As Pantheon aims to balance the healing ability of the three healers, just as it should be done to ensure all three are viable solo healers for a group and all wanted on raids, the classes continue to remain distinct in the flavour of utility and the other things they bring to a group.
When it comes to the damage output of all three, I hope they are also equally balanced too.
Whether that means that they all have equal output but:
Then so be it, but I hope we don't get the healing parity but DPS disparity that EQ2 gave us.
EQ1 had the DPS to Healing disparity too. Druid and Shaman healing suffered because of their ability to DPS/solo (compared to Cleric).
With that said I don't think there will be any balance at all in regard to the DPS value of non-DPS roles in this game. The only DPS balance will be that the DPS roles will do more damage than all other roles. I'd be willing to bet that when put in a DPS role (where there is a better qualified healer in the group) the Shaman and Druid will severly out DPS a cleric in a parse (especially if the SHM pet does anywhere near NPC damage).
Even within the DPS roles, ranged vs melee likely won't "directly" contribute to balance of the DPS metric (it will "indirectly" of course because of positioning or potential belly cast type mechanics).
In summary, the healer (and tank) roles will have different DPS capabilities. I'd advise anyone concerned with DPS to not play the Healer Role with that expectation.
In EQ1, the dps output of healing classes is very unbalanced but on purpose. The druid is primary a healer class, but he/she was also a secondary dps and utility class. As a matter of facts, the druid is third best nuker behind the wizard and the mage. Shamas and clerics come far behind in terms of dps ; clerics are close to zero dps except against undeads.
This unbalance, as said, was on purpose because it was tied to the secondary role. As long the primary role (to be a healer) is well balanced between the three healer classes in Pantheon (which are the same classes as in EQ), I don't see unbalanced dps output to be an issue if their secondary roles reflect that unbalance and have a meaning for gameplay.
However, I am not yet very familiar with healing classes in Pantheon, so I may of course be wrong, but I think it is already quite difficult to balance primary roles (here healing) so we might wait a bit the game to be on its rails before focusing on secondary roles.
Iksar said:Yes, I expect them to only be balanced in their healing output. Everything else I don't imagine to be given much parity, I especially don't imagine them all having equal DPS.
Which is a recipe for disaster for the class(es) generally deemed as lacking compared to the others. The druid teleport immediately presents a glaring balance problem in terms of desirability...
@Iksar - I get what you are saying when you say "I can't think of a game that I have prioritized a class for grouping because of something they can do that doesn't actively help in the goal of killing things or keeping the party alive." but there are many games I can think of... EQ being the original, WoW being the most popular and according to the dev's vision of PRotF, this will be the same. i.e. People will absolutely prioritize a spot in a group for say teleportations, summonings, resurrections, or other special navigation tools (invis, enduring breath, levitate etc) as long as they have a tank and healer. You weren't even getting into some of the planes without a wizard in your group in EQ for many expansions.
@Zyellinia - I wouldn't say the imbalance by itself is a "recipe for disaster" but it could be if combined with it being something that the players are not made well aware of during charcter selection so that people don't unkowingly select a class that won't be what they expect it to be. If players select a class based on the description of the class role and 3+ months later find out that their class is sub-par compared to another, THAT could lead to a downward spiral of viral videos and flaming that could be very bad PR for a young game given the craze of cancel culture lately.
I'm an advocate of full disclosure during character creation, to include a list of primary skills (with numreic values) along with a .GIF of how the character is expected to perform in typical combat at max level (very cool part of BDO character selection... REALLY helped me decide which class to choose).
Darch said:but there are many games I can think of... EQ being the original, WoW being the most popular and according to the dev's vision of PRotF, this will be the same. i.e. People will absolutely prioritize a spot in a group for say teleportations, summonings, resurrections, or other special navigation tools (invis, enduring breath, levitate etc) as long as they have a tank and healer. You weren't even getting into some of the planes without a wizard in your group in EQ for many expansions.
Those games weren't balanced or planned via role the same way that Pantheon is supposed to be. In EQ Cleric was the clear best healer by a long shot, and thus far more wanted for groups for healing. WoW had relatively poor balancing among healers as well, but you could still do most content with any of the healers well enough (and it didn't matter too much anyway with group finder removing most of the player role in group composition).
If a group needs a healer in Pantheon, they will more often than not take the first healer they can find given they will all be pretty much equal in that role. Will there be very specific cases/areas where one healer is more desireable than others? Probably. But I'd bet against that being the norm.
