Hello forums,
I’ve been thinking of the Quadternity system and how it applies to each individual pillar. Some things I think I have figured out well enough, others I havn’t. I wanted your input on what you feel ‘fits’ each individual role.
My previous thread titled ‘Tanking abilities—Here’s what we need’ went into some depth on ‘non-threat tanking abilities’ and I feel I was stepping on some toes with my suggestion, so I wanted to open it up to the general chat to see if you guys can expound upon it and also flesh out the other pillars of the Quadternity.
I don’t have a great format, I just need help on my thought process and how you all think the systems/abilities apply to each pillar (or class)
So what am I leaving out? And ‘why’
Are some things placed where they should not be placed, and if so why do you feel this way and where should it go?
I know a thread previously talked about classes individually-while I’m not against this, I’m more focused on the pillars.
The more opinions I get on this, the more I think I’ll be satisfied about what expectations I should be having and not having.
[]TANK – Incoming Damage Redirection
()HEALER— Incoming Damage Reversal
{}CC— Incoming Damage Prevention
<>DPS – Outgoing Damage
Now, one of my first thoughts is my expectations of what each of the pillars do is too ‘specific’. Stuns can be on any class, so can buffs and debuffs. (Is that a good thought process for pantheon? I don’t know.) Maybe I should have specified the lists above are what the class does ‘best’.
*shrugs*
Anywho, fire away and see if you can add more or move things around. Or if you want to make a list of buffs/debuffs that would help since I plan to keep this file on my computer.
Thanks a lot guys.
Stay constructive and positive.
-Todd
To fullly answer this for me I have to first assume we are thinking of these strictly as roles and not necessarily 4 groups of classes. In saying that, I think an Important role deserves its own category: Support. Though I do hope the support role shines a bit more on its own along with the Quadrinity.
[]TANK – Incoming Damage Redirection
()HEALER— Incoming Damage Reversal
{}CC— Incoming Damage Prevention
<>DPS – Outgoing Damage
!! SUPPORT – Outgoing and Incoming Damage Tempo (and other helpful skills)
Now I took a few liberties with your set up Todd, and added some thoughts on a couple of things. But I thought it important to fully seperate roles as roles and not groups of classes. And I think this is important to better see what each does at its most basic level. That being said we can definitely expect some role cross overs on some classes, but I hope not too much and I hope not on every class. For instance some classes should be just a straight up tank or dps. Others should be able to cover a role or 2 sufficiently. But I hope VR is very careful about over hybridization, because I dont think it very healthy for role interdependent gameplay. Jack of all trades are in my opinion are the antithesis of the concept of interdependency (looking at you Shaman). And in this I mean the 5 core roles I used, not sub roles or specialty roles and abilities (off-tank, puller, kiting, etc).
P.S. I dont think letting Healers have resource replenishment is a good idea. Besides it adds more depth if it was split up as the core of a party (assuming 6 man) to 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 CC, 1 resource replenisher, and 2 dps. Even more interdependency in a group. Party relies on Tank, Tank relies on Healer, Healer relies on Resource, DPS relies on everyone, etc. It worked this way in FFXI in most situations and it was beautiful, but Ill admit I am biased. But hell who wouldnt want greater interdependency and depth in a group based game?
Althouh I do agree that healers should not have replenishment... (This has typically been a skill offered up by Enchanters) EQ.. the most class balanced grouping game I have ever played did give healers their own flavor of buffs. In fact most of the "casting" classes had one flavor of buff or another to provide. The healer variety lent itself mainly to an increase to HP or AC if I recall correctly or various shieldings that could be placed on the tank.
Utility in my mind points to something that resembles the EQ1 bard in my mind... WONDERFUL to have around especially when the going is rough and always welcomed in a group, while at the same time... a group rarely fails for form up and head out for lack of one. Which makes sense.. since one is not always available. Indespensible on a raid though :)
Also it is important to keep in mind that there needs to be a way to group and accomplish goals for at least simple activities with less than optimal group configurations. For instance, and I refer back to EQ for this. It was possible to hold down a "camp" without a tank... IF... you had enough crowd control and dps. It was not optimal, but it was possible. Conversely it was possible to hold down at least some camps with out an enchanter if alternate crowd control tools were available. (roots) Or... if it were possible to kite for instance.
