MauvaisOeil said:Zorkon said:I think the whol "balance" thing is second only to QOL at destroying the MMORPG genre, so I get crappy feelings every time someone even mentions it. So I'm just going to list a few bullet points.
- PVP probably requires some balancing.
- There is Class balancing
- There is Race Balancing
- There is Roll Balancing.
- There are some that promote all class and races should balance.
So Kils is asking about Class Balance.
My opinion is NO, Classes shouldent balance at all, no consideration at all put into classes. Classes need to be distinct.
Even going so far into Roll balancing (but thats not what Kilsin asked) there should be a bit in that area, but not a big concern. A Warrior should be hands down the BEST all around Tank The others can do it but none as good as a Warrior. YES Raids should NEED a Warrior tank. Same With Healer, None should be able to heal better than a Cleric, if your going to Raid, don't expect to be sicsessful with a Druid or Shammy as your main healer.
The Balance would come in with the rest of the utilitys that these others can offer, it may be added DPS (Damage Shields), it may be mitigated Damage (slows) If you want to balance it some like that it would be acceptable. But it should NOT interfear with the classes being Distinct.
But based on what ? What would dictate the cleric or warrior should be "best in role" except it was the case in 1999 in another game ? What if all the tools these classes had outside of their "role" outweighted other similar classes and simply made them secondary to their role while Dl/Pal or Dru/shm best than warrior and clerics in raid design ?
This whole assertion is based on "warriors and clerics only get the tools to play their role so they should be the best at it", but it's not what is planned for pantheon, so ?
"based on what?"
Based on my experience and what I've seen in mmorpg's and why I find all the new ones boring.
And beyond that I needn't explain any more, Kilsin asked for our opinions, I gave mine, I'm stuck with it you're not. Give your's and let's move on.
Zorkon said:"based on what?"
Based on my experience and what I've seen in mmorpg's and why I find all the new ones boring.
And beyond that I needn't explain any more, Killin asked for our opinions, I gave mine, I'm stuck with it you're not. Give your's and let's move on.
I actually gave it in page one. I was simply curious on what was your opinion based on about such specific best in roles matching Everquest at perfection.
"Class balance" means a lot of things.
Should all classes be "as powerful" as one another? Well, yes, is the answer, but only from a point of view that they should all be desirable in a group. Group interdependency and synergy and class distinctiveness is much more important.
Should all classes be able to solo equally well? Not really, but I suppose it would be good to try and have all able to solo to some degree. You should really need to duo and trio and a full group of course be the ideal, but I would go so far as to say that soloing should be possible, but equally difficult *for all classes*. Balanced in that way.
Should all classes be able to do all things equally well. No. Homogenised do-all classes are a major factor in reducing the need to group up and communicate and synergise and all that good stuff. Also dumbs down the possibilities for encounter tactics and strategies and whatnot. This is one of the major reasons for 'the fall of MMORPGs'! in my not-so-humble opinion. May as well play a single-player RPG.
Should all classes within a role (healers, tanks, control, damage) be balanced to be "as powerful". I'm going to say yes here, because I believe VR can make the classes distinct *and* have them fulfill their role as well as the others *in that role*. No class should be as good at another role as a class within that role, though. For example, yes, druid, shaman and cleric should all be good at keeping the group alive. Equally 'good'. They will achieve that in different ways and those ways *may* work *somewhat* better in different encounters depending on class, but generally, all healers should be good healers. All tanks should be good tanks. Etc. It may well be that a Paladin can heal others *a bit*, or a Rogue can CC *a bit*, etc, but no class should be anywhere near as good at another role as a class that is supposed to be that belongs to that role.
Class identity is overrated. It creates too ridged of a design structure if every class needs to be unique yet still valued. What is better to consider is primary and secondary group roles. Every class that is primary as a group role should be balanced in that role across the total content library. Specific content can spike power levels up or down for a specific class lore manifestation but preferably the spikes will not be to the point of making them worse than a different class with that group role as a secondary role.
Roles as I see them: Physical DPS, Magical DPS, Physical CC (Taunt and mitigation), Magical CC, Buffing (preemptive healing sorta), and Healing,
The primary roles will be at 100% strength and the secondary role will be at 50% strength with the possibility of some stance/choice that will allow a character to switch to 75%/75% when out of combat.
