Raiding was a very small part of the game for the first two expansions as the vast majority of players either raided once or never even saw a raid. There were about three guilds that ever got their foot in the door to trade raids, and with a 7 day respawn there were only +-52 spawns per year. By the time Luclin came out there couldn't have been more than 156 deaths of the original raid target dragons/planes and I'd bet at least 120 of those were from the same three guilds. Kunark respawned faster in most cases (3 days execept VP at 7) but was still rotated between a small few elite guilds, Velious saw some openings for older raid content (though it was almost always just Vox or Nagafen with the random Gorenaire or Venril Sathir). But on average people just didn't care or seem to feel they were missing out on anything at all, surely bolstered by the majority of all the raid drops outside of the planes & veeshans peak being tradable/flowing through the economy.
Luclin and beyond is where they started making raiding/end game the main focus in their design which ended up bringing PoP and everything after as heavy raiding with end game over everything else.
Anyway, it was during the pre-Luclin era when Shaman were notably behind Clerics in healing and Druids FAR behind Cleric. Taking a Druid as healer for a group was generally a very last resort after trying to find a cleric and then a shaman. CHeal was OP but Ressurection really stole the show. Clerics were all you wanted or really needed aside from one or two token shaman/druid since any wipe could be recovered from much faster with more clerics and the odds of failure was far lower with CHeal rotations.
Let's let all healers have xp rez this time around.
Iksar said:
Raiding was a very small part of the game for the first two expansions as the vast majority of players either raided once or never even saw a raid.
Umm what? This is completely innacurate. Epic weapons were released in kunark...many multiple guilds per server were running raids. Multiple hundreds of people per server... multiple thousands of people were raiding (that is a low estimate..it could easily be in the tens of thousands). Raiding was only a small part of the original game. It grew exponentially through the first 2 expansions.
Iksar said:There were about three guilds that ever got their foot in the door to trade raids, and with a 7 day respawn there were only +-52 spawns per year. By the time Luclin came out there couldn't have been more than 156 deaths of the original raid target dragons/planes and I'd bet at least 120 of those were from the same three guilds. Kunark respawned faster in most cases (3 days execept VP at 7) but was still rotated between a small few elite guilds.
You lost all credibility by trying to comment on something that you obviously didn't participate in. For some reason in your above quote you jumped right to Luclin... which doesn't make any sense. You seem way off on your spawn times anyway...and trade raids? what? Like I mentioned in the previous post, Kunark was just the tip of the iceberg that started the raid trend. It became a full blown raiding game by the 2nd expansion.
Iksar said:Velious saw some openings for older raid content (though it was almost always just Vox or Nagafen with the random Gorenaire or Venril Sathir). But on average people just didn't care or seem to feel they were missing out on anything at all, surely bolstered by the majority of all the raid drops outside of the planes & veeshans peak being tradable/flowing through the economy.
Are you trolling me? You have to be trolling me...EQ was a full blown raiding game once Velious was released. Temple of Veeshan, played during the time period it was meant for, is the best raid zone ever created in any game in my humble opinion. I won't go through all of the raid mobs and raid specific factions that were implemented in Velious...it was a lot They even gave the hardcore raiders their own private zone as a reward...Plane of Mischief.
Iksar said:Luclin and beyond is where they started making raiding/end game the main focus in their design which ended up bringing PoP and everything after as heavy raiding with end game over everything else.
It sounds like you weren't playing through the content as it was released. You were way behind if you think what you are typing is true. EQ was a raiding game prior to Luclin. That is why your perspective is so skewed. It is very obvious that you were not raiding heavily during the time period you are trying to discuss. Your information is simply incorrect.
Iksar said:Anyway, it was during the pre-Luclin era when Shaman were notably behind Clerics in healing and Druids FAR behind Cleric. Taking a Druid as healer for a group was generally a very last resort after trying to find a cleric and then a shaman. CHeal was OP but Ressurection really stole the show. Clerics were all you wanted or really needed aside from one or two token shaman/druid since any wipe could be recovered from much faster with more clerics and the odds of failure was far lower with CHeal rotations.
Finally we agree that cheal was OP (only it wasn't only pre-luclin). Other than a slow, clerics were the only healers you needed because Cheal was OP. Druids became unnecessary in raids...and shaman only needed to a limited extent.
Just because 100-150 players on a server were raiding doesn't make the game raid focused or all about raiding. Those same raiders were the only ones completing epics too. I'm sure your glasses are tinted a very different shade being the raider you are, I myself only participated in about 4 or 5 total as it wasn't of great interest to me at the time. I was however in a top raiding guild anyway thanks to a raiding friend of mine so I knew how it worked. The top 3 guilds (on our server anyway) traded who got what spawns, they had a whole calendar worked out with who got what week and where for the Planes & single target raids (Dragons etc).
