Hey guys, so I just had one of those "well wait a minute" moments when thinking about class divide. I was taking part in a ranger discussion over on the ranger forums, where the topic of what armor rangers should wear came up. I was about to respond when suddenly something struck me that I think was a bit more broad than just that topic, so I'm coming here.
In a lot of MMOs, everyone "knows" what type of armor a certain class must use. (Plate for tanks, chain for utility DPS, leather for full DPS, cloth for casters). In many cases, this isn't even just an accepted fact, it's enforced by the games design and only certain classes can equip certain items. A series that does not require these restrictions is The Elder Scrolls. You can literally put plate on a caster if you want, but you won't have access to the stats that are best for a caster if you do so. This allows for some interesting line blurring and players redefining their own class.
Well what if this game did something similar? In the example of the ranger discussion, a few of us were talking about how in EQ, rangers typically wore chainmail, which made them good DPS and also a decent offtank at times. The topic came up of rangers using leather if we were going to make them in line with that awesome video of Lars with a fast moving tactical archer, and I got to wondering what such archers wore in history. I started to notice that some wore chain, some wore boiled leather, a few were even wear plate chest pieces... but none of them had vambraces on of any kind. So even iconography of an archer in leather had simple cloth sleeves underneith. This actually makes a lot of sense. Why would anyone not put plate on their chest if it was an option for a battle? Sure an archer can't use a bow well with plate gauntlets or vanbraces on, but they would have a hard time doing it with chainmail on too, so when they had a chain or plate chestpiece, they simply left the arms off while protecting their chest.
What if instead of arbitrarily telling people "you can't wear this type of armor," everyone could wear all the armor, but certain pieces and types would disable a certain ability of yours? So there's technically nothing preventing a wizard or druid from equiping plate, but it makes their cast time much slower due to the lowered concentration from the distraction. Plate could slow melee attacks down but make you take less damage, so a rogue or ranger would likely choose not to equip full plate if any at all, but if they wanted the HP boost from having some plate, they could equip just a plate chest piece or such, and leave the other slots as something different. Maybe equiping chain or plate vambraces or gauntlets makes it so you can no longer use a bow at all, but if you're deep in a dungeon and the ranger runs out of arrows, they can equip chainmail to get a slight boost in their weapon power and survivability since the punishment of not using a bow won't matter anymore since they're out of arrows.
I think this level of freedom would still funnel players in a general direction (why bother putting plate on a summoner if equiping plate breaks the concentration too much to summon a pet for example) but would open up the opportunity for players to invent creative mechanics that even the devs might not foresee (similar to the invention of the cheal chain to take on the Avatar of War in velious, which was not the intended use of that spell but made an otherwise impossible encounter doable). It would also really help diffuse the idea of BiS gear, because maybe one player wants their ranger to suffer slightly lower DPS in favor of equiping a plate chestpiece and being able to off tank a bit better, while another ranger uses only cloth to maximize their speed and ranged/melee DPS at the sacrifice of dying easier because they trust their tank to hold aggro and their healer to keep the tank up. If there were defined benefits and consequences that each individual slot and armor type had on every ability of every class, there wouldn't be a "clear best way" to armor your character, because there wouldn't be a universally agreed upon "goal" of each classes true roll, beyond the most basic (warrior tanks, cleric heals etc) and the customization everyone brings to the table relies more on thought, skill, and personal taste instead of "well this guy has the BiS armor and weapons, so he'll be the best warrior to invite." A rogue with all cloth could move faster, evade better, sneak better, backstab better, but would be squishy. A rogue with all chainmail would do a bit less damage and sneak worse, but could survive better. If a rogue equips plate vambraces, they lose the ability to backstab. If they equip plate boots, they can no longer sneak. However, if the player didn't want to do those actions anyhow, and saw a benefit gained that they thought was worth losing the other ability, they could choose to do so themselves. So basically each player would find their own balance of how many of each type of gear they wore, and judged the benefits/consequnces on their own playstyle, not on pre-defined "rules" of the class. After all, a raiding rogue likely won't need to sneak very often, but HP could make or break the encounter, where a rogue that's doing a quest might want to equip all cloth to sneak past the enemy and hope to hell they don't get caught since they're now squishy.
Just a thought.
Why would I voluntarily wear something that makes me worse at performing my role? Even if I could wear it, I wouldn't, so why have the option in the first place other than just to let some wizard clomp around in full plate running out of mana after every spell because of all the penalties?
