Thanks for responding Raiden and Narben. I think Narben is getting at what I'm getting at with this. It's less about some weird wishy-washy world where all 12 classes become one. It's more about when a class would VERY LOGICALLY be able to do something, yet is prevented from doing so by arbitrary means.
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.
Also, I would again like to point out that something disturbing me on these forums (especially outside of this thread, in places like the balance discussion) is the use of the slippery-slope fallacy to fight against any change in the status quo. "Oh, well if you let a warrior re-gear to DPS when they're not DPS, then before you know it clerics will be tanking! Rogues will be main healers! Gnomes will be marrying Myr! err... what were we talking about again?" That fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.
As to the "this gear is for this class" argument, or "the devs meant it this way" that is PRECISELY what I am arguing against. We, as players, have it so set in our damn minds that gear is this holy grail that must be used by a very specific class. I think it's absolutely absurd that there are historic examples where a game an item say 7 classes can use it, but then when 6 of those classes start rolling on it as an upgrade, everyone bitches because it's actually "best" for one class. Excuse me, but it says 7 classes on it. An upgrade is an upgrade. If we want to have a game where each class is "best" for the gear, make a game where a bracer drops and says "warrior" on it and nothing else. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. That is a close-mindedness that gamers have developed over no particularly good reason, and quite frankly I'm pleased to see Brad mentioning intentional mechanics such as enviroments in this game to prevent exactly this.
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.
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.
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.
While I can appreciate your passion and thinking outside the box on this, I frankly don't like the idea. As Raidan pointed out, this appears to be innovation for innovation's sake: Making things unnesscarily different or complicated while adding very little benefit. In fact, this would appear to add a whole bunch of drawbacks both mechanically and socially. On top of that, we already know that Pantheon will have varying climates that require different gear for different situations. I dont want to carry around a plate tank set and leather dps set for every climate. I think thats getting a bit rediculous.
While you claim realism as the reason for this, in a world with spells, magic, and dragons, realism usually isn't a strong argument.
Why is innovation something you think should be shunned? Two people have brought up what I consider solid concerns so far, but Raidin is not one of them (no offense Raidin, I like a lot of what you have to say) and I sincerely don't see why we should be making another game that us basically a tweaked version of EQ.
EQ was awesome. I loved it. But it wasn't perfect, and there hasn't been one single fantasy MMO to date that has done anything other than make an EQ clone with some minor tweaks. Why is wanting to shake some things up bad? Again, I don't mind the people bringing valid counterarguments to the table, but I don't consider "this is different than my comfort zone" to be a particularly endearing argument.
Also, whenever some says "I don't want to bring a full set of x and y around to every climate" I immediately know they skimmed my argument instead of reading it, because I have specifically and blatantly said multiple times in this thread, in very clear language, that I am not asking for that.
I don't mind counter arguments or debates, but for the love of god stop making counter arguments to things I am not arguing for.
I don't want anyone forced to do anything. That is the literal opposite of what I am arguing for. I am arguing for freedom . I am arguing that it's 2015 and it's time to take the training wheels off. If we're making a hard core game, I say the more complex and freedom the better. I don't want the "challenge" to come from HP and time alone.
If you don't want complex, that's fine. If you want linear, that's fine, if you want a 10% tweak of EQ, that's fine. But I don't want that. I want immersion and wonder. There won't be wonder if this is just another EQ clone. Some things are going to need to upgrade with the times, and if we're lucky, we'll see something never seen before, AND it will be hard core and immersive.
Arksien said: Thanks for responding Raiden and Narben. I think Narben is getting at what I'm getting at with this. It's less about some weird wishy-washy world where all 12 classes become one. It's more about when a class would VERY LOGICALLY be able to do something, yet is prevented from doing so by arbitrary means.
I understand your point completely - I just don't agree with it. Not all new ideas are good ones (mine either), and not all good ideas are practical (which I think your idea here falls into), even one's that you've obviously put a lot of thought into. Again, not meaning to be rude - I applaud the thought process, just not the idea.
