, you're talking about a fraction of that "10 million."
At the moment, only one MMO is sporting a playerbase over 1 million players.
Just FYI and FYC
Sorry guy, that I very much doubt.
By inflated, I don't mean inflated in the sense that the figures are inaccurate, just that they don't represent the same playerbase (demographic) that played early MMORPGs. It also didn't happen over night; it was much more gradual as the internet became more widely available.
Jumping to conclusions by comparing the number of players in early MMOs like EQ, that were largely comprised of players from the west, with numbers today from players from all over the world, is fallacious. The point being, it wasn't some magical formula or game mechanic that took place in the industry, but rather a formula with mass appeal that took place at the perfect time when the internet became accessible to everyone.
I should have been more clear, I was doubting your claim that only one game got over 1m players. You have to realize that many games don't post their usernumbers but even then just looking at the korean market I bet there are some game over 1m players just there.
I should have been more clear, I was doubting your claim that only one game got over 1m players. You have to realize that many games don't post their usernumbers but even then just looking at the korean market I bet there are some game over 1m players just there.
Ah, I'm not so sure. 1 million players is a LOT of players. I've played or looked into most of the popular over seas games and they honestly don't have much to offer compared to WoW or any other international MMO.
I've heard Rift is now the number 2 mmo with still less than a million and I really doubt that have that many. I'm part of multiple gaming communities and frequent a lot of forums and don't know of a single person that plays Rift.
I should have been more clear, I was doubting your claim that only one game got over 1m players. You have to realize that many games don't post their usernumbers but even then just looking at the korean market I bet there are some game over 1m players just there.
Ah, I'm not so sure. 1 million players is a LOT of players. I've played or looked into most of the popular over seas games and they honestly don't have much to offer compared to WoW or any other international MMO.
I've heard Rift is now the number 2 mmo with still less than a million and I really doubt that have that many. I'm part of multiple gaming communities and frequent a lot of forums and don't know of a single person that plays Rift.
Anyways, we digress.
1m people is not that much really. Considering dota 2 peaks at 300k concurrent users that says quite a lot, imagine the bigger MMOs. Ofc they reach higher amounts. WOW for sure, probably Aion due to asian market. Blade and soul maybe since its highest MMO in korea atm. etc etc.
Also asian MMOs are not bad, they bring just as much to the table as western MMOs. It is just that they also produce shitloads of lowquality copies essentially.
EDIT: Where did you "hear" that Rift is #2 because I doubt that.
I agree with OP 100%. Paper-rock-scissors balanced emphasis over static class balance anyday....
I like making every class's effectivness in different situational contexts different. It encourages class specific party roles and playstyles and creates situations where strategy > coordination and also encourage partying. Whats not to love
Conversly, in a static class-balanced game, you will inevitably end up with only one class the closer the game gets to its pinacle balance. This isnt possible in a mmo. The fact is, if a game has different classes and you wish to create the most balanced game possible, you have to CAREFULLY balance each individual class in relationship with the entire class pool, advertently assigning strengths and weaknesses over one another evenly (paper-rock-scissors trinity). Devs these days are more worried about making the game solo-friendly, emphasising "class evenness", which just inevitably creates an unblanced class pool. I hope to god they dont sell out to the "casualness" trend >.<
So in regards to pvp OP, I have to say, party pvp visioned paper-rock-scissors balance is the most balanced you can possibly get.
I agree with OP 100%. Paper-rock-scissors balanced emphasis over static class balance anyday....
....
Rock-paper-scissors IS a form a balance.
Nobody's complaining about that, they're complaining about rock-scissors-scissors.
Folks who are saying "healers weren't good in solo PVP but needed in groups" never dueled with a cleric. Clerics were elite PVPers, with blinds, stuns and heals.
That said, "class balance" was NOT a PVP complaint in EQ1, it was a PVE complaint. Warriors complained that Rangers could wear rubicite, rogues complained that everyone soloed better than them. Druids and Wizards complained they couldn't get groups. Tanks complained about Necro pets, and so and.
MMORPGs are social games, players want to feel heroic, not gimped. They want to be respected, not humiliated. You should be able to choose your class for RP and playing-style reasons without fear of getting stuck with a lemon.
Classes do not need balance... no my enchanter should not be able to go toe to toe with a warrior in melee combat. However, my enchanter should be able to slow the warrior down, while my teammates come to my aid.
