OneForAll said:I really don't see how you can call something a specialization if you can swap between it freely. You aren't specialized if you can do both.
If you can swap between them freely ( non comabt w/e same thing) just put all the skills together from both "trees" and call it a class. it's the same thing without having to restrict yourself from certain skills between fights. It adds absolutely no depth to your character to just swap between skill sets whenever you want and it's completely immersion breaking. Sounds to me like something that belongs in an action rpg or *ahem* WoW. How can a wizard who studied his whole life to master fire, suddenly decide over a cup of tea what he actually mastered ice," just kidding about the fire thing y'all."
If they are going to have specializations then it should be a permanent choice. Anything else is just window dressing.
I would approve of a system where if you chose ice over fire then your ice spell do more dps but you would still receive the same abilities either way.
Otherwise I am against specialization, it just means you have to balance double the classes and one tree is always better and the devs are always messing with the trees and it's a constant dance between what's 'meta' with every new patch.
Honestly it shocks me when I see people arguing for things like being able to swap between heal spec and dps spec in this game! No thanks! That's not the game I backed! :)
Just have AA's
Edit: just to add, I am not worried about not having to tactically prepare for each upcoming fight. That is why you are (hopefully) restricted to only using 10 of your available abilites/spells at any time.
Just as an aside, I found lightning in EQ to be more effective than fire or ice, fire and ice seemed to be resisted more. Lightning pretty rarely. :)
Cana
I see specializations as another form of horizontal progression. By allowing a character to learn multiple specializations and allowing them to switch between them, you create something additional for the completionist type players to do between expansions.
Keeping high-activity players busy between expansions is a large part of maintaining player bases between expansions. Too many players get their characters maxed out in a few months after an expansion, then move onto another game until the next expansion.
If you don't want to have ghost town servers in between expansions, you have to give as many horizontal options as possible.
oneADseven said:...Whether it's through progeny, AA's, or epic "specialization quests" -- I want there to be a serious barrier to entry on what it takes to train certain techniques that would indeed make my character feel special...
...I think content can be balanced in a more meaningful way if certain abilities are exclusive to specific specialization choices. You can eventually learn both animal charm and regeneration, but you can't use both at the exact same time. I want to earn the right to offer multiple specialization options to my group. It shouldn't be a freebie where everybody is always a master druid and they just custom tailor their kits prior to engaging in combat...
...I understand some people might not like something like this because eventually groups will start requesting only "master warriors" to get the most out of their sessions. I embrace that. I want the "master warrior" to be more sought after. I want the "master rogue" and "master druid" to be more sought after. It should mean something that players went out of their way to fully master their class...
...Why bring 2 warriors to the raid when your main warrior offers the best of both worlds? The key to making these "master classes" work is creating ample opportunties for both specializations to situationally thrive, and for me, that would make for a more fulfilling and long term development process for my character. Something like this would also reinforce the value of situational gear for each class...
I certainly do enjoy character progression but I feel class progression is something that has to be handled very delicately. I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid, because I have mastered being a druid at a player skill level and know what to do when or can come up with new interesting combinations most don't think of with the limited action set paired with living codex modifiers. Being picked for groups because I had put more time in to "finish" leveling druid after I already leveled druid to cap doesn't make me feel special.
To me it really just feels more like having more players be incomplete in their classes with specialization like that. It isn't a luxury for your group that you have both paths completed, it's an expectation for you to have done so. There will end up being one path for each class that almost everyone who wants to get groups has to follow, likely being main/first the player specs in the role their class is supposed to do (tank warrior spec) then later at max level pick up and level DPS spec in some fashion which to me doesn't do much for the concern of not taking two of the same class for the majority of the game content. I think the content should nudge people toward two warriors by design with needed tank swapping or multiple mob/boss targets that can't be hard CC'd. I'd argue that content can be balanced in a more meaningful way if all class abilities are open to each player of that class instead of if certain abilities are exclusive to specific spec choices.
The guardian/berserker example plays into my concerns of limiting the future of Pantheon. Balancing becomes much harder but another issue is that it limits future classes from ever seeing the light of day. Berserker could very well be it's own class altogether but making new classes with unique identity gets much more muddied & difficult when you have 12(14) classes that split into 24(28) different classes due to different specializations.