Well, the point is if the classes are more akin to EQ classes, "your role" could be a lot more varied than what bad MMOS like wow impose. So if a monk has feign death for pulling, fist dps, or weapon dps, and maybe a meditate perk that keeps them out of combat, but boosts their groups dps or hp, maybe they would use cloth to meditate, leather to dps, or chain to pull.
I think "the role" as a hard and fast rule for each class is a little constrictive. What if a group has two warriors? You don't need two tanks, so maybe one switches to leather which raises their dps and the other stays in plate to tank.
Maybe a raid encounter has heavy ranged melee AE like flurry, but is in close quarters like a tunnle, so even the casters do well to equip some plate just to survive the fight.
These kinds of adaptations and mechanics I find to be a lot more interesting than "the wizard wears clothe and casts spells. The warrior wears plate and tanks. The cleric stairs at their spellbound then casts heal. The rogue pushes auto attack and goes to get a drink."
Hey Arksien! i followed your instructions and found my way here.
I think the point you raise regrading to use of varying armour is an interesting one. i do not agree that looking at ESO is necessarily a great model as the armour in that game despite professing to allow "what ever you want to be" never really got there as stat allotment was never very good. I dabbled with the plate wearing caster but it just wasn't strong. However, i do like the idea of the weight or bulk of armour meaning something. Your statements about the practicalities of varied armour use in my opinion are sound. Your example of archers not wearing cumbersome gloves or vambraces, is solid. real life experience of having hunted with a bow, was that you would wear a leather strap on your arm holding down any cloth that could impede the the bow string, or simply to protect your forearm. (sure i was not fighting a crazy goblin rogue, in which case i may have wanted some + X leather gloves of deflection!).
We seem to be very stuck in the mindset that specifc classes must wear specifc armour. I broadly expect that this based about the historic perceptions in gaming, from the way classes were developed, and therefore the way gear was allocated stats. ie. my warrior needs strength and stam therefore the plate gear based around these stats is what i must wear. add to this the need for Tanks (warriors) needing high AC how better to ensure that by making Plate armour - str, stam and Armour. In some ways it has also been as a response to the 'core' or 'primary' stats being the only stats that matter. Ie i no longer need to consider wht AGI does for my warior tank cause as long as my Armour and STA is high enough and i have taken my talent that gives me +XX% to dodge/Parry i am fine. i say pfft this is not fun!
I remember looking at gear and thinking you know what i want more AGI as a warrior tank because i want to be able to dodge more attacks (way back in the day before rogues could tank and were based around dodge builds). This issue goes to another post that has stirred up quite a conversation about the usefullness of all stats to all classes, so i don't want to waylay this conversation by dropping that grenade in the room.
However, the exploration of class roles (warrior tank vs dps) should broaden into the stats required to be effective in that role. If AGI inceases attack speed and crit chance what says that i wouldn't target chain with AGI for my warrior dps if it meant enhanced movement over plate. I have often wished (while playing multpile faceroll MMOs) that if the DPS warrior had to wear chain or leather rather than plate it would actually make them better players as in situational awareness and avoiding dmg.
to echo Ark i would enjoy the abilty to customise my character to be what i want it to be, race, class, role, attire and stat itemisation for how i want to fulfill my role.
Obviosuly there is an issue here that would mean designing weapons and armour with a broad spectrum of stats (plate with INT/WIS, leather with STR/AGI) its doable and has been done before. Perhaps this could be further explored through crafting that meant carfters taiolered gear to their customer....
i will finish with an example of how ideas of classes varies:
(game of the thrones) Tyrion's mate Bronn the sellsword. he was a warrior. Light armour wearing, agile, speed based light weapon weilding warrior.
His fight in the Eyrie against Sir Vardis Egan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN30YMzja6Y shows two very different types of warrior.
You are making a quite large assumption with this concept. You assume that any ability that is affected by a stat or stats have the same benefit (calculated the exact same way) across all classes. You're also assuming all classes have the same ability caps or even all have the same abilities.
EQ1 Monks with high DEX and AGI worked well because the abilities tied to those stats had modifiers for those stats. Monks got more benefit from an increase in AGI/DEX than a SK or WAR. AGI for a Druid or Wizard, no matter how high, meant little to nothing. I don't think a Wizard even had the Dodge skill. Definitely did not have Evade, Parry, Riposte or even Block.
Vandraad said:Why would I voluntarily wear something that makes me worse at performing my role? Even if I could wear it, I wouldn't, so why have the option in the first place other than just to let some wizard clomp around in full plate running out of mana after every spell because of all the penalties?