How classes abilities are assigned and flavored is the art of game design but should start from the same base math models or you will be forever running around with the buff carrot and the nerf stick.
I think balancing within a role makes sense, as long as all members of that role have secondary features that set them apart. So for tanking, Direlord mitigates magic better than either Pal or War, on the other hand Pal and War should be able to mitigate physical damage approximately equally. They Pal's get bonuses to fighting undead and healling, War get's bonuses to group buffs (via banners) and higher damage output. Direlords likely get the highest damage output, self buffs, and anti caster abilities.
In healing the same should be true. If played well all 3 healers should be able to heal about the same amount over a cycle if played optimally. Say maybe 10-20 seconds? Shaman get additional utility with slow, buffs, and debuffs. Clerics get power against undead, buffs, and fortification (walls and such). Druids get damage shields, maybe higher damage (still less than dps), and their other nature benefits.
You can make each class unique while keeping the main role of the class balanced. This then allows people to be successful in their role while still making classes distinct.
A lot of great points have been added here so I want to add my 2 cents. Everyone pretty clearly agrees that balance does not mean everyone can do everything, but rather everyone needs to have a role that is useful so all classes are equally viable.
I would add to that a balance in content. If a Paladin's strength is going to be against undead, there needs to be ALOT of undead in the game. Several dungeons, several raid bosses, etc. If a paladin's strength only plays into 2% of the game, why would anyone want to be a paladin? Sure a pally shouldn't be required to clear a certain dungeon, but enough to be valuable. That is just an example, but it needs to be applied across all classes. Everyone needs to have strengths and weaknesses and the game needs to lean into those strengths and weaknesses,
Maybe you have a Warrior tanking an undead boss that a pally would do better against, no problem! A bard in the group could make up the differenc, of course then you have to forgo another group member, maybe you have one less dps because you had to add the bard to make up for the weakness at tank.
Balance in content is just as vital as balance in classes.
Ranarius said:Yeah that's a hard disagree for me, and the opposite of what Pantheon has always been working toward. "Best in role" systems are trash.
So are you saying that a ...
druid should do as much direct healing as a cleric? AND get all the other stuff druids get?
warrior should do as much melee dmg as a rogue? AND be able to tank?
etc.
I am saying a druid should be able to sustain as much healing as a shaman or cleric within a given frame of time.
I am saying a paladin should tank just as well as a dire lord or a warrior in most cases. No idea where you would get the idea of warriors doing as much melee damage as a rogue.
All classes should have parity in terms of performance with others that share the same primary role. No "best of" for roles.
Balancing of a group is needed certainly...A group should use separate classes with unique talents to create balance. Maybe some classes unique talents might be the only way to successfully counter some dispositions and climates creating those moments for intelligence and constitution based class talents to shine.
On the other hand, should a cleric be able to solo kill mobs? Of course not, that should take a very long time if at all. sure, some type of blessing on the undead should at least debuff them..and clerics should be fairly tough imo
The class idiosyncrasies should make sense though to some degree.
For example. would a tank be able to do lots of dps? Damage upon hitting a slow target should be great I would think. BUT being big and covered in full plate AND fast/accurate enough to affect a high hit rate that translates to dps? I think it would be better just make the mobs soloable if that's the goal.
maybe the tank could take off all their armor and load up a light sword and try to balance that out, but then say bye bye to tanking...
It certainly doesn't make sense that dps would be anywhere near fast rogue or magic caster with their hit rates especially vs a fast or physically armored target. Since I like to point back to old rpg games, FF1 had monsters where physical classes would do only 1 hp damage or those that couldn't be hit at all 99% of the time by physical attacks and vice versa. you then had to choose the proper class and attack to win.
This isn't an MMOFPS...it's a role playing game
That said, should each class be able to survive traveling alone in the wilderness? Yes, with caveats and never as effectively as with a group, But in their own unique way.