So although I steadfastly agree that class definitions need to be meaningful, I also maintain that we need to make sure that we provide tools that allow for creative solutions when an optimal group configuration is not possible or available.
Again... the finest class set up for grouping I have ever experienced... one in which each class felt meaningful... in my mind continues to be the orginal Everquest.
In essence, we can boil actions/abilities down to (simplistic) :
+dmg, ++dmg up to +++dmg (where +++dmg = AE/multiple opponents)
-dmg, --dmg up to ---dmg (where --dmg = heal and ---dmg = rez)
+buff, ++buff up to +++buff (+buff = minor, +++buff = powerful buff eg Clarity/Haste)
-buff, --buff up to ---buff (where --buff = slow, ---buff = mezz)
+util, ++util up to +++util (these are utility spells. Eg of +++util = summon stuff or teleport)
From this we create a version of 'Rock, Paper, Scissor, Lizard, Spock' for classes within each role.
Role : Healer
Class : Cleric (---dmg, +buff),
Class : Druid (-dmg, +buff, +++util),
Class : Shaman (-dmg, ++buff, --buff)
Role: Tank
Class: Warrior (++dmg, --dmg, -buff) etc
Role: CC
Class: Enchanter (+++buff, ---buff),
Class: Bard (+dmg, -dmg, ++buff, --buff, +util)
Role: DPS
Class: Wizard (+++dmg, +++util)
Class: Rogue (++dmg, -dmg, -buff)
Hopefully, you get the idea.
Each Role should include at least one class that focuses primarily on the thing that 'most defines' that role.
Other classes within a Role should have diffferent 'flavours' of that Role.
Eg perhaps using 'Heal over Time' rather than 'Direct Heals', or
Eg Monk (Damage avoidance) vs Warrior (Damage reduction) etc.
"Rock/Paper/Scissor/Lizard/Spock" Now that's a concept we can all get behind ! I love it !
By the way... we all know the signs for the first three... Duh
You KNOW we know the sign for Spock...
What's the hand signal for Lizard? LMAO
(Would that be the shape of an "L" on the forehead" ?? ?
Fyi, I woke up this morning and realized how horribly written my post was. I'll edit it at some point.
Evoras,
I was a little worried or concerned about the view that there should be one class that 'defines' the role. I believe Kilsin or Aradune mentioned making sure all classes are equipped to do the role they are supposed to do. Which means aoe healing might be part of a healer kit and not the snowflake which makes one of them unique.
I just read the shaman and cleric class and see a clear difference. If AOE healing isn't on the table as part of the kit or toolbox for a healer then shamans debuffs might fill that role in some way. Never considered that, and I really like it. We could see heal over time as a big deal to druids as their nich.
I thought about using that format btw but I was definitely not going to do it in a simple way. I wanted to make ability trees almost but I was afraid as I started due to thoughts of hybridization.
Lets get this out of the way.
Where is the cutoff line for sharing abilities?
Lets use stuns as the tool here. Would there be a problem if a tank had a 3 second stun as long as CC gets a 10 second stun? Or is it only ok if if the 3 second stun is reduced to half a second or have a casting time longer than the CC classes.
I'm actually really bugged by this right now. I want to play a tank and I am used to certain tools which may step on other classes toes. It would be devastating to take those away and not have anything to replace them with.
I need to think on this a lot actually and will revisit.
Amsai,
I love support idea. But I feel like support might be tacked on to every class. (helps grouping)
Totally happy you crossed out some of those. I felt like I was stepping on toes again. Wishful thinking for gameplay.
So early in the morning right now. Just want to go back to bedddddd...
Sent via mobile -Todd
Evoras said:In essence, we can boil actions/abilities down to (simplistic) :
+dmg, ++dmg up to +++dmg (where +++dmg = AE/multiple opponents)
-dmg, --dmg up to ---dmg (where --dmg = heal and ---dmg = rez)
+buff, ++buff up to +++buff (+buff = minor, +++buff = powerful buff eg Clarity/Haste)
-buff, --buff up to ---buff (where --buff = slow, ---buff = mezz)
+util, ++util up to +++util (these are utility spells. Eg of +++util = summon stuff or teleport)
From this we create a version of 'Rock, Paper, Scissor, Lizard, Spock' for classes within each role.
