Deleted Member said:Amsai said: I say let similar spell effects stack (bard haste and Shaman haste?) But have a cap on how much is stacked (percentage) (ill leave that to dev balancing). As for the same spells stacking...... thats probably a dev thing too. Id say no but there might be some casses where its ok. As for giving hybrids unique spells so they dont overlap on spell effects. I definitely support this. But mostly because I dont like recycled spells. Even if they achieve the same effect I would want spells to be different and themed per class.which should also mean they stack but within the same limitatons I mentioned before.Buff stacking did work like that in EQ1 where you could have an Enchanter cast Haste and the Haste song from a bard in the group would stack. Shaman or Druid regeneration buff stacked with a healing song. Where things didn't stack is when the sources were from the same spell lines or if one version was of a lower level than another. A lvl 50 AGI buff would overwrite a lvl 40 AGI buff. Where things got interesting is when some buffs would have multiple effects (STR+DEX+STA) and if someone cast a single DEX buff it would overwrite the DEX part but let you keep the STR+STA.
Buff stacking needs to be thought out very carefully because any content developed must be designed as if everyone has the best buffs and buff combinations possible otherwise the content can become trivialized because of unforseen interactions with our armor, weapons, resists and stats.
NoobieDoo said:
It was a HUGE occurence for me to group with bards in VG that had flat out useless song components in their song because they didn't realize there were group members using buffs that their song components didn't stack with.
To some people it is an issue because they have to figure out which ones stack. To some it is an issue because they part of their class their skill set becomes useless just because another player is grouped with them which can make it even more frustrating because the other player GETS to use their skills. To some it is an issue because they don't realize that they are handicapping themselves because they are using buffs that are useless.
I'd like to see all buffs stack. To do this IMO the buffs would need to be scaled down in effectiveness. Also the amount of classes that have buffs with similar effects needs to be limited. Like I stated earlier there is no reason for 7 clases to all have HP buffs. When every class in the game can give a HP buff of course things are going to get unbalanced.
I want to play a game with some challenge and complexity to it. If people can't be bothered learning their class then why should the rest of us be forced down to that lower level of game play just to compensate for them? Last I looked at WoW about 1/2 the spells/abilities had been removed from that game to make it simple enough so people didn't have to think. I don't want to see Pantheon going down that track.
Sounds like the people you played with needed a bit of advise from you or take the time to research their class.
Boulda said:NoobieDoo said:
It was a HUGE occurence for me to group with bards in VG that had flat out useless song components in their song because they didn't realize there were group members using buffs that their song components didn't stack with.
To some people it is an issue because they have to figure out which ones stack. To some it is an issue because they part of their class their skill set becomes useless just because another player is grouped with them which can make it even more frustrating because the other player GETS to use their skills. To some it is an issue because they don't realize that they are handicapping themselves because they are using buffs that are useless.
I'd like to see all buffs stack. To do this IMO the buffs would need to be scaled down in effectiveness. Also the amount of classes that have buffs with similar effects needs to be limited. Like I stated earlier there is no reason for 7 clases to all have HP buffs. When every class in the game can give a HP buff of course things are going to get unbalanced.
I want to play a game with some challenge and complexity to it. If people can't be bothered learning their class then why should the rest of us be forced down to that lower level of game play just to compensate for them? Last I looked at WoW about 1/2 the spells/abilities had been removed from that game to make it simple enough so people didn't have to think. I don't want to see Pantheon going down that track.
Sounds like the people you played with needed a bit of advise from you or take the time to research their class.
@Noobiedoo
Having knowledge of the game, other classes limitations and strengths, and what they could do or could not do is an aspect that separated good from great players in EQ. Is there a challenge to the actual act of clicking a buff? Of course not. Although, many lazy players didn't buff and that did "add" to the challenge.
