Tanix said:My only point is that "roles" will create community expectations which will drive certain conflicts as well as condition certain development paths of the game over time. I personally would prefer to not have roles "designated", even if a class will tend to be better suited for such, I just don't like the labeling that will spur "you can only do this, that is my role!! Nerf this class! I am supposed to be the best at this!"
Roles give players a clear view of what to expect as a focus from the class they pick and allows easier balancing of parity for classes within each role.
EQ had pretty awful class balance which worked out at the time because the game content while leveling wasn't very difficult and players weren't as focused on min/max, let alone parsing/gathering detailed comparisons. Of course it wasn't long until people learned that some classes were simply worse at any given thing and had to be okay with being less desirable to groups (some more than others).
Iksar said:Tanix said:My only point is that "roles" will create community expectations which will drive certain conflicts as well as condition certain development paths of the game over time. I personally would prefer to not have roles "designated", even if a class will tend to be better suited for such, I just don't like the labeling that will spur "you can only do this, that is my role!! Nerf this class! I am supposed to be the best at this!"
Roles give players a clear view of what to expect as a focus from the class they pick and allows easier balancing of parity for classes within each role.
EQ had pretty awful class balance which worked out at the time because the game content while leveling wasn't very difficult and players weren't as focused on min/max, let alone parsing/gathering detailed comparisons. Of course it wasn't long until people learned that some classes were simply worse at any given thing and had to be okay with being less desirable to groups (some more than others).
Isn't that a form of hand holding though?
EQ didn't have class balance in the begining, that is the point as it was based on AD&D and focused on the class vs the environment. Class balance was community forced and later a staple of modern MMO gaming where every class had to be balanced to each other, often due to PvP.
I never bought into the class envy wars as a lot of it was not honestly based, and due to people expecting to compete with other classes rather than being concerned about how they did vs the game itself. While there were legitimate concerns about skills and abilties, a lot of it was the same old highly subjective arguments.
In my opinon, the quest for class balance led to the bland hemogenized classes of modern mmos, where everything has to be dumbed down and generic so that players can't "imbalance" things by learning new ways to play. EQs original design defies the very concept of class balance which is why it had numerous spells and abilities that are no longer present in modern games.
I did a lot of pulling as a Monk. Sometimes it wasn't straightforward at all. I'd shuriken one, and 4 would come. I'd run halfway back, FD. The mobs at the "back" of the pack would wander back. I'd stand up, run half the distance again, beat on the lead mob a second, FD. Mend. The mob(s) at the back would wander back. I'd stay FDed, and someone would pull the mob standing over me into the raid. The second I stood up, the aggroed mobs would head towards me again. It seems (from doing it so many times) that the one I beat on before FD would remain standing over me, while the others would return.
Sometimes it was a smaller room, or mobs with larger aggro radius, and it would get more difficult. Since I couldn't get far enough away before FD to effectively split a single off. So we'd use two Monks, one FD down the hall (for example) and me throwing shurikens into the room. So when I FDed, the second Monk would wait until the mobs went back into the room, and throw a star. But since this Monk was beyond aggro radius, he only got what was still outside the room. Unfortunately, all I could do was wait until the pull was back at the raid and run a bit and FD because everything came out of the room all over again. Until I got beyond aggro radius and they forget finally.
It wasn't exciting for the raid waiting on these splits, but it was necessary because if 4 of the mobs made it to the raid it would have been a wipe. Three was iffy, but we did it a few times.
No idea how pulling will evolve in Pantheon, but it will evolve, unless the mechanics are such that it isn't necessary. It may not be a Monk, or it may be a Monk and others classes, as it was often times in EQ.
Vertego said: I think this is getting a bit off topic. I just want to be the guy that runs out and brings the bad guys to the group for the group to kill. I’d love to be able to do that while not looking like a monk.
Watch the videos they have linked, there are numerous ones showing pulling as a key part to the game.
EQ absolutely had roles. They may have not been defined from the get go, but have you ever tried tanking on a monk with no taunt skill?
The flexibility of groups in eq came from the style of combat that existed. When you're fighting 1 monster at a time, you can have a necro healing (which I commonly did at lower levels) or a shaman tanking (since fully allowable mobs are a joke). The game wasnt "designed" for you to just take 6 random players... this is proven when you attempt to go into any actual high end zone. You need an actual tank, and actual healer, and dedicated dps or else it will be a struggle.