Arksien said: However, when you tell a Dire Lord they may NEVER learn how to duel wield, even though they are proficient with swords, use 2handers, and use a shield, well that's just an arbitrary limitation that was less an attempt at realism, and more an attempt to quickly balance and move on. There's plenty of balancing that can go on behind the scenes and with class specific abilities that can keep classes in a general direction, without imposing unrealistic and copout limitations on the class that would most certainly never happen. Even if these abilities are one a class chooses to ignore at all, it's a Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game. A true open world RPG shouldn't tell the players what to do any more than it has to in order to stay coherent. Sometimes in an RPG, the best reason to have something in the game isn't practical, it's immersive.
The problem is, your idea works in a true sandbox game. EQ wasn't, VG wasn't, and Pantheon won't be. In a world your speaking about there needs to be one class - a freelancer or something, and based on your skills/gear/choices you develop your character. You can't have defined classes, and then try to "tweak" them through a sandbox lense.
Arksien said: Also, I would again like to point out that something disturbing me on these forums (especially outside of this thread, in places like the balance discussion) is the use of the slippery-slope fallacy to fight against any change in the status quo. "Oh, well if you let a warrior re-gear to DPS when they're not DPS, then before you know it clerics will be tanking! Rogues will be main healers! Gnomes will be marrying Myr! err... what were we talking about again?" That fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.
It's not a fallacy when there are many examples of MMOs that have blurred class lines to allow for all classes to be able to do everyting. I know you don't want it to be that extreme, and where the "slippery slope" comes in is that once you start, it won't stop (which is why people shoot down ideas such as these immediately). With every expansion, the classes would become more blurred unless they stick to defined roles. Yes, I realize that's not your point specifically in this thread, but that's why you see it. Does that mean all innovation should be shunned? No, but innovation that contradicts class uniqueness and interdependence is going to be met with hostility here for good historical reasons.
Arksien said: As to the "this gear is for this class" argument, or "the devs meant it this way" that is PRECISELY what I am arguing against. We, as players, have it so set in our damn minds that gear is this holy grail that must be used by a very specific class. I think it's absolutely absurd that there are historic examples where a game an item say 7 classes can use it, but then when 6 of those classes start rolling on it as an upgrade, everyone bitches because it's actually "best" for one class. Excuse me, but it says 7 classes on it. An upgrade is an upgrade. If we want to have a game where each class is "best" for the gear, make a game where a bracer drops and says "warrior" on it and nothing else. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. That is a close-mindedness that gamers have developed over no particularly good reason, and quite frankly I'm pleased to see Brad mentioning intentional mechanics such as enviroments in this game to prevent exactly this.
Regardless of what system you implement, gear will always be better for one class than another, unless all classes can use all stats (or in the case of situational resist gear). Does that mean that all classes couldn't role on it? That depends on your group members. EQ had plenty of plate/chain/leather/cloth that had 5+ classes that could use - it wasn't "Warrior" only unless it was raid gear. And, I don't think anyone is arguing that all gear should be class specific. And, I would have no issue with other classes rolling on an item that was an upgrade (see my Thick Banded Belt example below).
Raidan said: 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.
Arksien said: Based on how I want to see gear in the game, you just argued for and against my idea in the same sentence. Let me clarify so you can understand my wish. I don't like that EQ got to a point where eventually all gear had all the stats. I want certain gear to have certain stats because that's the closest I think we can get to a reflection of reality when really no such reflection exists. A caster shouldn't be able to wear robes with high AC, STR, HP etc. Robes should have Mana, INT, WIS etc. Plate shouldn't have high INT/WIS etc. Why? Because from a roleplaying standpoint, the point of a robe is to give you attunment to the magical world, and the point of plate is to let people wail on you. The point of leather is to give you freedom to be an agile warrior, and the point of chain is a bridge between plate and leather, that lets you DPS but not as well as leather, and take damage but not as well as plate. That's how I see the gear. Also, I'd like to clear up the idea that I think a caster would put on AC gear in a group: I don't think that would happen in most cases. RAIDS are what I am talking about. I'd like to see groups where people step a LITTLE outside their role depending on who they group with, which would give devs the ability to program RAIDS where people find themselves needing to step a lot outside their role, which I think most raiders agree is a lot more interesting than the old "stick it facing the corner, all DPS on except during tank switch, cheal chain go now!" strat that dominated EQ from Velious - Omens.