Gaining the class knowledge as a warrior allowed me to know when a cleric, druid, shaman, enchanter, etc. wasn't buffing right and if I already had a better cleric buff on for the druid to /save mana because I already had a better buff. Example: Druid just joined group and cleric left. I have Valor with 45 minutes remaining - I let druid know to save mana on skin like steel so I can continue pulling constantly and allow the druid to save mana. Since resource managment was important, and buffs took "a lot" of mana, it saved quite a bit of time.
Is knowledge of buffs minor in the overall scheme of gameplay mechanics in EQ that added to depth - absolutely. Is it "challenging" in the fact that you can die - probably not. But, it is one of many aspects of class knowledge/depth that added to the larger overall equation of complexity in EQ. Having a game with enough depth that when a player learns the nuances results in a better/more efficient group/player - sign me up.
I'd agree with your example of VG because resource management wasn't important at all, and you could buff and be back at full mana nearly instantaneously; however, I'm hoping that Pantheon returns more to EQ-style need for managing resources (mana/endurance).
This is a tough one.
Honestly buffs could stack and be ok. Buffs stacking is ok unless its a buff of the same name(other than same tier of the same spell). So if a paladin casts a health augmentation, a cleric should have a health augmentation named somthing else that works as well. 2 Paladins augmentation spells of the same name shouldnt stack period. To manage OP of augmentations, they could implement something like Paladin health augmentation gives +300 health, cleric augmentation gives 500 health, but if both are active, the highest augmentation gives presedince giving 500 health, and the paladins buff gives 50-100 health (just an example).
This would let everyones buffs be effective, still bring something to the table and not feel like your buffs are worthless. This would help manage an individual from becoming god mode as well with so much health/str etc... The only issue i for see with this, is its alot to balance. It would be additional development time to get this right. No one wants individuals being to OP they can solo the game with a billion buffs. In this case people would create buff accounts and that just starts feeling stupid. It provides people reasons to start scripting things, and have bots follow them around. I've seen it in TONS of games and its just rediculous and ruins things.
If it couldnt be implimented right, i would rather see no buff stacking. This could also be countered by offering alternate specs, that dont cost anything and you could change specs on the fly. This would offer those classes that speced into buffing to swap to still bring something to the table for their groups.
Either way, i'm sure they will get it right.
Raidan said:@Noobiedoo
Having knowledge of the game, other classes limitations and strengths, and what they could do or could not do is an aspect that separated good from great players in EQ. Is there a challenge to the actual act of clicking a buff? Of course not. Although, many lazy players didn't buff and that did "add" to the challenge.
Gaining the class knowledge as a warrior allowed me to know when a cleric, druid, shaman, enchanter, etc. wasn't buffing right and if I already had a better cleric buff on for the druid to /save mana because I already had a better buff. Example: Druid just joined group and cleric left. I have Valor with 45 minutes remaining - I let druid know to save mana on skin like steel so I can continue pulling constantly and allow the druid to save mana. Since resource managment was important, and buffs took "a lot" of mana, it saved quite a bit of time.
Is knowledge of buffs minor in the overall scheme of gameplay mechanics in EQ that added to depth - absolutely. Is it "challenging" in the fact that you can die - probably not. But, it is one of many aspects of class knowledge/depth that added to the larger overall equation of complexity in EQ. Having a game with enough depth that when a player learns the nuances results in a better/more efficient group/player - sign me up.
I'd agree with your example of VG because resource management wasn't important at all, and you could buff and be back at full mana nearly instantaneously; however, I'm hoping that Pantheon returns more to EQ-style need for managing resources (mana/endurance).
Nailed it. Resource management was huge in EQ and will likely be significant in Pantheon as well. Taken from the game tenents:
"A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds."
When resource management is brought into the buffing equation, this becomes a different animal than what was observed in VG, WoW, EQ2, Rift, etc, where the act of buffing was simply a "chore" to do with no impact on the person casting the buff. Resource intensive buffs could allow for a true support class who's main focus is empowering other group members through buffs, both short and long duration. Similar to the shaman from EQ with the puma line of buffs, for example. This type of gameplay would support interdependancy and the quadrinity (trinity+utility), both of which support the game feature listed here:
"Play classes that have meaningful and defined roles such as Tank, Healer, DPS or Utility (crowd and encounter control). Class identity and group interdependence is key!"