Good point, and there's a game out there that supports your argument - Anarchy Online. Every profession (class) of any race has access to every skill in the game. Thing is, skills go up with Improvement Points, and your class/race dictates how many IP are needed for each skill bump. The scale goes from light green (easiest skill raise) to dark blue (hardest slkill raise) and that scale not only determines how many IP each skill raise costs, but what the cap is per title level. Relative to each other, a dark blue skill can be raised to 60% of a green skill.
So if you want your atrox enforcer (think ogre warrior) wearing INT/Sense based armor that buffs the crap out of your nano (casting) skills, so you can favor spamming your aggro nanos over your raw tanking/mitigation ability...you can do that. It makes not much sense, but it can be done. You can make nanomage NT (think high elf wizard) that tanks, or tries to. Anyone in AO can do anything, to at least 40-50% of the max effectiveness of that particular ability...and almost nobody does.
People pretty much follow the class defined path of maxing their effectiveness at a specific role. Every can do the voluntary "make myself worse" thing, and almost nobody chooses to do so. Tanks wear tank armor, casters wear caster armor, etc.
I think some people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm by no means advocating that everyone should be able to do everything. I am also not saying that if someone equips a different type of gear, they should suddenly morph into a different type of class. I am also, most certainly not advocating that everyone needs to keep a full set of all types of gear on them at all times to see what goes on.
What I AM saying, is that in the real world, you would never tell an archer they can only wear leather and cannot wear a plate breastplate because "those are the rules." If this was the real world, and we were on a raid, you would not tell a rogue "hey, I know you're going to be standing in plain sight and only providing DPS, but instead of raising your hp and weapon strength, I'm really going to need you to continue wearing quiet shoes and clothing because rogues are sneaky, even though that's not the role you're currently fulfilling." I also don't think that rogues should be given full chain, but then magically be able to sneak around in it because "they're sneaky but in this game they wear chain."
If a warrior didn't need to tank however, and got a slight stat bonus to dps by equiping chainmail, I don't think their DPS should now rival a monk or a ranger. However, a slight increase to their DPS is better than saying "well, you're a tank, and that's all you do. So basically our group can't use one because we already have a tank." Nor, for that matter, should a group willing to have two warriors because we're all friends be forced to suffer tremendously lower DPS for playing with the people they like. This game isn't going to be WoW. If this game is what they describe, and what I hope it will be, it's not like you're going to have an endless sea of alts to jump on. You'll be committed to one main character, and you'll never have an alt as powerful as your main unless you decide to make it your new main. It just takes too much time. While I don't think everyone should do everything, I don't see any reason why you can't situationally boost your abilities slightly in one role, at the cost of another, if it's better for the situation. Imagine a zone where some mobs are tanked better by a crusader, and some mobs are tanked better by a warrior. Now you can have both in the group, because when we come on the area with the warrior mobs, the crusader can switch to DPS gear and slightly boost their usefulness. Again, not to a rogue or monk level, but above what they do with tank gear.
Let me give you an EQ example. The harder mobs in Sleepers Tomb were imune to normal weapons. You needed to gear up the whole raid with special weapons to work on those mobs. Well, this is already going to be employed in Pantheon to an extent with enviroments, why stop there? Why not have a raid mob where you go in, and totally wipe because all your casters were insta killed, and you need to find a way to get everyone's HP up enough to survive. Of course, caster DPS goes way down as a result, which adds a new layer of challenge because now you not only needed to rethink how you play your class, but you need to do so during an endurance trial!
Classic EQ actually did what I propose to an extent, and then they went away from it when the management changed. A ranger COULD wear some plate back in the day. Also, the Fungus Covered Tunic was a popular tanking item even thought it was cloth, because the regen was very helpful. That could be worn by everyone except like 3 classes.
Yes, I understand that under normal circumstances, most casters would wear cloth and most warriors wear plate. But I really don't like the idea of "this is your one role, so even if the situation makes you useless right now, there's no reason to change strategies and adapt. Just sit there and later on your one role might be useful again." I don't think that's how battle went down in the days of yore, in any culture.
@Narben, I actually wasn't talking about ESO. I was talking about the single player series. I REALLY like the way gearing goes in Morrowind and Oblivion. (I wasn't a big fan of Skyrim, but that's a different story). Like, if you wanted to sneak in Oblivion, the type of shoes you had on actually mattered. If you wanted to increase the stregnth of your attacks, the gear mattered there too. I don't like how ESO did things, because they went too far in the "make it easy" direction, and a tank could actually tank in cloth if they wanted. I obviously don't think that should happen.