In my experience, knowing when and how to avoid a confrontation is more important for solo survival that being able to fight...and fighting alone is no way to survive...after all, they who sleep alone in a wilderness filled with monsters, are they who die alone in a wilderness filled with monsters (unless they hide in a tree like a ranger in the forest, or disappear like a wizard in the fog)
Also, taking it one step further, is a warrior as crafty as a wizard or cleric? I think those talents in the workshop should vary as well.
I can see however why other games moved toward homogeneity in classes. Making each class uniquely talented and at the same time synergized with the rest of the classes almost seems like it requires a long evolution in development
As I think on this there is one place, I really hope they balance the classes. Enjoyment to play. In EQ the warrior was given so little abilities it is kind of surprising as many people played them as they did even with them being the best overall tank. While not all classes in Vanguard were perfect, I do think it was a huge improvement over EQ on enjoyment to play.
So, all classes and roles should be balanced on how fun and rewarding they are to play.
They should all be different in different areas. Balance is not required. A DPS class should do more DPS but take more damage, a Tanking class should take hits better and obviously deal less damage. A healer should be able to rez, the other hybrid class should not. If there were the same or chould do the same whats the point of having differenct classes. You might as well just make 3.
The balance is sorted out in the group makeup. You could have a warrior & a cleric grouping dioing a kill every 3 minutes due to dps and damage mitigation vs a monk and a cleric doing a kill every 2 minites with 1 minute of mana recovery.
Or 3 monks in a group with 2 clerics doing fast dps but with a higher chance of a monk getting tanked to death from a slow heal or a badly timed fizzle vs a group with a tank, rogue, mage, shaman, cleric. I know whigh group makeup I would prefer to be in.
well you need to have some sort of class balance,but it is hard to get it right and many pitfalls first you need a measuring tool.
Like how well can this class do its primary classrole like tank/healing/dps can the class do other things like have the means to solo.
what utilitys can they use buffs/debuffs/resource cost/mana regen/
quality of life like rez/teleport/sow
so how to notice how the balance is not there, well if the total population of tanks is 60% warrior 30% paladin and only 10% direlords then something is most likly wrong with direlords or warriors are just to great.
if a class can do to mutch and is good att it to and can do its primary role equally good then many player will play that class.
solutions you can buff the other class but it a dangerus "wow" path to take making every class able to do everything removes the whole class concept alltogether.
second solution debuff hammer also somewhat dangerus it will make people very unhappy and will always make a loud grumble and generate to mutch hate it is most likly any game developer vill cave in because its not fun to have your main charachter who you played for 4 month suddenly lose some vital powers.
Many have said that class balance is not important and the fun factor is the primary drive well i disagree to have a fun game i like diversity ! why because i want to see all classes play together i dont want to se only that type off tank/healer or someone is left behind like why are you playing ranger they suck go and play with some rabbits over there we only want real dps classes.
This is why i think class balance is important...
Best regards Aqua
I am saying a druid should be able to sustain as much healing as a shaman or cleric within a given frame of time.
I am saying a paladin should tank just as well as a dire lord or a warrior in most cases. No idea where you would get the idea of warriors doing as much melee damage as a rogue.
All classes should have parity in terms of performance with others that share the same primary role. No "best of" for roles.
I totally agree that all classes should have value in a party. But to say a druid should be able to sustain the same amount of healing as a cleric can't be right. A druid gets a bunch of other things a cleric doesn't get...so why would anyone choose a cleric? I guess that's my point. I am planning to play a druid, and I am going in with the expectation that I can get the healing done, but not as nicely as a cleric. Sacrificing some healing is worth it to me to get the other benefits of a druid. I hope that makes sense.
(I am really not an here to say you're wrong or anything and I really don't like arguing online so I hope the tone doesn't sound like an argument, just FYI :))
@Ranarius another option here would be to give the cleric a little something else. If all healers can heal equally but druid and shamans have other aspects that make them special, instead of taking something away from them give more to the cleric. I never played a cleric in EQ but it seemed to be the class was a little dull when it came to skills other then healing and rezing.
starblight said:@Ranarius another option here would be to give the cleric a little something else. If all healers can heal equally but druid and shamans have other aspects that make them special, instead of taking something away from them give more to the cleric. I never played a cleric in EQ but it seemed to be the class was a little dull when it came to skills other then healing and rezing.