Most games are just like this. When I was a Holy Pally during TBC, my warrior friend would tank my instances as Fury (a dps spec, not a tank spec) and it would work out fine... unless we tried to do some of the harder heroics. Pantheon will be the same. If you're just exping, you can have a DL dpsing, or a monk tanking... you'll be fine.
If you're trying to kill a boss mob at level... you might struggle.
Porygon said:EQ absolutely had roles. They may have not been defined from the get go, but have you ever tried tanking on a monk with no taunt skill?
Yes, I was a monk, I tanked in groups quite often. We also used monks as rampage tanks for certain fights. Heck the main fight that caused people to throw tantrums (and led to the monk nerf) was when a monk tanked RumbleCrush. Though to be fair, any class could tank RC and did (seen a wizard, enchanter, cleric, etc... tank RC). The "roles" were community proclaimed. I remember arguing on the forums and in game over this very thing. People started proclaiming certain classes in roles to establish ownership. It got so silly, you had people claiming they would not group unless a certain requirement of roles were met.
Fact is, tanking was a part of a monks abilties from release (it was later class roles and temper tantrums led by Furor from FoH) which pushed the monks into nothing more than a DPS pull role to which even Bards later became better at. Monks were avoidance tanks and their argo was established by their fast hits and damage. People had to manage their agro, they couldn't go silly, but I had no issues other than on necros that got over zealous.
Porygon said:The flexibility of groups in eq came from the style of combat that existed. When you're fighting 1 monster at a time, you can have a necro healing (which I commonly did at lower levels) or a shaman tanking (since fully allowable mobs are a joke). The game wasnt "designed" for you to just take 6 random players... this is proven when you attempt to go into any actual high end zone. You need an actual tank, and actual healer, and dedicated dps or else it will be a struggle.
Not "6 random" players, I didn't state that. I said that there were no "roles" that required such. You could do various combinations with different classes depending on the situation. Naturally if a situation called for more healing or a specific approach to it, then you applied the appropriate skill as needed. The same was with tanking. With monks their strength was being missed mostly (which is why they made excellent rampage tanks in raids). The downside was when they did get hit, it was pretty heavy and this created for a spikey type of behavior to the damage and not every class was best suited for it. The point is, there was not a specific set role, only needs and abilties that met them. Some classes were better than others at meeting specific needs in certain situations.
Porygon said:Most games are just like this. When I was a Holy Pally during TBC, my warrior friend would tank my instances as Fury (a dps spec, not a tank spec) and it would work out fine... unless we tried to do some of the harder heroics. Pantheon will be the same. If you're just exping, you can have a DL dpsing, or a monk tanking... you'll be fine.
If you're trying to kill a boss mob at level... you might struggle.
EQ was originally group focused as there was not a ton of raiding on release. It has been a long time, but I think the game shipped with PoA, and the Vox/Naggy (I can't remmeber if PoF was released out of the box or not, I know PoF wasn't). Naturally raiding requires different classes as opposed to groups. All classes that could heal, would at times in a raid, just as any classes that could tank, CC, etc.. would also in a raid. This however did not classify them as "the tank", "the healer", etc.. which is what mainstream "roles" became.
kreed99 said: I have played many classes and i can vouch for non traditional pulling techniques. It really comes down to player skill. If a rogue is good at single pulls let them do it. If the enchanter is awesome let them do their magic. Let the group dynamic and the individual player skill shine
Agreed. Problem is, when other classes start pulling and are successful at it, what do you say to the "puller class" who is stated to have such a role? This is why I hated the whole "The Role" type of designation to classes as it tells people "you are special and this is what you are the best at!" to which always ends badly when they are not, usually ending with drama.
Tanix said:Porygon said:EQ absolutely had roles. They may have not been defined from the get go, but have you ever tried tanking on a monk with no taunt skill?
Yes, I was a monk, I tanked in groups quite often. We also used monks as rampage tanks for certain fights. Heck the main fight that caused people to throw tantrums (and led to the monk nerf) was when a monk tanked RumbleCrush. Though to be fair, any class could tank RC and did (seen a wizard, enchanter, cleric, etc... tank RC). The "roles" were community proclaimed. I remember arguing on the forums and in game over this very thing. People started proclaiming certain classes in roles to establish ownership. It got so silly, you had people claiming they would not group unless a certain requirement of roles were met.