@Iksar - I see what you are saying (and I agree). But I don't think that was the point trying to be made. I think the point was that people that haven't played a game like EQ may be expecting that even within the roles that all other utility and damage will be homogonized (without being identical) but as some of us know, that is not going to be the case. Some classes will have much more utilitiy and/or damage than others within the same role and therefore be selected or ostracized over others when given the choice. i.e. If you're in a group looking for a healer, do you pick the lvl 30 cleric or lvl 30 druid LFG... and if at any time that answer excludes consideration of player skill/reputation (simply because one class is vastly superior than the other "at the role it is designed to fulfill"), that is when you have a fundamentally flawed game mechanic.
Add: Other utility and damage should not affect the efficacy of a class' primary role.
Not going to lie, I hope that balance in this game does not exist at all. And that is not a joke.
I hope that clerics absolutely dumpster shamans and druids in healing. I hope that druids and shamans can solo and clerics can't. I hope that warriors can't solo well, but are an absolute required piece on a raid. I hope that necromancers absolutely wreck things in solo and are viewed as inadequate in groups (except good necros will prove this wrong easily).
Balance doesn't lead to a better game, it really doesn't. It leads to everyone being the same with different names of skills that have the same outcome. Having a class have a role, now that is the most important thing. If that means that a warrior is so incredibly busted in terms of defensive output, then his damage should suffer accordingly with a rogue doing the exact opposite. Or a wizard sending a monster to another dimension while an enchanter mana sieves it's ability to cast. I hope that a ranger and a rogue do not do the same damage in melee at all. I hope that a monk obliterates every other melee class in damage except the rogue in terms of damage. I want to see pet classes be the envy of others because they're soloing things mostly naked allowing them to do things earlier than others.
If you want balance, play some a bunch of poor games that has every class feeling the same. If everyone does the same damage, then why even bother playing anything than a primary version of that role. If they're all the same, just have 1 healing class, 1 tank class, 1 dps class...or better yet, just do a guild wars and have everyone be their own healer and damage. Having classes excel at something so incredibly hard made them special. This makes them feel needed. Everything balanced? I'd probably never touch the game. EQ was glorious because it was not balanced and they didn't even attempt to balance it. And if you think it was balanced, humor me, what was balanced?
akahdrin said: Not going to lie, I hope that balance in this game does not exist at all. And that is not a joke.
Balance doesn't lead to a better game, it really doesn't. It leads to everyone being the same with different names of skills that have the same outcome.If you want balance, play some a bunch of poor games that has every class feeling the same.
Hi akahdrin, I don't think I've seen your posts before, so welcome to the forums :)
I could agree with everything you said, if the words "exactly equal" were substituted for the word "balance". While one can say "X is balanced" or "X is un-balanced", those are not absolutes like Yes & No or 0 & 1. And everyone tends to have a different standard of how close to equal that two Classes need to be to call them balanced.
Frequently, people fall into the 'binary trap' that something is either totally X or totally Not-X. That happens often in discussions like this one. In real life (which includes the building of imaginary worlds hehe) most things occur on a spectrum. And it's pretty inevitable at this point in development that all the Class's primary and secondary abililites will do so as well.
VR's stated goals have been that 'every Class within a group role - such as Healer, DPS, etc. - will be able to perform that role successfully, in most situations, but using different strategies & tactics'. Within that, there will be certain scenarios where one Class in that role will have an easier time of succeeding than any of the other Classes, and other scenarios where they will have a harder time.
They have also acknowledged more than once that making all Classes in each role "exactly equal" would indeed cause the consequences you have mentioned. They don't want that any more than you or the rest of us do. They are striving for enough differences to offer us choices, without creating 'the best' or 'the worst' Class for any role.
Of course VR may fail totally at this. If I thought that was likely, I wouldn't still be here. So assuming they succeed, I expect that the various Healing Classes' primary group function will be the most closely balanced, while secondary and then tertiary abilities will have a wider range of imbalance for a wider variety of situations.
I can't wait to jump into Alpha and try it out! Hope to see you ingame.
Jothany said:akahdrin said: Not going to lie, I hope that balance in this game does not exist at all. And that is not a joke.
Balance doesn't lead to a better game, it really doesn't. It leads to everyone being the same with different names of skills that have the same outcome.If you want balance, play some a bunch of poor games that has every class feeling the same.
