Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Class Balance

    • 409 posts
    December 8, 2015 8:54 AM PST

    To echo Raidan here - if you have a Holy Quaternity (tm, Kilsin) system, and give each one of the four core roles a 100 point scale, then every class should simply balance to a total role score of say 175. Where warriors are the only ones with the 100% tank score, clerics have the only 100% heal score, enchanters are the 100% utility, and rogues/wizards are 100% DPS, then everyone else is scored relative to their 100% in those four roles. A Dire Lord might be 85-90% on tanking, but score higher than warrior in DPS and utility. A Crusader is 85-90% on tanking, but has 50% heals and maybe 35% utlity? Etc etc.

    Every class should be a set of advantages and matching disadvantages. A warrior is the best tank, period, the end. For that hard coded advantage, they have 0 heals and utlity and average DPS. That's the "cost" of their perfect tanking. A rogue is perfect DPS, and for that perfect DPS, they have no heals, below average tank and below average utlity. Etc etc.

    That's how it should be balanced. Around the Quaternity total score, accepting that there will be masters at each of the four roles. Then, the "perfect core" shifts, because WAR-CLR-ROG-ENC is only as perfect as the missing two bodies and what your grind currently is. Maybe for that day's grind, you don't need perfect tank or perfect heals, but a lot of utility spread out over all 6 players. 

    Most of the EQ1 balance whineplay was from hybrid tanks who didn't have Defensive and thus couldn't be the raid MT, or from druids on Druid's Grove who started 318 threads per day on how they should be perfect in every single role and it wasn't fair that they weren't. EQ1 druids invented the term whineplay, I'm pretty sure. 

      

    • 671 posts
    December 8, 2015 9:01 AM PST

    Please read through THIS...

    And tell me why class balance means anything. It is like having affirmative action instead of Races & Roles within a Fantasy world. Class balancing means you are a ninny and can not make a choice, or afraid to make a choice and live with your choices. (ie: being an adult)

     

    A Warrior is not a Wizard...  how, or why would you try to balance that? And what person would want to even play such a Toys R Us style of game. RIFT is still out there if you want generic roles & class balancing.

  • December 8, 2015 9:22 AM PST

    Kilsin said:

    How important do you think it is that classes are balanced? Should some classes be better than others in different areas or should all classes be equal in your opinion? :)
     
    Edit for clarification: "PvP has no impact on PvE, separate servers, different rulesets, classes will be balanced accordingly for each side without affecting each other, so it is not even an issue." This is just your thoughts on class balancing overall.

     

    I don't equate class balance with soloing ability and such as that, as long as we stick with the idea that not every class can do everything.  An example of class balance to me is the trinity.  The trinity, especially the true healer and the true tank, were needed in groups/raids but were not so efficient soloing.  The "Balance" was that I recieved tons of group invites as soon as logged in to EQ.  Druids were less likely to get a group which needed semi-serious healing, and shamans even less so, although both brought good things to a group-the shaman more so than the druid.  Necros had nice abilities and could help a group but were less important.  The best crowd control had the least hitpoints.  Of course, this is all just my opinion.

     

    I hate to hear how a class, better at soloing, wants to be 'balanced' so they can get more groups.  It's greedy.

     


    This post was edited by BloodbeardBattlecaster at December 8, 2015 9:26 AM PST
    • 2419 posts
    December 8, 2015 9:23 AM PST

    Why do discussions about what is best always make the assumption that what is best must apply to every possible situation?  Instead of such blanket statements like "A warrior is the best tank, period, the end" it should be restated as "A warrior may be, depending upon the situation (which can include the environment; racial bonuses; class abilities; NPC abilities and group composition) the better choice for standing toe-to-toe with an NPC than any other plate wearing class."

    To say the warrior is always the best is a ridiculous assumption and historically incorrect.  Yes, the warrior was the best tank for raids (as it should be) but in group settings?  SK/PAL were by far more desirable than a warrior, at least in my experience (which, again, falls into the 'depending upon the situation'.

    So pleae, stop with the blanket statements.