I feel the limited action set paired with living codex should be enough to make choices pre-battle to matter, especially if they end up not allowing weapon swapping in combat. So using this guardian/berserker example: If you go into a fight starting as guardian then perhaps you can't take that shield off so any berserker abilities wouldn't work because they could be designed to only work with 2h or dual wield. I'd rather they let weapon swaps in combat but having a mix of "guardian" and "berserker" skills on the skill bar I would say is just having warrior skills on a skill bar. It is being a warrior. Some encounters you might have 7 defensive abilities and 3 offensive while others might have the warrior load up 4 defensive abilities and 6 offensive, but it's all just part of being a warrior. So why bring two warriors? Because it might just be that you need two or three or more for an encounter whether for off-tanking, for tank swaps, or maybe sometimes you just really need more than 10 of the abilities a warrior has.
To me it would seem there are plenty of other avenues to explore horizontal progression for a character.
OneForAll said:I really don't see how you can call something a specialization if you can swap between it freely. You aren't specialized if you can do both.
If you can swap between them freely ( non comabt w/e same thing) just put all the skills together from both "trees" and call it a class. it's the same thing without having to restrict yourself from certain skills between fights. It adds absolutely no depth to your character to just swap between skill sets whenever you want and it's completely immersion breaking. Sounds to me like something that belongs in an action rpg or *ahem* WoW. How can a wizard who studied his whole life to master fire, suddenly decide over a cup of tea what he actually mastered ice," just kidding about the fire thing y'all."
If they are going to have specializations then it should be a permanent choice. Anything else is just window dressing.
I would approve of a system where if you chose ice over fire then your ice spell do more dps but you would still receive the same abilities either way.
Otherwise I am against specialization, it just means you have to balance double the classes and one tree is always better and the devs are always messing with the trees and it's a constant dance between what's 'meta' with every new patch.
Honestly it shocks me when I see people arguing for things like being able to swap between heal spec and dps spec in this game! No thanks! That's not the game I backed! :)
Just have AA's
Edit: just to add, I am not worried about not having to tactically prepare for each upcoming fight. That is why you are (hopefully) restricted to only using 10 of your available abilites/spells at any time.
An out-of-combat requirement makes it so you definitely can't "swap freely." You mention how you you are against specialization because it "just means you have to balance double the classes and one is always better" but that's exactly what would happen if the choice is permanent, which is something you advocated for. When the choice is permanent, then yes, extra care should go into balancing them. By allowing players to swap them, they don't need to be balanced against each other. By requiring advanced progression to be eligible to swap in the first place, it means that you don't magically decide that you master ice over fire while drinking a cup of tea. You earn the privilege to rotate.
The point is that you want each specialization to be "situationally better" which completely nullifies the idea of there being a cookie cutter spec. As far as people arguing for being able to swap between heal spec and DPS spec, that's an entirely different topic and I haven't seen that come up in this thread. With the guardian/berserker example, it would be very similar to the body/soul specializations that are available to monk. With body/soul, one monk will specialize as a DPS, the other as an off-tank. With guardian/berserker, one would specialize as a tank, and the other as an off-dps. Would you consider that reasonable? It's very consistent with the only known specialization example that has been revealed so far.
The more I think about it, the more I think that your choice of gear + the combination of abilities you set would function more to specialize your class. So a warrior that specs as a tank would to focus on damage mitigation gear and set abilities to support that role. Conversly a warrior who wants to be more of a dps would gear their character for increase damage, maybe lowering their tankability in favor of more damage, while also setting more attack oriented abilities.
Looking at how this class system is being developed, there are your traditional roles as tank, dps, and healer, but having the limitations to how many abilities we can utilize will force people to specialize in their role in the party. I think gear is going to be very important in how it works with our end goal in mind, when in a group you are going to need to specialize to some extent, pretty much I'm thinking there is already a ton of specialization is this game. With the current system, as long as there is plenty of gear in the game and not your typical gear treadmill, we'll have the ability to spec ourselves and have the freedom to change through gear. If stats are important, and not over simplified like in other games, we can have potentialy have hundreds of specs! If base stats effected other more finer stats like say, agility effecting your block rate, you can have a tank who loads on agility to increase his blocking capability. Meanwhile say vitality increase defense, a tank may load up on vitality to help reduce the amount of damage they take.
