I stand by my point, and hear me out friends.
Healers play a different game than other classes, this isn't an entirely good thing nor is it entirely bad. Considering what we factually know about number of players picking which side of the trinity we know healers are less chosen and it would be a safe bet to say the reason this is would be ... healing (and tanking) aren't as fun as playing other DPS classes (or in Pantheons case DPS and CC classes).
There are two major points here, one of them will need your understanding that SOLO PLAY is going to be possible and will happen for all of us at different or all parts of the game. The other point I outlined in this thread: Click Here
tl/dr: Healers play a UI while other classes play the game.
The second is Toolkit useage.
When doing solo play (Which will exist) a DPS class uses near 100% of their toolkit to defeat their enemy and survive. While in a group this same DPS class uses the same near 100%. This is not the same for a healer. While a healer solo's they are NOT using a multitude of their healing abilities which require more than one target. likewise when a healer is IN a group they are not using their signature damaging abilities to defeat their enemy. So whether you are in a group or not the 'toolkit usage' is being used LESS than other classes.
Now honestly ask yourself. If you picked up a video game you had not played before, and it was a genre you had not played before, and you knew there was a type of character who was powerful and meaningful but used only half their abilities when they played with their friends, then used the other half of their abilities when they were playing alone. And then you have that character next to one you know is just as powerful and meaningful who can use all of their abilities regardless if they are playing with friends or playing alone. Which would you choose? Most people are going to pick the character without the handicap.
The real question here is WHY is there this handicap? And is there a good reason why it exists? As I look at game design for MMORPG's who are tackling this very problem you are starting to see a movement of the way healers work.
Tera is a true action combat game. To heal you need to find your target on the battlefield to heal them. you cannot select a party UI and just heal and not see them.
Neverwinter, another TAC mmorpg includes 'multi-layered' abilities on their healers so when they are playing in or out of a group they are using near to all of their abilities because they hurt enemies and heal allies at the same time. Or, some of their go-to healing abilities they need to use on themselves in every fight, happen to also heal others as a bi-product when they are grouped.
Both of these games are examples where the developers have realized the problem and had ways of fixing them. Are these games Pantheon? Are they like P99 or everquest? No they are not ... far from it. Tera and Neverwinter have a lot of 'theme-park' play in them, but as a student of game design and a lover of MMORPG's it's my pleasure to analyse 'what they did right' just as much as it is for me to know 'what they did wrong'.
I'm sorry for saying healers aren't fun to play. But the lack of players playing them is an indicator there is something seriously wrong. I honestly don't like saying 'healers aren't fun to play, maybe somebody can figure out a better way to put it. I love to heal, it's one of my favorite types of game-play and I find it rewarding to do it. I just am not so blinded by my love for something to not also see where it's faults are, and where it can be fixed.
My appologies if I come off as offending, we are all friends here and I thank you all for your opinions on this.
-Todd
tehtawd said:I'm sorry for saying healers aren't fun to play. But the lack of players playing them is an indicator there is something seriously wrong. I honestly don't like saying 'healers aren't fun to play, maybe somebody can figure out a better way to put it. I love to heal, it's one of my favorite types of game-play and I find it rewarding to do it. I just am not so blinded by my love for something to not also see where it's faults are, and where it can be fixed.
My appologies if I come off as offending, we are all friends here and I thank you all for your opinions on this.
No need to apologize - you didn't offend anyone ;)
I still can't say I agree with everything you've said, but I'm certainly willing to consider alternative to the status quo. I think that's why most of us are here, after all <3
Finally, if healing wasn't fun this conversation wouldn't be taking place.
@Nikademis
This is taken from the Shaman page:
They are adept at healing, purification, and enhancing the physical attributes of themselves and their allies, but it’s the Shaman’s ability to debilitate and curse their foes that makes them a force to be reckoned with.
These statements along with it being a given they will get a pet(s). And I can break it down to: Healing, Buffing, Utility, Debuffing, CC, pet pulls, and pet kiting/tanking and at least some level of DPS. Now I admit some of it is speculation based on what has been said or written, but I wouldnt say its impossible. Even if I dont read into it and assume no combat pet, I still get Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, decent DPS and Id be shocked if they didnt have a couple CC. Thats a wide range of roles they could fill (too wide). Now it could be that more needs to be revealed to get the full picture, and they have mentioned paths for classes.
@Sunmistress
Im worried their fix will be over hybridization to sprinkle in CC and support roles to most classes. So while Enchanter might be the only current main CC class and probably best at it, I doubt they will be the only existing class with it. This would be both good and bad. Good in that all parties wouldnt require Enchanter. Bad in that over hybridization waters down uniqueness and interdependency. But again, maybe I just dont have enough info yet.
Amsai said:@Nikademis
This is taken from the Shaman page:
They are adept at healing, purification, and enhancing the physical attributes of themselves and their allies, but it’s the Shaman’s ability to debilitate and curse their foes that makes them a force to be reckoned with.
These statements along with it being a given they will get a pet(s). And I can break it down to: Healing, Buffing, Utility, Debuffing, CC, pet pulls, and pet kiting/tanking and at least some level of DPS. Now I admit some of it is speculation based on what has been said or written, but I wouldnt say its impossible. Even if I dont read into it and assume no combat pet, I still get Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, decent DPS and Id be shocked if they didnt have a couple CC. Thats a wide range of roles they could fill (too wide). Now it could be that more needs to be revealed to get the full picture, and they have mentioned paths for classes.
That's totally fair, but my pervious question still stands - do you think EQ Shaman was OP? Because the quote you offer sounds exactly like the EQ Shaman to me. If you didn't have an issue with the EQ Shaman then I would guess things will be fine. My best guess is that's exactly what their shooting for with this iteration.