     

    • 120 posts
    December 8, 2015 9:46 AM PST
    I think Vandreed makes a valid point, but I think he missed something that has been ignored in MMOs for the most part.
    It is always assumed that warriors are the best tanks and raid encounters are designed around that premise. Given what we know about Pantheon, I can easily see creating encounters where not only is a warrior not the best for that boss but where it is essential to have a Pal ,Sk or even a cleric as the main tank and it fit perfectly with the lore and creates something new and challenging.
    • 120 posts
    December 8, 2015 9:48 AM PST
    Sorry for spelling Vandraad, cant edit on my phone...
    • 384 posts
    December 8, 2015 9:59 AM PST

    I suppose if you think of balance between the classes as "equally meaningful contributions to a group" then perhaps you can have that as your goal. But there is no way to "balance" in game roles anymore than you can balance a doctor and a firefighter in real life. They both contribute different but meaningful services but are they balanced? Who knows, they are different. All I know is, if a class doesn't have some unique way to contribute, not many people are gonna play it.

    • 671 posts
    December 8, 2015 10:06 AM PST

    BloodbeardBattlecaster said:

    Kilsin said:

    How important do you think it is that classes are balanced? Should some classes be better than others in different areas or should all classes be equal in your opinion? :)
     
    Edit for clarification: "PvP has no impact on PvE, separate servers, different rulesets, classes will be balanced accordingly for each side without affecting each other, so it is not even an issue." This is just your thoughts on class balancing overall.

     

    I don't equate class balance with soloing ability and such as that, as long as we stick with the idea that not every class can do everything.  An example of class balance to me is the trinity.  The trinity, especially the true healer and the true tank, were needed in groups/raids but were not so efficient soloing.  The "Balance" was that I recieved tons of group invites as soon as logged in to EQ.  Druids were less likely to get a group which needed semi-serious healing, and shamans even less so, although both brought good things to a group-the shaman more so than the druid.  Necros had nice abilities and could help a group but were less important.  The best crowd control had the least hitpoints.  Of course, this is all just my opinion.

     

    I hate to hear how a class, better at soloing, wants to be 'balanced' so they can get more groups.  It's greedy.

     

     

    This^

    And a EQ necro is a good example. The thing was, depending on where you where and who your foe was those group dynamics and roles changed. That is why Class balancing is not needed and Roles should remain supreme. Fighting undead, you may want a SK, instead of a Warrior.. etc. 

    Roles & Role playing..

    • 79 posts
    December 8, 2015 10:12 AM PST

    I hope you reconsider separate PVP and PVE servers. I find PVP servers almost always collapse/low pop/toxic environment whereas mixed servers have the potential to draw in more PVPers. Lack of familiarity with each side leads to "us vs them." I wrote about it recently (won't share link unless I'm given the okay to :) )

     

    Anyway - class balance is a myth and it destroys games, both PVP and PVE wise. It's foolish to think true balance can be achieved other than balance through difference and content.

    Both PVE and PVP should be a team game. You achieve balance through composition, not on an individual basis.

    You also have to break down class balance by role in a PVE I think. If you have 3 tank types they all can tank but they achieve it through 3 different means. Under certain circumstances one may do a better job than the other, but the other two can do it. Same for dps, healers, etc. When you get in to a situation where you have everyone being just as good as everyone else there tends to be too much crossover of skills and playstyle feel. Sometimes you really do need the right tool for the job.

    In PVP I think it's unrealistic to expect any class to be able to beat any class at any time in a straight up fight. Again you achieve balance though difference and composition. X may be able to beat Y almost every time straight up, but X will lose to Z most of the time, while Y can beat Z almost every time. It's about picking the right conditions for your class to win the fight - and that usually means bringing friends. ;)

     

    • 116 posts
    December 8, 2015 10:33 AM PST

    Abacda said:

    These games where I'm a rogue I dps but the group needs a tank so I have to hit my alt apec button and swap gear and now I'm the tank is lame. Thats why theres character slots. It's called replayability. I make a Bard or Shaman and learn Utility roles and play as utility in a raid when needed. I make a Ranger or Assassin when I want to DPS and I learn upclose melee and positioning and with the ranger I learn distancing and kiting. With my Dire Lord I learn to off tank and hold agro and step in griefly as maint tank should the tank die to a missed heal.