I really think your view is skewed since you seemed to have been hard into raids while 97% of the rest of the server wasn't, only the top 1% ever even made it to Temple of Veeshan and the original Plane of Mischief was only ever seen by a very small priviledged few that you could probably even count on two hands. The majority of a classic server during Velious wasn't level 60, most of the players that were 50-60 feared traveling to zones where a rez and corpse recovery were difficult (ToV would be the #1 example of where a average player would have an impossible time getting their corpse). You say EQ was about raiding back then and with a dose of nostalgia it might sound fine, but that's just not how it worked in classic.
Lost all credibility but you don't even remember the long spawn times? Here you go:
Old Norrath:
Lord Nagafen, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Solusek B
Lady Vox, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Permafrost
Phinigel Autropos, level 52, instant, 12 hrs respawn, Kedge Keep
Master Yael, ?, ?, ?, The Hole
Kunark:
Trakanon, level 63+, instant, 3 day respawn, Old Sebilis
Venril Sathir, level 55?, instant, 3 day respawn, Karnor's Castle
Talendor, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Skyfire
Faydedar, level 55, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Timorous Deep
Severilous, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Emerald Jungle
Gorenaire, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Dreadlands
Chardok Royalty, levels 60-65, instant, 2 hour respawn, Chardok
Veeshan's Peak Dragons, levels 63+, instant, 7 day respawn, Veeshan's Peak
Velious:
Yelinak, level 70, instant, 7 day respawn, Skyshrine
King Tormax, level 70, instant, 7 day respawn, Kael Drakkel
Dain Frosthammer, level 70, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Icewall Keep
Velketor, level 65?, instant, 3 day respawn, Velketor's Labyrinth
Lord Doljonijiarnimorinar, level 63?, instant, 3 day respawn, Velketor's Labyrinth
Zlandicar, level 60, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Dragon Necropolis
Klandicar, level 63+, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Western Wastes
Sontatalak, level 63+, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawnWestern Wastes
Kelorek Dar, level 60, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Cobalt Scar
Woushi, level 63, 1-3? day spawn, 7? day respawn, Wakening Lands
Darakor the Vindicator, level 63+, instant, 8 hour respawn, Kael Drakkel
Statue of Rallos Zek, level 59, instant, 7 day respawn, Kael Drakkel
Lodizal**, level 60, 18-54 spawn time, 18-54 hour respawn, Iceclad Ocean
Planes:
Tunare, level 63+, instant, 7 days?, Plane of Growth
Wandering Plane of Growth Mobs: 12 hrs
Protectors of Growth: 25 mins
Cazic Thule, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Innoruuk, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Maestro of Rancor, level 53, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Hate Mini Bosses, ?, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Hand of Maestro***, ?, 12 hours after Maestro, 12 hour respawn, Plane of Hate
Dracoliche****, level 53, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Fear Golems, ?, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Noble Dojorn, level 63, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Air
We have been on this forum for enough time to get to know people a bit. I knew you weren't a raider before we got into this discussion because of a disagreement you had about EQ with other people a couple months back. I probably shouldn't have responded...except I do enjoy discussing the merits of EQ. Just that it can be difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't have a reference point to base the discussion around.
Iksar said:
Just because 100-150 players on a server were raiding doesn't make the game raid focused or all about raiding.
This first sentence shows how out of touch you are with what we are talking about. Having 100 people in a single guilds raiding party on any given night wasn't considered extreme. Having over 100 people in a guild was considered a large guild but not unheard of. I know there was at least one guild on my server with over 200 at one point. And that's only 1 guild...
Those same raiders were the only ones completing epics too. I'm sure your glasses are tinted a very different shade being the raider you are, I myself only participated in about 4 or 5 total as it wasn't of great interest to me at the time. I was however in a top raiding guild anyway thanks to a raiding friend of mine so I knew how it worked. The top 3 guilds (on our server anyway) traded who got what spawns, they had a whole calendar worked out with who got what week and where for the Planes & single target raids (Dragons etc).
During Velious, most servers had a lot more than 3 raiding guilds. It is unfortunate that was your experience.
I don't think you were really in a top guild though. Top guilds didn't have people who only raided 4 or 5 times. Heck, I was in arguably the 3rd guild on my server...some people would likely argue 5th. You obviously didn't know how it works: "thanks to a raiding friend of mine so I knew how it worked.". That's not how it works...
I really think your view is skewed since you seemed to have been hard into raids while 97% of the rest of the server wasn't, only the top 1% ever even made it to Temple of Veeshan .