I agree at the point EQ is at. I hate the All/All gear with all stats - no argument there. But, you contradict yourself within your own argument here. If you're thinking outside the box - why should "cloth" only have Int/Wis? The only realistic aspect is that cloth would allow you to move more freely - think Demon/Dark Souls. There's no "realistic" reason that plate couldn't have int/wis. Why shouldn't a robe with strength exist - Monk robe for example? And, you're interjecting your opinion/experience on what gear is int/wis "roleplay specific." There are many games where people roleplay a battlemage wearing plate - I wouldn't roleplay one, but they exist. And, in no way would I allow a caster to gimp their DPS in a raid to equip plate for AC mitigation - sorry, it's just a bad idea. If that were the case on raids that casters "could" or needed to wear plate, you'd have to have in-combat /gear swapping in order to not gimp the caster DPS throughout all of combat. /Gear swapping isn't interesting, or strategy, it's a pain in the a** and not at all realistic during mid-combat. I don't disagree that raids could/should have more strategy, but I don't want gimmicky tactics in the guise of strategy.
Raidan said: 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.
I must have overlooked your previous argument, I apologize - still doesn't change my original point though. There's no way a warrior is going to go into a group without his "tank gear" when Pantheon hopefully will have Eqesque dungeons that are difficult and time-consuming to traverse. Dire Lord dies/logs/leaves and now we have no tank except for the DPS warrior. It's only going to take one time before everyone would carry every gear set. No one is going to want to run back to the bank/get a gate/port, etc. Switching from full Plate to Chain or Leather or Cloth would not be one piece of gear - it would be 8+.
Raidan said: 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.
I should have clarified. I meant for groups, not raiding. Loot with Raiding in both pickup and guild had multiple different ways as you discussed. I played on Xegony -> Rodcet Nife -> Firionia Vie and it was the standard for us in pickup groups, perma groups, or guild groups (not raids). But, you're idea of need is skewed. Our idea of need was is that character going to equip the item and is it an upgrade from what they were wearing. And, I think you're really viewing NBG in terms of MMOs today. Everquest was much different, I know you had a different experience, but the community was much more accepting of what was an upgrade versus WoW for example when if it doesn't have XYZ stat its not for you. EQ had what you are wanting in Pantheon at launch, they just didn't have it any longer with future expansions after all stats were maxxed permanently (see my discussion below) and the all/all gear as you explained initially. Think Thick Banded Belt for a caster that needed the AC, wanted the +15 strength, and had INT over 200 already. The caster might have differed to the tank/DPS anyway, but, we would have let him/her roll as it was an upgrade for "that character." Or, if the Tank/DPS already got a supplier bag and a serrated bone dirk, the caster might have just been given the belt.
And, I think we're in much more agreement than disagreement on what we "want" - we just disagree on the implementation. I think here needs to be some gameplay restrictions (Non-sandbox) for the sake of class interdependence and overall gameplay (Cloth, Leather, Chain, Plate classes). WoW failed and succeeded on many levels, but, using WoW's talent tree and spec swapping as an example of a "good idea" is why we'll disagree on this argument. You're wanting to add limited diversity to classes, basically using a very watered down version of WoW's specs (yes I know, not even close to the level of WoW); however, with each expansion those specs would continue to blur the class lines - based off historical MMOs where it has occured (not a slippery slope).
I'd much prefer to have different options based off stats than have gear swapping, I don't want just one BiS item for all classes/races. I want the strategy involved with deciding what piece of gear would be the best upgrade like EQ, which, I think would be possible as long as max stats weren't so ridiculously easy to receive once gearflation on expansions occur. See my discussions on how I want starting stats to matter, continue to matter with expansions, and BiS items be diversified due to those selections (i.e. a Gnome warrior with 100 str/sta would have different BiS items than a Ogre Warrior with 150/130 str/sta. I've discussed it in a few other threads as well, but you'll get the gist of my thoughts there.
I've included a link below:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1558/stats-on-gear/view/page/1
TLDR: I disagree with your opinion, appreciate the thought process, and click my above link to see what I would prefer to keep classes/races diversified and no one piece of BIS gear.
Arksien said:Why is innovation something you think should be shunned? Two people have brought up what I consider solid concerns so far, but Raidin is not one of them (no offense Raidin, I like a lot of what you have to say) and I sincerely don't see why we should be making another game that us basically a tweaked version of EQ.