Skill based games... blech!!! No classes? meh. The problem I see with games like this is it is not immersive, my character is not unique, skill based is only an illusion of choice. The number crunchers ruin it in MMOs. I have been against multi-classing since PnP games... it makes no sense that a person has dedicated their lives to learning magic and can now throw fireballs but well then some barbarian who has always been a meathead can throw fireballs just as well because they spent a few points into it when they levelled up. It is just silly and there will always be optimal combinations. Having our own jobs to do makes us unique and adds to the community feeling.
This- 100 percent - I don't care if PVP unbalances things. If you dont want to PVP dont play a class that is good at it. If they add a decent consequence for killing/attacking someone in game this could be even better realized. Allow FFA PVP but make the consequences dire
Example:
I am a cleric - I am "good" ( on my side of the pond) if another player kills me this should impose such a detriment to their gameplay they would really think twice about doing it. However, if you do kill other players and I hunt you down and kill you with a group we don't take a hit- we are rewarded. There is a bounty placed on players to everyone else that murder and the rewards are very sought after as they are only attained by bringing justice (justice points or something) You would end up having guilds that just farm justice points, leading to player-run policing against PVP.
Another idea - screw the class balance - but offer support classes a unique way of safeguarding/escaping PVP attack like a flare. Invisibility, teleport, super wards, polymorph, smite, call/hire guard, turn to stone, etc. You could combine these two ideas and offer a great balance to the classes that are not balanced for PVP but good at PVP/PVE in a group. Every class could have these abilities but they would be more powerful/effective for classes in a support role. If we are just honest with our roles and honest about their restrictions/abilities you can balance the game by other means.
In my mind there is no reason everyone cant have their cake and eat it too. If the game balances classes it might as well just be every other MMO ever made - nothing revolutionary will happen and the game might be fun to play but it will not do anything new - vanilla pudding. If they do this they might as well not release the game because we all know what is going to happen. I know everyone is hesitant to change but coming from someone who has played MMORPG's since their concept (14 years) this is my last hope for the genre. Balanced classes/ and theme park are the same thing and it is what is killing the community and the genre.
yes i know you may all think that is a crazy staement but hear me out.
Fans of the original Everquest lived in a world where we relied upon each other for many activities.
You needed a Healer to heal, a Tank to tank and a dps to...well dps. Yes lots of classes found thier own way to solo hunt, heck my Ranger soloed most of his career. But for some adventures we had to pull together or grab friends and take down a coman enemy as a group.
Now i am not saying lets have forced grouping, but EQ did it in a way that you could choose how you entered a battle by using the con system. you could go to crushbone when all mobs were yellow, you just needed a group, ex would be amazing and you would have great fun. or you could wait a few levels and eneter when mobs were blue. you would get good exp and have great fun. but esentially the most fun was to be gained with friends.
The great thing about this system was that there was no class balance. because of this you could enter certain areas and know you would be in demand as a certain class.
But enter PVP. imagine an unbalanced pvp class system ( yes i know all games are haha ) how would this play? well my opinion is that it would be great. there would be no more running about a pvp arena solo, as you know you could only solo certain classes. but if you grouped and worked as a team it would end up being a pvp group battle. something that you dont often see in games these days.
What are your thoughts on class balance?
go on hurt me!
I agree
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The idea for PvP balance didn’t spring forth from thin air. There was a definite need for it.
If Tanks have high defense and low(high) dps, then given time they can kill just about anything. Their survivability makes them an annoyance. They tend to gear for damage so their dps can jump too high, not Range DPS high, but typically as high as Melee DPS.
If Melee DPS have medium defense and high dps, they will avoid Tanks at all cost and focus on stealthing on low defense character and killing them.
Range DPS have low defense and high dps. Everyone fears this class, so they avoid this class.
The Healer has low defense and low dps. All mana and mana pots are spent keeping this class alive. No mana can be spent on offensive skills, so these spells are useless in PvP. The Healer relies on melee weapons to do damage. This is everybody's primary target in PvP. If there are no Healers on the field, PvP can come to a stop as everyone waits for the Healers to respawn so they can be targeted again. Typically the Healer is ignored and not protected by team mates, they run off after being healed and never turn around to defend the healer.
Order of PvP death
1. Healer, primary target of all classes. Eventually they will run out of both mana and pots.
2. Healer
3. Healer
4. Melee DPS, if this player is fool to target any class other than Healer, they are killed. They won't outlast a Tank or a Range DPS. If they don’t stealth and CC their target.
