1. I don't like the thought process of only 2 melee plate tanks, 3 is barely enough when there 3-4 caster DPS, 3-4 melee dps, 3 healers (and really should be 4 imo with blood mage like Vanguard to heal OTHERS not just self),
2. so having the dire lord in maximum chain just ..seems wrong. Maybe I would have to play it vs a paladin and see the difference, maybe the lifetapping is enough to sustain, but I am thinking at best now the dire lord is a temporary offtank to the paladin / warrior instead of a solid replacement for a group in a dungeon with 10-15 minute constant chain pulling / being swarmed by wanderers, if mana / endurance etc is going to run out faster than a paladin / warrior.
as for armor types : I have noticed posted
1. cloth.
2. leather
3. light leather
4. chain
5. light chain
6. plate
3. Cloth is cloth across all caster classes. Excellent.
4. Leather : Druid : Leather max. Monk "light" leather max....a judgement call with race restricts per leather item created.. ?
5. Mail (chain ?) : Ranger and shaman - "LIGHT" mail ? I agree with it...ranger and shaman mail should not be as good as armor as Dire Lord regular mail...I don't know why but dire lord in "light plate" makes more sense to me.
6. 20 % bonus to AC from armor for warriors - oh yes indeedy, very similar to what I posted for ideas years ago.
7. if / when a bard comes into it, I disagreed heavily with bard plate - that heavy plate has to affect dex + agility....if able to wear, then a big hit to missed notes / avoidance should go in ..otherwise leather honestly makes more sense to me.
Rift suffered very heavily from NOT enough tanks in the game ,..it was borderline rediculous. Everquest had a very good balance of tanks (and NOT enough healers, how many people boxed a healer just so they could make a start of a group?, and EQ was generally still short healers). I would hate this dire lord not be able to tank well for 10 minutes straight due to chain armor...and maybe runnnig out of resources to lifetap.
They've said Dire Lord will be able to tank just as well as the others. Certain situations (EG paladin vs undead) will have preferred tanks but overall the three will be able to tank content. As far as armor goes i know monk has 'special monk only' gear i havnt looked at other classes to know if that's the case for them but it's in there for monk :D
Cheers
I think it is *far* too early to worry about what the game will have. Itemization is not even close to final yet.
Here's a question for everyone though: Should classes have hard limits on the armor type that they wear, or should there be other penalties instead?
For example, if you wanted to strap a plate breastplate on your ranger, should you be able to do so, just at some kind of a significant penalty?
Nephele said:Here's a question for everyone though: Should classes have hard limits on the armor type that they wear, or should there be other penalties instead?
For example, if you wanted to strap a plate breastplate on your ranger, should you be able to do so, just at some kind of a significant penalty?
I personally think it should be a combination of both. a warrior can wear heavy plate, light plate, chain. A caster can wear cloth, leather, light chain.
So in other words, if you would list them as above has been done, you can go + or -2 from the preferred / intended gear.
It should have acceptable penalty's / bonusses going either +/-1 or +/-2 from the preferred gear however. Generally going in the negative should give you an positive effect on certain base stats (not gear stats). Meaning with lighter gear, you will have less encumberance and there for are more agile or dexterious. Going with heavier gear you are more encumbered, so you should suffer a penalty on those stats, meaning you are less agile and less dexterious.
And to extrapolate this to the monk, actually having a preference for lighter gear (from eq experience), it will cause him to become more agile, but if hit, he could get a damage multiplier of 20%. So there should always be a risk vs reward in this method.
Like a cleric going for cloth, will cause the cleric to have less hitpoints and less ac, but have higher intelligence to resist spells in AE situations.
And i think you can be very creative with this kind of thinking, and maybe even have it as tooltips displayed on gear.
Nephele said:I think it is *far* too early to worry about what the game will have. Itemization is not even close to final yet.
Here's a question for everyone though: Should classes have hard limits on the armor type that they wear, or should there be other penalties instead?
