Over the past couple of months Ive noticed that people are saying they want this or that for their class. And while it may not be on purpose, this has lead me to read many times that people are asking for the exact thing on one class that might or does exist on another. I dont like that at all. I thought people wanted class uniqeness. Now I know at some point that you do have to have skills that function similarly. For instance healers need heals, but at the very least I hope the heals have different names and animations based on the class.
That being said I hope that the devs dont give everyone what they want on their class. Because if the players had their way we would have 4 classes with charm, and 8 classes with pets (including Bard and Necro). And there are other examples for sure. But I do think classes should be unique. If there is skill overlap, it should be limited to 2 classes if that. For instance I think only Enchanter should charm. Now that doesnt mean another class cant have a CC, but mix it up a bit where it can be. Druid = Binds, Shaman = Sleeps, Bard = confuse, etc. As for pets, Ill be the first to admit Im not a fan of pet classes. But still I think pet classes should be unique and not just something half the classes can do. We have summoner, and Enchanter at launch, and we know Necro will be in sooner than later. More than enough. And Im not just picking on pet classes. Do you think we should give 4 or 5 classes FD? Backstab? CotH? Evac?
I pretty much agree with you, for te most part. Some overlap is to be expected, but class defining abilities shouldn't be 100% effective on another class.
Take Enchanter's for example. I'm alright with other classes having a limited ability to charm, like in EQ. Necros could charm undead, Druids could charm animals, Bards could in a limited fashion, but the effectiveness wasn't anything to write home about. If you needed someone to charm something, for whatever reason, your #1 choice pick is an Enchanter. The Enchanter retains primary demand.
Some classes could mez in a limited fashion. Enchanter once again, #1 no questions asked. I mained an Enchanter and didn't mind other classes could do 'some' of the things I could, because it was limited. I never, ever felt threatened, because I was most efficient and powerful at these things.
Much like heals, sure, lots of classes can heal. A Ranger could heal. Your #1 choice is still going to be a Cleric ... because they do it best. But I would never suggest ALL classes be able to heal. Imagine an Enchanter being able to heal -- no. However, you could imagine a Druid or Shaman having some ability to do it, not so much the Enchanter who deals in manipulation, illusions, and coersion ... it just isn't their forte, at all.
Amsai said:Over the past couple of months Ive noticed that people are saying they want this or that for their class. And while it may not be on purpose, this has lead me to read many times that people are asking for the exact thing on one class that might or does exist on another. I dont like that at all. I thought people wanted class uniqeness. Now I know at some point that you do have to have skills that function similarly. For instance healers need heals, but at the very least I hope the heals have different names and animations based on the class.
That being said I hope that the devs dont give everyone what they want on their class. Because if the players had their way we would have 4 classes with charm, and 8 classes with pets (including Bard and Necro). And there are other examples for sure. But I do think classes should be unique. If there is skill overlap, it should be limited to 2 classes if that. For instance I think only Enchanter should charm. Now that doesnt mean another class cant have a CC, but mix it up a bit where it can be. Druid = Binds, Shaman = Sleeps, Bard = confuse, etc. As for pets, Ill be the first to admit Im not a fan of pet classes. But still I think pet classes should be unique and not just something half the classes can do. We have summoner, and Enchanter at launch, and we know Necro will be in sooner than later. More than enough. And Im not just picking on pet classes. Do you think we should give 4 or 5 classes FD? Backstab? CotH? Evac?
These are the dog days. People are going down the rabbit hole of wants. I don't think anybody will disagree with your post, but we don't have anything but talk at this point.
Obviously, there has to be some overlap, and I agree with the OP, that certain classes should be better at their archetypal abilities. Enchanter vs Bard was a good example. Another could be the way EQ2 handled healers. All 3 were capable of healing, but Clerics have great single target heals with the most raw throughput. Druids were best at HoTs, and I forget what Shaman was good at (buffs, I think). Anyway, on to the point. Depending on how the skill point system works out, I wouldn't mind seeing cross class abilities tied to the skill point system. Using Bard and Enchanter as an example, Perhaps Bard has a 100 out of 200 cap on Mez magic type while Chanters get to skill it up to 200. Skill points don't have to function the same way they did in EQ, you know. They can do anything that the devs can figure out how to program, so maybe every 50 points allows you to mez an additional target, or skilling up to 200 turns your Mez into a ground targeted AoE spell. Stuff like that would allow for cross class skills while giving a huge advantage to the class that does it "best." Just a thought.