This is simply not true. You don't understand how ToV worked. There were 3 wings of ToV for guilds in different stages of raiding/progression. Only the north wing was for those "top" guilds. The rest was much easier content for your middle of the road raiding guild. Plus there were a lot of other raid mobs that weren't in ToV that people were killing. The point was that Velious was a raid focused expansion. You claimed that didn't happen until Luclin and later.
The majority of a classic server during Velious wasn't level 60, most of the players that were 50-60 feared traveling to zones where a rez and corpse recovery were difficult (ToV would be the #1 example of where a average player would have an impossible time getting their corpse). You say EQ was about raiding back then and with a dose of nostalgia it might sound fine, but that's just not how it worked in classic.
It has been said time and time again. EQ didn't really start until max lvl. Brad even brings it up now as something that he doesn't want Pantheon to turn into. It is how it was. Leveling was the tutorial. We are talking about people who had actually been playing the game long enough to experience what the game had to offer. Yes, the majority of people were 60 in Velious. You must not remember during Kunark when the cap got raised to 60 and there were constant wait lists for exp group in KC and OS. Jam packed every night with people. Everything camped. That wasn't you apparently, you weren't one of the masses...thus the skewed perspective.
We are in complete agreement that EQ on release wasn't a "raiding" game. That started with Kunark and by Velious is was a full blown raiding game...as I'm stating for the umteenth time.
Lost all credibility but you don't even remember the long spawn times? Here you go:
Old Norrath:
Lord Nagafen, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Solusek B
Lady Vox, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Permafrost
Phinigel Autropos, level 52, instant, 12 hrs respawn, Kedge Keep
Master Yael, ?, ?, ?, The Hole
Kunark:
Trakanon, level 63+, instant, 3 day respawn, Old Sebilis
Venril Sathir, level 55?, instant, 3 day respawn, Karnor's Castle
Talendor, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Skyfire
Faydedar, level 55, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Timorous Deep
Severilous, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Emerald Jungle
Gorenaire, level 60, 3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Dreadlands
Chardok Royalty, levels 60-65, instant, 2 hour respawn, Chardok
Veeshan's Peak Dragons, levels 63+, instant, 7 day respawn, Veeshan's Peak
Velious:
Yelinak, level 70, instant, 7 day respawn, Skyshrine
King Tormax, level 70, instant, 7 day respawn, Kael Drakkel
Dain Frosthammer, level 70, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Icewall Keep
Velketor, level 65?, instant, 3 day respawn, Velketor's Labyrinth
Lord Doljonijiarnimorinar, level 63?, instant, 3 day respawn, Velketor's Labyrinth
Zlandicar, level 60, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Dragon Necropolis
Klandicar, level 63+, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Western Wastes
Sontatalak, level 63+, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawnWestern Wastes
Kelorek Dar, level 60, 1-3 day spawn, 7 day respawn, Cobalt Scar
Woushi, level 63, 1-3? day spawn, 7? day respawn, Wakening Lands
Darakor the Vindicator, level 63+, instant, 8 hour respawn, Kael Drakkel
Statue of Rallos Zek, level 59, instant, 7 day respawn, Kael Drakkel
Lodizal**, level 60, 18-54 spawn time, 18-54 hour respawn, Iceclad Ocean
Planes:
Tunare, level 63+, instant, 7 days?, Plane of Growth
Wandering Plane of Growth Mobs: 12 hrs
Protectors of Growth: 25 mins
Cazic Thule, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Innoruuk, level 55, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Maestro of Rancor, level 53, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Hate Mini Bosses, ?, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Hate
Hand of Maestro***, ?, 12 hours after Maestro, 12 hour respawn, Plane of Hate
Dracoliche****, level 53, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Fear Golems, ?, instant, 3 day respawn, Plane of Fear
Noble Dojorn, level 63, instant, 7 day respawn, Plane of Air
You proved my point. In the above post you tried to say EQ didn't become a raiding game until Luclin. You just listed most of the raid mobs from before Luclin (though you left out a bunch and not all of those you listed are actually raid mobs but...I understand you don't have a frame of reference so, close enough.) If a game has 35+ raid mobs it is a given it is raid focused. Those aren't there if people aren't raiding them.
I'm sorry you missed out on experiencing all EQ had to offer. There is a reason why most mmorpgs these days have a similar raiding system to EQ...it was very popular and a lot of people enjoyed that play style...the raiding was rolling full steam prior to Luclin.
"We have been on this forum for enough time to get to know people a bit. I knew you weren't a raider before we got into this discussion because of a disagreement you had about EQ with other people a couple months back. I probably shouldn't have responded...except I do enjoy discussing the merits of EQ. Just that it can be difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't have a reference point to base the discussion around."