For example, if you wanted to strap a plate breastplate on your ranger, should you be able to do so, just at some kind of a significant penalty?
Should you be able to swim with Plate armor on? Should there be a Stength and Endurance check?
Caine said:Nephele said:I think it is *far* too early to worry about what the game will have. Itemization is not even close to final yet.
Here's a question for everyone though: Should classes have hard limits on the armor type that they wear, or should there be other penalties instead?
For example, if you wanted to strap a plate breastplate on your ranger, should you be able to do so, just at some kind of a significant penalty?
Should you be able to swim with Plate armor on? Should there be a Stength and Endurance check?
It is things like this where you just need to suspend your disbelief and accept it as possible in a fantasy setting. There is a very long list of things that, if you tried to make it more like reality, would just ruin the game. This is fantasy..just accept that you can swim while carrying 8 bags full of stuff and wearing full plate.
As long as every class has an equal "rating" of Defense + Offense + Healing + Downtime then I don't really care how many armor types there are. But if Pantheon is yet another game where a plate-wearing class can keep up with a leather-wearing class in DPS then I'm out.
Many games end up with tanks and healers dealing similar or the same damage as DPS classes thanks to the endless complaints about them not being able to solo as well. Inevitably many people reroll as tank or healer because they end up way overpowered compared to classes that can't absorb damage or heal through it. You end up with 40% tanks, 40% healers and 20% everything else combined. You also end up with raids full of nothing but tanks, successful raids, done just to see if it can be done but making a mockery of game balance at the same time.
If we dive too deep into worrying about how many armor types there are, limiting slots to specific armor types, effect of weight and bulk of armor on movement, etc., there will be no end to the expectations of realism in the game. Every little thing that doesn't reflect absolute realism will be "game breaking", or at least immersion breaking, and detract from enjoyment of the game for many. It's best to leave those things to the realm of fantasy and hope that VR can balance their game appropriately.
1. Personally I prefer tanks to be *tanks* - heavy armour users. But it is quite common to have the tank role filled by wearers of any armour or none at all with magic providing damage absorbtion, damage mitigation, avoidance and other tankly attributes. So ...we will see.
2. I also prefer penalties and restrictions to outright prohibitions. But prohibitions simplify the programming quite a bit and I can easily live with a finger wiggler (caster) not being able to wear heavy armour at all rather than merely being unable to walk in it without a high strength and unable to use magical abilities.
((This is fantasy..just accept that you can swim while carrying 8 bags full of stuff and wearing full plate.))
We didn't have to accept it in games with weight/encumbrance limits where you could only carry items up to a certain weight and/or encumbrance modified by your strength. Pantheon will feature more planning than we are used to - inability to have every ability you have available for use at any time, for example. That design approach is *entirely* consistant with limits - perhaps severe limits - on what you can wear and carry. And with going close to the limits when you set out meaning that you cannot carry the choicest pieces of loot back with you unless you strip naked and risk a corpse run in your greed to keep that exquisite set of +1 plate.
Vandraad said:Caine said:Nephele said:I think it is *far* too early to worry about what the game will have. Itemization is not even close to final yet.
Here's a question for everyone though: Should classes have hard limits on the armor type that they wear, or should there be other penalties instead?
For example, if you wanted to strap a plate breastplate on your ranger, should you be able to do so, just at some kind of a significant penalty?
Should you be able to swim with Plate armor on? Should there be a Stength and Endurance check?
It is things like this where you just need to suspend your disbelief and accept it as possible in a fantasy setting. There is a very long list of things that, if you tried to make it more like reality, would just ruin the game. This is fantasy..just accept that you can swim while carrying 8 bags full of stuff and wearing full plate.
