I think it is poor design (even to this day) that melee could hit creatuers that were Red+4 levels higher than them.
All the classes should have the same difficulty fighting Red+4 level mobs. That group that I joined? Should never have been possible, imo.
If the intended group content is yellow cons at best, then the occasional red should be so difficult that everyone in the group, at the end of the fight is either OOM, half health, or have burned their once-per-encounter abilities, or many consumables just to survive that fight, as a group. Seriously challenging, to the point where no-one seeks out the difficulty, because it's horrifically inefficient.
The current thread is discussing fighting above your level, so that's what I'm talking about, and that's the context of my comments. Not solo class balance or solo'ing in general. Not what the thread is about, not what I'm commenting on.
I'm in total agreement with Nephele, on this one.
I think what the OP is trying to say/experienced, is that the power curve is just too fast to feel correct in most modern games.
I have noticed a big difference between classic EQ and more modern games in terms of the difficulty curve. Perhaps like he said, to avoid zerging. It could also be related to how powerful the developer wants their players to feel as they progress.
In any event, I feel like a less radical and softer curve, while still logarithmic could make it feel a lot better and also put you in over your head very quickly.
The softer system I know and its con system are from EQ. It works well since your not always sure what level a mob is all the time, it can keep a mild form of surprise going if your fighting alot of yellow cons as shown below.
Rough EQ con system/power curve (no not cmpletely accurate but close enough for this discussion):
- green 6+ levels below, light blue 4-5 levels below, dark blue 1 to 3 levels below
- white = your level
- yellow 1-3 above, orange 4-5 and red 6+ above your level.
At least that is generally how EQ has done it and at 6+ levels you still have a small chance to win with a group helping. Your not completely useless, though nearly - when fighting a mob 6 levels above - and completely useless if 8+, which allows a great risk and likely a decent reward vs your level, if you can win. Its not impossible, just highly improbable.
At the same time this softer(wider), curve also means that dark blue cons can probably mess you up pretty good and should remain as decent XP sources that present a decent challenge, whith possibilities of major challenge, if they begin to gang up on you. I mean Zerging should work both ways no?
For a more accurate classic version see: https://wiki.project1999.com/Game_Mechanics#Consider_Color_Scalings_with_Level - essentially it uses an expanding curve as you progress; in which a level 60 player could still get XP on a mob 20 levels below them..which means a level 40 mob could still inflict some damage on the level 60 player. It works both ways.
Verses, modern games tend to put that entire power curve into 5 levels (down from 12) - 2 below and 2 above. And not only that but they put a 99.999% chance that you can't even connect with a red con mob at 3 levels - when in all reality a level 1 player should be able to poke a level 3 mob and get some result more than .0001% of the time. It also makes that scary mob feel completly trivial after only a single level gain.
So when the curve is too fast and the odds to hit become literally impossible, it doesn't feel natural - thus why it just feels wrong. Even the mosquito has a chance to hit you for 1-10HP of damage while at the same time having no hope of winning. A billion mosquitos sure could though, maybe.
TLDR: Spread out the difficulty curve a few more levels than modern games do - make the difficulty curve have more resolution and thus less explosive but meaningful power bursts to the player with each level.
vjek said:I think it is poor design (even to this day) that melee could hit creatuers that were Red+4 levels higher than them.
All the classes should have the same difficulty fighting Red+4 level mobs. That group that I joined? Should never have been possible, imo.
If the intended group content is yellow cons at best, then the occasional red should be so difficult that everyone in the group, at the end of the fight is either OOM, half health, or have burned their once-per-encounter abilities, or many consumables just to survive that fight, as a group. Seriously challenging, to the point where no-one seeks out the difficulty, because it's horrifically inefficient.The current thread is discussing fighting above your level, so that's what I'm talking about, and that's the context of my comments. Not solo class balance or solo'ing in general. Not what the thread is about, not what I'm commenting on.
I'm in total agreement with Nephele, on this one.
I completely disagree, this very narrow cherry picking. They should not attempt to balance classes by making them all be equally effective. You can't just throw out the rest of the game by using the context of this post as the entirety of what's valid to the argument. And, once again, this was a complete and utter non issue in EQ. Of all the things to complain/worry about...
