GeekVerve said:It doesn't have to be the only encounter that provides that particular loot.
I don't follow. Elaborate?
GeekVerve said:It's also a way to make them all similar in some regard. All I'm saying is that if a particular encounter isn't the only way to accomplish some step in progression, then specific tactic-centric raid mobs add variety.
Also, I know there were a few raid mobs that pretty much required a certain specific type of attack in EQ, but were there really any raids that didn't bring along any melee? I didn't do a *lot* of raiding in EQ, but I was in on several, and I don't recall that ever being the case. Heck, even getting *to* the target required pretty much all of the class/damage types.
I agree completely that "tactic-centric" raid mobs are a good thing, I think they should most or all be. What I'm saying is that the "melee dps are worthless on this fight" type of encounters are one out of a million different ways to make a fight interesting.
I could easily list 100 different fight mechanics I've seen that were unique in MMOs without resorting to "melee dps not allowed".
To answer your question, yeah, these fights exist in EQ and have existed in many other MMOs as well. There were a few fights in Vanguard that I'd be stuck ranging on my Bard, a few fights in RIFT that everyone would respec to a ranged spec for, etc.
Liav said:GeekVerve said:It doesn't have to be the only encounter that provides that particular loot.
I don't follow. Elaborate?
GeekVerve said:It's also a way to make them all similar in some regard. All I'm saying is that if a particular encounter isn't the only way to accomplish some step in progression, then specific tactic-centric raid mobs add variety.
Also, I know there were a few raid mobs that pretty much required a certain specific type of attack in EQ, but were there really any raids that didn't bring along any melee? I didn't do a *lot* of raiding in EQ, but I was in on several, and I don't recall that ever being the case. Heck, even getting *to* the target required pretty much all of the class/damage types.
I agree completely that "tactic-centric" raid mobs are a good thing, I think they should most or all be. What I'm saying is that the "melee dps are worthless on this fight" type of encounters are one out of a million different ways to make a fight interesting.
I could easily list 100 different fight mechanics I've seen that were unique in MMOs without resorting to "melee dps not allowed".
To answer your question, yeah, these fights exist in EQ and have existed in many other MMOs as well. There were a few fights in Vanguard that I'd be stuck ranging on my Bard, a few fights in RIFT that everyone would respec to a ranged spec for, etc.
I agree plenty of raids have things like this or require your melee to only get a few hits in before they have to joust out before some short range AOE one shots the squishy melee or to respec and range attack only.
Came to this conversation late and, admittedly, didn't read everyone's comments yet.
Liav's comment about melee attack being infinite and range being finite is very important.
I never liked the concept of endless quiver - I thought it sort of "broke" the whole arrow/archery concept.
That said, I think there needs to be a balance so I think arrows should do massive damage but not be infinite. Perhaps a ranger can carry 20 arrows only and he runs out (for REAL runs out) but each arrow does 5X the damage. The damage output would be the equivalent of carrying 100 old-school arrows but the difference is that the player would have to really think about when to use those big damage items. Sort of adding more strategy and thinking to it - instead of just autofire unlimited arrows which is basically autoattack but from a distance.
Take away the warriors need to tank or the monks need to pull or the SK's need to taunt and what do those classes have left? Your mage or druid is already tremendously more powerful in most situations.
This is an problem with forcing certain classes into certain roles for no good reason other than "just because". The issue with ranged weapons is tied to the bigger question of whether or not classes will have role options. I certainly have no desire to play a warrior if i'm relegated to tanking duties. That's not how i've played a warrior in any MMO and that's not how i'd like to play one here. Options, be it ranged/melee or tank/dps/heals/support should exists per class provided they make sense historically.
I believe archery can be and should be a viable role. Archery could be just as others have suggested - finite in nature (certain number of arrows and a weight factor as well) and a delay between shots. As well, it shouldn't be viable all the time (close quarters, for instance) nor should it be the only viable option. But why not have it as an option to take down a runner rather than have to chase the runner down?
Maybe even a time factor to equip or unequip a bow where a bow is a two-handed weapon - along the same lines as bard songs with their song cast time.
The bottom line for me is simply that I feel that addressing the problems *caused* by the "melee DPS not allowed" encounters would be a much preferable approach over just eliminating encounters that require a primarily ranged or melee attack force. I think unique encounters are a good thing, and by "unique" I simply mean different from the majority, rather than "revolutionary" (though the latter is certainly desirable, of course).
When describing raids to someone who doesn't play the game, we would typically run down a list of "types" of raids or strategic categories they fall into. Why would we want fewer items on that list, if the problems observed in the past can be corrected?
Another point I'll make is that I am completely fine if there are a very small number of raids in which my particular class doen't have much to offer, as long as other classes have some as well. I don't have to be able to do every single thing everyone else can do to be happy.
Aldie said:This is an problem with forcing certain classes into certain roles for no good reason other than "just because". The issue with ranged weapons is tied to the bigger question of whether or not classes will have role options. I certainly have no desire to play a warrior if i'm relegated to tanking duties. That's not how i've played a warrior in any MMO and that's not how i'd like to play one here. Options, be it ranged/melee or tank/dps/heals/support should exists per class provided they make sense historically.
I think this bypasses the point of the thread a little bit.
It isn't "just because", it's because of the way the game was designed. EQ, that is. The mobs were really stupid due to primitive AI, so the only way to get them to attack a given person was by assigning an aggro number to everyone on the mob's threat list depending on their actions.
The role of specific clases, tanks, was to have tools to stay on the top of that list.
What do you do on a warrior if not tank?
I also completely disagree with the premise that any class should be able to fulfill any role. Pantheon is about the trinity as a core tenet.