Nikademis said:Amsai said:@Nikademis
This is taken from the Shaman page:
They are adept at healing, purification, and enhancing the physical attributes of themselves and their allies, but it’s the Shaman’s ability to debilitate and curse their foes that makes them a force to be reckoned with.
These statements along with it being a given they will get a pet(s). And I can break it down to: Healing, Buffing, Utility, Debuffing, CC, pet pulls, and pet kiting/tanking and at least some level of DPS. Now I admit some of it is speculation based on what has been said or written, but I wouldnt say its impossible. Even if I dont read into it and assume no combat pet, I still get Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, decent DPS and Id be shocked if they didnt have a couple CC. Thats a wide range of roles they could fill (too wide). Now it could be that more needs to be revealed to get the full picture, and they have mentioned paths for classes.
That's totally fair, but my pervious question still stands - do you think EQ Shaman was OP? Because the quote you offer sounds exactly like the EQ Shaman to me. If you didn't have an issue with the EQ Shaman then I would guess things will be fine. My best guess is that's exactly what their shooting for with this iteration.
My bad I guess I missed that but not sure Im qualified to answer. If thats exactly how it worked in EQ then yes very much too OP. But I dont have hands on experience, Im a XI vet not an EQ vet. So to show Im not just picking on EQ or Shaman. FFXI had an OP jack and master of all trades too in Red Mage. Red Mages could heal, do major magic dps, and decent melee, buffs, debuffs, CC, refresh magic, they could convert HP to MP in a pinch, their 2 hr ability was chain spell (basically back to back insta casts of high level spells for short time), they could kite, rez, and in some situations tank. FFXIs pillar roles were tank, healer and refresher. Red Mage was too OP and should have been dialed back to Buffer/Debuffer (including refresh)with some minor utility such as back up heals and an emergency long cool down CC and it still would have thrived and not have been so unbalanced compared to other FFXI support classes like Bard (buffer/debuffer/puller) or Corsair (buffer/dps). I should probably stop now though cause Im trying to answer your question but Im probably a bit too far off topic, but we could probably continue this if you wanted in the classes section because this is becoming less about healing and more about support in general and how I think roles should be divided up.
Amsai said:@Nikademis
This is taken from the Shaman page:
They are adept at healing, purification, and enhancing the physical attributes of themselves and their allies, but it’s the Shaman’s ability to debilitate and curse their foes that makes them a force to be reckoned with.
These statements along with it being a given they will get a pet(s). And I can break it down to: Healing, Buffing, Utility, Debuffing, CC, pet pulls, and pet kiting/tanking and at least some level of DPS. Now I admit some of it is speculation based on what has been said or written, but I wouldnt say its impossible. Even if I dont read into it and assume no combat pet, I still get Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, decent DPS and Id be shocked if they didnt have a couple CC. Thats a wide range of roles they could fill (too wide). Now it could be that more needs to be revealed to get the full picture, and they have mentioned paths for classes.
@Sunmistress
Im worried their fix will be over hybridization to sprinkle in CC and support roles to most classes. So while Enchanter might be the only current main CC class and probably best at it, I doubt they will be the only existing class with it. This would be both good and bad. Good in that all parties wouldnt require Enchanter. Bad in that over hybridization waters down uniqueness and interdependency. But again, maybe I just dont have enough info yet.
I sort of disagree with your response to me.
Interdependency isn't affected, I still need someone to fill that ROLE, i just no longer only need that CLASS.
I am ok with 3 or so? (that seems like a good number) classes that can fill a particular role, like CC/Tanking/healing/Melee or Spell DPS. What i don't like is needing 1 particular class because they are hands down hardstop end of story the best. (which enchanters were for DPS and CC in Original EQ, When we started parsing in late Kunark/Velious, it was at first amazing how much DPS our enchanter + her pet contributed to her group, by GOD it was like lol Let the gnome handle it NBD).
Regardless of the fact if 10 classes or 1 class fills the CC/utility role. I still need it. (if they make content demand it).
If the content dictates the Quaternity or whatever, that dictates interdependency more than actual class design. If you can't do high end content without XYZ no matter what you need XYZ.
Hybrids are a danger, in terms of balance, to any set of unique inter-dependent classess.
Eg Enchanter is (i) magic CC'er (ii) weak-DPS (under normal circumstances)
Eg Warrior is (i) melee CC'er (ii) weak DPS
Both are CC'ers, just that ENC uses damage avoidence while WAR uses damage mitigation. The 2 hybrid WARs are (for EQ) PAL and SK (and later MONK). All three use mitigation CC'ing but have a +utility thrown in. The trick is to ensure that as a 'pure' melee CC'er, the WAR is 'best' at it. If he *is* to be a one-tick-pony, then he should be the BEST at it by a fair margin.
This, must also apply to the case of CLE vs SHM and DRU.
CLE = 85% healer and 15% 'other' be it DPS, stuns etc
SHM = 40% healer and 40-50% 'Other' be it CC, DoT, pet etc
DRU = 55% healer and 25-25% 'other' be it CC, DoT, pet etc
In other words, having more than one set of tools (hybrid) should mean the total overall MST add up to less than 100% since you have to account for the synergy of the 2 different sets of tools. Eg :
PURE = 100% total of tools
Hybrid (2 tools) = 90% total or less
Hybrid (3 tools) = 80% total or less
So, in answer to the question "were Shaman OP" the answer is a resounding Yes.