Care to source this and explain why you think that is?
"This first sentence shows how out of touch you are with what we are talking about. Having 100 people in a single guilds raiding party on any given night wasn't considered extreme. Having over 100 people in a guild was considered a large guild but not unheard of. I know there was at least one guild on my server with over 200 at one point. And that's only 1 guild... "
You clearly misunderstand what I said. Maybe it was closer to 200 total, but what I said was 100-150(200) players total, 50-60ish raiding per guild of the 3. They had more members obviously since not everyone was always free to raid, coordinating that many people's schedules is a challenge in and of itself. The biggest two who dominated on my server were Vis Maior and Praetorians, a distant third was Quintessence.
"I don't think you were really in a top guild. Top guilds didn't have people who only raided 4 or 5 times. Heck, I was in arguably the 3rd guild on my server...some people would likely argue 5th. You obviously didn't know how it works: "thanks to a raiding friend of mine so I knew how it worked.". That's not how it works... Also, by Velious, most servers had a lot more than 3 raiding guilds. It is unfortunate that was your experience."
It's unfortunate you think the top guilds didn't have people who weren't raiders, plenty allowed friends/family in on non-raiding terms.
"This is simply not true. You don't understand how ToV worked. There were 3 wings of ToV for guilds in different stages of raiding/progression. Only the north wing was for those "top" guilds. The rest was much easier content for your middle of the road raiding guild. Plus there were a lot of other raid mobs that weren't in ToV that people were killing. The point was that Velious was a raid focused expansion. You claimed that didn't happen until Luclin and later."
Yes but we are talking about raiding here. Velious wasn't raid focused, it had plenty of content and things to do for everyone levels 30+. Just because it was the first expansion to add more top end content doesn't mean the focus was raiding, just as having raids in the game doesn't make the game raid focused.
"It has been said time and time again. EQ didn't start really start until max lvl. Brad even brings it up now as something that he doesn't want Pantheon to turn into. It is how it was. Leveling was the tutorial. We are talking about people who had actually been playing the game long enough to experience what the game had to offer. Yes, the majority of people were 60 in Velious. You must not remember during Kunark when the cap got raised to 60 and there were constant wait lists for exp group in KC and OS. Jam packed every night with people. Everything camped. That wasn't you apparently, you weren't one of the masses...thus the skewed perspective."
Simply false. The game was never intended to be about raiding and for the vast majority of people pre-Luclin it never was. Leveling wasn't a tutorial it was a journey and heavily about community. It honestly sounds like you only played P1999 or something but who knows, maybe you had a very fringe server experience. No the majority of people were not 60 when Velious hit, the servers were NOT that top heavy and the majority near the top were still leveling from 50-60. Velious came out 8 months after Kunark and leveling took a long time back then, especially since everything was new and reliable information was scarce. You can even go read old posts on Allakhazam where people are trying to put pieces together, I imagine you'd find the same on Everlore if that site still existed. You honestly think people were rolling in Epics? People couldn't even figure out some of the quests until around Velious (the world first druid epic was in mid November), which was released less than 3 months after the epic quests were introduced.
Keying and raiding was a very limited experience in classic, most that even were raiders maybe cleared 2/3rds of Kunark raids before Velious hit. Afterlife, one of the worlds biggest/best raid groups in EQ didn't even make it IN to Veeshan's Peak until August 2000 and didn't clear it until November 11th, less than a month before Velious. In Velious people didn't even get into Temple of Veeshan until April 2001, one guild of people with most raiders nowhere near that.
You write off my experience as though I am full of crap or don't know what I am talking about yet the experience and views I have are not uncommon in the least among past players. Some servers had more brutal/aggressive raiding and others more formal scheduling, but none of them were making the progress you claim and as they were all in competition only minor progress was made week to week (even less when getting keys for everyone was needed).
For example:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185785
https://www.reddit.com/r/everquest/comments/36aic2/how_long_did_vanilla_eq_take_to_level_150/
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133190
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29648
https://www.reddit.com/r/project1999/comments/2jg221/how_long_to_max_level/
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185785
https://www.project1999.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-77903.html
http://www.afterlifeguild.org/template.cgi?page=index_jun_dec00
I'm not going to click your links. P99 doesn't relate to the conversation. Honestly, this is a waste of my time. You didn't experience raiding but for some reason you think you understand how it was.
I will answer your question and give you a source though, because you asked and it is easy to go to my inbox and copy and paste a message I had with someone else from almost a year ago. When I go back and read it, in a broad sense, it relates to this conversation we have been having as far as perspective. I am going to keep the other party anonymous...