     

    Some of us dislike alts, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for being able to perform 2 roles with the right skills and gear. Besides, why does learning a new role (be it utility, tanking, dps or healing) needs to be achieved only on different classes?

    • 409 posts
    December 8, 2015 11:24 AM PST

    Easy for me - balance the classes by watering them all down or making them all capable of filling 2 or more roles well, and I won't play P:RotF. No need really, because watered down nonsense is already covered by WoW, with a ton more content and I alreayd have t00ns, friends and history there. And what WoW doesn't cover in "one class for every role" mechanics, RIFT and FF XIV do. All currently available, all with way more existing content than P:RotF will have at launch, all depressingly homogeneous in their approach. Not that VR need care specifically about me, but I doubt another WoW clone at this low point in MMO popularity is the winning formula for a new entrant to the marketplace.

    Classes should balanced around what they bring to a group overall, according to the 4 primary group roles. Purist classes are balanced that way. If trading pure tanking ability of a warrior for some DPS or heal utility like a PAL or SK isn't a worthy trade, then stick with the pure tank. If the trade seems worthy, then make your hybrid, but accept that main tank on raid boss that flurries, rampages, quads, etc is not going to your hybrid, but to a guildie WAR. You made your choice, had the advantage of easier leveling, now comes the disadvantage. Legit choices in character creation SHOULD MATTER. 

    This argument goes back to 1998 FFS. Every time a CLR was main heals on a raid, somewhere a druid was griping about that being unfair. They never seemed to think the quad kiting, ports, DS, "wizard that can heal themselves" stuff that clerics couldn't do was unfair, just that them being always passed over for the raid heal slots was. They loved the advantages of the hybrid, hated the disadvantages. All the hybrids griped similarly. A toolbox full of goodies, but when the pure role was needed, they weren't the class for that, so boo hoo. 

    The roles should be that well defined. If not, the rot of WoW-clone is taking hold, and will kill the game.

    • 1714 posts
    December 8, 2015 11:37 AM PST

    Hieromonk said:

    Please read through THIS...

    And tell me why class balance means anything. It is like having affirmative action instead of Races & Roles within a Fantasy world. Class balancing means you are a ninny and can not make a choice, or afraid to make a choice and live with your choices. (ie: being an adult)

     

    A Warrior is not a Wizard...  how, or why would you try to balance that? And what person would want to even play such a Toys R Us style of game. RIFT is still out there if you want generic roles & class balancing.

     

    Winner winner. 

    That said, the last thing you  want is nobody playing Rogue because they can't get a group. Beyond avoiding that kind of scenario, "class balance" as it seems most people consider it, doesn't have much of place in a PVE game. 


    This post was edited by Keno Monster at December 8, 2015 11:38 AM PST
  • December 8, 2015 11:43 AM PST

    BloodbeardBattlecaster said:

    Krixus said:

    Hieromonk said:

    Please read through THIS...

    And tell me why class balance means anything. It is like having affirmative action instead of Races & Roles within a Fantasy world. Class balancing means you are a ninny and can not make a choice, or afraid to make a choice and live with your choices. (ie: being an adult)

     

    A Warrior is not a Wizard...  how, or why would you try to balance that? And what person would want to even play such a Toys R Us style of game. RIFT is still out there if you want generic roles & class balancing.

     

    Not sure what happened to my text... but i'll retype it :)

     

     

    Winner winner. 

    That said, the last thing you  want is nobody playing Rogue because they can't get a group. Beyond avoiding that kind of scenario, "class balance" as it seems most people consider it, doesn't have much of place in a PVE game. 

    Edit -  I was typing within the blockquote ....

     

    In early EQ, the only reason a rogue couldn't get a group was becasue they pickpocketed you during downtime!

     

    • 2419 posts
    December 8, 2015 12:21 PM PST

    Castwell said: I think Vandreed makes a valid point, but I think he missed something that has been ignored in MMOs for the most part. It is always assumed that warriors are the best tanks and raid encounters are designed around that premise. Given what we know about Pantheon, I can easily see creating encounters where not only is a warrior not the best for that boss but where it is essential to have a Pal ,Sk or even a cleric as the main tank and it fit perfectly with the lore and creates something new and challenging.