With a pet (DPS or Off-tank), healing, Debuffs, Buffs, stackable DoT's, Slow they excelled at both Solo *and* group work. The trick to 'balancing' these types of multiple-toolset hybrids is (i) limit how many tool-sets they can have (ii) ensure the overall character efficiency is well below 100% and the more tools they have at their disposal, the lower it should be.
PS: Clerics DON'T need to be any good at solo. No class does. Some may be, others may not. Based on how (we, hopefully) Alpha+Beta testers play-test them, all VR need to do is include 'Estimated playability rating' in the 'New players information'. Eg :
"Clerics are masters in healing others of grievous wounds quickly and have a breadth of healing abilities and spells to ensure they and their party can survive any encounter they find themselves in. This, however, is at the expense of being unable to handle themselves well in on-to-one situations."
This class is of Medium Dificulty to play well and will predominantly find themselves needing to work in a Group to do well. It does not suit Solo play well.
Seem to recall something like this at the end of Class descriptions in original EQ.
tehtawd said:I stand by my point, and hear me out friends.
Healers play a different game than other classes, this isn't an entirely good thing nor is it entirely bad. Considering what we factually know about number of players picking which side of the trinity we know healers are less chosen and it would be a safe bet to say the reason this is would be ... healing (and tanking) aren't as fun as playing other DPS classes (or in Pantheons case DPS and CC classes).
There are two major points here, one of them will need your understanding that SOLO PLAY is going to be possible and will happen for all of us at different or all parts of the game. The other point I outlined in this thread: Click Here
tl/dr: Healers play a UI while other classes play the game.
The second is Toolkit useage.
When doing solo play (Which will exist) a DPS class uses near 100% of their toolkit to defeat their enemy and survive. While in a group this same DPS class uses the same near 100%. This is not the same for a healer. While a healer solo's they are NOT using a multitude of their healing abilities which require more than one target. likewise when a healer is IN a group they are not using their signature damaging abilities to defeat their enemy. So whether you are in a group or not the 'toolkit usage' is being used LESS than other classes.
Now honestly ask yourself. If you picked up a video game you had not played before, and it was a genre you had not played before, and you knew there was a type of character who was powerful and meaningful but used only half their abilities when they played with their friends, then used the other half of their abilities when they were playing alone. And then you have that character next to one you know is just as powerful and meaningful who can use all of their abilities regardless if they are playing with friends or playing alone. Which would you choose? Most people are going to pick the character without the handicap.
The real question here is WHY is there this handicap? And is there a good reason why it exists? As I look at game design for MMORPG's who are tackling this very problem you are starting to see a movement of the way healers work.
Tera is a true action combat game. To heal you need to find your target on the battlefield to heal them. you cannot select a party UI and just heal and not see them.
Neverwinter, another TAC mmorpg includes 'multi-layered' abilities on their healers so when they are playing in or out of a group they are using near to all of their abilities because they hurt enemies and heal allies at the same time. Or, some of their go-to healing abilities they need to use on themselves in every fight, happen to also heal others as a bi-product when they are grouped.
Both of these games are examples where the developers have realized the problem and had ways of fixing them. Are these games Pantheon? Are they like P99 or everquest? No they are not ... far from it. Tera and Neverwinter have a lot of 'theme-park' play in them, but as a student of game design and a lover of MMORPG's it's my pleasure to analyse 'what they did right' just as much as it is for me to know 'what they did wrong'.
I'm sorry for saying healers aren't fun to play. But the lack of players playing them is an indicator there is something seriously wrong. I honestly don't like saying 'healers aren't fun to play, maybe somebody can figure out a better way to put it. I love to heal, it's one of my favorite types of game-play and I find it rewarding to do it. I just am not so blinded by my love for something to not also see where it's faults are, and where it can be fixed.
My appologies if I come off as offending, we are all friends here and I thank you all for your opinions on this.
-Todd
I dont like it so no one else does, if you disagree with me youre wrong... If you like the healers as they are youre just blind to the faults, you dont really like them you just think you do
Seriously dude, YOU mignt not like them, doesnt mean no one else does...have ya ever thought the lack of healers and tanks comes from the fact that its just easier to roll up the DPS flavor of the month and face roll everything? oh no of course not, because YOU dont see it that way so no way that could be true. How about the fact that regardless of how stupid a DPS plays (wizzys nuking on inc) if they pull agro and die its either the Tank or healers fault? Most modern MMOs are so solo friendly that you really dont need healers or tanks for anything but raids...so why bother trying to level one up? not like you need to waste time leveling one up when you can just roll a dps class and zippy to max level. I mean you list TERA as a game that did healing right? LMAO are you serious? Have you read anything about Pantheon and the old school niche they are aiming at?
Anyways Im out, this thread is stupid
Evoras said:Hybrids are a danger, in terms of balance, to any set of unique inter-dependent classess.
Eg Enchanter is (i) magic CC'er (ii) weak-DPS (under normal circumstances)
Eg Warrior is (i) melee CC'er (ii) weak DPS
Both are CC'ers, just that ENC uses damage avoidence while WAR uses damage mitigation. The 2 hybrid WARs are (for EQ) PAL and SK (and later MONK). All three use mitigation CC'ing but have a +utility thrown in. The trick is to ensure that as a 'pure' melee CC'er, the WAR is 'best' at it. If he *is* to be a one-tick-pony, then he should be the BEST at it by a fair margin.
This, must also apply to the case of CLE vs SHM and DRU.