@Hieromonk Who says a wizard isn't strong enough to wear plate? You? According to what, the wizards you've talked to in real life? It would come with a heavy penalty, which is why you wouldn't wear it full time. You would wear it situationally to give yourself a certain advantage to an encounter if it outweighed the loss. Battlemages are a class in several games, and it's a really fun class to play actually. Maybe the wizard now moves slow and casts fewer spells, but maybe in a scenario like the one I gave, that's just an added and necessary challenge because of the circumstances.
@Vandraad I know you couldn't do this in modern EQ, but this actually did happen in classic EQ. Also, YOU are making the assumptions about a game that doesn't exist, not me. You have already decided that this game will opperate on the same behind the scens rolls and stats mechanics classic EQ did. Maybe that's true, I'm not a dev, but we're in pre-alpha and it's 2015 now not 1999. I loved EQ with a dear passion and want to see a return to that era of gaming, but I don't think we need to tether ourselves to a specific mechanic with the more advanced technology and coding availible now. There absolutely exists the abilities to on a class-by-class and slot-by-slot basis have a sliding scale for every ability that not only affects each ability based on your stats, but also your gear, and any number of other factors you currently have. I don't think the behind the scenes number calculations need to go completely out the window, but tethering ourselves to the past and saying "nothing can move outside the status quo" is a surefire way to have stale mechanics in this game out the gate. Progress happens when you take the best of the past, and mix it with some flavor of the future. The trick is finding the balance where it adds a fun new challenge without trivializing anything, but that's easy enough to fix by simply making sure that any benefit a class gets from stepping outside of their main role comes with a penalty to their main role, and also is not as good as whatever class has said ability as a main role (a ranger can get better at tanking with plate, bet never as agood as a tank class. A healer can increase spell DPS, but not to the extent of caster class etc.) It's a series of secondary roles at the temporary cost of the main role, not an unbalanced addition to their main role.
Arksien said:
Classic EQ actually did what I propose to an extent, and then they went away from it when the management changed. A ranger COULD wear some plate back in the day. Also, the Fungus Covered Tunic was a popular tanking item even thought it was cloth, because the regen was very helpful. That could be worn by everyone except like 3 classes.
Yes, I understand that under normal circumstances, most casters would wear cloth and most warriors wear plate. But I really don't like the idea of "this is your one role, so even if the situation makes you useless right now, there's no reason to change strategies and adapt. Just sit there and later on your one role might be useful again." I don't think that's how battle went down in the days of yore, in any culture.
While I don't agree with you, there is nothing wrong with your stance on this subject. The reason I think people react the way we do is because of statements like the I bolded in the quote.
Those words can be seen as possibly the very words spoken by developers who wanted games where a character could do everything (or close to it) that every other character could do. Once spoken, the words led to boring, classless, games which were just not that fun to play (imo).
The fungi tunic example doesn't work because it wasn't supposed to be so powerful. Didn't it get nerfed actually? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it was good for a limited time (levels) and then the regen became a non factor. Like I said, I could be not remembering this correctly.
In the days of yore, there weren't really rules to engagement. When the 'rules' began to show up, the Officers stayed 'in the rear with the gear'. Didn't archers stay out of combat at all costs? Pretty much the battle was over if the archers were in melee?
I enjoy reading your thoughts. :)
Arksien said:What I AM saying, is that in the real world, you would never tell an archer they can only wear leather and cannot wear a plate breastplate because "those are the rules." If this was the real world, and we were on a raid, you would not tell a rogue "hey, I know you're going to be standing in plain sight and only providing DPS, but instead of raising your hp and weapon strength, I'm really going to need you to continue wearing quiet shoes and clothing because rogues are sneaky, even though that's not the role you're currently fulfilling." I also don't think that rogues should be given full chain, but then magically be able to sneak around in it because "they're sneaky but in this game they wear chain."t an unbalanced addition to their main role.
tl;dr - wizards should be able to wear plate mail because why be a glass cannon when you can be an iron cannon?
Got it.
Hi bloodbeard! Thanks for your response. I completely agree that the fear of "boring, unified classes" is real because we've seen it go wrong in the past. However, I think that it isn't a black and white issue, and I think it's not fair to use some of the "bad examples" in play, because there were other factors to consider. Take WoW for example. They wanted four classes, and perfectly balanced. So if we do what I describe in pantheon, we're all doomed to a wow clone right? I don't think so. WoW had the goal of being accessible to a larger audience, so it was made easier. The fact that they happened to make classes more generic in the same game played right into that. I'm not suggesting we make classes more generic. I'm suggesting that we remove any arbitrary limitations based on pre-conceived notions. I think it would be very important to make sure that any secondary ability never was as good as the class where it was their primary ability, and even that minor increase should come at a cost, so things stay balanced.