    An encounter where a Cleric can tank better than the warrior?  Explain how that would work?  Remember each class/race has the same pool of stats to choose from, same set of resists but widely different class abilities.  How could a warrior, with far more class abilities aimed specifically at mitigating/avoiding incoming damage while maintaining the NPCs attention, ever tank worse than a cleric in any situation?  What abilities of the NPC would have to be designed so that anything other than a cleric would fair worse against it as the main tank?

     

    • 999 posts
    December 8, 2015 1:36 PM PST

    Venjenz said:

    To echo Raidan here - if you have a Holy Quaternity (tm, Kilsin) system, and give each one of the four core roles a 100 point scale, then every class should simply balance to a total role score of say 175. Where warriors are the only ones with the 100% tank score, clerics have the only 100% heal score, enchanters are the 100% utility, and rogues/wizards are 100% DPS, then everyone else is scored relative to their 100% in those four roles. A Dire Lord might be 85-90% on tanking, but score higher than warrior in DPS and utility. A Crusader is 85-90% on tanking, but has 50% heals and maybe 35% utlity? Etc etc.

    Exactly, and, where the roles could be "tweaked" would be during testing in alpha/beta to make sure that they play right with enough variation to make each class feel unique/worthwhile.

    • 671 posts
    December 8, 2015 4:06 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Castwell said: I think Vandreed makes a valid point, but I think he missed something that has been ignored in MMOs for the most part. It is always assumed that warriors are the best tanks and raid encounters are designed around that premise. Given what we know about Pantheon, I can easily see creating encounters where not only is a warrior not the best for that boss but where it is essential to have a Pal ,Sk or even a cleric as the main tank and it fit perfectly with the lore and creates something new and challenging.

    An encounter where a Cleric can tank better than the warrior?  Explain how that would work?  Remember each class/race has the same pool of stats to choose from, same set of resists but widely different class abilities.  How could a warrior, with far more class abilities aimed specifically at mitigating/avoiding incoming damage while maintaining the NPCs attention, ever tank worse than a cleric in any situation?  What abilities of the NPC would have to be designed so that anything other than a cleric would fair worse against it as the main tank?

     

    You asked..

    You have a Necro and a Cleric duoing...    or a Necro and a Warrior duoing...   the Plate wielding Cleric is the better tank in that group, because he can heal himself when he gets low on life.

    • 107 posts
    December 8, 2015 4:35 PM PST

    Kantan said:

    I kind of disagree with some, I think all tanks should be able to tank, all healers be able to heal. I think all tanks should be able to tank any group content at the least and all healers be able to solo heal any group content at least. I play live eq still, and to this day in eq warrior's, the tanks with the best "tankinest," the tank that doesn't need a puller because he can tank'em all. When I'm on my warrior, and I'm not raid geared or anything my motto is pull'em all, kill'em all and let their various gods sort them out. Another motto I've made is singles are for mercs and knights, yeah a sk can snare, fd pull or a paladin can lull root etc. But as a warrior, pull'em all I'll deal with them. Another thing I've realized a warrior, proactive is better than reactive, better to never take the damage than have to heal it. The best raid tank will be the best group tank too. A warrior has no need for singles, where a knight would. As a warrior I can tank multiple mobs where a knight, no matter how strong their self healing will die. Like I said proactive versus reactive. The best type of damage is the type you never take.



    Also in eq, to this day in eq clerics are not just the "best" healer 99 times out of 100 they are "the" healer. As in if I put together a group there's a cleric who heals and a druid/shaman who does things I guess. In all honestly I sometimes I ask when I have a cleric in group and a shaman/druid why is this person in my group and what is he doing? What value does he bring over another dps class? And I have not found that answer yet. So a druid/shaman can debuff mobs? Buffs? Piff so what a cleric has such raw not just healing power but survivability that I as a warrior can equip my 2hander and still tank and I do not even notice nor care if the mob is debuffed or what buffs I have, I tank'em just fine with slow or atk debuffs or something I don't even notice nor care about are on the mobs.