CLE = 85% healer and 15% 'other' be it DPS, stuns etc
SHM = 40% healer and 40-50% 'Other' be it CC, DoT, pet etc
DRU = 55% healer and 25-25% 'other' be it CC, DoT, pet etc
In other words, having more than one set of tools (hybrid) should mean the total overall MST add up to less than 100% since you have to account for the synergy of the 2 different sets of tools. Eg :
PURE = 100% total of tools
Hybrid (2 tools) = 90% total or less
Hybrid (3 tools) = 80% total or less
So, in answer to the question "were Shaman OP" the answer is a resounding Yes.
With a pet (DPS or Off-tank), healing, Debuffs, Buffs, stackable DoT's, Slow they excelled at both Solo *and* group work. The trick to 'balancing' these types of multiple-toolset hybrids is (i) limit how many tool-sets they can have (ii) ensure the overall character efficiency is well below 100% and the more tools they have at their disposal, the lower it should be.
PS: Clerics DON'T need to be any good at solo. No class does. Some may be, others may not. Based on how (we, hopefully) Alpha+Beta testers play-test them, all VR need to do is include 'Estimated playability rating' in the 'New players information'. Eg :
"Clerics are masters in healing others of grievous wounds quickly and have a breadth of healing abilities and spells to ensure they and their party can survive any encounter they find themselves in. This, however, is at the expense of being unable to handle themselves well in on-to-one situations."
This class is of Medium Dificulty to play well and will predominantly find themselves needing to work in a Group to do well. It does not suit Solo play well.
Seem to recall something like this at the end of Class descriptions in original EQ.
If it was balanced according to your %'s I do not think I could ever justify adding a hybrid to my group.
Edit: The only thing that made Shaman OP in EQ IMO was 75% slow, it was that powerful. Once slow mitigation came in and they had a hard time fulfilling their role as a healer for a group, their usefulness (and ability to solo) was greatly impacted. When you factor in that around the time that happened, their ability to root CC mobs was also greatly impacted with mobs that were immune to run speed changes, that put them in a bad spot IMO.
Though during that time It was still better to just forego a Shaman and grab a Cleric/Chanter, a Shaman was great if you were duoing or low manning old content or even current content, but If you truly wanted an optimal group you would just go for the latter and let the Shaman hang in /lfg window.
Amsai said:Nikademis said:Amsai said:@Nikademis
This is taken from the Shaman page:
They are adept at healing, purification, and enhancing the physical attributes of themselves and their allies, but it’s the Shaman’s ability to debilitate and curse their foes that makes them a force to be reckoned with.
These statements along with it being a given they will get a pet(s). And I can break it down to: Healing, Buffing, Utility, Debuffing, CC, pet pulls, and pet kiting/tanking and at least some level of DPS. Now I admit some of it is speculation based on what has been said or written, but I wouldnt say its impossible. Even if I dont read into it and assume no combat pet, I still get Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, decent DPS and Id be shocked if they didnt have a couple CC. Thats a wide range of roles they could fill (too wide). Now it could be that more needs to be revealed to get the full picture, and they have mentioned paths for classes.
That's totally fair, but my pervious question still stands - do you think EQ Shaman was OP? Because the quote you offer sounds exactly like the EQ Shaman to me. If you didn't have an issue with the EQ Shaman then I would guess things will be fine. My best guess is that's exactly what their shooting for with this iteration.
My bad I guess I missed that but not sure Im qualified to answer. If thats exactly how it worked in EQ then yes very much too OP. But I dont have hands on experience, Im a XI vet not an EQ vet. So to show Im not just picking on EQ or Shaman. FFXI had an OP jack and master of all trades too in Red Mage. Red Mages could heal, do major magic dps, and decent melee, buffs, debuffs, CC, refresh magic, they could convert HP to MP in a pinch, their 2 hr ability was chain spell (basically back to back insta casts of high level spells for short time), they could kite, rez, and in some situations tank. FFXIs pillar roles were tank, healer and refresher. Red Mage was too OP and should have been dialed back to Buffer/Debuffer (including refresh)with some minor utility such as back up heals and an emergency long cool down CC and it still would have thrived and not have been so unbalanced compared to other FFXI support classes like Bard (buffer/debuffer/puller) or Corsair (buffer/dps). I should probably stop now though cause Im trying to answer your question but Im probably a bit too far off topic, but we could probably continue this if you wanted in the classes section because this is becoming less about healing and more about support in general and how I think roles should be divided up.
Fair enough @Amsai ;) I didn't realize you hadn't played EQ - apologies! I guess I just go into every conversation assuming that everyone here has, which is obviously silly on my part.
I dont like it so no one else does, if you disagree with me youre wrong... If you like the healers as they are youre just blind to the faults, you dont really like them you just think you do
Seriously dude, YOU mignt not like them, doesnt mean no one else does
Hi Sev, and goodmorning,
I like healers fyi. They are one of my favorite roles to play.
What i've written before takes into account there is an agreement between the opinion and the data. I'm not trying to stand on a podium and give you 'my truth' I'm trying to give you 'the truth'. You can see this truth reflected in the examples of my last post. There is a problem, the routs other companies have taken to combat this problem is proof there is a problem. I'm sorry if it sounds like i'm just sporting a 'my truth' argument, this is not my intention. I invite you to play those games i've mentioned or research them to discover what I have. Disagreeing with somebodies facts is ok if you understand the facts. If you throw them away without giving them thought then I don't know what to say ... why is there an argument? If you don't care about the other persons position and what they bring to it there shouldn't be an argument-walk away.
Anyways Im out, this thread is stupid
Gotcha. Well i'll continue for others then, take it easy Sev, sorry if I upset ya.
I'll take a snippet from my last post for those that need to a chance to re-read right here.