This is just one example of how adding resource management to buffs can add depth. Raidan is right though, nuances are key. Layers and layers of "the small stuff" makes a big difference. When you start to strip away those layers, you end up with a thin and sterile experience that isnt very captivating. It's the way Rift feels to me.
If buffs/dots stack, everyone in the group can be 100% effective, and the limit is on their own abilities to get there. The challenge comes from learning your class.
If buffs/dots dont stack, the "better" class buffs stick, and the best the other person can hope for is 70% of utility. If you need to work but everyone can be 100% effective, it's fun and challenging. If some classes can only use 70% of their effectiveness in a group while others can use 100%, it's not challenging, it's lame.
I refuse to keep pretending the EQ system was perfect. The devs got flat out lazy and copypasted some spell lines into other classes then made them not stack. If I can only use 70% of my class abilities when I group, you better make damn sure NO ONE can use more than 70% of their abilities in group.
But something tells me they won't arbitrarily remove 30% of tank mitigation to make up for the 30% of usefulness a crusader loses when they group with a cleric. Instead you get classes with full potential and classes with limited potential, then elitist snobs who tell the limited classes "learn to play your class better to overcome the arbitrary 30% obstacle I didn't have to overcome myself, and stop complaining about it!"
Arksien said:If buffs/dots stack, everyone in the group can be 100% effective, and the limit is on their own abilities to get there. The challenge comes from learning your class.
If buffs/dots dont stack, the "better" class buffs stick, and the best the other person can hope for is 70% of utility. If you need to work but everyone can be 100% effective, it's fun and challenging. If some classes can only use 70% of their effectiveness in a group while others can use 100%, it's not challenging, it's lame.
I refuse to keep pretending the EQ system was perfect. The devs got flat out lazy and copypasted some spell lines into other classes then made them not stack. If I can only use 70% of my class abilities when I group, you better make damn sure NO ONE can use more than 70% of their abilities in group.
But something tells me they won't arbitrarily remove 30% of tank mitigation to make up for the 30% of usefulness a crusader loses when they group with a cleric. Instead you get classes with full potential and classes with limited potential, then elitist snobs who tell the limited classes "learn to play your class better to overcome the arbitrary 30% obstacle I didn't have to overcome myself, and stop complaining about it!"
Buff stacking must have some limitations. And why should two spells that do the exact same thing both apply simultaneously? Remember that content will be developed taking into account how buffs work and that content must take into account everyone having the best buffs available at all times. The more you want buffs to stack to make players stronger, the stronger NPCs will become to compensate, to keep it challenging.
The "lazy copypaste" as you put it actually made a lot of sense when you examine how the classes related to each other. Two classes that shared a spell line were the Cleric and the Paladin. The paladin was part CLERIC and part warrior. Why would the 'cleric part' not use the spells from the cleric? Remember EQ took much inspiration from D&D and when you look there you'll see the Paladin using cleric spells but always some number of levels behind a full cleric.
To then say that a Paladin grouping with a cleric loses 30% of its effectiveness is demonstratably wrong. What a paladin and cleric grouping together accomplished was to complimented each other, allowed the other to reach further into their class bag of tricks and expand what they could bring to the table in a fight.
I wont use the word lazy copy/paste, but as I said earlier the more important point is class uniqueness to me. I dont want 4 classes having charm..... thats just dumb. Let each class have its own unique abilities that at least have different names and animations. And In most cases I wouldnt even want them to be similar in effect. Not due to if they should or shouldnt stack or because its more challenging or not. My biggest thing is just simply class uniqueness. There should be some overlaps, but few, and at least name and animate them differently. So while I would only want to see Enchanter have charm, (other classes can use other CC like sleeps or binds), I wouldnt see a problem having something like a couple of different defense abilities stack, but as was said above, dont have 9 classes have the same type buff and put limitations on how much can stack (including gear). No more OP 60%+ haste buffs.