    I find when I put together/get groups that people want the tank to tank, the healer to heal, the dps to dps. I can honestly say that I like being a warrior, with me a warrior in group, the group moves faster, does things faster and I can accomplish more with less gear. As a warrior I am less a strain on my healer because I do not take the damage a knight would, I downright just mitigate/avoid it. That damage never happens to me, ever.



    As a cleric I can tell the tank, yeah pull whatever I got you covered, where a shaman/druid would be I don't have the healing power to heal you when you want to pull 3 or 4 mobs or half a dozen, they just don't. The buffs/debuffs/utility they bring are not worth to me the raw healing power a cleric brings. When groups are looking for more people in their group what do they ask for? Looking for a tank, a healer. People want tanks to tank and healers to heal, buffs/debuffs/utility don't matter when I can pull multiple mobs, tank them all, hold agro on them all and everyone's xp bar is moving. I've tried playing a paladin or sk in todays eq. When I play a warrior it's this is awesome/great, we don't have to pull, you don't take time to split, xp is moving, lets go kill that boss cause you're a big bad beefy warrior who's gonna laugh with your superior mitigation/avoidance and hp when that mob starts hitting you.



    The best raid tank is the best group tank is the best tank period, no if ands and buts about it. The best raid healer is the best group healer and the best healer period.



    You know what my dream group is, a warrior, a cleric and 4 wizards. in todays eq that group can do anything in the game and do it faster/easier. There is no mechanic in the game that I can not deal with as a warrior with a cleric healing me that I can not overpower/survive/push through or plain old burn down. I know a lot of people like the slower pace of original eq, but when I get in groups and I'm not the tank, some sk is fd/snare splitting or some paladin is lulling/rooting or the group is LF a puller, need a puller and I think if I was on my warrior, we'd be half way done with whatever this group wants to do, because I am the puller/the tank, there is no need for a puller, for cc, for debuffs, any of that because I'll tank it. I am the tank.

    I don't mean to offend anyone with what I said but I just wanted to say how i felt, if you go where a warrior has superior mitigation/avoidance/hp, regardless if the paladin can heal, the sk can life-tap the warrior is still the best tank because he can take more.



    There is absolutely no reason in todays MMO's where a paladin can not buff/debuff, where a sk can not buff/debuff and a warrior can not buff/debuff in their own way. There is absolutely no reason all healers can not heal, in different ways but still all as powerful and all three have some type of buffs/debuffs. In vanguard, every healer could solo heal 90% of the content. Every healer had buffs, debuffs etc. Sure where there some bosses/encounters that had silence where a disciple was better? Some where you couldn't use arcane where it was harder for a bloodmage? Sure, but 90% of the time any healer could solo heal, 90% of the time any tank could tank 90% of the content.


    Please think long and hard if you go with the warrior being the "tank" and clerics being the "healer."



    In any case, just my thoughts and feelings and my two copper.



     

    I think this was very well said. I agree, in the end, the best raid tank, will be the best tank. So balance with that in mind. Also, if you try to balance using the aoe vs single target theory remember that a large portion of the game hinges on the importance of CC. So, you won't be using aoe tanking. Tanking balance is achieved through mitigation, avoidance, hit points and aggro.

    • 120 posts
    December 8, 2015 4:49 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

     

    An encounter where a Cleric can tank better than the warrior?  Explain how that would work?  Remember each class/race has the same pool of stats to choose from, same set of resists but widely different class abilities.  How could a warrior, with far more class abilities aimed specifically at mitigating/avoiding incoming damage while maintaining the NPCs attention, ever tank worse than a cleric in any situation?  What abilities of the NPC would have to be designed so that anything other than a cleric would fair worse against it as the main tank?

     

    I am only suggesting this as it would pertain in a Raid senerio only, as would be impractical to try and do in a solo/group atmosphere.......