Also, to go back to my first post, I wouldn't mind seeing this level of decision making applied even within the same class, so that while a class has 3 main roles, they can only excel at one role at a time. Here's my dream of what a monk should look like:
Monks should be agile warriors, capable of dealing quick and steady damage with their arms and legs. They should be adept at hand to hand combat, and also melee weapons. They should also be great kickers and acrobats. They should have a few special abilities such as "feign death" where they can make an enemy forget about them, and "medidate" where they must stay seated, but channel their conection to the spiritual world to boost the abilities of their groupmates.
Well, if you can do all of that at once, you're pretty OP. So what if you need to pick a few or one at a time? You'd need special robes to meditate, and could still deal damage in them, but you get more power behind your attacks if you wear leather gear that boosts your dexterity and stregnth. Also, maybe there's meditation to boost group magic, and also to boost group melee sorta like bards in classic EQ. But, boosting magic takes INT gear and melee takes STR gear, so you meditate in one set of gear in some scenarios, and another set of gear in others. I think this dream ability of mine would work like song twisting in classic EQ and require real skill that not everyone could have.
When you let players "do it all," it cheapens the score, even within the same class. I'd like people to need to make meaningful choices which in a way is actually more limiting. You'll need to keep most of your spare gear in the bank since you can't just lug around 4 full suits of armor, so instead players choose their own brand of mix and match, or need to pre-plan what supplies to bring based on where they're going tonight. I miss the requirement of fore-thought in gaming for what you'll do that night. Implemented properly, I think this proposal could actually make the game harder because people need to understand all their roles, all the limitations, then plan in advance to maximize based on what they're getting ready to do. Show up with the wrong gear, and you'll need to go re-tool in town to come back instead of staying there and trying over and over til you get it. That's got a nice challenge to it I think.
Oh, on a different note
When the 'rules' began to show up, the Officers stayed 'in the rear with the gear'. Didn't archers stay out of combat at all costs? Pretty much the battle was over if the archers were in melee?
Venjenz said:Arksien said:What I AM saying, is that in the real world, you would never tell an archer they can only wear leather and cannot wear a plate breastplate because "those are the rules." If this was the real world, and we were on a raid, you would not tell a rogue "hey, I know you're going to be standing in plain sight and only providing DPS, but instead of raising your hp and weapon strength, I'm really going to need you to continue wearing quiet shoes and clothing because rogues are sneaky, even though that's not the role you're currently fulfilling." I also don't think that rogues should be given full chain, but then magically be able to sneak around in it because "they're sneaky but in this game they wear chain."t an unbalanced addition to their main role.
tl;dr - wizards should be able to plate mail because why be a glass cannon when you can be an iron cannon?
Got it.
Again, a fragile Wizard is not strong enough to wear full plate mail, let alone a single breast plate. Doing so is part of a young warriors training. Just like a Warrior wold not be able to meditate a worthless spell... he has no prior training.
I am not knocking your idea, I am simply playing devil's advocet and poking holes in your idea.
Hieromonk said:Again, a fragile Wizard is not strong enough to wear full plate mail, let alone a single breast plate. Doing so is part of a young warriors training. Just like a Warrior wold not be able to meditate a worthless spell... he has no prior training.
I am not knocking your idea, I am simply playing devil's advocet and poking holes in your idea.
Hey man, I appreciate it but I think you hit on the whole point but missed the meaning. Of course a wizard can't wear plate well. That's why if equiped, they'd not be able to move well or cast well. It's a huge negative. However, there might be a situation where the loss of mobility and power are needed just to simply survive, which is why I gave the scenario of a close quarters raid mob with AE melee flurry. A magic barrier won't protect them, so they need to hunker down in I'll fitted gear just to survive. That mechanic would be intended to make you do something desperate just to survive long enough to deal damage. By no means do I think they should wield the armor with grace, as that would be OP. I just think it's cool to have the option to "make due with what you find" Even if it's less than ideal, or intentionally gear against the grain for a situational benefit even if it costs you the ability to use what normally is a "core class skill."