Another idea is to have different but sort of similar ideas that stack. For instance several classes in FFXI could cast haste spells, but Corsair could cast a spell that increased double attack procs (just means you occaisionally do a double attack within one auto attack round. So while both could be used to increase the speed of gaining TP (stamina) for weapon skills, they were similar in concept but opperated differently.
Amsai said:I wont use the word lazy copy/paste, but as I said earlier the more important point is class uniqueness to me. I dont want 4 classes having charm..... thats just dumb. Let each class have its own unique abilities that at least have different names and animations. And In most cases I wouldnt even want them to be similar in effect. Not due to if they should or shouldnt stack or because its more challenging or not. My biggest thing is just simply class uniqueness. There should be some overlaps, but few, and at least name and animate them differently. So while I would only want to see Enchanter have charm, (other classes can use other CC like sleeps or binds), I wouldnt see a problem having something like a couple of different defense abilities stack, but as was said above, dont have 9 classes have the same type buff and put limitations on how much can stack (including gear). No more OP 60%+ haste buffs.
Another idea is to have different but sort of similar ideas that stack. For instance several classes in FFXI could cast haste spells, but Corsair could cast a spell that increased double attack procs (just means you occaisionally do a double attack within one auto attack round. So while both could be used to increase the speed of gaining TP (stamina) for weapon skills, they were similar in concept but opperated differently.
This is more what I was getting at, I suppose I wasn't as clear as a could be. I don't want 4 people to cast haste and have all 4 players get haste. I want each class to bring something slightly different to the table in the buff/dps category.
If a crusader gets the same HP buff as a cleric, only it's a lesser version of the spell, then it isn't fair because now the crusader is being balanced in other areas around a worthless ability. I want the crusader to get a slightly different buff, maybe one that isn't super great, but gives a slight edge to those grouping with a crusader, but not an edge that will devastate the group if it's missed. Maybe clerics buff raw HP, and crusaders give a slight HP boost based on users current STA for example.
EQ was lazy in that some classes got "hand me down" spells that were dated by the time they got them, and then we're worthless in most instances. Except their other functionality was gimped because they got said worthless spells. Later in the game they started giving out more unique spells to all classes and suddenly balancing sucked less and more classes were useful.
It's really not super hard to make all classes useful, and "but then everyone can do everything" is FAR from the only way it will work.
Raidan said:@Noobiedoo
Gaining the class knowledge as a warrior allowed me to know when a cleric, druid, shaman, enchanter, etc. wasn't buffing right and if I already had a better cleric buff on for the druid to /save mana because I already had a better buff. Example: Druid just joined group and cleric left. I have Valor with 45 minutes remaining - I let druid know to save mana on skin like steel so I can continue pulling constantly and allow the druid to save mana. Since resource managment was important, and buffs took "a lot" of mana, it saved quite a bit of time.
Is knowledge of buffs minor in the overall scheme of gameplay mechanics in EQ that added to depth - absolutely. Is it "challenging" in the fact that you can die - probably not. But, it is one of many aspects of class knowledge/depth that added to the larger overall equation of complexity in EQ. Having a game with enough depth that when a player learns the nuances results in a better/more efficient group/player - sign me up.
DarknessAngel said:This is a tough one.
Honestly buffs could stack and be ok. Buffs stacking is ok unless its a buff of the same name(other than same tier of the same spell). So if a paladin casts a health augmentation, a cleric should have a health augmentation named somthing else that works as well. 2 Paladins augmentation spells of the same name shouldnt stack period. To manage OP of augmentations, they could implement something like Paladin health augmentation gives +300 health, cleric augmentation gives 500 health, but if both are active, the highest augmentation gives presedince giving 500 health, and the paladins buff gives 50-100 health (just an example).
I'll take bets right now that we'll see a limit on the number of buff slots. Limiting buff slots makes more sense than unlimited because it requires us to make a decision, a choice. So much of what the developers have touted comes down to us making decisions...and those decisions having consequences.