5. Tank, as they are whaling on a Healer they may get attacked by a jealous Melee DPS. The tank will switch targets and take out the Melee DPS. If the healer is luck they may use this time to heal and take out the Tank.
6. Range DPS, since all classes have an innate fear of this class, they are seldom the target of PvP. This class will take out melee classes before they can do much damage to the caster. Then casually drink potions to restore mana and health.
Professional PvP teams will defend the healer, but these teams are few and far between. The majority of MMO PvP gamers never experience co-operative team PvP. Most PvP is as I described, every man for himself PvP.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Absolutely. I recently laid down Guild Wars 2 and the lack of real class diversity, or uniqueness, always bugged me. I love GW2, but the fact that ANYBODY can heal, ANYBODY can raise, and the difference between how damage is dealt is really SSDW (same s$!# different wrapper) was always disconcerting.
I like the OPs idea of keeping classes dependent on one another, but not to the point where soloing anywhere would be impossible.
Seems like a lot of people baseline PVP discussions from WoW mechanics.
Well, with good reason, EQ1 pvp is a joke - EQ2 is decent but not as balanced as WoW (opinion open for discussion). Wow appears to do a bit more number blending.
Seems like a lot of people baseline PVP discussions from WoW mechanics.
Well, with good reason, EQ1 pvp is a joke - EQ2 is decent but not as balanced as WoW (opinion open for discussion). Wow appears to do a bit more number blending.
Seems like a lot of people baseline PVP discussions from WoW mechanics.
Well, with good reason, EQ1 pvp is a joke - EQ2 is decent but not as balanced as WoW (opinion open for discussion). Wow appears to do a bit more number blending.
You never played classic EQ pvp, you shall hold your tongue bluebie.
I'm guessing you're defending EQ pvp? Do you mean classic EQ pvp on pvp servers or arena pvp? I was primarily a PVE raider for a few years in the beginning.
It is true that EQ pvp is very gear and aa dependent. There is less of a curve in other games, that was the purpose of the comment, not trying to say I am vetted with EQ pvp.
Seems like a lot of people baseline PVP discussions from WoW mechanics.
Well, with good reason, EQ1 pvp is a joke - EQ2 is decent but not as balanced as WoW (opinion open for discussion). Wow appears to do a bit more number blending.
You never played classic EQ pvp, you shall hold your tongue bluebie.
I'm guessing you're defending EQ pvp? Do you mean classic EQ pvp on pvp servers or arena pvp? I was primarily a PVE raider for a few years in the beginning.
It is true that EQ pvp is very gear and aa dependent. There is less of a curve in other games, that was the purpose of the comment, not trying to say I am vetted with EQ pvp.
And no, I am not against pvp.
Yes, I am defending it, because it was completely different than what you see today.
Just like everything else in EQ prior to luclin, pvp was amazing and suffered from none of those problems you see in that video. We didn't have those silly AAs that caused all those problems, and the game in general was just much more intelligently designed. Without derailing the topic, you just can't compare EQ and the way it was balanced after Velious to the game before when the original Verant guys were in creative control. Every aspect of the game was night and day different.
Comments
I remember those days. I was charmed as were guildies of mine. There was a group of enchanters in North or South Ro that would charm us and make us go underwater and drown.
I played EQ on rallos zek (pvp) for years, and still play classic EQ pvp today (yes, I said classic - look it up).
I liked the EQ system of diversity - often ignorantly referred to as "imbalanced". Yes, some classes weren't a pvp threat or were less of a threat than others, but they were all still boss to have in group pvp. A cleric for instance, wasn't likely to kill you, but also could heal through most any attacks when played properly. Most melees were vulnerable outdoors when a caster got the jump, but in close quarters they had just as much of an advantage over a caster. When I played melee, I'd lure players dungeons and buildings. If I played a caster, I'd take advantage of levitate and wide open spaces. It was all about knowing your class and playing it accordingly. We didn't whine because we got beat out of our element, we just learned to play smarter.
Everyone had their places, sure not all classes were "created equal" in every situation, but they all had their place and when played well, complimented each other in a way that has yet to be emulated in an MMO since.