In all; class balance, alot of certain ghoulish- or fansy -characters thought they were good players because the particular class was overpowered from the start. I Would never impose upon a druid for a port, but if I was grouped with a druid, weren't the benefits of ports,nice.
Some skill overlap is almost necessary to avoid the required trilogy in groups. That said, each of the classes should have defined abilities that mke them stand out at their perspective tasks. While other may be able to fill similar roles in a pinch, every class should bring a unique, and useful, ability to any group composition.
If you can't find a cleric for optimum healing in a PUG, then you can substitute the Druid or Shaman, but you will most likely now need some form of CC or additional DPS, to lessen the healing burden.
If you can't find that warrior tank, you may need more DPS, and an additional supplimental healer.
Kind find that monk puller, again, you might need to find some CC.
Any group makeup should be capable of adventuring, and it is up to us as players to find strategies that work based on who we have available.
Disclaimer: This does not take into account those players that just aren't very good at their class, or are so distracted they can't keep up. :)
Having things overlap isn't a bad thing. As long as classes remain defined. Having druid/shaman that can rez with lower xp recovery rates, bards able to mez, etc etc
If things only exist with 1 class then it becomes more about class composition rather then bringing who you want to a group. If enchanters are the only class that can increase recovery rates, monks are the only one with FD, Warriors are far and away the strongest tanks, clerics are the only rezzers and have double the healing, etc then why would you bring any other classes? Anytime a class becomes too much better than their counterparts it ends up equaling trouble.
I'm not saying it should be homoginized because it shouldn't. But having a little overlap and allowing others to have worse versions of things isn't always a bad thing. Cleric's in EQ not having rez till 29 and druids/shamans not getting it till like 6 xpacs in was a bad thing. Very seldom did I ever get a group on my druid to heal. Normally I was off healing with dps going in. Druids and shaman should be able to main heal for groups without getting passed over for a cleric simple because they are far superior.
Enitzu said:Having things overlap isn't a bad thing. As long as classes remain defined. Having druid/shaman that can rez with lower xp recovery rates, bards able to mez, etc etc
If things only exist with 1 class then it becomes more about class composition rather then bringing who you want to a group. If enchanters are the only class that can increase recovery rates, monks are the only one with FD, Warriors are far and away the strongest tanks, clerics are the only rezzers and have double the healing, etc then why would you bring any other classes? Anytime a class becomes too much better than their counterparts it ends up equaling trouble.
I'm not saying it should be homoginized because it shouldn't. But having a little overlap and allowing others to have worse versions of things isn't always a bad thing. Cleric's in EQ not having rez till 29 and druids/shamans not getting it till like 6 xpacs in was a bad thing. Very seldom did I ever get a group on my druid to heal. Normally I was off healing with dps going in. Druids and shaman should be able to main heal for groups without getting passed over for a cleric simple because they are far superior.
This is exactly my sentiments as well.
Everquest of around the Shadows of Luclin era did classes so very well. As an example, for healer, you could have the following classes as a viable healer in your group:
1) Cleric -- Very efficient healing which included Complete Heal, desirable defensive buffs, 96% resurrection, and Divine Aura, Undead DPS.
2) Druid -- A very able healer but not as efficient as the cleric, Spirit of the Wolf, Evac and porting abilitities, Snare, Root, Tracking, Damage over time
3) Shaman -- A capable healer but not as efficient as the cleric, Offensive buffs, Defensive buffs, Debuffs including the ability to slow mobs
So, here you have a design where groups can successfully operate with any of the above healers. With the Cleric, you had the best healer and the insurance policy of being able to resurrect, but not much in the way of DPS with the exception of vs the undead. With the druid, you had a healer in which you needed to be a little more careful of the pace of pulling, but were rewarded with some desirable buffs, snare, and the often time saving ability to evacuate the group when things turned bad and some DPS ability. The Shaman also had enough tools to keep the group healed and groups with a shaman were rewarded with the additional benefits of some offensive and defensive buffs as well as some desirable debuffs for the mobs and some DPS ability.