Hi akahdrin, I don't think I've seen your posts before, so welcome to the forums :)
I could agree with everything you said, if the words "exactly equal" were substituted for the word "balance". While one can say "X is balanced" or "X is un-balanced", those are not absolutes like Yes & No or 0 & 1. And everyone tends to have a different standard of how close to equal that two Classes need to be to call them balanced.
Frequently, people fall into the 'binary trap' that something is either totally X or totally Not-X. That happens often in discussions like this one. In real life (which includes the building of imaginary worlds hehe) most things occur on a spectrum. And it's pretty inevitable at this point in development that all the Class's primary and secondary abililites will do so as well.
VR's stated goals have been that 'every Class within a group role - such as Healer, DPS, etc. - will be able to perform that role successfully, in most situations, but using different strategies & tactics'. Within that, there will be certain scenarios where one Class in that role will have an easier time of succeeding than any of the other Classes, and other scenarios where they will have a harder time.
They have also acknowledged more than once that making all Classes in each role "exactly equal" would indeed cause the consequences you have mentioned. They don't want that any more than you or the rest of us do. They are striving for enough differences to offer us choices, without creating 'the best' or 'the worst' Class for any role.
Of course VR may fail totally at this. If I thought that was likely, I wouldn't still be here. So assuming they succeed, I expect that the various Healing Classes' primary group function will be the most closely balanced, while secondary and then tertiary abilities will have a wider range of imbalance for a wider variety of situations.
I can't wait to jump into Alpha and try it out! Hope to see you ingame.
I agree.
I just hope thatt the majority of folks playing Pantheon are those that value community and support all classes being useful in game. I will admit that folks talking about trying to make classes equal in DPS or healing is rather concerning to me, because it reminds me of the incessant whining on Wow forums for 'balance'. I know that will exist here in some form, but I'd rather it not become the norm or what the majority of players ask for. Breaking those 'norms' is why I choose Pantheon.
akahdrin said:Not going to lie, I hope that balance in this game does not exist at all. And that is not a joke.
I hope that clerics absolutely dumpster shamans and druids in healing. I hope that druids and shamans can solo and clerics can't. I hope that warriors can't solo well, but are an absolute required piece on a raid. I hope that necromancers absolutely wreck things in solo and are viewed as inadequate in groups (except good necros will prove this wrong easily).
That is called Everquest ;)
j/k... but seriously.
Dikenzu said:I just hope thatt the majority of folks playing Pantheon are those that value community and support all classes being useful in game. I will admit that folks talking about trying to make classes equal in DPS or healing is rather concerning to me, because it reminds me of the incessant whining on Wow forums for 'balance'. I know that will exist here in some form, but I'd rather it not become the norm or what the majority of players ask for. Breaking those 'norms' is why I choose Pantheon.
Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, you can't deny the success of WoW, which is largely due to the synergy and fluidity of their class system. That is literally one of the two pillars WoW's foundation of success (the other being the combat responsiveness with pinpoint animations combined with near perfected uncanny valley balance).
We all want something to "break those 'norms' (which were 'normalized' by WoW) but I don't want something just because it's 'different', I want it to be successful too!
I say that with the underlying message (to the devs) of, don't just do something for the sake of being different, but do it with the intention of making the game successful because it is highly functional and will make people want to participate in combat. Exploration is cool, chatting and tradeskilling/bartering are great currency & timesinks, but at the end of the day, combat mechanics make or break an MMORPG. (You can't have an MMO without a "Massive" amount of "Online" players.) I know some will disagree... but they will be wrong - for proof of their wrongness, I defer to the "success of WoW" lol. (EQ's continued "success" is from nostalgia of trivialized content combined with micro transactions/gold (krono) farmers - not because the game mechanics are good (they're arguably trash that people have come to accept - as anything different than WoW).