Re. spells vs melee: I don't think level difference multipliers should effect the two things differently. Classes can be better balanced when it comes to level difference calculations without "making them all be equally effective". We are talking about basic mechanics of making level appropriate content challengin and fun. Leaving the casters in a group twiddling their thumbs, while physical damage doers are able to hit the higher level monsters is a crazy situation.
If it were somehow considered 'ok' because casters were somehow generally much more effective for level appropriate content than melee were, then that too, would be something that should see redesign, not be considered some kind of weird 'balance'.
Back to my OP; I'm wondering if artifical multipliers are not just for forcing players to tackle level appropriate content and, thereby making designing encounters easier, but are to restrict the level range of a group too. There are quickly diminishing returns to bringing along lower level characters. They aren't just less effective in a natural linear way related to their level, but they are exponentially less effective related to the level difference with the monsters being fought (which are likely to be at the higher level of the majority of the group).
Games additionally tend to apply XP gain penalties to groups that have high level differences (often there is a hard limit at which players gain no XP when grouped with levels much higher). Maybe XP penalties aren't considered enough of a deterant?
I need to take some time and sit down and play with some numbers to try and work out why it might really be being done... It's twisting my melon.
vjek said:Which part of the thread topic, in what you quoted, from me, Keno Monster, do you completely disagree with?
I spelled it out pretty clearly. You're cherry picking because you had a bad experience one time, while ignoring all the other things that go into balance. Just because you were on the "wrong" end of it that one time doesn't mean something was wrong with it.
So, on the thread topic, I think it is poor design that melee could hit creatures that were Red+4 levels higher than them, while casters could not, due to resists.
In my opinion, all the classes should have the same difficulty fighting Red+4 level mobs. Specifically, both melee and casters should miss or get resisted at the same rate.
Do you agree, or disagree?
((I completely disagree, this very narrow cherry picking. They should not attempt to balance classes by making them all be equally effective. ))
I agree that classes should not be equally powerful. Trying for perfect balance is a nightmare. If a class has a role and does it well - that class is fine.
On the other hand the classes should balance well in terms of their roles. Not all the same but some better at one thing and some better at other things. No class should ever be self-evidently better than others for its role in a goup or worse than the others. Meaning this as a general comment - certain classes *may* be clearly best for certain encounters.
But in general if melee classes hit mobs higher than they are far more often than ranged physical damage classes or caster classes - something is probably very wrong.
While it may be fair for a warrior to do less damage than a shaman - or vice versa - as a general rule I have trouble envisioning the circumstances that would make it logical for one to miss four times more often than the other.
vjek said:dorotea said: ... While it may be fair for a warrior to do less damage than a shaman - or vice versa - as a general rule I have trouble envisioning the circimstances that would make it logical for one to miss four times more often than the other.Agreed.
I think it comes down to spell resistance vs melee resistance of any given mob. If both resitances are zero, then everyone should hit about as often - assuming player levels and gearing are about equal. If one resitance is higher than the other, then spells or melee will hit or miss more often.
When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
I'm not necesarily disagreeing but more just hoping that the overall issue of casters vs higher level targets is looked at closer so that some adjustments can be made. Nothing is worse than feeling like you are contributing nothing to a group.
Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
If they were re-making EQ. But they aren't. So let's maybe hope for better balance and more thought?
disposalist said:Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
If they were re-making EQ. But they aren't. So let's maybe hope for better balance and more thought?
Isolating one specific thing that you didn't like and saying it was imbalanced is not logical. Classes should not all be equally as good at all the same things.
Vandraad said:Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
I'm not necesarily disagreeing but more just hoping that the overall issue of casters vs higher level targets is looked at closer so that some adjustments can be made. Nothing is worse than feeling like you are contributing nothing to a group.
When a level 34 necro or druid could kill a hill giant that might drop 30pp, and a monk or rogue or warrior needed to be level 50 with haste to do the same thing, there needed to be balance in the opposite direction. People latching on to "I can't cast on reds" are ignoring all the rest of the game and focusing on some tiny little thing that rarely came up.