All this is not taking into consideration if we have minor stats as well that are effected by base stats, things like evasion, accuracy, defense, movement speed, enemity, spell duration...I can go on and on. For me the more complicated the stats get the better, it gives us the opportunity to specialize to an extent without binding us down to one path, at that point it depends on how motivated one is to gear their character.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:...Whether it's through progeny, AA's, or epic "specialization quests" -- I want there to be a serious barrier to entry on what it takes to train certain techniques that would indeed make my character feel special...
...I think content can be balanced in a more meaningful way if certain abilities are exclusive to specific specialization choices. You can eventually learn both animal charm and regeneration, but you can't use both at the exact same time. I want to earn the right to offer multiple specialization options to my group. It shouldn't be a freebie where everybody is always a master druid and they just custom tailor their kits prior to engaging in combat...
...I understand some people might not like something like this because eventually groups will start requesting only "master warriors" to get the most out of their sessions. I embrace that. I want the "master warrior" to be more sought after. I want the "master rogue" and "master druid" to be more sought after. It should mean something that players went out of their way to fully master their class...
...Why bring 2 warriors to the raid when your main warrior offers the best of both worlds? The key to making these "master classes" work is creating ample opportunties for both specializations to situationally thrive, and for me, that would make for a more fulfilling and long term development process for my character. Something like this would also reinforce the value of situational gear for each class...
I certainly do enjoy character progression but I feel class progression is something that has to be handled very delicately. I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid, because I have mastered being a druid at a player skill level and know what to do when or can come up with new interesting combinations most don't think of with the limited action set paired with living codex modifiers. Being picked for groups because I had put more time in to "finish" leveling druid after I already leveled druid to cap doesn't make me feel special.
To me it really just feels more like having more players be incomplete in their classes with specialization like that. It isn't a luxury for your group that you have both paths completed, it's an expectation for you to have done so. There will end up being one path for each class that almost everyone who wants to get groups has to follow, likely being main/first the player specs in the role their class is supposed to do (tank warrior spec) then later at max level pick up and level DPS spec in some fashion which to me doesn't do much for the concern of not taking two of the same class for the majority of the game content. I think the content should nudge people toward two warriors by design with needed tank swapping or multiple mob/boss targets that can't be hard CC'd. I'd argue that content can be balanced in a more meaningful way if all class abilities are open to each player of that class instead of if certain abilities are exclusive to specific spec choices.
The guardian/berserker example plays into my concerns of limiting the future of Pantheon. Balancing becomes much harder but another issue is that it limits future classes from ever seeing the light of day. Berserker could very well be it's own class altogether but making new classes with unique identity gets much more muddied & difficult when you have 12(14) classes that split into 24(28) different classes due to different specializations.
I feel the limited action set paired with living codex should be enough to make choices pre-battle to matter, especially if they end up not allowing weapon swapping in combat. So using this guardian/berserker example: If you go into a fight starting as guardian then perhaps you can't take that shield off so any berserker abilities wouldn't work because they could be designed to only work with 2h or dual wield. I'd rather they let weapon swaps in combat but having a mix of "guardian" and "berserker" skills on the skill bar I would say is just having warrior skills on a skill bar. It is being a warrior. Some encounters you might have 7 defensive abilities and 3 offensive while others might have the warrior load up 4 defensive abilities and 6 offensive, but it's all just part of being a warrior. So why bring two warriors? Because it might just be that you need two or three or more for an encounter whether for off-tanking, for tank swaps, or maybe sometimes you just really need more than 10 of the abilities a warrior has.
To me it would seem there are plenty of other avenues to explore horizontal progression for a character.
If you look at what has been revealed for monks, it seems that certain abilities will be locked to specific specializations.