The real question here is WHY is there this handicap? And is there a good reason why it exists? As I look at game design for MMORPG's who are tackling this very problem you are starting to see a movement of the way healers work.
Tera is a true action combat game. To heal you need to find your target on the battlefield to heal them. you cannot select a party UI and just heal and not see them.
Neverwinter, another TAC mmorpg includes 'multi-layered' abilities on their healers so when they are playing in or out of a group they are using near to all of their abilities because they hurt enemies and heal allies at the same time. Or, some of their go-to healing abilities they need to use on themselves in every fight, happen to also heal others as a bi-product when they are grouped.
Both of these games are examples where the developers have realized the problem and had ways of fixing them. Are these games Pantheon? Are they like P99 or everquest? No they are not ... far from it. Tera and Neverwinter have a lot of 'theme-park' play in them, but as a student of game design and a lover of MMORPG's it's my pleasure to analyse 'what they did right' just as much as it is for me to know 'what they did wrong'.
Now I CAN get more examples if this if anyone would like. If you don't like these examples I would need to contact actual companies to get them to release their 6 to 1 ratio's which you are usually going to see in terms of healer/tank representation vs other classes. That's 6 others to 1 tank/healer. I'm going to hope we are in understanding now, if you still feel this isn't logical, you need to tell me what it would take for you to understand this. Kind of like how Bill Nye asks, what would it take for you to believe X? I'm really asking the same thing. I already know what's going on, it's plain as day: I didn't play mmorpgs for the last 15 years and not learn 'trends'. Let's be good with this now and move on.
When you see there is a problem you can simply do one of two things.
1) Ignore it
You can ignore the problem or put up with it, hoping the problem wont impact the final results negatively. Or even measure the problem and plan around it, again hoping it wont impact the final results negatively.
2) Fix it
Fix the problem by analysing what is wrong and looking for solutions, and implement the fix and watch common trends and how they differ from other companies results (if other companies release their data to you. Sometimes you can get lucky with things like 'world of logs' who gather a large enough amount of data you can 'kinda sorta use it'.)
I'm on the 'fix it' camp, I'll lean towards the belief things can be better than they were before with just about anything in life. If you are not in these two camps we are back at the point where you do not believe there is a problem. And if you still don't think there is a problem, and you have played other games and don't see the disparity in the healer representation ... *shrugs* Dunno what to say to that. I still wana talk to you though, your all my forum buddies.
Hey Sevens, if you are still lurking about I need to share something with you. An old old old quote.
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill
This is how important your opinion is to this Sevens, even if it's "i don't like it". Without you voicing how you feel the developers won't know what trends to focus on. Imagine how bad it would be if they made a change I suggested but it happened to be incredibly unpopular. Disaster. So thanks for stopping by and sharing how you feel.
-Todd
Finding tanks and support is just as much an issue as finding healers, I really don't think the unpopularity of healers is associated with how the role plays. Frankly I think people just want to play in the epeen war on big dps, that is all. I don't really see a reason to drastically change the way the role is played, specially since I know a lot of people who do enjoy it. No reason to over complicate it.
I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Sevens here. The "more people play dps than healers/tanks" argument that tehtawd is making is common knowledge, but the reason isn't due to healers/tanks being un-fun or not having a full 'toolkit' its because dps is simply the easier job. And claiming things need to be fixed for the soloing healer/tank ... well I'm sorry but why would someone play a healer/tank if they want to solo?
I find healing to be fun and enjoyable the way it is. I roll a healer because I want to heal in groups, not because I want to dps.
Sunmistress said:Amsai said:@Sunmistress
Im worried their fix will be over hybridization to sprinkle in CC and support roles to most classes. So while Enchanter might be the only current main CC class and probably best at it, I doubt they will be the only existing class with it. This would be both good and bad. Good in that all parties wouldnt require Enchanter. Bad in that over hybridization waters down uniqueness and interdependency. But again, maybe I just dont have enough info yet.
I sort of disagree with your response to me.
Interdependency isn't affected, I still need someone to fill that ROLE, i just no longer only need that CLASS.
I am ok with 3 or so? (that seems like a good number) classes that can fill a particular role, like CC/Tanking/healing/Melee or Spell DPS. What i don't like is needing 1 particular class because they are hands down hardstop end of story the best. (which enchanters were for DPS and CC in Original EQ, When we started parsing in late Kunark/Velious, it was at first amazing how much DPS our enchanter + her pet contributed to her group, by GOD it was like lol Let the gnome handle it NBD).
Regardless of the fact if 10 classes or 1 class fills the CC/utility role. I still need it. (if they make content demand it).
If the content dictates the Quaternity or whatever, that dictates interdependency more than actual class design. If you can't do high end content without XYZ no matter what you need XYZ.
Im sorry but maybe Im not getting what you are saying? What exactly are you disagreeing with? I wasnt stating any of the above as fact or my preference. Just an observation of what has to hapen in a game that claims its roles will be dps,tank, healer, and CC. It would be incredibly shot sighted of VR to create a game that (from the looks of it) depends on those roles and has at least 3 of each except for CC which only has Enchanter. So Im convinced that support and CC will be spread around to other Primary role classes. As for my argument that it wouldnt display interdependency, maybe I didnt explain it well. I mean fully SEPERATE role to role interdependency. I realize youd still need a group of people to depend upon to get most things done in a group based game. But I expect a higher level. A class like Shaman appears to be able to do either a good or decent job at just about any role other than main tank from the look of it. At the same time I wouldnt want there to be only Enchanter for CC either. What Im saying is we have 12 official classes. Three appear to be tanks, three appear to be healers, why weren't the others divided up into 3 support/CC classes and 3 DPS? I think it would have been much better to go this route to push class uniquness and roll to roll interdependency than worrying about making classes more traditional to fit what people expect. What Im saying is the roles should be more divided. What if there was a class that could do every role? If group size is 6 and you have 6 of that class that is technically interdependence but violates the heart of its purpose in my mind. Which is each class supplying 1 role (2 at best). The more roles a single class can supply the more it waters it down in my mind, because when you need a healer you should need a healer not an every-role class. I dont know if theat clarified my point or not. But if not could you clarify what you disagree with, because from what I read it didnt look like we were disagreeing, I think?