If they started building situations where survival skills outside the main class roles were needed, it would add a new level of hard core to the genre that we haven't seen fully utilized. This type of mechanic already exists in single player games like the original Mass Effect, where you might run out of ammo at your "good skill" and you're forced to improvise with your "bad skills." Since the game never let's you truly level up your "bad skills," you stay bad at them but sometimes you need to use them out of desperation or due to the enviroment. I think that could really cause some fun challenges to be programed in that aren't possible when you can do your good skill 100% of the time, and never have access to other skills, even at a novice level. A wizard will never wield a sword with grace, but they shouldn't be physically incapable of taking it off a fallen foe and flailing wildly in desperation when they're OOM. Bad DPS is better than no DPS, and adds a level of desperate realism to a game. You know **** hit the fan when the wizard is sloppily wielding a sword and the cleric is desperately trying to out bandages on the tank instead of healing because a mob drinks the mana of casters and they suddenly need to rethink their main role.
Arksien said:Hieromonk said:Again, a fragile Wizard is not strong enough to wear full plate mail, let alone a single breast plate. Doing so is part of a young warriors training. Just like a Warrior wold not be able to meditate a worthless spell... he has no prior training.
I am not knocking your idea, I am simply playing devil's advocet and poking holes in your idea.
Hey man, I appreciate it but I think you hit on the whole point but missed the meaning. Of course a wizard can't wear plate well. That's why if equiped, they'd not be able to move well or cast well. It's a huge negative. However, there might be a situation where the loss of mobility and power are needed just to simply survive, which is why I gave the scenario of a close quarters raid mob with AE melee flurry. A magic barrier won't protect them, so they need to hunker down in I'll fitted gear just to survive. That mechanic would be intended to make you do something desperate just to survive long enough to deal damage. By no means do I think they should wield the armor with grace, as that would be OP. I just think it's cool to have the option to "make due with what you find" Even if it's less than ideal, or intentionally gear against the grain for a situational benefit even if it costs you the ability to use what normally is a "core class skill."
If they started building situations where survival skills outside the main class roles were needed, it would add a new level of hard core to the genre that we haven't seen fully utilized. This type of mechanic already exists in single player games like the original Mass Effect, where you might run out of ammo at your "good skill" and you're forced to improvise with your "bad skills." Since the game never let's you truly level up your "bad skills," you stay bad at them but sometimes you need to use them out of desperation or due to the enviroment. I think that could really cause some fun challenges to be programed in that aren't possible when you can do your good skill 100% of the time, and never have access to other skills, even at a novice level. A wizard will never wield a sword with grace, but they shouldn't be physically incapable of taking it off a fallen foe and flailing wildly in desperation when they're OOM. Bad DPS is better than no DPS, and adds a level of desperate realism to a game. You know **** hit the fan when the wizard is sloppily wielding a sword and the cleric is desperately trying to out bandages on the tank instead of healing because a mob drinks the mana of casters and they suddenly need to rethink their main role.
My friend, I can extrapolate your idea & use it mentally in many scenarios... and then re-use it in different scenarios. Endlessly..
The point I am getting at, is to what end? If A Wizard can wear a Plate Chest, Chainmail leggins and Banded arms... but then can't perform, or function well as a Wizard. Then what is the point? That is the over-all point here. Even in the situation you give above and a Wizard needs to survive some odd melee attack on a raid, what use is he then? If he can't drop a 3K nuke when needed, then a Raid will just have more Hybrid classes like a Bard, Or Ranger to fit/fill those roles.
There are in fact, raids in which some classes barely do anything, or hide out of the way until needed (that is their role). They all have a role to play. What role does a Wizard wearing Armor have, if he can't Nuke..? Play with all of those scenarios in your mind for a day. I do not openly or rashly deject or critisize. I spent time with your idea.
In a game like Shroud of the Avatar it works, because the game, the premis and the crafting are all based on a different concept of classes and roles, then EQ/VG.
Again... if a Wizard with a "sword of death" is no more powerful than a Rogue with a rusty dagger, then whats the point of the Wizard on that raid..?
Well, if I understand the idea of this game, we'll be going back to the days when a raid wasn't "port to the instance, kill the only mob there, get phat lewtz, leave."
So maybe everything is going smoothly them bam, mana drinking boss, but then the next boss is almost completely immune to melee. The idea of raid zones could suddenly vary a lot in the end game, and be a real trial by fire instead of "and now we use the AoW method on boss 5628"
Also, to be fair, I feel like this plate on a wizard debate is silly because it's the least likely scenario on this system. More likely would be warrior boosting dps while not tanking (not to level of main dps) range boosting melee when out of arrows (at loss of using bow entirely) rogue have raid gear be heavier than sneak gear etc. If you don't think a wizard should wear plate, I agree, it's an extreme example and will almost never happen. My point was I think it's stupid that a character has some arbitrary inability to put on clothes because of a code limit. So a crusader can loot a bow,trade a bow, keep a bow in their backpack all without their hands? If they can't equip it, it stands to reason it's because you can't hold the item. Not every class should be able to raise their proficiency on every item. Not every class would choose to wear plate, especially if a cap is in place preventing skill ups. I'm just saying for some classes it makes sense that they should have options that expand their roles slightly, and every class should have the "desperate measures" option if we're going for historical (or otherwise) realism.