Ability Arsenal: Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons. The Arts of the Body consist of devastating physical attacks such as Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind and Rising Moon Kick. The Arts of the Soul allow Monks to concentrate their flow of Chi into punishing physical attacks like Surge of Chi, defensive abilities like Mountain Pose, and self-healing techniques like Resonating Palm.
You mentioned "I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid" -- this is the exact opposite of what I hope to see from this game. I don't want players to just learn every ability/spell in the game just by leveling up. I don't want every max level druid to be the exact same as the others, plus or minus their "skill cap." I don't see that much different than saying "I think every piece of situational gear should just come by the leveling journey itself. It's far more important to show off how skilled I am at using the situational gear than actually earning it." Bleh. I know it's not the same thing but I just fail to see why earning gear should be more meaningful in game than earning abilities/techniques/specializations.
oneADseven said:An out-of-combat requirement makes it so you definitely can't "swap freely." You mention how you you are against specialization because it "just means you have to balance double the classes and one is always better" but that's exactly what would happen if the choice is permanent. That's something you advocated for, not me. When the choice is permanent, then yes, extra care should go into balancing them. By allowing players to swap them, they don't need to be balanced against each other. By requiring advanced progression to be eligible to swap in the first place, it means that you don't magically decide that you master ice over fire while drinking a cup of tea. You earn the privilege to rotate.
The point is that you want each specialization to be "situationally better" which completely nullifies the idea of there being a cookie cutter spec. As far as people arguing for being able to swap between heal spec and DPS spec, that's an entirely different topic and I haven't seen that come up in this thread. With the guardian/berserker example, it would be very similar to the body/soul specializations that are available to monk. With body/soul, one monk will specialize as a DPS, the other as an off-tank. With guardian/berserker, one would specialize as a tank, and the other as an off-dps. How is that unreasonable? It's very consistent with the only known specialization example that has been revealed so far.
Having to be out of combat to change specializations is hardly a 'requirement'. If you could swap between skill sets IN combat, then you basically just have all your abilities available to you at all times, which would make swapping a redundant feature that just slows down the flow of combat. Having it be out of combat is the only thing that would actually make it a specialization.
I dont see how being able to swap between heal spec and DPS spec is a 'completely different topic' than your exaple of a guardian/bezerker which is Tank/DPS which is clearly two different roles, just like healer/dps. If you want to play a tank, and do more dps, then put on more dps gear and swap out for some more DPS on you ability bar from your available abilities. No need to create a whole new class for it.
The point is that you want each specialization to be "situationally better"
I agree, but one isn't "better" to have if you can swap them! It only becomes better if you have to pay the price when its not. get me? If you are locked into a choice then you really can 'specialize' and be more useful in some situations and not in others, if you can swap then you are always operating at optimal efficiency which isnt being specialized. If you want to be situationally better between fights, swap out skills and gear.
You mention how you you are against specialization because it "just means you have to balance double the classes and one is always better" but that's exactly what would happen if the choice is permanent. That's something you advocated for, not me.
I said I was against specialization, and if it was in, i would want you to be locked into that specialization yes, but i also said I am against specialization that changes the role of your class which seems to me to be the example you give with guardian/bezerker.
Specialization to me means choosing if you are better at one area of your class than another. A Cleric can specialize in heals or buffs. A guardian can specialize in Hammers vs Swords. A wizard can be ice vs fire. something that adds depth and intrigue to your character, and a nice bonus when you fight mobs that play into it, but that aren't game-breaking or force you to regret choosing one or the other. I am not even against being able to change between these, but definetely not between combat, more like with a nice long quest and some rep grinding.
One thing to keep in mind is that if classes are flexible, it's easier to form groups.
oneADseven said:If you look at what has been revealed for monks, it seems that certain abilities will be locked to specific specializations.
Ability Arsenal: Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons. The Arts of the Body consist of devastating physical attacks such as Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind and Rising Moon Kick. The Arts of the Soul allow Monks to concentrate their flow of Chi into punishing physical attacks like Surge of Chi, defensive abilities like Mountain Pose, and self-healing techniques like Resonating Palm.
