What are your thoughts on the Holy Trinity, do you enjoy this system or do you have a different idea for balancing groups?
Pantheon's "Quaternity" system: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/faqs/#q10 :)
"Keep it classic", imo. Some classes are tanks, some not. Some do damage, some not... Thats life, man ;). If you choose a none-tanking class, you have to deal with it. Same, viservi with other classes... Some classes are harder to play, depends on the situations (soloing, groups, raids...). I always played Magician and Wizards, so i know, sometimes im not able to kill stuff, cause i cant tank ;). But then, it becomes handy, to have a Mage, summoning utilities, pets and other stuff (or tank-off mobs with your pet, for ex.). Or Wizards... TP to a savespot or to other zones, nuke like hell. Every class should have his up and downsides. Too much balance isnt good.
lyrina said:"Keep it classic", imo. Some classes are tanks, some not. Some do damage, some not... Thats life, man ;). If you choose a none-tanking class, you have to deal with it. Same, viservi with other classes... Some classes are harder to play, depends on the situations (soloing, groups, raids...). I always played Magician and Wizards, so i know, sometimes im not able to kill stuff, cause i cant tank ;). But then, it becomes handy, to have a Mage, summoning utilities, pets and other stuff (or tank-off mobs with your pet, for ex.). Or Wizards... TP to a savespot or to other zones, nuke like hell. Every class should have his up and downsides. Too much balance isnt good.
Yeah, I agree mate :)
I like a system where every class has a defined role and groups require all roles (for "hard" content like dungeons, outdoor hunting may need less).
What I hope Pantheon can avoid is the very rigid (at times) system that EQ had with Tank = Warrior, Healer = Cleric, CC = Enchanter. If you assign roles to classes, then make sure that they can fill those roles completely! No "second class" classes please! That does not mean that certain classes cannot be best at their role, just make it so that the margins are small enough. And of course all classes of a role need the basic tools for that role (like, every healing class can heal + rez).
Garmr said: To add to what I'd posted on FB, there was nothing worse than wanting to dps in a group than having. The group "decide" that you have the best tank gear so why don't you tank! Always felt almost penalized that I had rounded my toon out so well ( speaking rift here) I could excel in multiple roles. Please just lock me into a role lol.
Yeah, that's it man! :)
Sarim said:I like a system where every class has a defined role and groups require all roles (for "hard" content like dungeons, outdoor hunting may need less).
What I hope Pantheon can avoid is the very rigid (at times) system that EQ had with Tank = Warrior, Healer = Cleric, CC = Enchanter. If you assign roles to classes, then make sure that they can fill those roles completely! No "second class" classes please! That does not mean that certain classes cannot be best at their role, just make it so that the margins are small enough. And of course all classes of a role need the basic tools for that role (like, every healing class can heal + rez).
This is something I am wary of as well, I would like to see other classes be able to step in when needed to fill certain roles and not just limit it to best tank, best healer, best CC/Support, Best dps but that is also a community mentality that you folks can control partially, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in Pantheon.
I think the Trinity system (or 'Quaternity' in Pantheon) is definitely the way to go. A system where characters fill different roles within a group is probably the best way (maybe the only way?) to create class interdependence in combat. That said I think there should also be classes that blur the lines a little. Lyrina mentioned mages above, which could summon earth pets in EQ that could serve as tanks. In everquest rangers, although primarily a dps class, had a small toolbox of tanking tools. Similarly, druids could heal or dps, depending on group makeup. Having some classes that have limited overlap is healthy for the game because it a) creates more options for players to choose from to match differing play styles and b) provides groups with a little more flexibility when forming and in cases when someone who fills a specific role dies in combat or suddenly link-dies, etc.
I think class balance is the only issue. In Everquest there was a long period of time where pet classes could effectively serve all 3 roles at once (tank with their pet, heal that pet and still dps even hard-hitting mobs). Similarly, if rangers or monks were given the tools to tank all content, no one would pick a warrior or knight when there was a higher dps alternative.
So basically, I support hard defined roles within a group like Everquest had. But limited overlap in cases where it makes sense and within reason (no classes that can fill multiple roles as well as classes that are designed specifically for filling a given role).
edit: spelling
Following the Hard set class role might mean you cant find a needed class to complete your objective one day just means you find something else to do and try again later and some classes might come out day one as CRAZY overpowered that will be fixed given time with updates and the NERF BAT right to the face.
Amsai said: Sorry adroid is retarded. on the other hand. This is maybe where hybrids step in. But I know its a hot mess for balance( too weak or OP lol)
Crusader is the answer in EQ1 and EQ2 we didnt quite fit in one role many a time i acted as a second healer/second tank or as an extra source of DPS and a backup to one healer. Most paldins in EQ2 wernt OP but a well played one with the right gear was amazing.
People over react to the holy trinity talk. There are many other situations than the high end deep dungeon dives or raids that do NOT require the trinity in place.