With that said, I'm not as concerned with class role "skills" balance as much as I care about the class role balance iteself "being equally useful/desired in a group" (or otherwise being able to solo). Rogues, Monks, and Rangers should all do very similar "damage" (since that is their "role"), utilizing the same (or damn near identical) "mechanic" with different ways to use that "mechanic" (i.e. rogue backstab, monk flurry, ranger power shot, otherwise they have similar attack speeds that damage based on their weapon/proficiency/skill - but player skill should not be "required" for a class to "optimally" perform their designed role.) They should all have a secondary role of support (pulling) utilizing completely different but equal tool kits (i.e. Monk can split pull with FD, Rogue can stealth/sap/mez/vanish to split pull, Ranger can scout with pets, set traps, and pull from long distance and somehow distract with flare or something to drop threat). If the game mechanics are such that some classes will be unable to solo (which is what it sounds like) AND be less desireable in groups than others of the same role - that's eventually a wrap. If we're required to supplement a class' deficiencies (compared to other classes') with technical or social skills to be individually succesful, that's terrible for a community (MMO players) notorious for being comprised of people lacking (or not wanting to use) social skills. The minority of MMO players are as "good" as they think they are in their own mind (which is "I'm so good at playing, that everyone will want to group with me once they see my skills regardless of the class' deficiencies). The MMO community (especially in these forumes) appear to be rampant with delusions of grandeur and nostalgic memories (which intrinsically inhibit adverse memories). Anyone who says that they would love to relive childhood likely misremember (or were otherwise fortunate to be shielded from) the day to day hardships that accompanied childhood for the majority of people.
Having something different, simply for the sake of difference is not always a good thing.
Add:
Here's a hypothetical situation to give a different perspective on "the norm":
Lets simply change the text (meaningless on its own) of "class" & "roles" and add "specialization" (or talent tree - again, just words).
Now you have 4 "classes": Tank, Healer, DPS, & Support; Each class has "specializations" (that are unchangeable after selection).
Unchangeable "talent trees" of each class:
Tank - WAR, DL, PAL
Healer - CLR, DRU, SHM
DPS - ROG, MNK, RNG, WIZ, SMN, (NEC)
Support - ENC, BRD, (NEC)
Each "talen tree" performs slightly different within its given "class". Now make those talent trees unchangeable, add ugly exlamations and question marks everywhere you look, and we are back to "the norm" of WoW. Removing the distractions from the screen (! & ?) is going to be great... but nothing really to do with MMO norms which will ultimately be the same as other decent MMOs; People having avatars that perform a role and compete against other players for peer acceptance via outperforming others within their own roles in a visually stimulating environment that can elicit emotions of excitement, fear/dread, victory/defeat.
Circle back to why I feel and hope (personal opinion reminder) that combat mechanic balance (and the uncanny valley) are going to be more crucial than the "specialization/talent tree" we choose. People will still play if combat is fluid, balanced (within their role) and interactive with a beautiful & exciting environment regardless of "player skill" (read: player skill does not mean "player effort"). i.e. If a Ranger can strafe while simultaneously hiting 2 attack buttons with both hands and mouse-spinning when they jump to get an extra attack off, that would be player skill giving an advantage over another Ranger player pressing those same 2 attacks as fast as they can and not performing as well as the other Ranger (but still putting in "effort"). THAT is not the "balance" people are concerned with. The balance people are concerned with would be an equally geared/level Monk hitting auto attack (putting forth minimal effort) and still outperforming the Ranger doing spins and flips. That would mean that people would have to vet the Ranger "players" they group with (not just the "Ranger's gear/level)... or just invite someone (anyone) else that can be equally (or more) effective without requiring evaluation of "player" skill, and hoping for the best while fearing the worst. That particular example would eventually put the expectation of "do spinning attacks - or you're trash" on Ranger "players". That's a crazy hypothetical, but not too far from reality if the combat mechanic balance within roles is not there.
I think I must not be properly understanding all your points here, so I'll just ask about 2 of them for clarification.
Darch said:but player skill should not be "required" for a class to "optimally" perform their designed role.
Circle back to why I feel and hope (personal opinion reminder) that combat mechanic balance (and the uncanny valley) are going to be more crucial than the "specialization/talent tree" we choose.
When I read it, that first statement seems to be saying that skill at playing one's character shouldn't be a significant factor in how well that individual fulfills their role in combat. Holy moly, I can't imagine finding much satisfaction from combat in Pantheon if my personal skill at playing my char has little or nothing to do with whether I succeed or fail.
Everything I know about the "uncanny valley" tells me that it is about people's emotional response to how 'close to real' an image or model of a human being looks. It affects people when designers make something that looks "too close" to real. So I'm not clear on why it would have any affect on class performance or 'balance'.
Additionally, given what we've seen already and the fact that VR has said from the beginning that they don't have the resources or intention to try for super-realistic graphics, I don't believe Pantheon is likely to even come close to encountering the uncanny issue.
Maybe you mean something else entirely....