Arksien said:If buffs/dots stack, everyone in the group can be 100% effective, and the limit is on their own abilities to get there. The challenge comes from learning your class.
If buffs/dots dont stack, the "better" class buffs stick, and the best the other person can hope for is 70% of utility. If you need to work but everyone can be 100% effective, it's fun and challenging. If some classes can only use 70% of their effectiveness in a group while others can use 100%, it's not challenging, it's lame.
I refuse to keep pretending the EQ system was perfect. The devs got flat out lazy and copypasted some spell lines into other classes then made them not stack. If I can only use 70% of my class abilities when I group, you better make damn sure NO ONE can use more than 70% of their abilities in group.
But something tells me they won't arbitrarily remove 30% of tank mitigation to make up for the 30% of usefulness a crusader loses when they group with a cleric. Instead you get classes with full potential and classes with limited potential, then elitist snobs who tell the limited classes "learn to play your class better to overcome the arbitrary 30% obstacle I didn't have to overcome myself, and stop complaining about it!"
Raidan said:@Noobiedoo
Having knowledge of the game, other classes limitations and strengths, and what they could do or could not do is an aspect that separated good from great players in EQ. Is there a challenge to the actual act of clicking a buff? Of course not. Although, many lazy players didn't buff and that did "add" to the challenge.
Gaining the class knowledge as a warrior allowed me to know when a cleric, druid, shaman, enchanter, etc. wasn't buffing right and if I already had a better cleric buff on for the druid to /save mana because I already had a better buff. Example: Druid just joined group and cleric left. I have Valor with 45 minutes remaining - I let druid know to save mana on skin like steel so I can continue pulling constantly and allow the druid to save mana. Since resource managment was important, and buffs took "a lot" of mana, it saved quite a bit of time.
Is knowledge of buffs minor in the overall scheme of gameplay mechanics in EQ that added to depth - absolutely. Is it "challenging" in the fact that you can die - probably not. But, it is one of many aspects of class knowledge/depth that added to the larger overall equation of complexity in EQ. Having a game with enough depth that when a player learns the nuances results in a better/more efficient group/player - sign me up.
I'd agree with your example of VG because resource management wasn't important at all, and you could buff and be back at full mana nearly instantaneously; however, I'm hoping that Pantheon returns more to EQ-style need for managing resources (mana/endurance).
Very good post imo. I agree that knowledge of buffs in overall gameplay mechanics in EQ added depth to the game. I also was sorry that VG didn't require resouce management. I, too, hope that Pantheon incorporates the EQ style of managment forward. I'd add also, the need to practice those skills, as in old EQ.
Edit: spelling error
I suppose I should add in that I'm not 100% opposed to various abilities not stacking, and do agree there is fun in figuring out what group combos work.
HOWEVER if this is the plan, I would like to reiterate that ALL classes should have abilities that are a trump cards and others that are inferior. For example, I'm fine with shaman haste being better than enchanter haste, enchanter INT buff being better than druid INT buff, druid WIS buff being better than shaman WIS in a round robin system where everyone has an edge and everyone gets trumped. If everyone is getting a little screwed, that's fine.
However what this could still create if devs are not carful is a scenario where ench get best slows and int buffs, clerics get best hp buffs, etc etc and suddenly you have a group where the shaman or druid suddenly have no utility left to provide because all their spells easily covered by classes that not only have a better buff but also are better at other functionality as well.
I'd rather all healers heal equally, all tanks tank equally, etc and that any abilities needed to do so are non contested. If a crusader can only tank as well as a warrior if they use certain spells, they better be able to use those spells all of the time, or warriors just became the undisputed best tank and the DL/Crus just lost all their group potential.
Then, once that is balanced out (which vanguard did very well), maybe certain classes are the best buffers. However if a ranger can't do ranged dps on par with a rogue or monks melee dps, and the excuse is because rangers get some crap buff that stacks with nothing and will literally never be used as a result, then we have problems because now someone can't produce their core function at the expense of a buff that can't be used.
Arksien said:I suppose I should add in that I'm not 100% opposed to various abilities not stacking, and do agree there is fun in figuring out what group combos work.