One of my fav long term Seb groups was 3 monks, 2 paladins and a wizard. We owned it, got great exp and loot and had an amazing time figuring how out to make it work. Was it perfectly efficient? Of course not, but it was fun and effective. We were good players who knew our roles, maximized our strengths and avoided our weaknesses and it was a blast. There was strategy and team involved that you'd never see in a more traditional group and that made it an amazing experience. Things like that are part of what made EQ special. Making do with what you had, and doing a damn good job.
Your daily leveling experience is not bound by the trinity. Is it nice to have a cleric and an ench? Of course.
Small groups and duos are sometimes even BETTER without a warrior or cleric because in a small group or duo versatility can trump specialized power.
Certain "treasure hunts" or quests are better off with someone who can track or port instead of a main tank or the best healer.
Plenty of times you'll be "on top of" a camp and it won't even matter what your group is.
People are obsessed with the end game bottom of the dungeon situation without seeming to give regard to the VAST amount of gameplay that does not necessitate the trinity to be in place to have a great time, and get great loot and exp.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Not having a class you feel like you need can sometimes be a win, not a loss.
Krixus said:People over react to the holy trinity talk. There are many other situations than the high end deep dungeon dives or raids that do NOT require the trinity in place.
One of my fav long term Seb groups was 3 monks, 2 paladins and a wizard. We owned it, got great exp and loot and had an amazing time figuring how out to make it work. Was it perfectly efficient? Of course not, but it was fun and effective. We were good players who knew our roles, maximized our strengths and avoided our weaknesses and it was a blast. There was strategy involved that you'd never see in a more traditional group.
Your daily leveling experience is not bound by the trinity. Is it nice to have a cleric and an ench? Of course.
Small groups and duos are sometimes even BETTER without a warrior or cleric because in a small group or duo versatility can trump specialized power.
Certain "treasure hunts" or quests are better off with someone who can track or port instead of a main tank or the best healer.
People are obsessed with the end game bottom of the dungeon situation without seeming to give regard to the VAST amount of gameplay that does not necessitate the trinity to be in place to have a great time, and get great loot and exp.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Not having a class you feel like you need can sometimes be a win, not a loss.
I love this and agree as well. Many times my Paladin acted as the only healer in zones where it was thought that it wouldnt work. Did it suck sometimes yes it did but it also made it fun trying new things. I also remember douing group zones with only a swashbuckler at my side. Slow but the loot was great not splitting it with 6 people. The Class role based model doesnt define every event. hard core raiding and the toughest content yes you will need to have certain classes doing certain thing.s For normal group zones there are many work arounds that mean you dont NEED a tank or you dont NEED a healer.
I don't know if it was because a needy teen who felt a strong yearning to belong to something during my EQ1 days, but I always played cleric or main healing classes. I enjoy feeling appreciated and doing my job better than the next guy, so I do see quite a bit of value in the holy trinity because it works in most PVE combat scenarios. Not to downplay other roles in the trinity, but good, consistent healing was the crux. I liked being that crux because I often directly impacted the success of the group. Build enough of a reputation for playing your class well and you'll always have an opening somewhere.
With a little (ok, probably a lot) more maturity under my belt today, I'm still wondering if I can give up my spot in the trinity in favor of a class that may actually be more fun. Crazy thought, right? Summoner, Monk, or even a hybrid could be a lot of fun and open some gameplay doors for me. Not to mention it would probably diversify my responsibilities on a group by group basis.
But are other post-trinity players like me ready to walk away from the mindset? I know I'd probably miss being a healer the first time our group spends more than 5 minutes looking for one, lol.
I prefer defined roles in a class: no wizards can be classic tanks alone, but a bard and a mage can manage a fight, just not in the preffered model. As the saying goes "all cognac's are brandy's, but not all brandy's are cognacs."
I understand how a trinity or quaternity would be a ideal group building model for the sake of learning game mechanics, but I am wary of it becoming the standard where a player might be inclined not to adventure because some class or elements are missing. I dont think it should hinder experimental group dynamics.
Some memories come to mind where a really good rogue I knew- everyone knew- found me (mage) trying to solo by the South Karana gnolls (I was secretly trying not to be obvious about looking for the pegasus, hoping I would come upon it, naturally) and asked if we could group. At first I protested a bit because I was concerned for him; I was unsure of the dynamics but I invited so we could speak in group. I was all for trying it, maybe slay them a bit faster. It was hard going at first. trying to find the right elemental to grab aggro- turns out air was the best with its stuns. We both got pummeled during the fights 'cos I would have to try to over aggro his backstabs to get the monster of of him, on to me, and then on to the elemental. We had to run, once, and we didn't realize three hours had gone by and we both gained almost half a level. He was gratefull for the summoned bandages, as he got many skill ups in bind wound- we learned how to do it at the same time to each other instead of having to wait for one to finish.