EQ was awesome. I loved it. But it wasn't perfect, and there hasn't been one single fantasy MMO to date that has done anything other than make an EQ clone with some minor tweaks. Why is wanting to shake some things up bad? Again, I don't mind the people bringing valid counterarguments to the table, but I don't consider "this is different than my comfort zone" to be a particularly endearing argument.
You're definitely bleeding passion You're interjecting your opinion of what people's counterargument's represent - mine have nothing to do with comfort zones and everything to do with improved gameplay and class interdependency. And no worries, I don't take offense easily (and don't here), and I can appreciate people that are firm in their beliefs and try to dig their feet in the sand and stand tall. Not many people like that that I encounter anymore - it's refreshing and frustrating (as I'm one that does the same thing haha - pretttty stubborn).
And, EQ was most definitely not perfect, but there's never been an EQ clone made, not even close. If there has been an EQ clone, I'd already be there and not be talking on these message boards. There's never been a game released since EQ (not even VG) that has had the mechanics that made EQ great. And, for the record, I don't want EQ reskinned - I want the "spirit of EQ."
Arksien said:Ok, that's a solid response right there Raid. Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough. I really appreciate a response of this level, even though I do disagree with a lot of it.
You're welcome - and feel free to disagree :). I'm most certainly not always right... and you know what they say about opinions....
Get out of the "game" mindset. What went before was often artifically limiting for no good reason other than it was easy to impliment difference.
Apparently, according to some people above, it is not possible to have a doctorate in science, and be a special forces soldier at the same time. Heaven forbid that you can specialise in a high level mental dicipline and be an effective soldier at the same time. Does the wearing body armor mean the soldier can no longer hold a scientific discussion at the same time, due to "distraction"? Did the special forces soldier begin training when they were 3 years old? Would they be better if they had?
You can be the top in the world in more than one dicipline. The All Blacks rugby team are multiple world champions, but many have degrees and some even post graduate qualifications.
Even myself, to take a much lesser example, I have a commerce degree, and am a second degree black belt. The one in no way affected the other. I am reasonably certain that had I worn a brestplate into my finals, it would not have caused me to fail my exams due to distraction, or mental exhaustion (no mana), and the middle finger could have taken care of any funny looks (backed up by karate) ;)
As for starting at age 3 to learn your craft, /whatever. Some do, some don't. Starting to learn to engineering by playing with lego blocks at 3 may give you an advantage, but in no way guarantees you'll be better than someone who starts at 12, or 20.
My point is that to treat classes as mutually exclusive is an absurd concept. Even the argument of opportunity cost being used to say that to split your studies between more than one discipline results in you not being as good as someone who dedicates all their time to one discipline is not a sound argument, and many real world examples could be found to support this.
Penalties for wearing certain armor types should be based on logic. Plate may have an effect on a persons agility, endurance (weight lugged around) and available lift capacity (total lift less weight of armor on arms) etc. Gauntlets may affect dexterity with regard to hand/finger skills, but have no effect on balance or hand/eye coordination. Stating that a wizard wearing a brestplate would struggle to concentrate, or would use more mana is simply a wrong way to think about the effects of armor on class. It doesn't make the wizard any less intelligent, and if the distraction factor is so apparent, they'd never handle the distraction of actual combat anyway. The main reason for not wearing plate is freedom of movement, and lack of strength/endurance to cope with it for long durations. If your stats support it, your class shouldn't prohibit it, other than for lore reasons such as certain rules/beliefs of orders/sects etc.
Any "class" - and I really dislike the class concept - should not be restricted in what they wear other than the physical effect it has on the ability directly impacted by the wearing of such items. Anything else is artifical game mechanics for the sake of enforcing a point of difference.
Arksien said:Why is innovation something you think should be shunned?
Im gonna stop right there. I clearly did not say or imply that innovation should be shunned. Innovation for innovation's sake is was my point as well as others in this thread. This is not a new concept and is widely discussed in creative circles:
Here is a great article on innovating for innovation's sake in the gaming industry.
Here is another supporting article from from MIT on innovation for innovation's sake.
Again, I sincerely appreciate your passion on this subject. Please dont take my criticism the wrong way -- my intention was not to offend you, but rather to disagree with you. We're all paying to support Pantheon and post on these forums. We're all invested. As result, we dont have many trolls here (if any at all) and this forum is absolutely brimming with healthy debate where people dont always agree.