    Well thats really kind of easy, With what we  know about the classes and the "colored mana" concept being worked on, A raid encounter could eaily be designed around using the the concept that only someone of purity (Hence the White mana of the cleric class) could stand before such wickedness and look it in the eye. The cleric doesn't have to be a "Better" tank than a warrior, the purity of the class is what would mitigates the damage. As with any raid encounter, the MTs job is not about DPS, it's about generating huge amounts of hate (DPS comes from everyone else) and if we use the cleris "purity" as the basis for hate, agro should take care of it's self.

    In reality, encounters have been made that called for Pal or Sk MTs before. I would really just like to see attributes of other classes become the basis for encounters, instead of clerics only get to heal, wiz only gets to nuke and so on.. 

     

    • 9115 posts
    December 8, 2015 5:07 PM PST

    I just want to explain balance a little bit better, as some of you assume balance means everything needs to be equal, when that is far from what balance actually means.

    Balance is the point at which everything comes together, for example, in a group (six (6) person group for arguments sake). Of those 6 group members, you would need any combination of classes to get the job done, certain archetypes would be interchangeable for the most part (Rogue, Monk, Ranger Bard - all light fighters with pros/cons and differing amounts of survivability/dps/utility etc.) the balance is making those classes appealing to different people equally without making them copies of each other, we want some classes to be better than others at somethings and worse than other classes at other things, that in itself is the balance I am talking about.

    Balance does not mean all four (4) light fighters are equal dps, equal survivability, equal utility, that is boring and quite frankly not a game I would like to play if those classes were all the same. The balance I was referring too (and probably should have explained in more detail for this post) is one of overall balance as per some of it's definitions:

    "A counteracting weight or force." "Offset or compare the value of (one thing) with another." "Counteract or equal the effect or importance of."

    So, let's say Rogue is top Dps, Monk is top evasion, Bard is top utility and Ranger is top ranged Dps, the 6 person group can pick and choose between a "balanced" pool of classes in the light fighter archetype (assuming they already have at least one (1) tank, healer, CC) to then balance a group for specific encounters but that same group will most likely not be the best/optimal choice for the next encounter (you will still be able to do it, you don't have to drop and create new groups after every fight obviously but you get my point), making class balance and class interdependence important in the overall balance of the game.

    Balance in this instance means, if a class is superior at something, they cannot be the best at something else, it needs to be balanced to offset that superiority so that another class gets the superior title for something else, making everyone wanted for something.

    I hope this is clear enough and helps some of you understand the way I am using the term Balance, if not I apologise, I am only halfway through my first coffee of the morning! lol ;)

    • 9115 posts
    December 8, 2015 5:28 PM PST

    Hieromonk said:

    Vandraad said:

    Castwell said: I think Vandreed makes a valid point, but I think he missed something that has been ignored in MMOs for the most part. It is always assumed that warriors are the best tanks and raid encounters are designed around that premise. Given what we know about Pantheon, I can easily see creating encounters where not only is a warrior not the best for that boss but where it is essential to have a Pal ,Sk or even a cleric as the main tank and it fit perfectly with the lore and creates something new and challenging.

    An encounter where a Cleric can tank better than the warrior?  Explain how that would work?  Remember each class/race has the same pool of stats to choose from, same set of resists but widely different class abilities.  How could a warrior, with far more class abilities aimed specifically at mitigating/avoiding incoming damage while maintaining the NPCs attention, ever tank worse than a cleric in any situation?  What abilities of the NPC would have to be designed so that anything other than a cleric would fair worse against it as the main tank?

     

    You asked..

    You have a Necro and a Cleric duoing...    or a Necro and a Warrior duoing...   the Plate wielding Cleric is the better tank in that group, because he can heal himself when he gets low on life.

    I hate to state the obvious, but the Cleric would still be the worst tank out of the two, even in plate, by far.

    Cleric wouldn't have anywhere near the Mitigation, Armour Class, Evasion or even the right stats to be maxed to even handle anywhere near as much damage as the tank could, they would be healing more than attacking, they wouldn't be able to control aggro, which would end in the Necro FDing or dying a lot (which = no dps and slower fight = more healing) and they would be out of mana (OOM) and in serious trouble before they knew what was going on.