So I agree, keep diversity and a complimentary class system rather than trying to make sure every class is "balanced". Make players learn their classes and play smart, rather than trying to give everyone an even footing in every situation.
for i have to agree, im so god damned sick of this that every class have absorbs and shield and heals and summoned allies to aid. it removes the uniqueness of the unique class. if kiddos whine about why my warrior can healz gimme healz to my wooorrior! why not play some class that have heals and then lack of some other ares while those who dont have heals are good for something else than that healing class is not , so simple.
this lets give everyone everything is perfect example of today peeps wanting everything now and here no patience.
I agree with this guys opening paragraph. This isnt 1999 or 2000 or 2001 into 04 and 05 anymore. We're in a completely different gaming age. I'm no sandbox expert, but wouldnt forcing grouping be opposite of a sandbox? Besides being able to change the world, isnt a sandbox by a lot of players standards "not having to follow a specific guide/route/ruleset" and forcing people to group like EQ1 is restricting in that sense. I want grouping to be important, but I'm not sure how you can call that sandbox if soloing is a terrible idea or not able to be pulled off. Unless Smedley has an extremely loose definition of what Sandbox means to him, and that could be possible.
Everquest Next isnt targeting just the Everquest players, you guys need to remember that. In fact, Georgeson has said specifically he isnt afraid of EQN killing off EQ1 or EQ2 because EQN is going to be so different from those two games and he never sees any reason to shut down the EQ1 or EQ2 servers and knows there will be people who dont leave those games no matter what. So in reality, they want a cheap cop out to get the vet/ex EQ players (the Everquest title does that) but I'd assume they're targeting the whole MMORPG genre and people who have never gotten into the genre. If all they do is hold the EQ1/EQ2 crowd, then I doubt their game is big enough. Smedley has claimed the future of SOE is literally dependant on how Everquest Next does, so they can't afford to shun the wider groups. They can only hope their ideas are so good they love it, and hope for the best they still get a lot of EQ people in the process because if its name
Those numbers are really more inflated than people know. In reality EQ had half a million players from the west (ie, not china etc). The internet obviously grew a great deal from 1999-2004, so MMOs grew exponentially, but when you talk about an instant 10 million new gamers, thats not what happened. If you consider MMO subs from the west or just the US, you're talking about a fraction of that "10 million."
At the moment, only one MMO is sporting a playerbase over 1 million players.
Just FYI and FYC
Sorry guy, that I very much doubt.
i totally agree with the OP and i will tell you why. first of all, if its anything like EQ people will definitely not be making "flavor of the month" alts that are the most powerful currently because you have way too much to lose by re-rolling due to the heavy time sink.
secondly, if this is a group focused game like EQ was, classes don't need to be balanced for solo pvp because you are in a group fighting against another group.
there were classes that were basically useless in a solo pvp encounter unless they vastly out geared their opponent.
but in a group they were much more powerful and needed, especially healers.
they do need to tweak some things though, they simply cannot handle resists the same way it was handled in EQ1.
in EQ1 you had a chance to totally resist spells so if you were geared and had high resistance, spells would not land on you.
i was a shaman and this was very frustrating, i would throw my unresistable resists debuff on them and my spells still wouldn't land on them, except for my poison and disease based spells (those elements typically didn't get stacked as much as the others)
i used to have nightmares about bards with their sick regen and resists, so hard to kill but they usually couldn't kill me either lol
i remember being in pvp battles for hours, literally.
Class balance is usually meant to describe in pvp, to mean one class can't just simply bend over everyone it comes to. but I understand what you are saying.
You're meaning you want them to keep the holy quadrology. Because technically there wasn't just healers to heal, tanks to tank, and dps to dps. There was also bards and enchanters to support / cc.
I hope they do not go the route that GW2 did, where people can solo everything because they are a tank, a dps, and a healer all in one. Having dedicated roles is needed to really bring you in to the game. I really doubt that EQ Next would do that though. I expect to see a holy quadrology.
Killing dragons is my shit
I rember one of my servers top bards bragging that nobody can beat him in pvp and i who never pvped said ok lets go to arena and see how good you are . i hit stun and snare both nearly unresistable and i then removed his head with a few swings of my huge axe.
That was one of the great things about EQ if you knew how to play your class near anything was posible.
But haveing unbalenced toons on a pvp server wont work cause all you will get is everybody makeing which ever the best toon is at pvp.
By inflated, I don't mean inflated in the sense that the figures are inaccurate, just that they don't represent the same playerbase (demographic) that played early MMORPGs. It also didn't happen over night; it was much more gradual as the internet became more widely available.