Sunmistress said:If it was balanced according to your %'s I do not think I could ever justify adding a hybrid to my group.
The % were not suggesting a method to factor down by, or that the % i suggested were what I thought the scale factor value should be.
They were, as per your edit comment, an indication that hybrids are intrinsically more powerful than the sum of their parts because of synergy and so the skills/spells they get need to be balanced accordingly in order to avoid any class going all God-Mode (for any level segment be it Low/Mid-Level/High). This balance can, hopefully, be achieved in alpha/beta testing phase, rather than after launch.
It should be:
"OK guys, we don't have a cleric - but we got a shaman who knows his business. We will be using (insert tactic that works well with shaman) and watch for (known pitfalls that can occur with shaman vs this mob type) happening guys. Oh, and our pally says he can FD pull for us, so it should be a breeze!"
EDIT: Formatting deleted some text... go figure.
@ Nikademis
No problem man. Yea its mostly EQ vets around here but there are a good amount of others too. I know many of us are here because our game shut down (VG) or its not at all what it used to be (FFXI).
@Evoras
Pretty much agree with you on just about everything about hybrids. Especially about limiting the number of toolsets as you put it. Each class should be 1 or 2 roles at best IMO with little hooks or special utility thrown in here or there as well such as FD, trapfinding, etc. If the can do a 3rd role it would need to be extremely limited or situational. Lets say a primary DPS/Debuffer role. He already has 2 good roles and while he doesnt do the most DPS he makes up for it by bringing debuffs that overall aid the flow of each battle for all his party members. So does he really need a 3rd? No. But in the case he just has to have a 3rd it could be limited off-tanking or a sub-role like pulling or a main role like CC but he only gets one( like a sleep on an extrememly long cool down).
As for the percentages, I could get on board with that too just as long as the class isnt useless in situations where its supposed to be. I hate classes that cant be used for what there were created. So for instance in an endgame scenario I wouldnt want Cleric to be the only good healer. In Pantheon, Shaman is supposed to be a healer/support, so they should be able to perform that role on any level even if its harder to pull off or requires more skill/gear to do so.
FFXI had difficulty ratings on classes too, and it worked out pretty well. You could have an ok/easy class or you could have a great/hard class. You know the whole easy to learn but difficult to master thing. So in XI you could be a Paladin tank and it was pretty straight forward, not difficult to master, and didnt require mad skills. Or you could be a Ninja tank that had a difficult learning curve, was a struggle through low and mid levels, you had weak defense so could die quickly, and required a lot of skill because it was very much a risk/reward class. If you were skilled you would survive and be much more efficient for you and your party. If you sucked, then you would die quickly, and wipe your party/raid. So in endgame Ninjas were the better choice (Except against Monk type enemies which could destroy ninjas), but Paladins were the safer choice (Except a few enemies that could 1 shot Ninjas).
Grimix said:Finding tanks and support is just as much an issue as finding healers, I really don't think the unpopularity of healers is associated with how the role plays. Frankly I think people just want to play in the epeen war on big dps, that is all. I don't really see a reason to drastically change the way the role is played, specially since I know a lot of people who do enjoy it. No reason to over complicate it.
The unpopularity of healers is indeed because of how the role plays. UI Dependancy and lack of buttons to press is a big deal and has been a big deal for a lot of the genre. Changing or fixing things isn't going to take rocket science. I know it's scary, but i've played games that have got healers right, and it's been the most fun i've had healing.
jimm0thy said:I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Sevens here. The "more people play dps than healers/tanks" argument that tehtawd is making is common knowledge, but the reason isn't due to healers/tanks being un-fun or not having a full 'toolkit' its because dps is simply the easier job. And claiming things need to be fixed for the soloing healer/tank ... well I'm sorry but why would someone play a healer/tank if they want to solo?
I find healing to be fun and enjoyable the way it is. I roll a healer because I want to heal in groups, not because I want to dps.
I agree DPS is usually an easier job. But I think the slider-bar of 'difficulty' isn't as non-existant as most might think. Take for instance 'pulling threat' from the tank and dying for it. Or in new-age games which include enrage timers. Since I have played competitively all three rolls of the trinity, I know it can be both easy and difficult depending upon the situation.
What we are looking at is a graph which separates dps and support by a significant margin which is seen throughout the genre for longer than a decade. I'm not willing to lump everyone into the same basket so I am going to change my own stance slightly.
Just saying a healer isn't desirable to pick because they are not 'fun' doesn't do justice to the complication that is the negative factors of this type of play.
Let's analyse what we know together.
Negatives for being The Healer
Just one more thing.
... well I'm sorry but why would someone play a healer/tank if they want to solo?
Well, if I picked a race and class because I liked the theme of it, or style of it, or it just appealed to me, I'd want to be able to 'play' the game effectively with my choice. If this means I need to solo something while I wait for a group to come to my area I better be able to solo. The marjin of how 'good' another class solo's doesn't need to be so extreme I feel like i've made a mistake. I'm fine with not soloing as good as others, i'm not ok with being prevented from soloing.