Fact is, tanking was a part of a monks abilties from release (it was later class roles and temper tantrums led by Furor from FoH) which pushed the monks into nothing more than a DPS pull role to which even Bards later became better at. Monks were avoidance tanks and their argo was established by their fast hits and damage. People had to manage their agro, they couldn't go silly, but I had no issues other than on necros that got over zealous.
Being ABLE to tank. And being a class that has tanking as a role are 2 different things. I regularly tanked groups on my necro by using low level snares for aggro and life taps to offset healing. This doesnt make me a tank.
I understand what you're saying though, but the community is who defines the class roles, not the developers. Shamans in WoW were originally made to be spell caster tanks... noone used them as such and the developers stopped with all the hogwash.
You're always going to have players who wont group with a class that isnt a tank. Theres nothing you can do about that. This game is clearly defining roles from the get go. I would be surprised if any class was able to cross over "effectively" into another role.
Porygon said:Tanix said:Porygon said:EQ absolutely had roles. They may have not been defined from the get go, but have you ever tried tanking on a monk with no taunt skill?
Yes, I was a monk, I tanked in groups quite often. We also used monks as rampage tanks for certain fights. Heck the main fight that caused people to throw tantrums (and led to the monk nerf) was when a monk tanked RumbleCrush. Though to be fair, any class could tank RC and did (seen a wizard, enchanter, cleric, etc... tank RC). The "roles" were community proclaimed. I remember arguing on the forums and in game over this very thing. People started proclaiming certain classes in roles to establish ownership. It got so silly, you had people claiming they would not group unless a certain requirement of roles were met.
Fact is, tanking was a part of a monks abilties from release (it was later class roles and temper tantrums led by Furor from FoH) which pushed the monks into nothing more than a DPS pull role to which even Bards later became better at. Monks were avoidance tanks and their argo was established by their fast hits and damage. People had to manage their agro, they couldn't go silly, but I had no issues other than on necros that got over zealous.
Being ABLE to tank. And being a class that has tanking as a role are 2 different things. I regularly tanked groups on my necro by using low level snares for aggro and life taps to offset healing. This doesnt make me a tank.
I understand what you're saying though, but the community is who defines the class roles, not the developers. Shamans in WoW were originally made to be spell caster tanks... noone used them as such and the developers stopped with all the hogwash.
You're always going to have players who wont group with a class that isnt a tank. Theres nothing you can do about that. This game is clearly defining roles from the get go. I would be surprised if any class was able to cross over "effectively" into another role.
Except that the monk in its release description was that it had the "ability" to be defensive, this is nowhere stated in the decription of a necromancer in the release manual of EQ. I am not talking about the issue of a class doing something completely outside of its discriptive abilities, I am talking about a class operating within its discriptions. Monks at relase of EQ were defensive and offensive, yet not defensive to the level of a mitigation defense class similar to warrior or plate wearing mitigator. Like I said, there were no roles in the original EQ descriptions. A warriior was not described as a "tank" or some soley defensive nature as most would claim.
Communites are mobs, they define things based on sheepish and often fadish popularity contests. The monk nerf in EQ was pushed primarily by mobs through the ignorance of the community and most of modern MMO design is driven by such erratic social means. My point was not attribute legitimate authority to the mob, but rather to point out the ignorance of the mob and how it can drive poor development if the developers listen to them.
I think a lot of people are missing Tanix's point, it's one that I've tried and proabably failed to make myself.
To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, an example of the point would be that you don't have to replace a rogue in your group with another melee class, or even another DPS class. You can take whatever, and the strengths and weaknesses of your group will change accordingly.
Maybe you take a second cleric and they can both nuke more. Maybe taking that second cleric lowers your kill speed by 15%, but helps you to avoid a single wipe, and therefore is actually the more efficient and effective group composition despite not having the "apppropriate" or ideal role makeup. Your kill power went down, but your durability went up. This may close one door and open another based on a whole variety of factors.
Peope are downright obsessed with dropping classes into buckets and not letting organic gameplay come to them. Part of the magic of EQ was that it allowed people to go out in the world and get things done without worrying about the perfect group all the time, yet it was still able to maintain extremely strong class identity and interdependency. In WOW, I'm not saying you couldn't do strat live without a pure tank, but dang it was not going to be fun. In EQ, in many many instances(no pun) the exact opposite was true. You could be both as effective and have an amazing time with 3 necros and 3 monks as you could be with a warrior, rogue, monk, bard, shaman and cleric.