When you stop to think about it, the fact that certain items are hard coded out of even being equip able is silly. Skill it up all the way? No. Maybe sometimes not at all. But I don't think the whole idea should be thrown out because the least likely scenario would never be used. Besides, maybe some wizard wants to hold a sword for purely cosmetic reasons. That's their right in a fantasy game even if they won't use it. But I think when you expand the thought to more realistic examples like the many I've given, suddenly the only good argument for someone being forbidden from stepping outside of their one true role, even if they are never allowed to get good at it, is far more unrealistic than the "this I'd your role" standard which is in place only because someone arbitrarily decided so 20 years ago (probably due to limitations of the time) and we got used to it.
Hey Heiro, I just edited my post. I undrstand nitpicking and you are correct, but I think we got really bogged down in an extreme and unlikely scenario and started ignoring the more realistic scenarios this would be used for. I simply think that even the extreme and unlikely should a choice not to use based on practicality, not the game telling you not to equip it. Imagine how different this conversation would be if EQ decided to let everyone equip everythinh, and let the player learn through trial what was and was not something they could level. We would all be on this forum complaining about the new hand hold games that tell you what weapons work for what class without making you figure it out on your own. The other applications are more open doors that could be explored one day, not a hard and fast requirement. I like when games, at their core, leave doors open even if unused now to see where it goes in the future.
It seems that they are already doing a lot with gear in this game (unless things have changed) where you will need many sets to swap in and out based upon what type of stuff you are fighting (poison mobs, fire mobs, etc... for example).
I understand your point - but I would worry about adding a layer of potential complexity to an already deep gear paradigm. Further, I think about the reason that Blizzard decided to give your primary stat a bonus if you wore all of your type of gear... prior to that there were people rolling on gear that wasn't really for their class, but had an upgrade on their primary stats. So for example, a Holy Paladin might roll on a leather item that had more INT on it than their item... and that would be a roll against a leather class that was unable to wear the plate stuff that drops for you.
That situation though, may exist anyway - as historically classes have been able to wear their gear and anything lighter than their gear... so chain classes could also wear leather and cloth... making my point at least partially moot.
While I didn't read this thread in its entirety, I think I get the gist. The idea you propose has a place in some games, and is/has been implemented. Camelot Unchained, the new game from Mark Jacobs come to mind. However, in a game like EQ/VG/Pantheon I don’t think it fits. I can think of numerous reasons, but the one that sticks out the most is it gives people possible reasons to want to roll on gear that is ideal for the classes it is really intended for. As an EQ/VG player I would not like to see a system like this in place in Pantheon.
Wand and Kat, you both bring up good points. I happen to disagree, but I understand how your belief would make this negative for you.
In my mind, I don't like someone saying "that's warrior gear" or "that's rogue gear." If the devs want to define that as how their game works, it's their business, so the WOW devs were within their rights. But as far as I'm concerned, if a leather item is an upgrade to two members of a group, one player shouldn't be forbidden from rolling on it just because people say they are a plate class. An upgrade is and upgrade. This was how classic EQ worked in the early days. I don't like telling other people I know how to play their character better than them because I don't like when people do that to me. In my mind, so long as someone intends to equip the item, it isn't my business to tell them no.
In early EQ, NBG wasn't a rule at all. Your group could agree on that if they wanted, and many did, but often people wanted a chance to sell an item so they could buy one they themselves needed. Gear was so rare, that while one person might need the item right then, maybe the other person would be able to trade it for a similar item, or sell it and buy a similar item. I don't really see that as immediately wrong, and still have a vivid memory of missing the roll on my dream sword of the time to a cleric, but that's just how it went back then. Back then people didn't go whining to the devs about it. They'd tell you to request NBG, and if people said no, find another group.
That said, I do agree with NBG in most cases, and do understand both your points. However, when push comes to shove, I'd rather decide what I need, not have someone else tell me.
Difference of play preference I suppose. This whole thread is just a thought I had, it's by no means a demand or expectation as I said before. Just something I think is cool to toss out since we're still pre alpha and things are far from set in stone yet.