Role : Healer
Class : Cleric (---dmg, +buff),
Class : Druid (-dmg, +buff, +++util),
Class : Shaman (-dmg, ++buff, --buff)
Role: Tank
Class: Warrior (++dmg, --dmg, -buff) etc
Role: CC
Class: Enchanter (+++buff, ---buff),
Class: Bard (+dmg, -dmg, ++buff, --buff, +util)
Role: DPS
Class: Wizard (+++dmg, +++util)
Class: Rogue (++dmg, -dmg, -buff)
Hopefully, you get the idea.
Each Role should include at least one class that focuses primarily on the thing that 'most defines' that role.
Other classes within a Role should have diffferent 'flavours' of that Role.
Eg perhaps using 'Heal over Time' rather than 'Direct Heals', or
Eg Monk (Damage avoidance) vs Warrior (Damage reduction) etc.
Damn Evoras, I get up this morning and thought maybe I better go back to sleep at first. But after the fog cleared, I was able to decipher it lol. Hey as long as we dont have classes that can do everything or near it, then Im happy. Like I said 1 to 2 main roles, with and maybe a couple of sub roles or specialties. But we dont need any 1 class able to cover 3 or more of the main roles (CC, DPS, Tank, Healer, Support). This is my opinion, and I realize support isnt one of the 4 roles put forth by VR (but it should have been).
And Todd, I think he was just saying like I said. Some classes should just straight do what they are supposed to do, and others can do the same thing but from a different angle and have a few extras that a more focused class couldnt (i.e. hybridy).
tehtawd said:Fyi, I woke up this morning and realized how horribly written my post was. I'll edit it at some point.
Evoras,
I was a little worried or concerned about the view that there should be one class that 'defines' the role. I believe Kilsin or Aradune mentioned making sure all classes are equipped to do the role they are supposed to do. Which means aoe healing might be part of a healer kit and not the snowflake which makes one of them unique.
I just read the shaman and cleric class and see a clear difference. If AOE healing isn't on the table as part of the kit or toolbox for a healer then shamans debuffs might fill that role in some way. Never considered that, and I really like it. We could see heal over time as a big deal to druids as their nich.
I thought about using that format btw but I was definitely not going to do it in a simple way. I wanted to make ability trees almost but I was afraid as I started due to thoughts of hybridization.
Lets get this out of the way.
Where is the cutoff line for sharing abilities?
Lets use stuns as the tool here. Would there be a problem if a tank had a 3 second stun as long as CC gets a 10 second stun? Or is it only ok if if the 3 second stun is reduced to half a second or have a casting time longer than the CC classes.
I'm actually really bugged by this right now. I want to play a tank and I am used to certain tools which may step on other classes toes. It would be devastating to take those away and not have anything to replace them with.
I need to think on this a lot actually and will revisit.
Amsai,
I love support idea. But I feel like support might be tacked on to every class. (helps grouping)
Totally happy you crossed out some of those. I felt like I was stepping on toes again. Wishful thinking for gameplay.
So early in the morning right now. Just want to go back to bedddddd...
Sent via mobile -Todd
No problem man. I know Im a bit of a support nut so I dont expect eveyone to be on board with my take on it.
I wouldnt worry about stepping on toes too much. As I said I was seperating out roles, not classes. So I think your solution will probably reside in Dire Lord or Crusader. Those classes might not have the damage output Warrior does but the hybridization they bring to the table will likey give some of the other tools you were hoping for.
In EQ1 Enchanters had a job of buffing the group (KEI etc.) and CC. In EQ2 they still had that same ability. The problem was that the new players there weren't even willing to give CC a try. The idea of THOSE players was that there was no need for CC since you had a tank that could gather ALL the agro pretty easily and simply adding a second healer meant that you you could just kill the mobs without even considering the CC aspect of the game. I was very dissappointed. Then we had some Dev Members that stated that the goal was to REMOVE the "need" for CC players. I am still pretty pissed about that.
What I am getting around too is the desire to list these abilities without realizing that when you ask for some abilities, it totally removes the need for some classes. Asking for super agro control for tanks (I play a tank BTW) means that as long as you have the heals - you don't need CC. EQ1 was MUCH better at the interdependencies of the adventuring classes. EQ2? Not so much. What it DID do was make my play as an Illusionist VERY solo dependent. Early game EQ2 no one needed an Illy. Most groups wouldnt even waste a slot on one. Illy had the lowest Mage DPS. No CC was needed. You really were better off getting some decent DPS classes. On the other hand, as an Illy, I developed the skills to pretty much adventure and quest my way through almost everything. I COULD solo a group encounter by mezz-locking/stun-locking. I could get to areas that required a LONG hard slough VERY quickly by using the tools I had (invis, mezzing, etc.). I could complete quests faster than anyone. I honestly hope we go back towards EQ1 play than EQ2 play.