Seconded
Ranarius said:I totally agree that all classes should have value in a party. But to say a druid should be able to sustain the same amount of healing as a cleric can't be right. A druid gets a bunch of other things a cleric doesn't get...so why would anyone choose a cleric? I guess that's my point. I am planning to play a druid, and I am going in with the expectation that I can get the healing done, but not as nicely as a cleric. Sacrificing some healing is worth it to me to get the other benefits of a druid. I hope that makes sense.
(I am really not an here to say you're wrong or anything and I really don't like arguing online so I hope the tone doesn't sound like an argument, just FYI :))
I don't think non-combat utility should have any weight on balancing for combat effectiveness for any role.
I fully suspect that cleric will have the easiest or most straightforward healing of the three, whereas shaman/druid will be a little more involved to put out the same numbers in a period of time; All of them can heal as well as one another, just some do it easier. People will play cleric because they like their flavor/playstyle for healing.
Iksar said:Ranarius said:I totally agree that all classes should have value in a party. But to say a druid should be able to sustain the same amount of healing as a cleric can't be right. A druid gets a bunch of other things a cleric doesn't get...so why would anyone choose a cleric? I guess that's my point. I am planning to play a druid, and I am going in with the expectation that I can get the healing done, but not as nicely as a cleric. Sacrificing some healing is worth it to me to get the other benefits of a druid. I hope that makes sense.
(I am really not an here to say you're wrong or anything and I really don't like arguing online so I hope the tone doesn't sound like an argument, just FYI :))
I don't think non-combat utility should have any weight on balancing for combat effectiveness for any role.
I fully suspect that cleric will have the easiest or most straightforward healing of the three, whereas shaman/druid will be a little more involved to put out the same numbers in a period of time; All of them can heal as well as one another, just some do it easier. People will play cleric because they like their flavor/playstyle for healing.
I agree I think a Druid should be as effective as a healer as a Cleric, and if you honestly think the reaosn why you shouldn't is becuase you have some extra "Flare" to your class, that simply just means Clerics should get more "Flare" thrown into their kit if anything else
Makese sense (adding "flare" to cleric to make them equally attractive outside of combat situations).
I'll also just add that I personally am OK with one class being better at healing than another, and one class being better at tanking than another, etc. Although, VR has already made it clear that certain classes will shine in certain situations. Maybe the type of healing a druid does will be perfect for situation A and the type of healing a cleric does will be perfect in situation B.
I guess the short answer is ... I'm pretty easy going lol. I'll play and have fun even if I have the "worst in class" because that's how I role.
@Ranarius I rarely play a healer and never as my main and that might explain my position but I am also perfectly ok with one class being best at healing. But not at the expense of the class being boring to play. Maybe this is why I do not play a healer as my main. I really enjoyed playing a druid in EQ and VG so I figure as long as the healer class has something more to give then heals and rez I enjoy it.
Class balance within similar roles is important. DPS classes should be similar in DPS. Healers should be similar in healing.
Class balance between roles is ridiculous. Tanks and healers should not be top DPS. Hybrids should not be equal to pure classes, in any of the roles.
Hybrids are not really a thing. You are either a primary role or you are a secondary role. Regardless of the name of your class your primary role should function with equal magnitude across the average of content as any other class name of the same primary role.
Where it gets interesting is the secondary role and perhaps tertiary. Paladin is a Tank primary, Melee DPS secondary and Healing tertiary. Warrior is a Tank Primary, Melee DPS secondary, Buffer tertiary. Dire Lord is a Tank primary, Melee DPS secondary, Debuffer tertiary. The tertiaries might actually just be a second secondary in magnitude.
Seconding Trasak here. Hybrids existed in a design where they would pick skills and passives from two classes, like beeing plate and martial proefficient with access to lower tier cleric skills (or druids, necromancers, etc...), that would give them an edge over tools and abilities avaliable.
That doesn't exist in a game where "pure classes" have a toolkit as valuable and diverse as the old conceived "hybrids". The notion of pure class/hybrid is reliquary from EQ where it mainly became during kunark and velious as "Viable/Non viable" for abstract reasons and sometimes really lackluster tools.