HOWEVER if this is the plan, I would like to reiterate that ALL classes should have abilities that are a trump cards and others that are inferior. For example, I'm fine with shaman haste being better than enchanter haste, enchanter INT buff being better than druid INT buff, druid WIS buff being better than shaman WIS in a round robin system where everyone has an edge and everyone gets trumped. If everyone is getting a little screwed, that's fine.
However what this could still create if devs are not carful is a scenario where ench get best slows and int buffs, clerics get best hp buffs, etc etc and suddenly you have a group where the shaman or druid suddenly have no utility left to provide because all their spells easily covered by classes that not only have a better buff but also are better at other functionality as well.
Ok...thought experiment time.
List all the stats you think the characters will have. List all the possible buffs you think should be in game, remembering that any spell which changes some aspect about the character is considered a buff so take that into account. Compare the list of buffs you have vs all the classes, assign one class-defining buff to each class then divide out the rest of the buffs across the classes. I'm curious to see what you (plural, not just Arskien) come up with.
Vandraad said:Arksien said:I suppose I should add in that I'm not 100% opposed to various abilities not stacking, and do agree there is fun in figuring out what group combos work.
HOWEVER if this is the plan, I would like to reiterate that ALL classes should have abilities that are a trump cards and others that are inferior. For example, I'm fine with shaman haste being better than enchanter haste, enchanter INT buff being better than druid INT buff, druid WIS buff being better than shaman WIS in a round robin system where everyone has an edge and everyone gets trumped. If everyone is getting a little screwed, that's fine.
However what this could still create if devs are not carful is a scenario where ench get best slows and int buffs, clerics get best hp buffs, etc etc and suddenly you have a group where the shaman or druid suddenly have no utility left to provide because all their spells easily covered by classes that not only have a better buff but also are better at other functionality as well.
Ok...thought experiment time.
List all the stats you think the characters will have. List all the possible buffs you think should be in game, remembering that any spell which changes some aspect about the character is considered a buff so take that into account. Compare the list of buffs you have vs all the classes, assign one class-defining buff to each class then divide out the rest of the buffs across the classes. I'm curious to see what you (plural, not just Arskien) come up with.
Interesting thought experiment. I'm a fan of more than less, so I'd say:
Core stats:
HP
Mana
Endurance
Strength
Stamina
Constitution
Dexterity
Agility
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Luck
HP regeneration
Mana regeneration
DPS buffs:
Haste
Spell Haste
Ranged Haste
Dot focus
Nuke Focus
Defensive suppliments:
Damage Barrier
Spell damage barrier
Omni Damage Shields
Elemental Damage Shields
Debuffs:
Slow
Blindness
Silence
Snare
Root
General buff remover
Decrease resistance to various sorts of damage
Fear
Berserk
Charm
Mesmerize
Aggro Debuffs
Situational Buffs:
Invis
See invis
Invis vs animal
Invis vs undead
Levitate
Divine Aura
Various Animal warg spells
---------
This was a quick, non comprehensive list of only abilities and stats I've seen in other games. A massive chunk of this came from EQ alone. I'm sure everyone could be the "best" buffer at a few things, considering there's only 12 classes and at least 3 (possibly more) will have zero buffs/debuffs. Even if not every stat/ability on this list doesn't make it in the game, nothing else outside this list is in the game, and 9 of the classes buff, you still have plenty of room for everyone to be the best at several spells, with other spells at a slightly lesser ability in a spread that means everyone can do their main job, plus some auxiliary stuff, without needing to have anyone class be gimped.
Plus, as I said previously, you have room for things like one class having a very good hp buff, and another class having a sta buff that raises hp for certain classes. You also have room to have "combo buffs" where one class can buff 50%, another buffing 40%, but instead of the 40% being useless, with both buffs on they combine into a super 60% buff that only happens when you have those two class buffs working in tandem.
There's just so many ways to do it that don't involve certain people losing class function over hand me down spells. It'd be such a shame to see classes share non stacking buff lines and gimp certain utility when there's countless ways to balance things that show we're past 1999 in gaming.