Laters updates to Everquest severely blurred class lines by giving similar abilities to other classes. As an example, druids were given 96% resurrection (bad news for clerics), fade ability (bad news for monks/bards), ect... These updates made various classes obsolete and undesired by groups and took away much of Everquest's class interdependence. Mercs were introduced into the game which was pretty devastating for the social group game, making clerics a more rare spawn, which further complicated a guilds ability to successfully raid.
As many people have already said, Everquest (AND Vanguard) was successful in creating minor class overlapping without destroying class uniqueness.
I'm playing a wizard on P99 right now, and I find myself in charge of and able to CC almost as much, if not as reliably, as an enchanter with roots alone. Rangers can root. Paladins can root. Druids can root. More classes can root than can't. Those types of overlap don't decrease the functionality of your major CC'ing classes. They just create helpful options when an enchanter isn't around, or to augment an already overworked CC'er.
Even tanks and healers had options in EQ. Rangers could even tank wtih minor success. They have the friggin' Taunt skill, for crying out loud. Heck, when it comes to aggro, ANY class could tank using the root and proximity method (AC notwithstanding). But that didn't diminish the need for your pure tank classes any more than druids and shamans being able to toss a heal out dimished the need for clerics.
There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, yes, but I have faith that this team, with it's current track record of EQ and VG, know exactly where that line is and know not to cross it. That's what we're all paying for after all, and they know it.
-Tralyan
Fulton said:If you can't find a cleric for optimum healing in a PUG, then you can substitute the Druid or Shaman, but you will most likely now need some form of CC or additional DPS, to lessen the healing burden.
If you can't find that warrior tank, you may need more DPS, and an additional supplimental healer.
Kind find that monk puller, again, you might need to find some CC.
The 2 first statements are worrying me a bit. The druid or shaman needs to be able to provide that additional CC or DPS while healing. If not, then you need 2 players to fill in that cleric's spot. Same for the warrior. If the Crusader or Dire Lord don't bring extra DPS AND healing, then you need 3 players to fill in for the warrior?
Maybe that's not what you meant. I believe that every player should be able to brind a similar power be it W/X/Y/Z% of tanking/healing/dps'ing/cc'ing. (No need to point out this will never be achieved 100% balance, but the dev should strive for it).
The last statement I quoted I agree with. In some way, splitting a pull is CC in my mind. So either have a monk FD pull, or a enchanter Mezz. Similar result for the group (fighting reduced amount of enemies at one time)
Mekada said:Fulton said:If you can't find a cleric for optimum healing in a PUG, then you can substitute the Druid or Shaman, but you will most likely now need some form of CC or additional DPS, to lessen the healing burden.
If you can't find that warrior tank, you may need more DPS, and an additional supplimental healer.
Kind find that monk puller, again, you might need to find some CC.
The 2 first statements are worrying me a bit. The druid or shaman needs to be able to provide that additional CC or DPS while healing. If not, then you need 2 players to fill in that cleric's spot. Same for the warrior. If the Crusader or Dire Lord don't bring extra DPS AND healing, then you need 3 players to fill in for the warrior?
Maybe that's not what you meant. I believe that every player should be able to brind a similar power be it W/X/Y/Z% of tanking/healing/dps'ing/cc'ing. (No need to point out this will never be achieved 100% balance, but the dev should strive for it).
The last statement I quoted I agree with. In some way, splitting a pull is CC in my mind. So either have a monk FD pull, or a enchanter Mezz. Similar result for the group (fighting reduced amount of enemies at one time)
This is interesting to me. Here's why.