((When a level 34 necro or druid could kill a hill giant that might drop 30pp, and a monk or rogue or warrior needed to be level 50 with haste to do the same thing, there needed to be balance in the opposite direction. People latching on to "I can't cast on reds" are ignoring all the rest of the game and focusing on some tiny little thing that rarely came up.))
Speaking only for myself - the opinion I have been giving is that there should be a reasonable range of parity betwen classes. Not total equality, but the example you give would constitute a gross blunder by the developers. No class under any circumstances should be that much better than other classes unless it made up for it by being dramatically weaker in a group. But in Pantheon that isn't a feasible option we want all classes to be good in groups. No Pantheon class should be able to solo difficult enemies so much more easily than other classes AND be as desirable for grouping.
dorotea said:Speaking only for myself - the opinion I have been giving is that there should be a reasonable range of parity betwen classes. Not total equality, but the example you give would constitute a gross blunder by the developers
No, it would not. A gross blunder? lol, that is exactly what defined the magic of everquest. Statements like this indicate you never played classic EQ, and I don't mean that as in insult. You're using one example to define an entire game, come on!
dorotea said:No class under any circumstances should be that much better than other classes unless it made up for it by being dramatically weaker in a group.
I'm super confused right now. The entire point is just that. I don't know what to say to you. BALANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED BY MAKING EVERYONE EQUAL. Casters were way more powerful by themselves and could get rich and do things on their own. But melee classes were needed for dungeon diving and the most difficult raid content. Arguing that a melee class could help kill a red(which was "never" a thing) backed by HEALERS should be a reason that casters should have been more powerful or melee should have been weaker in this scenario is nonsense. It's cherry picking garbage.
If the game is designed good enough imo, grping to kill reds will be highly inefficent and not wanted cept for those players that are merely trying to push their limits on purpose, but instead to grp to kill even, and orange targets for better rate of exp and possibly rewards to go along the way, lets not forget the most important currency at these levels we are talking about exp is the most important so even if you can kill reds more than likely that grp that is the same level as you guys that are killing even and orange mobs will eventually pass you up in level within time and be killing those mobs your trying to band your head against to kill they will be killing them far simpler simply by farming the most important resource of any mmo, which is exp.
((No, it would not. A gross blunder? lol, that is exactly what defined the magic of everquest. Statements like this indicate you never played classic EQ, and I don't mean that as in insult. You're using one example to define an entire game, come on!))
We simply have different opinions. Partly based on different styles of play. Partly based on different objectives for Pantheon - I don't want it to be too similar to Everquest or Vanguard I want it to be a spiritual successor to both (I know a hackneyed and almost meaningless phrase) but very different in incorporating things that can be done well now but could not be done well then. And doing things designed to appeal to an audience today - a far more jaded and experienced audience than we were when we played out first MMO or MUD (in my case well before 1999).
Part of what I want to see is a game that focuses more on cooperative and social play. One of the absolutely key elements of "the Design" for Pantheon. But I want to see it with characters that are not compelled to be in groups 24/7. That can harvest on their own when the player wants. That can craft on their own. That can explore a large and interesting world without having to run in terror if they see a large rat.
So I stand by my opinion. Classes should not be too similar in either abilities or overall power. If one class can kill an enemy two levels higher without much pain, while another struggles against one 2 levels lower - OK that is better than excessive focus on "balance". But if one class can kill purples while another may die to a gray. No that is simply bad design.
Your point about some melee classes making up in group utility what they lack in other respects is entirely correct historically. You may also recall that tanks were often hard to find and almost full groups would wait and perhaps dissolve for lack of enough tanks. One reason for this is that back then tanks couldn't do much else *other* than the group content and a lot of players - group focused players - didn't want to have nothing but grouping that they could do. So they didn't roll tanks.
You may also have noticed that in these degenerate and debased days when all classes can solo effectively (if not equally) in most MMOs tanks are far easier to find. Often spam to fill groups actually asks for DPS classes. If casters can kill dragons and melees can kill rats ... SMALL rats ...... almost no one will want to roll a tank.
Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:Keno Monster said:Vandraad said:When it is known that melee can deal damage against higher con mobs (orange-red), then groups will want to employ more melee-focused groups and leave casters on the sidelines. So if your in a zone where the potential to deal with higher con mobs is a significant concern or your group is deliberately going after higher con mobs, the safety factor of using more melee comes into play. Your melee heavy group is then more reliable, more predictable and is much closer to its maximum capability than if you had multiple casters.