Honestly, I wish games would start respecting the logical aspects of such rather than dismissing insane occurences with "cuz magic". AD&D was specifically created by Gary Gygax to combat this form of irrational play that D&D produced. Keep in mind, I am not saying that everything has to be "realistic", and I completely understand the position of having practical game play implementations over some realism due to the fact that some aspects of realism is not practical to game play. That said, everything can't be dismissed with the "cuz magic" explantion. It has to have a ryme, reason, lore or purpose that is "realistic" within the games own world.
So, if a player has plate armor and it is not.... "Magical", they should sink to the bottom of a lake. If it is "magical", there should be an in-game reasoning and logic that properly explains why this is possible with that specific armor.
As for bags, this is why I think carry capacity is important. WoW (among many other games) ignored this and disregarded internal realism (ie realistic within the world) to chase more arcade/cartoon style game mechanics and play. EQ initially took to heart weight as a realistic part of game play. Money had weight, bags themselves had weight and how much a player could carry was specific to strentgh.
So, if I were to design this system. Weight would play a part in the game, but magic could change the capabilties of those base realities. For instance, if you had a bag of holding, you would essentially have a bag that had infinte space due to its design being more of a magical diminsional portal to another area, so the weight of the bag would simply be that of the material it was made of. If it were a normal bag, the weight wouldn then be the bag as well as the items it contained and in the case of swimming, it should become something that is a hardship (slowing or possibly sinking you).
I think such is not a difficult and impractical implementation to a game. You merely assign items that have weight, establish how weight will affect a player when swimming and apply it accordingly allowing magic items to circumvent such based on design.
This way you achieve practical play, as well as a "realsim" within the world itself.
dorotea said:1. Personally I prefer tanks to be *tanks* - heavy armour users. But it is quite common to have the tank role filled by wearers of any armour or none at all with magic providing damage absorbtion, damage mitigation, avoidance and other tankly attributes. So ...we will see.
This is why I disliked the way players tried to describe this function. They used "tank" as a term which directly implies the person is a damage soaker. In such, they ignored the fact that what the person is really doing is "distracting" a mobs focus. That person distracting could be absorbing damage, or they could be avoiding it. They could also if we are thinking outside the box, be doing something else entirely. Lets for instance introduce a new mechanic in play.
How about a psionic tank? Instead of the class specifically angering a mob and encouraging it to stay focused with rage on the player through physical damage, the player engages the mob with a mental contest of wills and focus. The mob then sits there, does nothing and focuses on the Psionic. To the outside view, two peopel are standing there, doing nothing, but... internally they are in a struggle (insert any type of mechanic, etc...). Now, the other players continue to beat on the mob physically to kill it, with some classes occasionally doing too much damage to break it from the contest of wills and forcing them to change focus. Healing could even play a part in this breaking of wills (too much magic cast in this process could disrupt the contest, making this more of a melee focused approach in play).
Point is, tanking is just stopping a mob from attacking another while everyone else kills it.
Is the term "tank" a small description of the play style? A tank being heavily armored unit that can take a beating so to speak? That's why I call it a tank, and not a "decoy"
That being said, a class such as Dire Lord even with only chain can use shield and restore lost health through the classes skill, could be classified as a tank I would think.
I agree that D&D armor specs was the best as to how it would effect the person wearing certain pieces of armor. I would like the chance to make the risk vs reward choice myself. However this could turn into a very deep rabbit hole if we apply all the realism into each type of armor.... would the climate effect the wearer? Leather is warmer then plate. Weapon damage different towards plate/leather/cloth.
I think it would be great if each type of armor had its own fairly net neutral plusses and minuses. You would get an extra negative for each tier of armor you are wearing above your proficiency. This way you could actual have a stat+armor type+attack type build.
It would be great if most of the character stats came at level 1 with only buffs or potions supplying much in the way of not defensive stats. Like in D&D you could go heavy armor and focus on strength and do heavy attacks well but finesse attacks poorly. Or you could focus on dex for avoidance but lower hit mitigation and finesse (see positional attacks or debuff attacks) in lighter armor.