I have a hard time believing that the devs of EQ, and even VG, created these classes and all these skills with all these purposes in mind. I doubt they create an enchanter, a monk, a druid, a wizard, a mage/necro, etc, and said "These classes here can all be useful when it comes to crowd control if we give them this and this ability".
What probably happened is they created classes and parceled out skills with no thought other than "I think this skill belongs to this class based off lore/archetypes in DnD/because it just felt right" and the rest of it just happened. I believe that we the players were better at creating uses and utility for these classes more than the devs were after the fact.
Take wizard and quad kiting. Do you think the devs gave wizards snare and those cone AoE's thinking it would be great if they could kite around 4 mobs around that way they'd never have to group again? I highly doubt it. The players found out how useful it was, and it became a staple in a wizards knowledge. And that's ok.
I would like the Pantheon devs to do the same thing. Think about the classes, and all you know from books and lore and old table top games. Decide what skills you think "fit" with those classes with no thought as to how well they'll perform in their respective roles according to the players. Make the creation of classes FUN for you, devs, not with charts and graphs and spreadsheets trying to determine what'll piss us off. You know who did that? WoW, Rift, Aion, etc, after games like EQ created this nonsense about balancing and people cried about not being able to solo everything on every class. When you do that you fail on both ends.
When you create with a vision, and have fun, and don't try to cater to players (even when those players are us), and when you create a game out of love for the game, you get Everquest and Vanguard. That's what we want.
-Tralyan
I think it needs to be tempered with ensuring that classes have value. Also, you need it to make sense.
Healing: The cleric should be the best healer in the game and the heals should be divine in nature. A paladin is going to have the same divine heals and thats ok. Why? Because he'll likely get them a little later and wont have all the cleric traits to be as effective. I DO NOT think you need to limit a paladins access to heal or reserrect. If a Paladin is ever going to tank, his attruibutes wont be mana driven. He should be able to heal about as good as a cleric, but his limited mana and heal focus will ensure that he wont be able to keep pace. He'll always play group saver in a near wipe VS replace a cleric in any real sense.
Druid / Shamn: Healing would be nature based and not as good as a clerics.
Hybrids that share druid/shaman traits like a ranger could have heal, but it might be next to useless with all the penalties that brings. Meaning his focus being so far from mana/healing that its not very effective.
I think in this example, you get an idea of where overlap can exist without diluting classes.
Dar
Tralyan said:This is interesting to me. Here's why.
...
When you create with a vision, and have fun, and don't try to cater to players (even when those players are us), and when you create a game out of love for the game, you get Everquest and Vanguard. That's what we want.
-Tralyan
I agree I don't think classes in EQ were created with a master plan or that they were used as intented. This created a bunch of issues for some classes, like the infamous hybrid XP penalty for being supposedly OP classes. Turns out you had underpowered classes in group setup that would leech more XP than other members. I would like to see this situation avoided at all cost. I think it's foolish to not think about some form of balance now that the issues are known to happen. Having to carry your wizard friend early on but have him being a beast later on does not have the same consequences at the DnD table than it has in a MMO end game.
To be clear, I don't care about solo capabilities being balanced. I just want to make sure every class as the same potential to be an asset to a group for a group centric game. I beleive this can be achieved while retaining class flavor and vision.
Darasin said:I think it needs to be tempered with ensuring that classes have value. Also, you need it to make sense.
Healing: The cleric should be the best healer in the game and the heals should be divine in nature. A paladin is going to have the same divine heals and thats ok. Why? Because he'll likely get them a little later and wont have all the cleric traits to be as effective. I DO NOT think you need to limit a paladins access to heal or reserrect. If a Paladin is ever going to tank, his attruibutes wont be mana driven. He should be able to heal about as good as a cleric, but his limited mana and heal focus will ensure that he wont be able to keep pace. He'll always play group saver in a near wipe VS replace a cleric in any real sense.
Druid / Shamn: Healing would be nature based and not as good as a clerics.
Hybrids that share druid/shaman traits like a ranger could have heal, but it might be next to useless with all the penalties that brings. Meaning his focus being so far from mana/healing that its not very effective.