I hope they nail that dynamic again and that people, no offense or directed at anyone, get out of this min maxing dps meter dps race gameplay that wow has brainwashed people into believing is the only type of gameplay and class design.
Tanix said:Except that the monk in its release description was that it had the "ability" to be defensive, this is nowhere stated in the decription of a necromancer in the release manual of EQ. I am not talking about the issue of a class doing something completely outside of its discriptive abilities, I am talking about a class operating within its discriptions. Monks at relase of EQ were defensive and offensive, yet not defensive to the level of a mitigation defense class similar to warrior or plate wearing mitigator. Like I said, there were no roles in the original EQ descriptions. A warriior was not described as a "tank" or some soley defensive nature as most would claim.
Communites are mobs, they define things based on sheepish and often fadish popularity contests. The monk nerf in EQ was pushed primarily by mobs through the ignorance of the community and most of modern MMO design is driven by such erratic social means. My point was not attribute legitimate authority to the mob, but rather to point out the ignorance of the mob and how it can drive poor development if the developers listen to them.
Ok, nvm. I see the issue. Your played a monk, you're mad they were nerfed. That's understandable.
Describing the monks with the "ability" to he defensive is accurate. That doesnt mean they are tanks though. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
I understand eq didnt include roles .. but it seems pantheon is. So at least everyone will be at the same level when it comes to what they expect from the various classes.
Keno Monster said:I think a lot of people are missing Tanix's point, it's one that I've tried and proabably failed to make myself.
To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, an example of the point would be that you don't have to replace a rogue in your group with another melee class, or even another DPS class. You can take whatever, and the strengths and weaknesses of your group will change accordingly.
Maybe you take a second cleric and they can both nuke more. Maybe taking that second cleric lowers your kill speed by 15%, but helps you to avoid a single wipe, and therefore is actually the more efficient and effective group composition despite not having the "apppropriate" or ideal role makeup. Your kill power went down, but your durability went up. This may close one door and open another based on a whole variety of factors.
Peope are downright obsessed with dropping classes into buckets and not letting organic gameplay come to them. Part of the magic of EQ was that it allowed people to go out in the world and get things done without worrying about the perfect group all the time, yet it was still able to maintain extremely strong class identity and interdependency. In WOW, I'm not saying you couldn't do strat live without a pure tank, but dang it was not going to be fun. In EQ, in many many instances(no pun) the exact opposite was true. You could be both as effective and have an amazing time with 3 necros and 3 monks as you could be with a warrior, rogue, monk, bard, shaman and cleric.
I hope they nail that dynamic again and that people, no offense or directed at anyone, get out of this min maxing dps meter dps race gameplay that wow has brainwashed people into believing is the only type of gameplay and class design.
Exactly!
Porygon said:Tanix said:Except that the monk in its release description was that it had the "ability" to be defensive, this is nowhere stated in the decription of a necromancer in the release manual of EQ. I am not talking about the issue of a class doing something completely outside of its discriptive abilities, I am talking about a class operating within its discriptions. Monks at relase of EQ were defensive and offensive, yet not defensive to the level of a mitigation defense class similar to warrior or plate wearing mitigator. Like I said, there were no roles in the original EQ descriptions. A warriior was not described as a "tank" or some soley defensive nature as most would claim.
Communites are mobs, they define things based on sheepish and often fadish popularity contests. The monk nerf in EQ was pushed primarily by mobs through the ignorance of the community and most of modern MMO design is driven by such erratic social means. My point was not attribute legitimate authority to the mob, but rather to point out the ignorance of the mob and how it can drive poor development if the developers listen to them.
Ok, nvm. I see the issue. Your played a monk, you're mad they were nerfed. That's understandable.
Describing the monks with the "ability" to he defensive is accurate. That doesnt mean they are tanks though. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
I understand eq didnt include roles .. but it seems pantheon is. So at least everyone will be at the same level when it comes to what they expect from the various classes.