Most of this assumes that 75%+ of stats are gained at level 1 and even with the best of the best gear you can only improve one stat by around 33% and the others by significantly less.
I would also break mitigation down into crushing, slashing and piercing for physical and the elements plus light and dark for magical/environmental. Different armors made of different materials will have different strengths vs the weapon and elemental attacks.
((Point is, tanking is just stopping a mob from attacking another while everyone else kills it. ))
Not as used in Pantheon and almost all other MMOs.
The core roles as commonly used are tank, healer, damage dealer and crowd control. What you describe is crowd control. The details you gave are essentially the psionic class some games have used and I have played in more than one of them.
As commonly used "tank" refers to a character that doesn't simply get the enemy's attention but is *attacked* by the enemy and is better than other roles at staying alive because of its superior damage absorbtion or avoidance or simply having a boatload of hit points. The classic tank in roleplaying games uses heavy armour to accomplish this, but many games (to allow classes that use medium or even light armour to "tank") do it with avoiding getting hit or having magic rather than armour absorb or deflect hits and damage.
SoWplz said:However this could turn into a very deep rabbit hole if we apply all the realism into each type of armor.... would the climate effect the wearer? Leather is warmer then plate. Weapon damage different towards plate/leather/cloth.
Maybe...,
More depth to an RPG does not hurt it, it only enhances and enriches its play. Those who complain about "complexity" being too much in a game aren't interested in gaming as much as they are looking for some entertainment to push buttons in. I would prefer that VR does not cater to the latter.
dorotea said:((Point is, tanking is just stopping a mob from attacking another while everyone else kills it. ))
Not as used in Pantheon and almost all other MMOs.
The core roles as commonly used are tank, healer, damage dealer and crowd control. What you describe is crowd control. The details you gave are essentially the psionic class some games have used and I have played in more than one of them.
As commonly used "tank" refers to a character that doesn't simply get the enemy's attention but is *attacked* by the enemy and is better than other roles at staying alive because of its superior damage absorbtion or avoidance or simply having a boatload of hit points. The classic tank in roleplaying games uses heavy armour to accomplish this, but many games (to allow classes that use medium or even light armour to "tank") do it with avoiding getting hit or having magic rather than armour absorb or deflect hits and damage.
Where does your objection counter to my point?
I would appreciate if you would "quote" me specifically Doreta rather than picking out text as you do. If you had, then the context would be clearly provided in my discussion which invalidates your current objection.
Here, let me post my argument:
Tanix said:This is why I disliked the way players tried to describe this function. They used "tank" as a term which directly implies the person is a damage soaker. In such, they ignored the fact that what the person is really doing is "distracting" a mobs focus. That person distracting could be absorbing damage, or they could be avoiding it. They could also if we are thinking outside the box, be doing something else entirely. Lets for instance introduce a new mechanic in play. (snip... Psionic discussion)
Point is, tanking is just stopping a mob from attacking another while everyone else kills it.
I didn't quote more than I did because it didn't affect my comment in any way whatever.
You say that one form of tanking is to distract a mob's focus - using the psionicist as an example.
But the psionicist is and always has been a crowd control class not a tank.
You can call crowd control a form of tanking - you can say anything you want. But words have meaning and discussions become chaotic, confusing and irrelevant when one person tries to use a well defined and established term in a way different from the way everyone else uses it.
SoWplz said:However this could turn into a very deep rabbit hole if we apply all the realism into each type of armor.... would the climate effect the wearer? Leather is warmer then plate. Weapon damage different towards plate/leather/cloth.
The bolded part isn't true. Both plate and chainmaille were worn over padded armor known as a gambeson. The gambeson was quite thick to absorb blows which also made it heavy and hot. Even in cold weather the wearer would overheat from exertion of combat wearing a heavy gambeson as well as their metal armor.