Iksar said: Care to source this and explain why you think that is?
"I'm not going to get involved in that conversation with clueless people....but you are 100% right in that solo thread. I see iksar backtracked and tried to put stipulations on some of his previous statements...no one cares what you are soloing in your 30's or 40's. That is like the tutorial...many people who say they played EQ never really experienced what EQ had to offer. They missed out on much of the game and don't have a good grasp of how it actually was. "
10/10 Attempt at gatekeeping but 1/10 for having any sort of valid counter response or evidence. "You didn't REALLY experience EverQuest or know what the game was about unless you were a hardcore raider."
You offer nothing but empty words amounting to "I'm right, you're wrong." No examples, no anecdotes, nothing. Won't even look at the links? Where do you think most of the hardcore classic EQ junkies ended up? Where do you think they might relate and swap experiences with one another? Or the reddit threads of people doing the same. I suppose their experiences of the game are invalid too. I suppose I made up the information about raiding as well despite having the source from one of if not the best raiding guilds of the time. Surely I also made up the spawn timers and guilds rotating raids amongst themselves.
The PM you quoted is nice opinion shared between two people, but really has no bearing on the truth in that thread. I stand by what I said in there too, in classic/kunark necro & mage could solo rather easily and level faster than by grouping (admittedly mages fell off quite a bit with Kunark).
I wish you the best.
I understand that this seem to be a sensitive and protective issue for some. In that giving Ressurection to other classes takes away from what they associate with Clerics.
My take on this, is that anything that makes for more varied group compositions is a positive in my book. Being practically forced to bring a Cleric for harder group content simply because they're the only class with a ressurection spell, only diminish the other classes filling the same role. There is plenty of other ways of giving Clerics identity other than limiting them to rez/heal bots. When I think Clerics, I think of strong direct heals, reactive heals as well as long and short duration buffs to accuracy, armour and resistance. They also typically specialize in dealing with the Undead.
A reasonable compromize would be for Clerics to have the superior version of ressurection, or have the unique ability to easily ressurect while in combat on a lengthy cooldown.
This thread really has become very heated with multiple people bashing others for having different views, incomplete timeline views, etc.
I raided with the top guild on my server from the beginning (a week or two in) of Kunark until the end of PoP when we all split. I couldn't begin to tell you what the spawn times of various mobs were becuase it didn't matter to me. I was a cleric and was in the Canadian Army at the time so I worked during the day and usually got home around 4-5 p.m. (if not on exercise or deployed). The instant I logged in I was told to go to X place and start clearing/breaking down. The only spawns we ever lost weres to a japanese guild (Zen Sect) on server resets (in the middle of the night) or if it spawned during the night on its own. Yes we had competition but generally we got what we wanted. I can't recall the exact numbers of our guild but I doubt we had 100+.
Like mentioned, I rarely had time to myself with which to group with others and obtain keys, exp or phat lewts. It was almost always raiding and/or grouping with guildies (which was fine).
To ME, and like anything on here it's just an opinion, my main job was to buff and heal my raid/group. That really is the main role of a cleric in EQ and I would hope Pantheon. Once someone dies (either by your fault or not), your job is done. Ressurection is a secondary function along with it being avilable to other classes (say Paladin and Necro (c'mon, they raise the dead all the time).
So for another class (Paladin or Necro) to have the ability to ressurect is fine with me. Just don't give it to Shamans, Rangers, etc.
just a question:
Pantheon is built as group based gameplay. why not all arche type healers should be able to rezz? in my opinion in this case it would be dificult to find a group for some classes. Then everyone try to built a group with the best classes.
Please remember this should be a social game and not "I wanna have the best class" game. :-)
Please make every class unique (gameplay) and keep balance between classes.
Pufug said:just a question:
Pantheon is built as group based gameplay. why not all arche type healers should be able to rezz? in my opinion in this case it would be dificult to find a group for some classes. Then everyone try to built a group with the best classes.
Please remember this should be a social game and not "I wanna have the best class" game. :-)Please make every class unique (gameplay) and keep balance between classes.
To me, just because a class CAN heal doesn't mean they necessarily have the ability to raise the dead back to life. Shamans in EQ say draw on a different diety/magic with which they use to heal others, damage creatures and summon a wolf pet. If you give Shamans the ability to ressurect do you then give Clerics the ability to cast SoW or summon a wolf companion?
If I were a better writer or Loremaster I could put that type of spin on what I'm saying :)
Holywind said:To me, just because a class CAN heal doesn't mean they necessarily have the ability to raise the dead back to life. Shamans in EQ say draw on a different diety/magic with which they use to heal others, damage creatures and summon a wolf pet. If you give Shamans the ability to ressurect do you then give Clerics the ability to cast SoW or summon a wolf companion?