I think in this example, you get an idea of where overlap can exist without diluting classes.
Dar
I can support this theory. My thoughts is that each class should have it's own 'niche' so to speak.
Clerics can have the largest single target healing and higher rezs. Single target HoTs. Minor AoE healing.
Druids would have more AoE healing, more utility, with lower rezs and HoTs. They would have weaker single target healing however to make up for their higher utility.
Shaman would have obviously better buffs along with strong healing but at a higher cost. Since they had Canni type stuff to get mana back the slightly higher mana costs wouldn't matter near as much.
This way each class would have a defined role to serve. They would all still be able to heal in group content but in raid content they would have their roles to play. Cleric would be tank healing, druids raid healing, shamans spot healing and debuffing when needed. Make them different. Make them unique. But don't make them unneeded.
Mekada said:Tralyan said:This is interesting to me. Here's why.
...
When you create with a vision, and have fun, and don't try to cater to players (even when those players are us), and when you create a game out of love for the game, you get Everquest and Vanguard. That's what we want.
-Tralyan
I agree I don't think classes in EQ were created with a master plan or that they were used as intented. This created a bunch of issues for some classes, like the infamous hybrid XP penalty for being supposedly OP classes. Turns out you had underpowered classes in group setup that would leech more XP than other members. I would like to see this situation avoided at all cost. I think it's foolish to not think about some form of balance now that the issues are known to happen. Having to carry your wizard friend early on but have him being a beast later on does not have the same consequences at the DnD table than it has in a MMO end game.
To be clear, I don't care about solo capabilities being balanced. I just want to make sure every class as the same potential to be an asset to a group for a group centric game. I beleive this can be achieved while retaining class flavor and vision.
I see your point. I would personally, however, rather have those class imbalances that require future tweaking than have homogeneous classes with no distinction other than what's on paper.
When I see the word "balance" I automatically cringe. Often times the word balance means "My class should be able to play all roles just in case I can't find a group", which invariably leads to grouping being secondary or tertiary in an MMO. I think we can all agree that's not what we want for Pantheon.
But I do agree that balance in the sense of no class being so underpowered as to be useless should be a consideration of the Devs. It's hard for me to advocate that being the main focal point though. When the focus of the creators of the game is balance, you have the crap we've been spoonfed in the MMO industry for the last decade. When you have the focus of the creators of the game be doing what they love, you have the MMO's we've all loved. I stand by that.
-Tralyan
Thanks for the replies all. One thing that I guess I need to clarify and thought I did. Tanks gonna tank, healers gonna heal, dps gonna dps, CC gonna CC. If any of my original post was misunderstood to think I didnt expect or want this to be the case then know that it not what I meant. Also regarding Hybrids. To me it kind of depends. If its a hybrid of 2 classes (more or less), say cleric and warrior, then yes I expect a Paladin to share some traits maybe certain onces to a lesser degree but Im ok with that. But if talking about other classes that are not hybrids or hybrids only in the sense that they use both melee and magic, then no I dont want to see a lot of cross over if any.
With that in mind. Yes Pantheon will have 4 main roles apparently. And so each class should excell at one of those, not 2. For hybrids and the sake of our sanity, yes there should be some secondary role, but it should be situational or emergency based. Like a back up healer. Someone that can fill another role in a pinch and preferably in a very temporary capacity. So in my example you might have 2-3 classes thats primary role is main healer, 2-3 that are main tanks, etc. So there should be enough healers (or whatever) to go around, but maybe in a pinch you could limp though by doubling up with 2 classes that have limited healing capabilities. I dont see a problem with something like that, but it shouldnt be nearly as good/efficient.