Well, they were able to tank in groups, even some raids (rampage tanking). I tanked in my groups often with a druid healing all through release, Kunark, and Velious and SoL up until the nerf (I think before PoP was just released). They were basically avoidance based tanks and it wasn't up until around the nerf where they were "reclassified" by the community to be DPS. I was suddenly told by other players what I was, regardless of my experience and knowledge of the class, I was just told I was now a DPS class who was a puller. /shrug
Also, the rogue was never designed to be a DPS class in EQ's release, rather they were modeled after the AD&D thief class, but the problem was that they had issues with some of the design directions and due to various limitations at the time, rogues weren't able to be fully realized to their vision. If you look a Najena for instance, you will notice the zone has multiple keyed rooms and various traps. This was an attempt to provide purpose to the rogue class, but it just didn't work out well, which is why for the longest time rogues were kind of lacking a bit at release until they were repurposed.
I understand roles will be a Pantheon thing, it is a modern MMO staple now, I am just pointing out the problems that will come from roles and the massive class wars that will result (you can already see it here and people don't even fully understand the classes yet). The roles will tell people what they are supposed to be and then we will be off to the races, wait for it.. it is coming.
Tanix said:Keno Monster said:I think a lot of people are missing Tanix's point, it's one that I've tried and proabably failed to make myself.
To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, an example of the point would be that you don't have to replace a rogue in your group with another melee class, or even another DPS class. You can take whatever, and the strengths and weaknesses of your group will change accordingly.
Maybe you take a second cleric and they can both nuke more. Maybe taking that second cleric lowers your kill speed by 15%, but helps you to avoid a single wipe, and therefore is actually the more efficient and effective group composition despite not having the "apppropriate" or ideal role makeup. Your kill power went down, but your durability went up. This may close one door and open another based on a whole variety of factors.
Peope are downright obsessed with dropping classes into buckets and not letting organic gameplay come to them. Part of the magic of EQ was that it allowed people to go out in the world and get things done without worrying about the perfect group all the time, yet it was still able to maintain extremely strong class identity and interdependency. In WOW, I'm not saying you couldn't do strat live without a pure tank, but dang it was not going to be fun. In EQ, in many many instances(no pun) the exact opposite was true. You could be both as effective and have an amazing time with 3 necros and 3 monks as you could be with a warrior, rogue, monk, bard, shaman and cleric.
I hope they nail that dynamic again and that people, no offense or directed at anyone, get out of this min maxing dps meter dps race gameplay that wow has brainwashed people into believing is the only type of gameplay and class design.
Exactly!
I hate you, but I love you.
Keno Monster said:Tanix said:Keno Monster said:I think a lot of people are missing Tanix's point, it's one that I've tried and proabably failed to make myself.
To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, an example of the point would be that you don't have to replace a rogue in your group with another melee class, or even another DPS class. You can take whatever, and the strengths and weaknesses of your group will change accordingly.
Maybe you take a second cleric and they can both nuke more. Maybe taking that second cleric lowers your kill speed by 15%, but helps you to avoid a single wipe, and therefore is actually the more efficient and effective group composition despite not having the "apppropriate" or ideal role makeup. Your kill power went down, but your durability went up. This may close one door and open another based on a whole variety of factors.
Peope are downright obsessed with dropping classes into buckets and not letting organic gameplay come to them. Part of the magic of EQ was that it allowed people to go out in the world and get things done without worrying about the perfect group all the time, yet it was still able to maintain extremely strong class identity and interdependency. In WOW, I'm not saying you couldn't do strat live without a pure tank, but dang it was not going to be fun. In EQ, in many many instances(no pun) the exact opposite was true. You could be both as effective and have an amazing time with 3 necros and 3 monks as you could be with a warrior, rogue, monk, bard, shaman and cleric.
I hope they nail that dynamic again and that people, no offense or directed at anyone, get out of this min maxing dps meter dps race gameplay that wow has brainwashed people into believing is the only type of gameplay and class design.
Exactly!
I hate you, but I love you.
That is ok, I won't hold it against you that you have any love for me, even though I would say it is against your better judgment. *cbuckle*
((I understand roles will be a Pantheon thing, it is a modern MMO staple now))
Odd how perspectives can differ. My perspective is that "back in the day" you had a lot of role pidgeonholing. Tanks that couldn't do anything much else, healers that couldn't do anything much else, and a lot of group content that was darn near impossible without one of each. If a good off-tank would die in two shots but a true tank with true tank armour could laugh off 10 hits you *needed* the tank not a pair of off-tanks unless the content was trivial and it often was a lot like that.
Over the years this changed - people would gripe "I wanna be able to tank even though my class isn't a tank class" and the true tanks wouldn't be quite so good and the wannabe tanks would be able to survive longer. You got to games like Rift where any class more or less could play any role if it chose a specialization that matched the role. You got to games like FFXIV where any character could be any class.