If I were a better writer or Loremaster I could put that type of spin on what I'm saying :)
Sure, it doesn't have to mean that, but you have to take into account the importance of access to ressurection for any group's success, and general QoL. No one is going to say, "We don't have a Wolf Companion in this group, we need to get a Shaman so we have access to that", but they will say that about Clerics and rez if it's the only class having it. Putting a class on a pedestal like that, for one reason or another, is not good for popularity of classes sharing the same role in particular. If a 1 healer setup becomes the norm, I fear Clerics will end being the go-to, while Druids and Shamans will have to fight over the "flex 6th position" alongside every other class.
There's plenty of ways to add flavour and desirability to a class, without diminishing the value of others of the same role. As far as I'm concerned, being able to ressurect is a core feature of playing the support role, and isn't where they should look to make them different. A happy compromise, I think, when it comes to rezzing, is to offer Clerics the unique ability to access an instant cast rez (with no penalties) on a fairly lengthy cooldown. That way all support classes get to rez, but Clerics will still do it better.
My thoughts on resurrection, healing, hybrids, etc:
There ought to be no distinction between out of combat or in combat - that sort of thing is just lazy design. Ressurection should be costly, for sure - so much so that a poorly timed ressurection cast while in battle could mean a complete group wipe - so it should be resource intensive and also a somewhat long cast.
Death should, and will, have a major consequence - beyond corpse running, there will be real down time associated with a group wipe or death while soloing off in the middle of nowhere. The more classes with the ability to ressurect will negate a greater portion of those consequences of death. Something to keep in mind.
Watching other threads, it seems Druids and Shamans want to be able to main heal just the same as a pure healing class, while of course maintaining their ability to solo like a boss and also dps when they feel like it. So why would any group bother to bring a Cleric if the hybrids can perform the same job, and bring the same downtime mitigation potential? Oh and by the way they can also provide more DPS when healing isn't required.
Druids, Shamans, will likely have a much easier time soloing, dpsing etc, and Clerics will likely dps like a wet noodle. Anything that incentivizes finding a Cleric to bring along with the group will improve the Cleric's game experience. And so the hybrids should not enjoy the potency of the Cleric when it comes to healing and death downtime mitigation. Whether that means the hybrids can't ressurect at all, or their version of it still comes with some amount of downtime - perhaps a ressurection sickness or an untenable cast time/mana requirement making it almost useless in a combat environment, high cooldown, something.
But please for the love of god, don't go the route of WoW and make it so that hybrids may be the best or near the best at any primary role - that would go against the true holy trinity dynamic and my understanding of the spirit of this game. And most detrimentally, it will water down the pure healer's relative potency, making all the sacrifices in terms of damage and solo-ability all for nothing - why bother rolling a Cleric?
My thoughts on resurrection, healing, hybrids, etc:
There ought to be no distinction between out of combat or in combat - that sort of thing is just lazy design. Ressurection should be costly, for sure - so much so that a poorly timed ressurection cast while in battle could mean a complete group wipe - so it should be resource intensive and also a somewhat long cast.
I think exceptions are fine, as long as it comes with either a hefty mana cost, huge cooldown or both.
Death should, and will, have a major consequence - beyond corpse running, there will be real down time associated with a group wipe or death while soloing off in the middle of nowhere. The more classes with the ability to ressurect will negate a greater portion of those consequences of death. Something to keep in mind.
It's a thing to balance for sure, but like you said death being of such consequence, anyone being able to mititgate that of a meaningful capacity will naturally be preferred over those of similar role who cannot.
Watching other threads, it seems Druids and Shamans want to be able to main heal just the same as a pure healing class, while of course maintaining their ability to solo like a boss and also dps when they feel like it. So why would any group bother to bring a Cleric if the hybrids can perform the same job, and bring the same downtime mitigation potential? Oh and by the way they can also provide more DPS when healing isn't required.
Obviously it needs to go both ways. You shouldn't be expect to be able to DPS like a damage dealer, while at the same time heal like the best of them. At the Pantheon site, both Clerics and Shamans are tagged as "Healer, support". What many seem to do, is draw their experience from EQ as their base of expectations. "If you give others the same healing power as Clerics, Clerics will have nothing going for them, as Clerics are exclusively healbots, where as others have other tools as well".
Why relegate Clerics to healbots exactly? There's a lot more available in a Clerics' design kit over the years of fantasy than being exclusively tasked to heal. Give them stronger legs to stand on, as it allows more classes to fill the healer role without being relegated to the "flex position" within the group.