I know this wasn't the main point but it does help illustrate just how deep this rabbit hole could go. What if tanks had to shed some armor in the summer because it's just too damn hot to fight? Would casters need to wear at least leather in the winter to avoid freezing to death? How far does this need to go before it's not fun to play any more and becomes a medieval/fantasy combat simulator?
I have personally always viewed tanks as melee CC and enchanter/bard types as ranged CC. Their method is different but the fundamental point is the same (keeping damage off the DPS and healers). The abilities that make a tank a tank is not their hitpoints and mitigation is their agro control tools. Its just that tanks intentionally control agro onto themselves and the ranged CC try and nullify agro or at least damage at the expense of not doing any damage to the target.
For melee CC to work though they need to be able to survive taking damage in a healer mana efficient manor or the system breaks down. This is how people get fixated on HP and armor to define a tank rather than argo control defining a tank.
Euther said:1. I don't like the thought process of only 2 melee plate tanks, 3 is barely enough when there 3-4 caster DPS, 3-4 melee dps, 3 healers (and really should be 4 imo with blood mage like Vanguard to heal OTHERS not just self),
2. so having the dire lord in maximum chain just ..seems wrong. Maybe I would have to play it vs a paladin and see the difference, maybe the lifetapping is enough to sustain, but I am thinking at best now the dire lord is a temporary offtank to the paladin / warrior instead of a solid replacement for a group in a dungeon with 10-15 minute constant chain pulling / being swarmed by wanderers, if mana / endurance etc is going to run out faster than a paladin / warrior.
Try it before you knock it. Dire Lords are actually quite effective.
Reading between the lines...the OP wants a shadowknight.
However the community views the tanks in the long run, we won't have a good assessment until they have faced the most difficult raid mobs. The mid lvl content we have seen so far is not good enough to evaluate their differences.
Several posts removed for unnecessary "attitude" towards fellow members. Please be respectful of others opinions or ignore them, failing to do so will result in further action taken and may result in official warnings/bans.
Everyone on these forums has the right to their opinion, no one has to agree with it but please respect that it is their opinion/stance and move on, arguing with someone who has a firm position will only ever result in official moderation and potential further action taken, all over opinions!
Just because someone likes something you don't, doesn't mean we will add it into the game, so please take a breath, relax, enjoy discussing Pantheon with your fellow community members and respect others.
Thank you! :)
When it comes down to it, we are talking about flavour and that can only ever be a matter of personal opinion, indeed.
How a tank tanks is just an underlying mechanic painted over with a style. Say Dire Lords have chain and blood magic and reactive healing. Paladins have plate armour and holy barriers and mitigation. Warriors have plate mail and combat tactics and avoidance (not strictly accurate, but just examples of what tanks *could* be).
VR would be making things pretty boring if all three were plate users that tanked with mitigation. If they do it right it means some will be more effective than others depending on the situation, but all will be able to cope if they use their skills right.
If you like a particular fantasy trope and Pantheon isn't going to scratch your itch, well, that's a shame for you, but *shrug* for most people as long as they keep it interesting and deep, they will be happy.
If it turns out the Dire Lord always struggles to tank for a group, then that would be bad, I suppose, and, yes, to only have choice of two classes for 'tank' but eight for 'dps' would not be good, but to assume that will be the case just because Dire Lords use chainmail would be a bit much. Actually, a lot much since we are in pre-Alpha.
Trust In Pantheon.
This is exactly what I think a lot of us are wanting.
We dont want a "tank" in group that are 3 of pretty much same thing.. Warrior, paladin, SK all heavy plate with spells/skills that fit their class.
But there is always more then one way to skin a cat....or a goblin. So one class might just be a big dumb meat sheild ( no offense ogre warriors) but other class such as DL will be multi tasking with skills to recover HP, buff AC, piss off mobs. Maybe having to be on your feet a little more with skill weaving, but each class should have pros and cons. Maybe VR thinking is the DL will be using more magic based skills then a straight warrior, so the plate will be a bit much.