So my perspective is that roles are "old school" and Pantheon is going back to the way things were for quite a while in quite a few MMOs and MUDs.
Note that I am not, repeat *not* disagreeing with your point that in the old games you often could do content on an "emergent" basis without precisely the "right" mix or roles. You could - the perfect group was not needed for many things. Three necros and three monks could do things and it was fun to try with non-traditional groups. But stereotypes usually have much truth to them - roles mattered back then far more than in most MMOs today.
Tanix said:Yes, I was a monk, I tanked in groups quite often. We also used monks as rampage tanks for certain fights.
Lol. Sorry this made me laugh. As a Cleric / Shaman been in this type of group so many times..
End of fight and I would be OOM from keeping super monk alive only to have him ask me. " Your OOM? What is your Wis at"
Never played a Monk who didnt think they could do everything any other player could do. Hahaha.
dorotea said:
((I understand roles will be a Pantheon thing, it is a modern MMO staple now))
Odd how perspectives can differ. My perspective is that "back in the day" you had a lot of role pidgeonholing. Tanks that couldn't do anything much else, healers that couldn't do anything much else, and a lot of group content that was darn near impossible without one of each. If a good off-tank would die in two shots but a true tank with true tank armour could laugh off 10 hits you *needed* the tank not a pair of off-tanks unless the content was trivial and it often was a lot like that.
Some of that was legitimate, some of it was people complaining they were not the best at something. Warriors used to often complain about being useless in the group, that their damage was not great, so all they really could do was tank and since other classes in groups could do such, they were useless. Again, I didn't buy into those generalized BS arguments. A warior brought even mitgation to the group over random spikey damage combined with a much deeper health pool. They also brought damage on top of that ability. Were they best at damage, no... but they brought reliable defense for main tanking and off tanking in situations where it was extremely important (ie The frenzied goul with his extremely fast hits was very difficult for a monk to tank) and any mob that had HT abilties would often destroy a monk quickly. Also with Taunt, a warrior had a superior ability to change the flow of an encounter, be it in the MT role, or ST role, or even playing a damage role with tools to cater to CC (ie pulling off mobs from casters who need to med or have built up too much hate from a failed CC attempt) So, a warrior was an excellent addition to the group, be it main tank focused, or support focused. The problem was the community and their very limited perception of what a class could accomplish.
I got so tired of hearing people whine and complain about what a class could do, the arrogance of them as they sat on their rear proclaiming obstacles unbeatable without their precious little design of the perfect group. Fact is, they were horrible players, narrow minded and limited in ability because of it. If I had a nickel for every time I proved an EQ player wrong on their claims of what could and couldn't be done, I would be a very very rich person. Fact is, that mentality is what got us to modern gaming dumbed down to appeal to those who didn't want to think, didn't want to strategize or risk something, they simply wanted be told what was best and then be rewarded for following directions.
dorotea said:
Over the years this changed - people would gripe "I wanna be able to tank even though my class isn't a tank class" and the true tanks wouldn't be quite so good and the wannabe tanks would be able to survive longer. You got to games like Rift where any class more or less could play any role if it chose a specialization that matched the role. You got to games like FFXIV where any character could be any class.
So my perspective is that roles are "old school" and Pantheon is going back to the way things were for quite a while in quite a few MMOs and MUDs.
Note that I am not, repeat *not* disagreeing with your point that in the old games you often could do content on an "emergent" basis without precisely the "right" mix or roles. You could - the perfect group was not needed for many things. Three necros and three monks could do things and it was fun to try with non-traditional groups. But stereotypes usually have much truth to them - roles mattered back then far more than in most MMOs today.
Agreed. with Rift that was their original design goal, to provide hemogenization for the classes by essentially allowing every "role" to be a main focus for every class simply by switching their talents. Hemogenistion was the solution to the whines of players who were unreasonable as you stated. I as a monk never thought myself as a "main tank", merely someone who could tank in general group situations. I never got upset if there was some group boss mob (or even trash mob) that all of a sudden destroyed my ability to tank, rather I saw this as clever design to create group dynamics that could adapt, not to "roles", but rather the numerous abilities that are present from a culmination of classes.
Look at the original Warrior decription for EQ, it didn't say "tank", it basically outlined defensive and offensive abilities. Now granted, some balance to the content of that description failed (ie warriors were lacking in some aspects of damage flexability and this I attribute to poor design on the developers part), but the point was it was not assigning a role, rather a list of abilities.