I would never lump VG in with wow or even EQ. Buffing was not always easy in VG look at the Bloodmage and necro for example. Look at diplo buffs put up in cities and most classes still had to watch their mana and end in VG when APW first came out. I also knew going solo when I first created my druid and just buffed myself I better wait till I maxed out on mana or I would most likely run out and die. Some down time is fine but a road block where I have to sit for long time to regain mana is not fun either. But that is also where berries and camping helped regain mana quickly and you always at a big boss fight stoped and waited for cool downs and mana and buffs where all passed out and waited for. Also I hope they make a New Game called Pantheon Rise of the Fallen, not VG or EQ 2,3,4.. I hope it is as hard and fun and group based as those 2, but it should be its own game. I know I use a lot of VG references and hope they have similarities but I also hope it's its own and better game than all those before it. I would and probably have bashed WOW but they did something right there to have so many play it and I definately don't want it to become that except in how many play this game. Any way good discussion.
NoobieDoo said:Arksien said:If buffs/dots stack, everyone in the group can be 100% effective, and the limit is on their own abilities to get there. The challenge comes from learning your class.
If buffs/dots dont stack, the "better" class buffs stick, and the best the other person can hope for is 70% of utility. If you need to work but everyone can be 100% effective, it's fun and challenging. If some classes can only use 70% of their effectiveness in a group while others can use 100%, it's not challenging, it's lame.
I refuse to keep pretending the EQ system was perfect. The devs got flat out lazy and copypasted some spell lines into other classes then made them not stack. If I can only use 70% of my class abilities when I group, you better make damn sure NO ONE can use more than 70% of their abilities in group.
But something tells me they won't arbitrarily remove 30% of tank mitigation to make up for the 30% of usefulness a crusader loses when they group with a cleric. Instead you get classes with full potential and classes with limited potential, then elitist snobs who tell the limited classes "learn to play your class better to overcome the arbitrary 30% obstacle I didn't have to overcome myself, and stop complaining about it!"
Co-signed. While Raidan brings up a good point, it doesn't address what Arksien is stating here.
Sorry for the delayed response - work and life getting in the way of Pantheon already!
You're correct my original post didn't address Arksien's fears; however, I wasn't overlooking them with the original post - I was just responding to your post Noobiedoo. But, now that I have a bit more time, I'll write much too long post on explaining why I understand, but don't agree with her stance.
Arksien touched on it later on in this thread somewhat, but I'd argue is viewing it incorrectly. I'll provide an example:
If a Cleric's Valor Trumps the Druid's hp buff and I'm a warrior grouped with a cleric and druid, then, I'd have that Druid shifting towards DPS/Utility with root parking, dots, DDs, regen, and thorns (huge help as a warrior with limited agro control) etc. while the cleric takes over primary healing and buffing. I know this is at the point where you (Arksien and others in agreement) said, well the druid only uses 70% of their class because they're not healing regularly (although they still provide emergency heals)/using a HP buff (but they are buffing still). What you're overlooking in this scenario is the cleric doesn't use 100% of their class either - they're at 70-80% as well. They don't use DDs, or Undead DDs, Roots, pacifies, stuns, etc. - they were relegated to Buff, heal, med, repeat.
Now, let's expand this example. What if the rest of the group outside warrior/cleric/druid was shaman, enchanter and wizard? Take out root parking for the druid (ghetto CC) and you still have viable DPS. The shaman could use DoTs/DDs, buffs/debuffs and slow/haste if necessary depending on the enchanter's mana. Or vise versa, depending on the Shaman's mana the Enchanter could handle CC, haste/slows, mind buffs, and DD/Dots/Debuffs. And, what about the wizard? Well, obviously - wizard blasts things and they go boom. Not much else to say there. Each class in this scenario is only using 70-80% of their abilities outside of possibly the wizard, which couldn't do anything else (similar to a rogue).