Jothany said:I think I must not be properly understanding all your points here, so I'll just ask about 2 of them for clarification.
Darch said:but player skill should not be "required" for a class to "optimally" perform their designed role.
Circle back to why I feel and hope (personal opinion reminder) that combat mechanic balance (and the uncanny valley) are going to be more crucial than the "specialization/talent tree" we choose.
When I read it, that first statement seems to be saying that skill at playing one's character shouldn't be a significant factor in how well that individual fulfills their role in combat. Holy moly, I can't imagine finding much satisfaction from combat in Pantheon if my personal skill at playing my char has little or nothing to do with whether I succeed or fail.
Everything I know about the "uncanny valley" tells me that it is about people's emotional response to how 'close to real' an image or model of a human being looks. It affects people when designers make something that looks "too close" to real. So I'm not clear on why it would have any affect on class performance or 'balance'.
Additionally, given what we've seen already and the fact that VR has said from the beginning that they don't have the resources or intention to try for super-realistic graphics, I don't believe Pantheon is likely to even come close to encountering the uncanny issue.
Maybe you mean something else entirely....
You left out the part of the quote immediately before you cut and paste where I stated that player skill should seperate players of the same class, not the same role.
And you are correct about the uncanny valley... but again quoted just a piece of my statement from above when I said that one of the two reasons for WoW's success was Blizzard recruiting psychologists to perfect the uncanny valley. It has nothing to do with balance... simply success of the game. In contrast to WoW's success, falling outside of the uncanny valley was the downfall of EQ2... where they had overly realistic looking characters that even had emotional facial expressions, but then the characters not only moved like robots, but you couldn't even control them. WoW used cartoonish looking characters with relatively simple movement that triggered to key presses... And contrary to what VR has said about not having the "intention" to try for super-realistic graphics, they are getting REALLY close to it. But again, that comment was only addressing one of the factors of the "success" of WoW, with the other being balance (to the point of the OP).
This is pretty damn realistic looking if you ask me (BUT animations are much better today than they were in 2004):
Darch said:You left out the part of the quote immediately before you cut and paste where I stated that player skill should seperate players of the same class, not the same role.
Ok, but even reading the entire quote, I don't quite understand what you mean by "player skill should not be "required" for a class to "optimally" perform their designed role". I think any Class that doesn't require Player skill to 'optimally perform their role' in the group is an utter failure by VR.
And you are correct about the uncanny valley... but again quoted just a piece of my statement from above when I said that one of the two reasons for WoW's success was Blizzard recruiting psychologists to perfect the uncanny valley. It has nothing to do with balance... simply success of the game.In contrast to WoW's success, falling outside of the uncanny valley was the downfall of EQ2... where they had overly realistic looking characters that even had emotional facial expressions, but then the characters not only moved like robots, but you couldn't even control them.
Ok, so some of my confusion WAS thinking you were using the idea as a point about balance. But I still have a different understanding of "uncanny valley" than you. It's not something you 'perfect' to make your game succeed, it is something you avoid. Perhaps if you could point me to someplace where they talk about how uncanny valley affected WoW.
I've never played EQ. That said, I've seen an awful lot of screen shots from EQ in the years since I started following Pantheon. So I'll just ask: Could you post or link and image of an "overly realistic looking" character from EQ? I've never seen one that looked any more realistic than the chars. we had in AC, and those weren't remotely realistic.
Jothany said:Darch said:You left out the part of the quote immediately before you cut and paste where I stated that player skill should seperate players of the same class, not the same role.
Ok, but even reading the entire quote, I don't quite understand what you mean by "player skill should not be "required" for a class to "optimally" perform their designed role". I think any Class that doesn't require Player skill to 'optimally perform their role' in the group is an utter failure by VR.
And you are correct about the uncanny valley... but again quoted just a piece of my statement from above when I said that one of the two reasons for WoW's success was Blizzard recruiting psychologists to perfect the uncanny valley. It has nothing to do with balance... simply success of the game.In contrast to WoW's success, falling outside of the uncanny valley was the downfall of EQ2... where they had overly realistic looking characters that even had emotional facial expressions, but then the characters not only moved like robots, but you couldn't even control them.
Ok, so some of my confusion WAS thinking you were using the idea as a point about balance. But I still have a different understanding of "uncanny valley" than you. It's not something you 'perfect' to make your game succeed, it is something you avoid. Perhaps if you could point me to someplace where they talk about how uncanny valley affected WoW.