That is, "old school" EQ was D&D, it was about the game, the exploration, the content, not about balancing class dynamics and assigning directed play patterns as law. The point I have been making is that original EQ didn't create the "Holy Trinity", this was created by players and human nature through the desire to force people into catagories that make it easier for them to process and organize. If you look at old EQ classes, you can certainly begin to throw them into groups of ability, then by nature of their abilty, catagorize and establish precedence to roles, though at what cost? When you do such, past simple relational evaluation, you are dictating what should and should not be. It is fine when the community does this, as an "opinon" to what a class is or isn't is irrelevant to the practical outcome or individual play, but where this becomes a HUGE problem is when the developers buy into this idealogy as then it FORCES this on the players with the conditions of "You must be this high to ride this ride" and "If you are this, you need not apply", etc... That is, a developer designs what is allowed in the world and they dictate in most cases what is accepted, emergent play be darned. If a developer says you are DPS and you start figuring out how to tank, you can bet your bottom dollar, you will be "adjusted" by the devs eventually and put back in your "place" because the game is designed around what you are allowed to do and if you fall outside of that, the community and eventually the devs will correct it.
This is the difference in the design approach from early EQ versus modern MMO "role" design.
SoWplz said:Tanix said:Yes, I was a monk, I tanked in groups quite often. We also used monks as rampage tanks for certain fights.
Lol. Sorry this made me laugh. As a Cleric / Shaman been in this type of group so many times..
End of fight and I would be OOM from keeping super monk alive only to have him ask me. " Your OOM? What is your Wis at"
Never played a Monk who didnt think they could do everything any other player could do. Hahaha.
Was this before or after the monk nerf? The monk nerf occured just before PoP was released. Prior to the nerf, the issue with healers going OOM was they over healed and didn't understand how a monks mitigation worked (we were avoidance tanks, damage was spikey and so heal over times, regen, etc... were better suited than constant basic direct heals). It was often a timing issue, knowing when to use what spells, etc... which also varied depending on the monks gear as well (Ikky monks were a bit more AC focused and so had a more even distribution of hits). It was the trade off as human monks had better hand to hand skill ratio (which made them superior with the epic fists in damage abillity).
If it was post nerf, I have no argument as monks became damage soakers, with extreme crits and poor defensive mitigation unless they were above the 2200 AC barrier.
Ghool said: I used to solo group content and dungeons at level. I couldn't go very deep or far into a dungeon, but I was able to solo some stuff with the right skills and spells. It wasn't easy but it was do-able. I recall freaking everyone in Seb out because I would solo at the entrance and often at the exit. My Necro and my Shaman buddy could make it all the way dowen to the Chef with just the two of us and another DPS. None of that content was designed for solo or small, mismatched groups but we still did it. Even when we would get a full group, the Shaman would always pull, and he could pull from the bottom of the dungeon to almost the bottom. I would pull often as well, but that Shaman, Gronk, was the best puller ever. A pulling class or role is not really required. It can help players decide what their class is best at. But when it comes right down to it, any skilled player can assume the role of puller if done right. If a Necro and Shaman can pull something like Seb, then a role is merely a descriptor to give players a decent idea of what they're class is good at and where to focus their playstyle. That isn't to say that players can't buck that trend. That said, a puller is essential when you're camping difficult content.
Yep, pulling as a class role is pointless. Many classes will be able to pull and did in EQ. It was the ignorance of the community that attempted to define what class was designated as that "role". Heck, some of my best pulling tricks were learned from a rogue showing me mob behavior in Hate.
Tanix said:I understand roles will be a Pantheon thing, it is a modern MMO staple now, I am just pointing out the problems that will come from roles and the massive class wars that will result (you can already see it here and people don't even fully understand the classes yet). The roles will tell people what they are supposed to be and then we will be off to the races, wait for it.. it is coming.
And the alternative is what exactly? Even if the devs backed away from primary class roles the players would still be engaged in class wars, worse yet they would be more likely to attack the devs in particular for their poor balancing and leaving some classes to the wolves.
Few people in the modern gaming world would want to be a jack of all trades, master of being a taxi and not getting a group (being a last choice pick) like the druid often were in EQ. Players playing any classes like that would rightly be upset with devs if they were left with no real focus/nothing they excel at.