Druids, Shamans, will likely have a much easier time soloing, dpsing etc, and Clerics will likely dps like a wet noodle.
Basing it on Everquest, sure enough, yeah. Fortunately Pantheon doesn't necessarily look to replicate Everquest when it comes to every design decision.
Anything that incentivizes finding a Cleric to bring along with the group will improve the Cleric's game experience.
I am not against improving the Cleric's game and grouping experience, but for that to happen I reckon they need to be more than just healbots. If they end up not only the only healing class with a ressurection spell, but also the one with the superior healing, it's not so much enhancing the Cleric's experience as it is reducing the Druid and Shaman's experience.
And so the hybrids should not enjoy the potency of the Cleric when it comes to healing and death downtime mitigation. Whether that means the hybrids can't ressurect at all, or their version of it still comes with some amount of downtime - perhaps a ressurection sickness or an untenable cast time/mana requirement making it almost useless in a combat environment, high cooldown, something.
Shamans are classed as support/healers, just as Clerics are. It's not a hybrid. As for Druids we can't really know for sure yet.
But please for the love of god, don't go the route of WoW and make it so that hybrids may be the best or near the best at any primary role - that would go against the true holy trinity dynamic and my understanding of the spirit of this game.
Back when "hybrids" were actually a thing in WoW, they weren't particularly useful. Druids weren't played as hybrids, but - often - an inferior version of the class they were actually based on. Most relegated to healers as far as my memory serves. Shamans and Paladins I guess were the closest thing the game ever had to a Bard, and and typically also never really saw much use of their hybrid potential. Nowadays the concept of "hybrids" is long gone in that game, but still the term "hybrid-tax" is something that gets thrown around, it gets used as typically the result of damage performance is the exact opposite to what you're suggesting - pure classes almost always outperform hybrid "specs/classes". At least in terms of damage.
Personally I'd be happy if the concept of "hybrids" is one that even makes it even into Pantheon because of how terrible it is to balance around.
And most detrimentally, it will water down the pure healer's relative potency, making all the sacrifices in terms of damage and solo-ability all for nothing - why bother rolling a Cleric?
A Cleric doesn't have to be a pure healer, nor does a Druid or Shaman have to be a hybrid. Essentially it comes down to design decisions, but I do hope that all 3 of them gets the joy of being played as a healer - with each their own strength and weaknesses.
Humperding said:I would give druids and shamans a rez, but it should be seriously inferior to what the cleric can offer. Like maximum 50% xp, 5 minutes cooldown, component needed... something like that. So a cleric would still be very superior (the same as in healing), but druids and shamans could get the work done.
I have to agree if the do get raise or rez it should longer cooldown or less health back when revived,To keep Clerics more vital.
Clerics should be more vital because Halifax is playing one.
Seriously, though, it depends on what the role is for each of the priest. I think Halifax's assumption is based upon other games. For example, let's assume that Clerics specialize on healing and they receive some of the least efficient damage abilities, little utility outside of grouping, and poor soloing capabilities. Shamans have excellent group buffs, some decent healing spells (not like the cleric), some utility, an decent ability to solo. Druids have decent group buffs, some okay direct healing spells, great heal over time spells, amazing utility (ports), and an excellent solo capability.
In this hypothetical, Clerics seem to have the short end of the stick. You need to provide additional utility that makes clerics equally powerful (though not in the same way) to the other priests.
I think what Halifax meant was that Clerics should be equally vital as other priests.
metteec said:Clerics should be more vital because Halifax is playing one.
Seriously, though, it depends on what the role is for each of the priest. I think Halifax's assumption is based upon other games. For example, let's assume that Clerics specialize on healing and they receive some of the least efficient damage abilities, little utility outside of grouping, and poor soloing capabilities. Shamans have excellent group buffs, some decent healing spells (not like the cleric), some utility, an decent ability to solo. Druids have decent group buffs, some okay direct healing spells, great heal over time spells, amazing utility (ports), and an excellent solo capability.
In this hypothetical, Clerics seem to have the short end of the stick. You need to provide additional utility that makes clerics equally powerful (though not in the same way) to the other priests.
I think what Halifax meant was that Clerics should be equally vital as other priests.
The approach, I think, should be to offer Clerics greater variety in what they do, rather than depriving other healing classes essential tools to perform their primary role.
The logic around here seems to be that since Clerics don't do much beside healing, no other should be able to rival the class (since other classes have more depth). So instead of looking for ways to improve the Cleric overall experience, the thought is to relegate the Cleric to being healbots, while at the same time limit group variation due to having a clearly superior option when it comes to filling the healer role, both in terms of throughput and the ability to ressurect dead team-mates. Which will no doubt play a big part in this game's design.