@Arksien
I played from EQ beta, and need before greed definitely existed. It wasn't called "Need before greed" at the time, but it was more based on server reputation/infamy. If you grouped with people and an item dropped that was an upgrade, the person typically received the item unless there were loot wh*res in the group, and, if you were viewed as a loot wh*re - good luck finding groups in the future.
And, from your discussion with Bloodbeard, Rangers could wear "some" plate at EQlaunch; however, most of the plate that had the good AC was either removed (Rubicite) or not intended for rangers (Lustrous Russet - was meant to be Warrior only gear in PoF). There were a few other random pieces like the Crested Helm/hero bracer which had good Stats, but the AC was less than many chain pieces. The only piece that I can remember that was nearly the best for awhile was the Mithril Breastplate from SolB. So, while you're technically right that they could wear plate, it didn't have the effect that you desire in this thread (increased tanking/damage mitigation ability), but, point taken.
Now, back on topic. I like ideas that are outside the box, but, I really think that often (especially with MMOs) that if something wasn't broke, you definitely don't need to fix it.
You argue that there's no reason why all classes can't wear plate on down while sacrificing one stat for another. So, basically, instead of having your class define your role, you're trying to have your gear tweak your class based on gear selection.
Cloth = Caster Stats
Leather = DPS Stats
Chain = AC/DPS
Plate = AC
Naked = ....extremely fast DPS? (meant to be partially humorous, but you would be the most free).
A very basic model, but, you get the idea. So, a caster wants to create a "build" for AC at the expense of casting speed. Why? To take a couple more hits and then die because they can't get off a root? To take a couple hits in the group so they won't die when a tank can't hold agro? If a caster wants to take a few more hits, get some gear with +hps or +stamina or a offhand shield.
Now, I know.. you said ignore the wizard with plate. So, I'll give another example. A warrior, you want him to be able to wear leather to be able to do more DPS. Why? He was tanking with a sword/shield/plate. Why change the class by gear when the easier alternative if his skill set (dual wield, 2handed wep) which I'm guessing in Pantheon this will already be included with appropriate skillsets to match it. The problem that EQ had wasn't it's gear restrictions, it's just that classes weren't balanced around their main/core roles. A Warrior "Should" have been the best tank in EQ because they could do nothing else, but, you could tweak that a bit for Pantheon by saying "If" a warrior wasn't using sword/shield than the warrior could sacrificing his "best" tanking ability to gain +10/15% DPS by dual wielding or using a 2hander, then that would be sufficient.
And, as you said in other threads -the use of the shields could be the way for hybrids like Rangers take a couple blows (like EQ). Have Rangers be a "Shield tank" in order to gain the AC if they wanted to try to take a couple more hits and/or off-tank.
Also, as others have stated, you would have everyone /need rolling on gear at that point.
And, I want item weight to be relevant in Pantheon - I want encumberance to be an issue. I don't want having bags of gear to swap out when necessary to detract from that gameplay. If you need multiple sets all the time, armor bags/weight reduction bags/weightlessness would almost be a requirement.
Ultimately, this is another one of those gameplay mechanics that if you view it as less realistic I'd rather suspend disbelief for the improved gameplay (like trains to zone).
While i clearly understand that the classes in Pantheon have a clear foundation from EQ, I find taht much of the conversation is strongly fixated on what things used to be (based on fond memories i am sure). I feel there is so much opportunity to explore class variation without 'breaking them'. I don't want each class to be able to do everything - actually i am far from that position. I want to ensure there is interdependence between and within classes and roles.
I do not think a Warrior must only be a tank. I think that is narrow. I think warriors can tank, i think they should be great single target tanks that have high physical mitigation due to use of heavy armour and shields and through skills that assist in deflection, blocking and parry. I think this type of warrior needs
However, I also think a warrior should be able to crack skulls and provide good/high damage and utility through movement imparing 'hamstring' type abilities', additionally you could add short duration shouts/bloodcalls lifting physical dps.
Critically, in making this choice between these distinct roles, i should have to actively decide i will not be able to tank. So, if i can make this clear distinction in this age of exploration of classes, why would i choose that my agile, dmg dealing warrior that will never (if i can avoid them) cope a cleave or take direct dmg, must wear heavy armour and stack str and stam til my eyes pop out? I would have thought that the armour option of chain/ or even leatherwould compliment my choice.
I understand that this type of thing requires broader development but i if we limit ourselves to thinking of classes as being so linear, it limits our ability to be inventive and some what unique.
i know this is only a partial fit in this thread but it ties together some of my broader thought about developing roles within classes, with some ability to bring individuality ...
as always thanks for reading