I've never played EQ. That said, I've seen an awful lot of screen shots from EQ in the years since I started following Pantheon. So I'll just ask: Could you post or link and image of an "overly realistic looking" character from EQ? I've never seen one that looked any more realistic than the chars. we had in AC, and those weren't remotely realistic.
What I mean by player skill shouldn't be "required" to perform "optimally" is that (with all other variables equal, like gear, level, proficiencies, etc) a person should be able to play a single character for a few months and be able to "perform" their class role responsibility as well as someone that has played for several years - the difference being that the person playing for several years (or having much more skill) would be able to "out perform" others of the same class... it should not be reqiured for the "player" to be highly skilled just to perform equally as another "class" simply because their class is not balanced within their role. If a player is paying attention, has a basic understanding of the game mechanics and experience with their class, they should be able to perform their role well enough to contribute to the group, which should be optimal. If say a player can do more DPS than 2 classes combined due to skill, then that would be above optimal (and happens in a well designed game). But again, as I said in my original post, a ranger busting their - putting forth exceptional effort and incredible skill should not be out DPS'd by a monk auto attacking... THAT would be poor balance. In that situation, the skillful ranger should out perform all lazy DPS regardless of the class (all other things, like gear/level equal).
This is a pic from EQ2 character creation, which was created the same time as WoW, and with horrible animations (you could customize your character down to the Iris and lip color or multicolored hair - but they broke the uncanny valley effect especially with the emphasis on facial expressions):
Darch said:akahdrin said:Not going to lie, I hope that balance in this game does not exist at all. And that is not a joke.
I hope that clerics absolutely dumpster shamans and druids in healing. I hope that druids and shamans can solo and clerics can't. I hope that warriors can't solo well, but are an absolute required piece on a raid. I hope that necromancers absolutely wreck things in solo and are viewed as inadequate in groups (except good necros will prove this wrong easily).That is called Everquest ;)
j/k... but seriously.Dikenzu said:I just hope thatt the majority of folks playing Pantheon are those that value community and support all classes being useful in game. I will admit that folks talking about trying to make classes equal in DPS or healing is rather concerning to me, because it reminds me of the incessant whining on Wow forums for 'balance'. I know that will exist here in some form, but I'd rather it not become the norm or what the majority of players ask for. Breaking those 'norms' is why I choose Pantheon.
Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, you can't deny the success of WoW, which is largely due to the synergy and fluidity of their class system. That is literally one of the two pillars WoW's foundation of success (the other being the combat responsiveness with pinpoint animations combined with near perfected uncanny valley balance).
The 'norms' of Wow Forums being filled with folks screaming 'Fix My Class Blizz' and Blizzard's constant catering to that mentality. The 'norms' of I'm at the bottom of the meters even though it is only by a single percentage point so my class sucks and this game is terrible at class balance. This (insert FotM)spec is the only viable spec for healing and if you play any other healers you are bad and should feel bad. I love Holy Priests, but in order to get a Raid spot in my guild I have to play a Resto Druid 'norm.'
Those and countless others are the 'norms' I'm talking about. To this day World of Warcraft is my favorite game of all time...period. I spent over a decade playing that game and I'm fully aware of why it became successful and even defended it(like I do so passionately on YouTube and other formats for Pantheon) years ago. I quit WoW before all the recent drama for the reason above and many others. The Metas that exist in WoW and encouraged by Blizzard turned me away from the game that was my home for a very long time. I came back for Classic and left soon after because those Metas infested Classic after awhile. I was a strong 'NoChanges' person because I knew that once you opened the door then a floodgate of demands would ensue. Also, the Meta of turning Classic into a optimization/min/max/gold farming carries simulator instead of actually enjoying the many things that made the game successful.
I never had any real problems with the actual gameplay or game design other than when it was a direct response to the endless player complaints of their class and severe QoL things. Those complaints had more to do with FotM and optimization than interesting design and maintaining class identity.