I do not WANT to be left out in the cold again. But if it DOES wind up doing the same thing as it did in EQ2 - then at LEAST give me the bilities and skills I need to be succesful as a solo player.
@ Nephretiti
Don't think you need to worry there.
EQ2 had (unfortunately) gone the route of blurring the roles to such a degree that *everyone* and their pony was 'merely' DPS with some flavour added. While each of the roles puportedly had a specific role, in practive this was not true. You could get any 4 characters together and form a group.... irrespective of what they were ... and still use the same gameplay tactics, by and large.
Both EQ1 and VR (certainly vanilla) had 'distinct' roles for character classes.
Indeed, it is even in the Tenets!
This means no class will likely be a 'jack of all trades' (unlike nearly all in EQ2, really), so we could group classes by 'listing their roles'.
ROLE breakdowns: (using EQ1 as 'best guess' for breakdowns)
Warrior: Tank (75%) CC (5%) DPS (20%)
Crusader: Tank (65%) Healer (10%) DPS (25%)
DireLord: Tank (65%) CC (05%) DPS (30%)
---
Rogue: Tank (25%) CC (10%) DPS (60%) Utility (05%)
Ranger: Tank (20%) CC (05%) DPS (55%) Utility (20%)
---
Wizzy : DPS (75%) CC (05%) Utility (20%)
Summoner: DPS (60%) CC (15%) Utility (25%)
Enchanter: DPS (15%) CC (65%) Utility (20%)
etc
Hopefully you see what I mean. I.e. While no class is '100% something' (think tank Taunt = Summoner pet off-tank = form of CC for example), each Class is suited to fulfil a distinct 'Role'. It may be that they achieve that role in different ways - Warrior, Crusader and DireLords are all suited to the 'tank' role. They just manage it differently.
Amsai I am a support nut also. If I were making an mmorpg I would make sure peoples individual abilities connected each other in a big way. An easy example is an ability that increases its crit chance by a significant margin if grouped or an ally is within x feet of you. I think everyone should have a big support role of some kind. Opinion.
Nephretiti,
I have more fun as a tank when I am dealing with more than one enemy at a time. I'm going to assume if you have to also deal with multiple things to CC you also find the same joy.
It is not a matter of who gets to have fun. The devs are comitted to CC mattering so likely there will be enough tough enemies I can have 2 and you can have 2. Then the healer can group heal the dps can do aoe damage etc.
Or hey, maybe the enemies will be entertaining enough that just 1 will do. Who knows.
Sent via mobile
-Todd
Evoras,
From the eq1 breakdown I think listing individual abilities in terms of cc, tanking, dps would be valuable.
Ie an attack which does 20Dmg and increases threat would be 30% dps/70% tanking
Suddenly I want to make an excel table and sort by tank % and set another filter for a secondary sort feature. This doesn't sound like pantheon exactly but it is a fun thought.
#musing
Sent via mobile
-Todd
@ Todd
You are probably right about the support thing at least thats the way it looks. So far we have three very different class reveals (Shaman, Cleric, Rogue) and all have support tacked on the end of their descriptions. So unfortunately for me the future doesnt look good for a pure or almost pure support class (buffs, debuffs, utility). I have faith Bard will be close enough though. Still not sure about what class Ill choose til then. And this is just my opinion and Im making assumptions but...... Tank classes look too standard and boring (nothing will ever compare to ninja tank Im afraid it was just too different and interesting than any other tank I know of). I dont really care about doing the most DPS (though I am partial to rogue classes, but I prefer a more D&D utility take than a DPS monster). I hate being a healer, its just not my thing (and I pray to god I dont have to be a healer just o be able to perform a decent support role, because Druid sounds like it might be awesome (Brad had hinted at something like Geomancer abilities from FF series) except for the whole icky healing thing). Which leaves CC, which I probably find the most interesting and would likely have other support function, but the only pure CC role seems to be Enchanter.