Jumping to conclusions by comparing the number of players in early MMOs like EQ, that were largely comprised of players from the west, with numbers today from players from all over the world, is fallacious. The point being, it wasn't some magical formula or game mechanic that took place in the industry, but rather a formula with mass appeal that took place at the perfect time when the internet became accessible to everyone.
http://www.wowwiki.com/WoW_population_by_country
http://www.statista.com/statistics/208146/number-of-subscribers-of-world-of-warcraft/
Doubt it all you want.
it worked in EQ though, because you were in a group and the best classes for solo pvp were not the most played usually.
even on the pvp servers pve still dominated and many many people still played warriors because they were the best pve tanks, but pretty garbage in pvp unless they were better geared.
besides, anyone who thinks classes will not get balanced at least a little bit, are kidding themselves. (assuming there are classes)
classes got nerfed in EQ1
If you are to believe Smedley, we are at the end of a gaming age. This isn't 2004 either.
Just as sandbox does not mean FFA PVP, it also doesn't mean it has to accommodate solo play. That said there will undoubtedly be things you can do by yourself. Being in a group would probably make things easier.
I should have been more clear, I was doubting your claim that only one game got over 1m players. You have to realize that many games don't post their usernumbers but even then just looking at the korean market I bet there are some game over 1m players just there.
Ah, I'm not so sure. 1 million players is a LOT of players. I've played or looked into most of the popular over seas games and they honestly don't have much to offer compared to WoW or any other international MMO.
I've heard Rift is now the number 2 mmo with still less than a million and I really doubt that have that many. I'm part of multiple gaming communities and frequent a lot of forums and don't know of a single person that plays Rift.
Anyways, we digress.
1m people is not that much really. Considering dota 2 peaks at 300k concurrent users that says quite a lot, imagine the bigger MMOs. Ofc they reach higher amounts. WOW for sure, probably Aion due to asian market. Blade and soul maybe since its highest MMO in korea atm. etc etc.
Also asian MMOs are not bad, they bring just as much to the table as western MMOs. It is just that they also produce shitloads of lowquality copies essentially.
EDIT: Where did you "hear" that Rift is #2 because I doubt that.
I agree with OP 100%. Paper-rock-scissors balanced emphasis over static class balance anyday....
I like making every class's effectivness in different situational contexts different. It encourages class specific party roles and playstyles and creates situations where strategy > coordination and also encourage partying. Whats not to love
Conversly, in a static class-balanced game, you will inevitably end up with only one class the closer the game gets to its pinacle balance. This isnt possible in a mmo. The fact is, if a game has different classes and you wish to create the most balanced game possible, you have to CAREFULLY balance each individual class in relationship with the entire class pool, advertently assigning strengths and weaknesses over one another evenly (paper-rock-scissors trinity). Devs these days are more worried about making the game solo-friendly, emphasising "class evenness", which just inevitably creates an unblanced class pool. I hope to god they dont sell out to the "casualness" trend >.<
So in regards to pvp OP, I have to say, party pvp visioned paper-rock-scissors balance is the most balanced you can possibly get.
Rock-paper-scissors IS a form a balance.
Nobody's complaining about that, they're complaining about rock-scissors-scissors.
Folks who are saying "healers weren't good in solo PVP but needed in groups" never dueled with a cleric. Clerics were elite PVPers, with blinds, stuns and heals.
That said, "class balance" was NOT a PVP complaint in EQ1, it was a PVE complaint. Warriors complained that Rangers could wear rubicite, rogues complained that everyone soloed better than them. Druids and Wizards complained they couldn't get groups. Tanks complained about Necro pets, and so and.
MMORPGs are social games, players want to feel heroic, not gimped. They want to be respected, not humiliated. You should be able to choose your class for RP and playing-style reasons without fear of getting stuck with a lemon.
This- 100 percent - I don't care if PVP unbalances things. If you dont want to PVP dont play a class that is good at it. If they add a decent consequence for killing/attacking someone in game this could be even better realized. Allow FFA PVP but make the consequences dire
Example:
I am a cleric - I am "good" ( on my side of the pond) if another player kills me this should impose such a detriment to their gameplay they would really think twice about doing it. However, if you do kill other players and I hunt you down and kill you with a group we don't take a hit- we are rewarded. There is a bounty placed on players to everyone else that murder and the rewards are very sought after as they are only attained by bringing justice (justice points or something) You would end up having guilds that just farm justice points, leading to player-run policing against PVP.