All that being said, that wasnt really even my main point. My main point is that I want to see class styles and uniqueness even with in the same roles. So while they may do the same thing (heal), they should have thier own spells that look different and if possible behave different. Clerics heal this way and have spells off this line of spells and have their own look. And likewise with Druid, and then Shaman. No reason for them to share the exact spells even if they function in a similar way (hybrids born of 2 classes excluded). As an example, Enchanter has mez and charm. Why does Bard have to have this? If its because it needs CC too. Then my answer is I dont have a problem with Bard getting CC per se. My issue is it having the exact skills as Enchanter. At the very least call them something different with different animations. But even better? Give them their own unique CC abilities. Lets see there is root, charm, mez, sleep, stun, confuse, silence, paralyze, forget, knockdown, etc. Also maybe spells are similar but affect different things. In FFXI enemies had an elemental attribute, due to that they might for example strongly resist or be immune to Blackmages sleep, but not to Bards lullaby. Food for thought.(edit: think of atmospheres and enemies attributed with them and how mana has colors that might or might not align with them?)
Now where I do think there is alot more wriggle room is in utility, iconic abilities, and just things in general that give a class some kind of hook (Things like FD). So yes as pointed out by someone else, you might not have a Monk that can FD, but you should be able to make up for or accomplish a certain objective with a different make up. I wont however go as far as to say that ANY group composition should be able to get by. You should still for the most part have to adhere to the Quadrinity. You shouldnt be able to get away with an all tank or all healer party. That is not only against the tenets of this game but completely ludicrous. This does worry me when it comes to classes like Shaman, from everything Ive read they seem a bit too capable, Im not talking about being OP thats a different topic. What I mean is that from past games they seem like they can fill every role except tank. I think being able to fill 3 out of the 4 roles is counter to the game, and doesnt encourage class uniqueness or interdependence. Im not saying this is the case but it could be, and if the Devs stick to the EQ classes too much that is what we will get in some cases. Thats why I hope they keep some things the same, but while making appropriate changes to classes to balance them among the roles better. For instance If Druid and Shaman are both main heals? Where are the other Main CC classes? By my count we only 1 (Enchanter), at least until we get Bard. So for that reason I hope they steer either Druid or Shaman in a more Utility/CC direction and not make them both main heals (even if that is not EQ cannon). Besides this heal/dps/CC all in one shouldnt exist. Again having a minor secondary role isnt that big a deal to me. But being very capable in 3 roles is a bit much. So lets say you make Shaman main CC, in that case it could have some small ability as a back up healer or a for some damage. Not both and definitely minor, like it takes 2 Shamans to equal 1 cleric or druid kind of minor under that scenario. Do I trust the devs to make a good game. Sure I wouldnt be here if I didnt. But I do worry that too much desire for pleasing of EQ fans could cloud judgement or make them feel its "taboo" to screw around too much with Iconic classes vs how people envision they should be (i.e just because you want Shaman to be able to do X doesnt mean its good for the game). Sorry Shamans Im not really trying to pick on Shamans just was an example.
Lastly, I wish the quadrity would have been Tank, Dps, Healer, Utility instead. My personal taste leans more to giving lots of classes CC capabilities. That could be done and still leave Enchanter as the top CC dog. And instead that last role would be more about classes that were mainly buffers/debuffers. Though this is likely due to my experience with FFXI. If the holy trinity in EQ was tank, healer, CC. Id say in FFXI, it was more like tank, healer, refresher(read Mana recoverer). If you were careful or there wasnt a special need you didnt need a CC, You had to have 3 roles. 1. Someone to take a beating, 2. Someone to heal them (and others), 3. and Someone to give the healer mana (as well as other mages) so the Tank could keep taking the beating. The other 3 classes could be anybody but preferably dps. The first refreshers in FFXI were Bard and Redmage. Without either of these it was usually considered a failed or at least miserable group and not having them wasnt even an option in Endgame. But they did operate differently. Bard was pretty straight forward....... buffs buffs and more buffs, haste, attk up, acc up etc, but its ability to refresh was what everyone really wanted. And they could back up heal. Redmage was a bit too OP for my taste. In most situations they could excell (the hated all-in-one). They could dps, heal, buff, debuff, CC, and even Tank in some situations. Fortunately at endgame because of AAs this got more focused to Buffs/debuffs like bard and Refresh magic(mana giving), and again some back up heals. There! A free leasson in FFXI that you never wanted LOL.