Some of this might come down to just how different the class "paths" are as well and how viable they are. Debuffing Rogue (less damage more weakening of mob for group) vs Assassin Rogue? Support Druid (Its not that they cant heal but sacrifice healing for vastly more support or some such) vs Healer Druid? We havent had any real info on this. I know its a thing, but dont know if its more like small adjustments, full specializations, or just flavor?
Amsai said:@ Todd
You are probably right about the support thing at least thats the way it looks. So far we have three very different class reveals (Shaman, Cleric, Rogue) and all have support tacked on the end of their descriptions. So unfortunately for me the future doesnt look good for a pure or almost pure support class (buffs, debuffs, utility). I have faith Bard will be close enough though. Still not sure about what class Ill choose til then. And this is just my opinion and Im making assumptions but...... Tank classes look too standard and boring (nothing will ever compare to ninja tank Im afraid it was just too different and interesting than any other tank I know of). I dont really care about doing the most DPS (though I am partial to rogue classes, but I prefer a more D&D utility take than a DPS monster). I hate being a healer, its just not my thing (and I pray to god I dont have to be a healer just o be able to perform a decent support role, because Druid sounds like it might be awesome (Brad had hinted at something like Geomancer abilities from FF series) except for the whole icky healing thing). Which leaves CC, which I probably find the most interesting and would likely have other support function, but the only pure CC role seems to be Enchanter.
Some of this might come down to just how different the class "paths" are as well and how viable they are. Debuffing Rogue (less damage more weakening of mob for group) vs Assassin Rogue? Support Druid (Its not that they cant heal but sacrifice healing for vastly more support or some such) vs Healer Druid? We havent had any real info on this. I know its a thing, but dont know if its more like small adjustments, full specializations, or just flavor?
I would have said enchanter fits the the support role for the most part, buffs, debuffs, resource battery and generally making everyone elses lives more relaxed but a group doesnt need to undergow a massive tactical change without one.
tehtawd said:I have more fun as a tank when I am dealing with more than one enemy at a time. I'm going to assume if you have to also deal with multiple things to CC you also find the same joy.
In old EQ one of the things that a mage had to help in this was the High damage, short duration Fire shield spell. If the tank pulled 6 monsters accidentally and the mage then cast the DD on the warrior, everytime a monster hit thew warrior they would take alot of damage- centered on the tank.
This allowed the tank to hold all 6 monsters but concentrate on whittling down one- everyone would assist on the one, and whomever could, would peel off some monsters and park them near- but to the side and out of range.
Obviously the chanter would charm/mezz.
A mage could grab one, set the elemental on it, while at the same time DD'ing the Warriors main target.
The ranger could snag one, snare it and root park it. same with Druid or wizzy, But wizzy was more to hurry things up if needed because it usually cost the wizzy lots of mana.
That way the Tank could decide who to go to next, after the first of the 6 was defeated.
So what I am working on right now is trying to get specifics on abilities and where they belong. I’m finding ‘hybrid’ classes throw a kink in the hose.
A hybrid might be able to snag something from CC or Heals wheras a non-hybrid would…. What? If a Tank which is not hybrid is not allowed to have CC abilities (such as stuns) and also is not allowed to have healing abilities you would want to fill this with …what?
Now I think it would be strange if the difference between a hybrid tank and a pure tank is merely stacking more ‘damage’ on top of a pure tank. This seems wrong as damage is tied directly to threat generation which would mean a pure tank would just be better at holding enemies than a hybrid. This is all guessing at this point, but still something worrisome.
I’m actually considering it a good idea to instead of thinking a pure tank would gain more damage they would gain more CC. IE, stuns, knockbacks, snares. Whereas the hybrid could be getting resource replenishment or healing etc.
I will be posting another topic at some point soon with the information I’m gathering here. Thanks again for responses.
-Todd
I'm trying to find the reference and can't remember where it was stated, but it sounds like we'll be able to open up opportunities for our groupmates with certain abilities during combat. I would think that the ability to create openings, or synergize with other classes in the group, would be something that the warrior would be best at as they are the master tacticians on the battlefield. While some classes may have certain other classes that they 'team up' with very well, I would expect the warrior to be able to take whatever group he/she's handed and have the tools to make the best of them. This would be an additional leveraging point for balancing the different tanking classes.
There's also mention of counters in the FAQ. Again, something that some classes may be better at than others, and another degree of freedom for class balance.