Another idea - screw the class balance - but offer support classes a unique way of safeguarding/escaping PVP attack like a flare. Invisibility, teleport, super wards, polymorph, smite, call/hire guard, turn to stone, etc. You could combine these two ideas and offer a great balance to the classes that are not balanced for PVP but good at PVP/PVE in a group. Every class could have these abilities but they would be more powerful/effective for classes in a support role. If we are just honest with our roles and honest about their restrictions/abilities you can balance the game by other means.
In my mind there is no reason everyone cant have their cake and eat it too. If the game balances classes it might as well just be every other MMO ever made - nothing revolutionary will happen and the game might be fun to play but it will not do anything new - vanilla pudding. If they do this they might as well not release the game because we all know what is going to happen. I know everyone is hesitant to change but coming from someone who has played MMORPG's since their concept (14 years) this is my last hope for the genre. Balanced classes/ and theme park are the same thing and it is what is killing the community and the genre.
I agree
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The idea for PvP balance didn’t spring forth from thin air. There was a definite need for it.
If Tanks have high defense and low(high) dps, then given time they can kill just about anything. Their survivability makes them an annoyance. They tend to gear for damage so their dps can jump too high, not Range DPS high, but typically as high as Melee DPS.
If Melee DPS have medium defense and high dps, they will avoid Tanks at all cost and focus on stealthing on low defense character and killing them.
Range DPS have low defense and high dps. Everyone fears this class, so they avoid this class.
The Healer has low defense and low dps. All mana and mana pots are spent keeping this class alive. No mana can be spent on offensive skills, so these spells are useless in PvP. The Healer relies on melee weapons to do damage. This is everybody's primary target in PvP. If there are no Healers on the field, PvP can come to a stop as everyone waits for the Healers to respawn so they can be targeted again. Typically the Healer is ignored and not protected by team mates, they run off after being healed and never turn around to defend the healer.
Order of PvP death
1. Healer, primary target of all classes. Eventually they will run out of both mana and pots.
2. Healer
3. Healer
4. Melee DPS, if this player is fool to target any class other than Healer, they are killed. They won't outlast a Tank or a Range DPS. If they don’t stealth and CC their target.
5. Tank, as they are whaling on a Healer they may get attacked by a jealous Melee DPS. The tank will switch targets and take out the Melee DPS. If the healer is luck they may use this time to heal and take out the Tank.
6. Range DPS, since all classes have an innate fear of this class, they are seldom the target of PvP. This class will take out melee classes before they can do much damage to the caster. Then casually drink potions to restore mana and health.
Professional PvP teams will defend the healer, but these teams are few and far between. The majority of MMO PvP gamers never experience co-operative team PvP. Most PvP is as I described, every man for himself PvP.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Absolutely. I recently laid down Guild Wars 2 and the lack of real class diversity, or uniqueness, always bugged me. I love GW2, but the fact that ANYBODY can heal, ANYBODY can raise, and the difference between how damage is dealt is really SSDW (same s$!# different wrapper) was always disconcerting.
I like the OPs idea of keeping classes dependent on one another, but not to the point where soloing anywhere would be impossible.
Seems like a lot of people baseline PVP discussions from WoW mechanics.
Well, with good reason, EQ1 pvp is a joke - EQ2 is decent but not as balanced as WoW (opinion open for discussion). Wow appears to do a bit more number blending.
EG: EQ1 Zek server has become rather unfair for a lot of people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6LAYr-5Rmo
You never played classic EQ pvp, you shall hold your tongue bluebie.
I'm guessing you're defending EQ pvp? Do you mean classic EQ pvp on pvp servers or arena pvp? I was primarily a PVE raider for a few years in the beginning.
It is true that EQ pvp is very gear and aa dependent. There is less of a curve in other games, that was the purpose of the comment, not trying to say I am vetted with EQ pvp.
And no, I am not against pvp.
Yes, I am defending it, because it was completely different than what you see today.
Just like everything else in EQ prior to luclin, pvp was amazing and suffered from none of those problems you see in that video. We didn't have those silly AAs that caused all those problems, and the game in general was just much more intelligently designed. Without derailing the topic, you just can't compare EQ and the way it was balanced after Velious to the game before when the original Verant guys were in creative control. Every aspect of the game was night and day different.