I don't see the problem with this. This is one situation, where the rest of the game is going to be filled with casters AEing, charming, kiting, murdering things with pets.
I'm not necesarily disagreeing but more just hoping that the overall issue of casters vs higher level targets is looked at closer so that some adjustments can be made. Nothing is worse than feeling like you are contributing nothing to a group.
When a level 34 necro or druid could kill a hill giant that might drop 30pp, and a monk or rogue or warrior needed to be level 50 with haste to do the same thing, there needed to be balance in the opposite direction. People latching on to "I can't cast on reds" are ignoring all the rest of the game and focusing on some tiny little thing that rarely came up.
In your example the problem is the ridiculous situation where one class needs to be 20 levels higher to even be able to attempt the same content. It's not something good that needs balancing somehow, it's something bad that needs fixing.
Fixing that kind of thing does *not* mean everyone can do everything, it means no one is horribly gimped. This does not means classes are homogenised, it means their differences will be meaningful choices needing tactics to mitigate, not overall power swings with no solution except to level up way beyond where others need to.
In a 'fixed' system, a paladin might well be able to take on something higher level than a dire lord, but only if the monster is undead because the paladin has extra abilities to deal with undead and the undead has no blood for the dire lord to manipulate, but you wouldn't make it so the dire lord can't even hit the same targets as a paladin unless it were 20 levels higher. The dire lord might even be able to completely mitigate the relative lack of ability by choosing anti-undead gear or potions or whatever.
A druid might be able to take on something higher level than an enchanter, but only if the monster is an animal, because the druid has extra abilities to deal with animals and the animal doesn't have a sophisticated mind that can be coerced and psionically blasted by the enchanter, but again, you wouldn't make it so the enchanter can't even hit the same animals as a druid of the same level. The enchanter might even be able to mitigate the problem by using a focus that shifts his mental abilities into the physical or some such weirdness.
The point is, in no situation should two classes, of the same level, go after the same monster and one be able to kill it and the other barely be able to effect it, never mind kill it. That's just frustrating and wrong, not something to be balanced.
As for "latching on to "I can't cast on reds"", that is what I was asking about, though. Simple level difference between monster and character, not differences in classes at any particular level.
In all this, though, it's a matter of degree not absolutes, I suppose. I do want class interdependence. I do want classes to have meaningful differences. In my examples, the dire lord or the enchanter should be noticably weaker (or perhaps rather the paladin and the druid be noticably strongly) such that you would want to seek out a druid or a paladin and the same goes for any other class when what makes them good is effective for the situation you are going to be in for that session.
You don't want the situation, though, where you can't continue without a certain class or where some classes are useless even when presented with level appropriate content.
You could easily just have it to where hill giants just have so much "health" to where even if a necro did so happen land all his spells and such his mana pool just cant compare to the hill giants health so regardless of anything you will always need a grp to kill them, and just have it to where they arent lvl 34 or whatever but 55-60 so you will always need a grp and you cant simply just out level them and than start soloing, bam solved the problem both ways. EQ had a ton of things right but some things weren't and situation like the hill giants i believe wasnt right, it would of if they were 55-60 and impossible to solo regardless of what you did, and required a grp to split the goods of fighting above average content, but to have it to where a lvl 35 necro kill every single hill giant without breaking a sweat, and for a warrior might as well never try is honestly makes no sense, so again make it to where Giants, Dragons, any Large NPC nonsoloable, makes their hp pool so large we simply cant overcome it ourselves to influence grping to get the sweet treasures they hold.
I could also say with them being so big and strong they they could also be immune to root, slows, and cc effects, to increase their difficulty.
Now for mobs being 4+ levels and being super strong agianst caster compared to melee instead of making casters casters able to hit more often simply make it to where melee hit less and also have it to where missing can cuase a small amount of aggro throughout time and could eventually strip from the tank even if he isnt hitting the mob but since the tank isnt either than since he dpsers could be swinging faster he could simply strip it, the simple of the manner is their is ways to make the game more even without actually changing things that make casters more powerful.