Now.. back on point, the worry that a druid would be marginalized and deemed as a worthless class - I just don't agree. Would they be the "best" DPS? No, but classes like a rogue and wizard didn't have the diversity of a druid either and the druid could also provide emergency heals, buffs, evacs etc. that the rogue or wizard couldn't provide. While I want all classes to be viable, you can't make everything so equal that there truely is no difference in gameplay between the classes other than the names of the skills/abilities. Was EQ perfect, of course not, but the PvE was a close to perfect as I've seen in any game. Does that mean I want EQ cloned - nope. But, don't change what works, expand and improve upon it.
And the most important piece of the equation still is resource management. Players can't have an infinite amount of mana that they can use all their abilities. You have to have a group and then maximize the strengths/weaknesses of your available classes because resources are finite. If they're not, then you will run into the issue that Arksien is discussing.
Now, I know the counter point is going to be, but on raids we need the perfect group! And there can only be 24 in a raid! Again.. this is where I think the idea of raid caps need to be taken into account as well, because, there will be min/maxing with raids, and lesser needed classes on specific raids will be bypassed unless they can be brought along without penalty (not restricted raids). I'd argue even if there were caps that I'd choose a friendlier guild, but, I know, there are plenty that like the hardcore guilds.
Further, I want Pantheon to be balanced around the group game, not the end game. Pantheon is being designed for the journey in PvE - not the rush to 50. EQ's method works with grouping, and it makes it much more interesting because your strategy was constantly changing based off your available classes. And, unique group combinations made for emergent gameplay. Watered down homogenized classes does not.
And, I know, the /whining that XYZ class is better, or can tank better than me, or can heal better, etc. etc. Regardless of what system is implemented - there will always be whining and there will always be complaining. I have co-workers that complain when they just came back from vacation that they were "bored." And, while at work, they complain that they're "overworked." Basically, you can't please everyone and some people will always complain.
One final thought - I'd agree though that classes can't feel shunned. Take a tank for example. A tank might not be the "best" in all places, but could be viable in all. Like - warrior on raids with single targets, Dire Lord with multiple targets, crusaders with casters being able to stun-lock, etc. Just some basic examples, but, if you had a Dire Lord in a 6-man group, you would just need to change your tactics to compensate on the major single targets, and likewise with the warrior on groups of mobs, etc.
*Edit: Realized I didn't touch on the Crusader/Cleric point. It would be a similar scenario. Substitue crusader into my above scenario. Crusader would be stunning, pacifiying mobs for pulling, Undead DDs (again if Undead), root parking if necessary to help druid, providing backup heals in between combat to assist with Druid/Cleric mana. And provide the "oh ****" moment Lay on Hands if necessary. They had the same heal as a Druid/Shaman at launch - greater healing. Could they have been given some paladin only buff to make them feel more unique that was implemented later on in EQ - the Brell line? Sure, but, paladins had plenty to do to still to feel viable. Again, using 70-80% of their class. And, again, where the complaints came in more was in the end-game raiding.
TLDR: All classes have to be viable, but not always equal.
@Krixus
Very true and my example was a bit off topic drifting into class balance versus only discussing if buffs should stack, but I don't think you can discuss one without the other when the discussion ends in why should one classes' buffs trump another. The whole picture needs to be viewed to see why non-stacking buffs isn't/wasn't an issue.
And Arksien, I would agree if one class is truly worthless, EQ ranger was probably the closest, then the class needs to be reviewed and tested thoroughly in alpha/beta and adjusted accordingly. Thats an issue of class design though, not mechanics. I'd rather see tweaks for improvement to the class rather than /nerf bats and preferably before launch.
Krixus said:This gets back into the class balance discussion. DOTs are amazing solo and small group spells, significantly better for efficiency and leveling than DDs. Why should they stack in every situation? Imagine EQ with stacking dots, it would have been groups of 6 necros.
Umm...DoTs did stack. There were a few that didn't stack but it wasn't due to the damage component but rather some counter or other component. As a Shaman, I clearly remember stacking my own same-line DoTs when soloing.