That is one way to think about it. The other line of thinking is that imbalances between classes for specific functions are acceptable, as long as that class exceeds at its specific role.
My concern with normalizing the capabilities of different classes is it diminishes their speciality. I would rather look at each class and be able, "they are the best at... and no one can beat them at that," "they are really good at... and only a few classes can do that better," "they are okay at... and some classes can do that better," "they are horrible at... and lots of classes can do that better." With each classes being the best at something, it creates balance through mutual imbalance. The other option is balance by making everything equal.
metteec said:That is one way to think about it. The other line of thinking is that imbalances between classes for specific functions are acceptable, as long as that class exceeds at its specific role.
My concern with normalizing the capabilities of different classes is it diminishes their speciality. I would rather look at each class and be able, "they are the best at... and no one can beat them at that," "they are really good at... and only a few classes can do that better," "they are okay at... and some classes can do that better," "they are horrible at... and lots of classes can do that better." With each classes being the best at something, it creates balance through mutual imbalance. The other option is balance by making everything equal.
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't think it has to be all that black and white. Variance, flavour and even imbalance is something we should allow and even encourage. What I think is important, however, is where you choose to allow those imbalances to happen. No class within the same role should have exclusive rights to abilities that automatically makes them the most attractive choice to any group composition. Situationally, sure. No problem with that, but if it ends up with a scenario where you have the choice between a Druid and a Cleric, and you end up picking the Cleric 10 out of 10 times, I think there's a design issue.
There are other ways to make classes from within the same role stand out from eachother. Not only from a healing perspective, but also from secondary role, and thematical abilities. For instance, you could have one healer specializing in direct healing, making the better choice for burst damage. Another one for healing over time, making them much less suited for burst, but overall either more mana efficient healing or potential throughput. Lastly you could have one specializing in area of effect healing, making them the superior choice for areas where damage is heavily spread out.
You could also differentiate them by what type of buff/utility they provide. Such as Defensive buffs, movement/regen, offensive stat buffs. Or even offtanking/minor CC/debuffs. You can also differentiate by allowing them to excel against certain mob types or conditions. Such as being outside or fighting undead.
These are examples on how I think it's possible to allow all classes within the same role situationally excel, without either limiting their own or others ability to perform their role at a general level. Making such a high value utility spell as the ability to ressurect dead team-mates exclusive to one, I think is the exact opposite of that.
I get you completely. The one thing that we have to becareful of is the utility of priests. For example, we already know that Druids will be able to teleport players to select key locations that they have previously visited. We already know that Shamans have the capability to slow monster attack speed. The solo capability of Shamans and Druids is unknown at this point. Those are huge utility capabilities. Under the system that you describe, if Druids and Shamans rez (or heal) the same, but different, clerics are at a huge disadvantage since we are unaware of any unique utility available to exclusively to Clerics that is just as beneficial as group teleports or attack speed slows. The one utility spell that we know of is the ability to cast a temporary shield to block a hallway. While I will wait to see how this works, on its face, does not appear to me to have the same caliber of utility as teleporting or slows. I may be proven wrong, however.
X
metteec said:I get you completely. The one thing that we have to becareful of is the utility of priests. For example, we already know that Druids will be able to teleport players to select key locations that they have previously visited. We already know that Shamans have the capability to slow monster attack speed. The solo capability of Shamans and Druids is unknown at this point. Those are huge utility capabilities. Under the system that you describe, if Druids and Shamans rez (or heal) the same, but different, clerics are at a huge disadvantage since we are unaware of any unique utility available to exclusively to Clerics that is just as beneficial as group teleports or attack speed slows. The one utility spell that we know of is the ability to cast a temporary shield to block a hallway. While I will wait to see how this works, on its face, does not appear to me to have the same caliber of utility as teleporting or slows. I may be proven wrong, however.
X
While we don't know it yet, they surely have something. All the healers need to be about the same in their healing throughput in whichever way they go about it, situationally one might edge out the others a bit for specific content. If clerics (or any) are the best healers then they will be the #1 pick when filling the role 9 times out of 10, raids will just get enough of the others for whatever unique thing they can offer then load up on clerics. That high favoring doubles down if they are the only ones with resurrect or the ones with the highest experience restoring resurrect. No one wants to settle for a lesser xp rez when leveling takes a long time, raiders especially will not accept the lesser and as such would further be influenced to stack raids with many clerics to aid in wipe recovery.
It isn't good for the other healers let alone any player other than cleric for them to be the gatekeeper for resurrect or xp resurrect. There has to be some other way for them to stand out.