Thanks for joining in the conversation.
-Todd
Sunmistress said:Interdependency isn't affected, I still need someone to fill that ROLE, i just no longer only need that CLASS.
IMHO it is not a good idea. Blizzard brought the slogan "Bring the player not the class" and they ereased almost all major differencies between many classes in World of Warcraft. Then it was not important whether you play a mage or a warlock or a balance druid. The spells had other names, colors and animations, that's it. And IMHO it was one of the worst decisions they have ever made and was one of the major reasons why i have quitted the game. The class design before WotLK was much better, IMHO.
Greetings
@tehtawd
Lol I want to play this game to have less buttons to press. I get the feeling your wanting more twitch game play and if that's the case I don't think this game is for you.
I don't see how the changes your proposing make the role fun. I play a healer to heal people, that's my primary role. If my party is functioning very efficiently maybe I can dps some of but tbh I'm not looking to do anything but make sure everyone stays alive. How are you going to change that mechanic without making the job a dps class?
tehtawd said:Grimix said:Finding tanks and support is just as much an issue as finding healers, I really don't think the unpopularity of healers is associated with how the role plays. Frankly I think people just want to play in the epeen war on big dps, that is all. I don't really see a reason to drastically change the way the role is played, specially since I know a lot of people who do enjoy it. No reason to over complicate it.
The unpopularity of healers is indeed because of how the role plays.
Thats really just supposition.
I think its more than just the epeen war that draws people to non-healer classes. Those classes simply carry less responsibility. Some people don't want the burden of healing others, particularly in a game where death has meaning. I don't really think it matters how much, or in what way you spruce up the role, most people are going to choose to play the class that requires the least responsibility in a game they play for recreation.
Grimix said:@tehtawd
Lol I want to play this game to have less buttons to press. I get the feeling your wanting more twitch game play and if that's the case I don't think this game is for you.
I'm fond of twitch gameplay, but as I get older I am drawn more towards a more relaxing game. When I say more buttons the context is this. If every class has 8 buttons I want to use 8 buttons when i'm playing solo and when i'm playing in group. Healers get 4 buttons in group and 4 buttons out of group. There are some abilities which aren't going to be used in and out of groups for healers is what it comes down to.
That's a very generalized way of looking at it (which means it's not to be taken literally). But it is giving you the jist of it.
Dullahan said:Thats really just supposition.
I think its more than just the epeen war that draws people to non-healer classes. Those classes simply carry less responsibility. Some people don't want the burden of healing others, particularly in a game where death has meaning. I don't really think it matters how much, or in what way you spruce up the role, most people are going to choose to play the class that requires the least responsibility in a game they play for recreation.
The statement "The unpopularity of healers is indeed because of how the role plays." is a true statement. Maybe you were thinking there was supposition within something else I said, which is possible. I try to lean both ways at once and end with uncertainty at times.
most people are going to choose to play the class that requires the least responsibility in a game they play for recreation.
Here, now we can be supposition buddies :3
Anyway, supposition is a large part of the forums. (Burden of the dreamers you know.)
I agree with most of what you said Dullahan, I touched on the same things in an earlier post. But like I have said before, I am in the group of 'fix it' not in the group of 'ignore it'. Just my style I guess.
-Todd
Larirawiel said:Sunmistress said:Interdependency isn't affected, I still need someone to fill that ROLE, i just no longer only need that CLASS.
IMHO it is not a good idea. Blizzard brought the slogan "Bring the player not the class" and they ereased almost all major differencies between many classes in World of Warcraft. Then it was not important whether you play a mage or a warlock or a balance druid. The spells had other names, colors and animations, that's it. And IMHO it was one of the worst decisions they have ever made and was one of the major reasons why i have quitted the game. The class design before WotLK was much better, IMHO.
Greetings
I am sorry I don't see how its balanced or healthy to only have 1 viable option for a role (especially when CC trivializes alot of what makes game like this hard). If there is only one option for CC then no matter what due to how important CC is, I will always have to have that 1 option in my group. Since I then Have to Have them its not really an option. To do anything less is suffer through mediocre grouping.
Just like if there is 1 DPS class that is hands down better than all the rest or 1 tank thats hands down better or 1 healer that is hands down better than the rest.
For alot of players that will become the only option they want in their group and they will totally push the less useful options. Or worst case scenario begrudgingly give them a group and putter around with them.
Granted I didn't word my response very well, I wasn't saying "lets give everyone CC and homogenize the classes" I do however think of the 4 roles, there needs to be multiple options and multiple scenarios where one option is better than another, but I do not believe 1 option should ever be so much better at their role that they become the "best". Because for alot of us the best is the only option we will take.
Atleast thats how I remember early EQ, No one wanted Druids/Magicians/Wizards/Warriors in their group because they just weren't very viable for their role in comparison to other options. Infact in my early EQ days I had a static group, our healer had started a druid, and i think by level 40 when she realized Greater healing was the best she was ever going to get, she dumped it and went cleric and never looked back. It took years before Druids were truly viable as a healer. Shaman were abit in Kunark because of how powerful slow was, but you still really didn't want to heal for your group if you had a chance at having a cleric.
Id rather not see that sort of balance amongst Roles again. If i want a healer I grab a Shaman Druid or Cleric, If i want a tank I grab a Warrior Dire lord or Crusader, If i want a DPS, I grab one, If i want support... If EQ is any indicator I just grab an enchanter. If one isn't available, welp we aren't doing any content thats actually challenging, and we keep the spot open till one logs on.