Like a few others have mentioned, Pantheon is probably my last hope for playing in MMO world filled with a social aspect, community(even if lots of folks like solo play...they still appreciate and strongly support the entire community driven design. I'm like that on a lot of days) unique class identity, exploring and adventuring in a active world. I don't want that onslaught of daily crying about everything that existed in Wow over the later years to be a thing in Pantheon. I'm not naive that some of it will not be here. I'm just helping to set the stage for when Pantheon is released, the Forums and in game chat will be a different place than what exists in other MMO Forums and the Pantheon community can stay true the tenets set by VR that drew us here. Some of those folks aren't interested in appreciating multiple points of view. They are like a plague of locusts waiting on a new game to devour and move on tho the next thing leaving that game in shambles. I actually applaud the community for Final Fantasy. I heard(because I never played) that they are a good community and the FF staff itself has banned hundreds of folks who came from Wow and other MMOs trying to bring their toxicity to FF.
Dikenzu said:The 'norms' of Wow Forums being filled with folks screaming 'Fix My Class Blizz' and Blizzard's constant catering to that mentality. The 'norms' of I'm at the bottom of the meters even though it is only by a single percentage point so my class sucks and this game is terrible at class balance. This (insert FotM)spec is the only viable spec for healing and if you play any other healers you are bad and should feel bad. I love Holy Priests, but in order to get a Raid spot in my guild I have to play a Resto Druid 'norm.'
Those and countless others are the 'norms' I'm talking about. To this day World of Warcraft is my favorite game of all time...period. I spent over a decade playing that game and I'm fully aware of why it became successful and even defended it(like I do so passionately on YouTube and other formats for Pantheon) years ago. I quit WoW before all the recent drama for the reason above and many others. The Metas that exist in WoW and encouraged by Blizzard turned me away from the game that was my home for a very long time. I came back for Classic and left soon after because those Metas infested Classic after awhile. I was a strong 'NoChanges' person because I knew that once you opened the door then a floodgate of demands would ensue. Also, the Meta of turning Classic into a optimization/min/max/gold farming carries simulator instead of actually enjoying the many things that made the game successful.
I never had any real problems with the actual gameplay or game design other than when it was a direct response to the endless player complaints of their class and severe QoL things. Those complaints had more to do with FotM and optimization than interesting design and maintaining class identity.
Like a few others have mentioned, Pantheon is probably my last hope for playing in MMO world filled with a social aspect, community(even if lots of folks like solo play...they still appreciate and strongly support the entire community driven design. I'm like that on a lot of days) unique class identity, exploring and adventuring in a active world. I don't want that onslaught of daily crying about everything that existed in Wow over the later years to be a thing in Pantheon. I'm not naive that some of it will not be here. I'm just helping to set the stage for when Pantheon is released, the Forums and in game chat will be a different place than what exists in other MMO Forums and the Pantheon community can stay true the tenets set by VR that drew us here. Some of those folks aren't interested in appreciating multiple points of view. They are like a plague of locusts waiting on a new game to devour and move on tho the next thing leaving that game in shambles. I actually applaud the community for Final Fantasy. I heard(because I never played) that they are a good community and the FF staff itself has banned hundreds of folks who came from Wow and other MMOs trying to bring their toxicity to FF.
Absolutely Dikenzu! Those "norms" that you are referring to are the toxicity that has became the majority of the current MMO community. I too quit WoW back in 2014 because of that mentality. That was allowed to exist because Blizzard intentionally used the FotM like you said... as a psychological/subconscious carrot on a stick - and it was further exacerbated by allowing 3rd party parsers to scruitinize combat numbers down to 100th of a percent. I'm hoping (and have said in the past) that PRotF has its own mechanisms for things like parsers, maps or LFG tools so that people aren't relying on 3rd party tools. With their own tools, they could have a parser that simply identifies a groups' top damage dealt, received, healed, and highest number of CC's... that's it, simple kudos to the top tank, healer, dps and cc (all you can see are those 4 players). Another good built in tool would be a threat meter that showed the top 3 threat targets of your current target.