    So while the Cleric could be a small group tank for basic level appropriate content if there were no other options and the duo/trio was desperate, if a tank was available, the tank would always be a better choice, without question even without a healer as they could take a lot more damage and hold the aggro onto them while the dps burned the mobs down, there would be a lot of downtime between mobs. to recover HP and Mana but it would be doable.

    This also fits perfectly into my above post on the use of the word "balance". A Cleric is a healer class and will heal better than any other class (other than other healers) but to try and do a tanks job, they will struggle badly and require an actual tank for the majority of the situations, this is class interdependence at it's best and promotes player interaction and it makes all classes feel useful and wanted ;)

    • 122 posts
    December 8, 2015 6:15 PM PST

    Kantan 100% hit the nail on the head, and Killin did was well.

    What's the most odd to me is that a lot of people are technically agreeing with eachother, in this thread and others, yet they're twisting the issues so far out of proprotion, or taking such a fringe/extreme angle that the real argument looses meaning, and if they stopped to consider things logically for even one second they would realize that some of these debates sound more like politicians using spin words to "get their point across" when in reality they're actually more in agreement than not. And I'm not trying to be holier than thou, I know I'm just as guilty, just pointing it out so we can all take a step back.

    Balance does not mean everyone can do everything. Overlap of skills does not mean everyone can do everything. Unbalanced does not mean unique. It's that simple.

    If a ranger is supposed to be DPS but can also tank equally as well as a warrior while still doing DPS, THAT is the definition of unbalanced. There's nothing unbalanced about a ranger being able to off tank, so long as that ability is greatly lower than the true tanks so that a ranger is never MT, but can be an emergency off tank. In fact, I didn't just that many times to save a wipe on my ranger in EQ days. It's what Weaponshield was invented for.

    And Kantan is right. Who cares that druids can port or quad kite. Those abilities don't get you invited to a group. They can't heal well enough to main heal. They can't DPS well enough to fill a dps slot well. Their buffs are dated, and their CC isn't useful in the end game the way it used to be. I've never played a druid, so I'm not having a pItty party for myself. I'm saying that in EQ, I would never invite one to my group because there's no reason to. There's no gain. 

    That's what needs to be avoided in this game. A warrior being able to somehow boost their DPS to a higher level when they're not main tank, but still not being as high dps as a monk or rogue isn't stupid. Saying that the only use for a warrior is tanking on the other hand is stupid because if warriors are the DE facto best tank and nothing else, why bother even having a crusader class at all? What you need is to decide which of the 4 roles each class is primarily a part of and make them able to do it. Then give each class more minor roles which makes each class a positive invite for a different reason. Maybe druids and clerics can heal a group just fine, but a cleric can give mitigation buffs and a druid can give dps buffs.

    I really like that people want classes to be unique and I agree, but I don't see why some people want classes to be so unique that some would invariably become useless like classic EQ. Believe it or not there is a middle ground where everyone can be valuable in a group, while simultaneously adding a unique flavor that makes them worth inviting, and it can also be content specific without making some people unable to see certain content. It's not black and white and it's not 1999. Can we please stop pretending EQ didn't have useless classes and flawed balance? Can we please stop pretending that the word balance means all 12 classes perform all 4 roles equally well? It's just blatantly not true, and never will be so amy arguments for or against anything that hinge on these assumptions are an immediate non-starter.


    This post was edited by Arksien at December 8, 2015 6:18 PM PST
    • 1281 posts
    December 8, 2015 6:39 PM PST

    As long as classes within a role are, for the most part, pretty close to being equal at doing their job then I'll be happy with that. I don't expect, or want, all classes to be interchangable or equally good at everything. I liked VG's approach to classes doing the same job pretty well but in a different way.

    • 122 posts
    December 8, 2015 6:44 PM PST

    Yeah VG sure did a lot of things right. If they had fleshed out the bugs that held it back, I really think it could have beat out EQ as an MMORPG. 