Grimix said:@tehtawd
I don't see how the changes your proposing make the role fun. I play a healer to heal people, that's my primary role. If my party is functioning very efficiently maybe I can dps some of but tbh I'm not looking to do anything but make sure everyone stays alive. How are you going to change that mechanic without making the job a dps class?
Did you edit to add that bit at the end or did I forget? I'm going to go with I forgot, happens.
The changes I outlined previously (on this or another thread) can make the class more fun because they are playing more of the game than just a user interface and are able to use all of the abilities they have to help their group and defeat their enemies regardless of group or solo play. This actually doesn't sound like a lot, but it IS a lot.
Let me outline what EXACTLY I would do.
Lets assume Cleric has 8 abilities.
2 buffs
3 damage abilities
1 group heal
1 major heal
1 Bubble
To make sure group play and solo play see full spectrum of the clerics abilities we have to make sure we have multi-layered abilities and not just singular abilities on some of these.
First buff = A great buff! Passive out of combat health regen or some junk, I don't care!
Second buff = Self-buff. Melee attacks mark your target with radiance causing your attacks made against them to have a chance to heal yourself or a party member
Damage ability 1 = Dat nuke tho!
Damage ability 2 = Dat other nuke tho!
Damage ability 3 = This big ass nuke is so great! It even STUNS the target!
Group Heal = dat group heal with X range! Enemies in range afflicted by Radiance take X damage (see what I did there?)
Major Heal = dat heal tho!
Bubble = Dem bubbles yo!
These abilities don't force you into the fight, they give you options in the fight. Each ability can see solo or group play. Due to threat mechanics it's not going to be possible for a healer to go balls to the wall in their fights. But it is possible to see auto attacks being something a priest wants to get in on, with a nuke now and then (something we are used to). Solo play gets the bonus of seeing a group heal become an aoe nuke. The big nuke has some kind of 'effect' tacked onto it. It doesn't have to be a stun, the point is to give them a unique utility, something good for them but doesn't take up the slot of other classes utility (no stepping on toes). Perhaps it could only stun undead for full duration.
The other thing I would 'exactly do' is this
Party UI does not show health. The overhead names of the players in your party will be green when taking damge they will slowly turn from green to yellow, orange, red then dead. Selecting a party member allows you to see their exact health and mana.
What this effectively does is take the UI away from the healer and place it right in the game. You are going to care about where you are, where your party members are, and you are going to want to keep an eye on the enemies as well.
And those are the two ways i'd 'fix' this problem.
Multi-layered abilities and UI changes.
tehtawd said:Grimix said:@tehtawd
I don't see how the changes your proposing make the role fun. I play a healer to heal people, that's my primary role. If my party is functioning very efficiently maybe I can dps some of but tbh I'm not looking to do anything but make sure everyone stays alive. How are you going to change that mechanic without making the job a dps class?
Did you edit to add that bit at the end or did I forget? I'm going to go with I forgot, happens.
The changes I outlined previously (on this or another thread) can make the class more fun because they are playing more of the game than just a user interface and are able to use all of the abilities they have to help their group and defeat their enemies regardless of group or solo play. This actually doesn't sound like a lot, but it IS a lot.
Let me outline what EXACTLY I would do.
Lets assume Cleric has 8 abilities.
2 buffs
3 damage abilities
1 group heal
1 major heal
1 Bubble
To make sure group play and solo play see full spectrum of the clerics abilities we have to make sure we have multi-layered abilities and not just singular abilities on some of these.
First buff = A great buff! Passive out of combat health regen or some junk, I don't care!
Second buff = Self-buff. Melee attacks mark your target with radiance causing your attacks made against them to have a chance to heal yourself or a party member
Damage ability 1 = Dat nuke tho!
Damage ability 2 = Dat other nuke tho!
Damage ability 3 = This big ass nuke is so great! It even STUNS the target!
Group Heal = dat group heal with X range! Enemies in range afflicted by Radiance take X damage (see what I did there?)
Major Heal = dat heal tho!
Bubble = Dem bubbles yo!
These abilities don't force you into the fight, they give you options in the fight. Each ability can see solo or group play. Due to threat mechanics it's not going to be possible for a healer to go balls to the wall in their fights. But it is possible to see auto attacks being something a priest wants to get in on, with a nuke now and then (something we are used to). Solo play gets the bonus of seeing a group heal become an aoe nuke. The big nuke has some kind of 'effect' tacked onto it. It doesn't have to be a stun, the point is to give them a unique utility, something good for them but doesn't take up the slot of other classes utility (no stepping on toes). Perhaps it could only stun undead for full duration.
The other thing I would 'exactly do' is this
Party UI does not show health. The overhead names of the players in your party will be green when taking damge they will slowly turn from green to yellow, orange, red then dead. Selecting a party member allows you to see their exact health and mana.
What this effectively does is take the UI away from the healer and place it right in the game. You are going to care about where you are, where your party members are, and you are going to want to keep an eye on the enemies as well.
And those are the two ways i'd 'fix' this problem.
Multi-layered abilities and UI changes.
You realize clerics had all of these abilities you are proposing in EQ right :P You forgot acouple like the damage proc when they get hit, the hammer pet, yaulp (which once they got Yaulp 5, meant they never had to sit to med, because it was better than sit regen) and the Damage shields they could "mark" on an enemy that healed everyone that hit the enemy, and damaged the enemy when it hit you.
If damage breaks mez in this game... That group heal would be catastrophic, you would generate hate from the heal and the nuke, and break mez. Sounds very situational at best. If it was coded not to break mez, Well i can think of afew ways to exploit that off the top of my head.
Whats a bubble.