Regardless if they have their own tools or not, I feel the same about "PRotF is my last hope for playing an MMO". If the balance between classes "within the same role" is not there, we will be bombarded by the "X class is trash" and we will lose a lot of subscribers if that community/mentality takes hold in PRotF... because most people wanting PRotF have little patience for that mentality that was pretty much fostered by WoW. We absolutely need some kind of balance between classes within a given role. I really wish they were focusing "more" on the class mechanics instead of putting so much time in the arts and crafts. An absolute concern of mine, but only time will tell. Developing one class at a time is failsauce for development timeline when you need synergy and balance. (i.e. "Lets make a DL and give them ABC skills, now lets make a DRU and give them XYZ skills, and now lets make an ENC and give them 123 skills - 'Oh ****! The 3 just made the Y too powerful and broke C - lets redo that - oh ****, we need to get rid of the B skill now" etc - (5 years later -- "just throw balance out of the window to get this game into production" - and now three players are combining 3, B, and C skills to do content designed for a raid... introduce NurfBat - into more unexpected adverse changes to other mechanics into more NurfBats into more...). They should have a foundational ability set for each class role and simply give it a different flavor (graphic, sound, cast animation) ultimately giving the same mitigation, HPS, DPS or CC/Support per second. They should have the out of combat utility be the big separation of the class mechanics within the roles... THEN we can let time/effort put into the game (gear/proficiencies etc) and player skill seperate the players instead of the game mechanics penalizing players (via that toxic community) for simply choosing a race/class they wanted to play... only to find out that some within the community dislike them (or think they are "trash") and don't even know them.
Purely balancing around healing or dps numbers is the worst thing that can happen to a game.
It leads to shallow and almost identical classes and quite a toxic community. After the patch the other class does 1 dps more, it doesent feel fair!
Here is a good example for doing it right:
In Vanguard the Sorcerer could dish out an extremely amount of dps, especially against big groups of monsters.
Problem here was the aggro. Sorcerers had to nuke very slowly, starting with dots and even needed to wait a bit before using the big nukes.
A well played Sorcerer on most fights did around the same dps than other dps classes, aggro was the limiting factor.
A bad played Sorcerer just died and did no damage at all.
Was it balanced? By modern standards, no, not at all. But ingame it was. Else everyone would have played Sorcerer.
Ezrael said:As Pantheon aims to balance the healing ability of the three healers, just as it should be done to ensure all three are viable solo healers for a group and all wanted on raids, the classes continue to remain distinct in the flavour of utility and the other things they bring to a group.
- Druids look to have the most mobility and bring that to the group with teleports.
- Shamans look to have the largest variety of buffs, benefitting a whole range of stats and adding weapon procs to melee.
- Clerics look to provide the highest defensive stats and have an extra edge against undead.
When it comes to the damage output of all three, I hope they are also equally balanced too.
Whether that means that they all have equal output but:
- Druids do it from max range
- Shamans do it with all DoTs stacked simultaneously
- Clerics do it through a combination of melee and spell damage at the same time
Then so be it, but I hope we don't get the healing parity but DPS disparity that EQ2 gave us.
I really hope they all get the same resurrection exp return percentage.
IMO, at max level each should have the same percentage 90/92/95 whatever.
A Druid should have a resurrection tree, corpses dragged into it's range can request a rez, Druid has to click OK.
Shaman a resurrection totem.
Cleric a resurrection banner.
Zyellinia said:Iksar said:Yes, I expect them to only be balanced in their healing output. Everything else I don't imagine to be given much parity, I especially don't imagine them all having equal DPS.
Which is a recipe for disaster for the class(es) generally deemed as lacking compared to the others. The druid teleport immediately presents a glaring balance problem in terms of desirability...
no it doesn't, what do you need the Druid for after he TPs you to where you need to go?
If healing isn't balanced Druids will just be relegated to porting for cash LOL
TheBus88 said:Zyellinia said:Iksar said:Yes, I expect them to only be balanced in their healing output. Everything else I don't imagine to be given much parity, I especially don't imagine them all having equal DPS.
Which is a recipe for disaster for the class(es) generally deemed as lacking compared to the others. The druid teleport immediately presents a glaring balance problem in terms of desirability...
no it doesn't, what do you need the Druid for after he TPs you to where you need to go?
If healing isn't balanced Druids will just be relegated to porting for cash LOL
Way to not even read the point. The very first assertion was equal healing capability...
Zyellinia said:TheBus88 said:Zyellinia said:Iksar said:Yes, I expect them to only be balanced in their healing output. Everything else I don't imagine to be given much parity, I especially don't imagine them all having equal DPS.
Which is a recipe for disaster for the class(es) generally deemed as lacking compared to the others. The druid teleport immediately presents a glaring balance problem in terms of desirability...
no it doesn't, what do you need the Druid for after he TPs you to where you need to go?
If healing isn't balanced Druids will just be relegated to porting for cash LOL
Way to not even read the point. The very first assertion was equal healing capability...
That was Iksars assertion, not yours, no need to be a jerk....
Your assertion is that a Druid teleport is an imbalance and it isn't a very good assertion, not surprisingly....