  • December 8, 2015 7:15 PM PST

    I'm out of this thread now because I keep hearing the same arguments which turned EQ into a cakewalk.  Hybrid and soloing classes wanting more group abilities.  To do that, you must then give the "trinity", 'quad' or whatever, the equal ability to solo (or if druids healing is just a little less than clerics, then clerics soloing ability will be just a little less than druids? I dont like it).  Where do we go from there?  Soloing, cookie cutter classes and a ruined community.  I've stated many times on these forums I do not expect, and do not wish that my healer in pantheon has the ability to efficiently solo.  It's just me and the way I like to play.  I don't want to tank.  I don't want to dps.  I want to heal, buff, and entertain my group with chat.

     

    Ark -  it's not black and white and it's not 1999,  but I don't enjoy any of the current mmos release since around 04 or 05 so your statement has no bearing with me.  Just being honest here.  Are there ways to make it all work?  Anything is possible, I guess, but I certainly have not heard, nor experienced, any ironclad ideas yet which would not eventually lead to the average player soloing alts to 100 in 2 days, so they can jump in with their guildies and gear up yet another toon.

     

    Also, has anyone brought up the sheer numbers of people who jump on an EQ TLP server?  For a game which is pushing 20 years to have that kind of draw, a lot of folks must have been okay with it not being perfect. I know EQ has been 'worked on' since it was released, but my point is that I don't believe Pantheon has to be perfectly balanced, as long as each class has a purpose and that purpose is unique to that class. :)

     

    So, anyway, I will stop typing now.  :)

     

    Edited for a typo and for this -  The reason I believe developers/designers must be somewhat rigid in the area discussed here is simple -  People whine and if you give in a little they will push until they get it all.  :)

     

     


    This post was edited by BloodbeardBattlecaster at December 8, 2015 7:19 PM PST
    • 122 posts
    December 8, 2015 8:12 PM PST

    I'm not sure why you're bringing up soloing. This game is founded on the idea that content should need groups and not being able to solo. I think therefor even bringing soloing into a balancing discussion is a moot point because ideally, no one will be able to solo past level 10 or so. Maybe I've misread the tenants, but I thought that was the whole point of this game. If a class is getting passed over on groups because their class is group nerfed due to soloing abilities, I'd say take away the soloing abilities and replace it with better group function.

    Also I don't like modern MMOS either, nor do I recall arguing anything other than against the WOW sydrome, so if I wasn't clear before, let me be clear now: I don't want an easy mmo. I don't want a 100% fair mmo. But if you think there's no improving on EQ, then go play EQ. I believe, strongly, that it is possible to have a hard core game that allows people to play various classes without one class or more lagging behind. I believe that a group game needs to be balanced to the group so an ideal formation doesn't crop up that renders 8 of the 12 classes useless for group content, in a group game. I think that no one should solo. I think no one should have it easy. I think if one class lags behind in groups because they can solo, the soloing is the problem and they need to be rebalanced. 

    I think that the most fun comes from having a defined role, but a defined role and a concrete unmovable rigid role are not the same thing. I think there are games that have done this well, and being close minded to what works or has has yet unrealized potential is naive. I think that just because a game didn't execute a tactic well in the past doesn't make the tactic inherently bad. People should be open minded to improving good ideas with historically poor execution, instead of throwing them out all together. I think that just because a mechanic was used in a game designed to be easy does not mean it couldn't be used in a game designed to be hard.

    I don't also think having secondary roles as a lesser role is the same thing as being able to do all four roles well. I don't think a game should force you to roll 20 alts to continue having fun, a syndrome of Wow that I hate. That doesn't mean I think everyone should do everything, it just means I don't think the devs should be lazy and have a narrow definition for how content works to the point that the only way to change your functionality should be to roll an alt. I think that people assuming this means I or other people want a cleric to be able to swap to dps as well as a rogue, or tank as well as a warrior are intentionally misinterpreting a reasonable balance request in an unreasonable way, and then debating an argument I don't see anyone making.

    I see zero people asking for all classes to do everything at equal levels. I see zero people arguing that all 12 classes should be balanced to all 12 other classes. I see zero people arguing that this game should be watered down or carebear. The fact that I see people claiming people are tells me that they are either misreading what people are saying, or are spending time arguing against something no one is arguing for, and that's just silly.

     


    This post was edited by Arksien at December 8, 2015 8:29 PM PST