You mentioned "I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid" -- this is the exact opposite of what I hope to see from this game. I don't want players to just learn every ability/spell in the game just by leveling up. I don't want every max level druid to be the exact same as the others, plus or minus their "skill cap." I don't see that much different than saying "I think every piece of situational gear should just come by the leveling journey itself. It's far more important to show off how skilled I am at using the situational gear than actually earning it." Bleh. I know it's not the same thing but I just fail to see why earning gear should be more meaningful in game than earning abilities/techniques/specializations.
Whats the difference? just like gear, eventually everyone else will just grind out the abilities you have earned and you will be the same anyway. An abilitiy and peice of gear are interchangeable in this example. How is earning gear any different than earning an ability? Wether it be by raid or quest, you put in the same work. Of course every lvl 50 druid is going to be the same at max! We all pay the same sub, and will all have access to the same content. Wether its gear/abilities/specializations, eventually every lvl 50 will be close to being the same. Gear is the one thing you can continuously collect. Have fun adding 10 expansions of unique abilites over the years.
OneForAll said:oneADseven said:An out-of-combat requirement makes it so you definitely can't "swap freely." You mention how you you are against specialization because it "just means you have to balance double the classes and one is always better" but that's exactly what would happen if the choice is permanent. That's something you advocated for, not me. When the choice is permanent, then yes, extra care should go into balancing them. By allowing players to swap them, they don't need to be balanced against each other. By requiring advanced progression to be eligible to swap in the first place, it means that you don't magically decide that you master ice over fire while drinking a cup of tea. You earn the privilege to rotate.
The point is that you want each specialization to be "situationally better" which completely nullifies the idea of there being a cookie cutter spec. As far as people arguing for being able to swap between heal spec and DPS spec, that's an entirely different topic and I haven't seen that come up in this thread. With the guardian/berserker example, it would be very similar to the body/soul specializations that are available to monk. With body/soul, one monk will specialize as a DPS, the other as an off-tank. With guardian/berserker, one would specialize as a tank, and the other as an off-dps. How is that unreasonable? It's very consistent with the only known specialization example that has been revealed so far.
Having to be out of combat to change specializations is hardly a 'requirement'. If you could swap between skill sets IN combat, then you basically just have all your abilities available to you at all times, which would make swapping a redundant feature that just slows down the flow of combat. Having it be out of combat is the only thing that would actually make it a specialization.
I dont see how being able to swap between heal spec and DPS spec is a 'completely different topic' than your exaple of a guardian/bezerker which is Tank/DPS which is clearly two different roles, just like healer/dps. If you want to play a tank, and do more dps, then put on more dps gear and swap out for some more DPS on you ability bar from your available abilities. No need to create a whole new class for it.
The point is that you want each specialization to be "situationally better"
I agree, but one isn't "better" to have if you can swap them! It only becomes better if you have to pay the price when its not. get me? If you are locked into a choice then you really can 'specialize' and be more useful in some situations and not in others, if you can swap then you are always operating at optimal efficiency which isnt being specialized. If you want to be situationally better between fights, swap out skills and gear.
You mention how you you are against specialization because it "just means you have to balance double the classes and one is always better" but that's exactly what would happen if the choice is permanent. That's something you advocated for, not me.
I said I was against specialization, and if it was in, i would want you to be locked into that specialization yes, but i also said I am against specialization that changes the role of your class which seems to me to be the example you give with guardian/bezerker.
Specialization to me means choosing if you are better at one area of your class than another. A Cleric can specialize in heals or buffs. A guardian can specialize in Hammers vs Swords. A wizard can be ice vs fire. something that adds depth and intrigue to your character, and a nice bonus when you fight mobs that play into it, but that aren't game-breaking or force you to regret choosing one or the other. I am not even against being able to change between these, but definetely not between combat, more like with a nice long quest and some rep grinding.
"Having to be out of combat to change specializations is hardly a 'requirement'. If you could swap between skill sets IN combat, then you basically just have all your abilities available to you at all times, which would make swapping a redundant feature that just slows down the flow of combat. Having it be out of combat is the only thing that would actually make it a specialization." Huh? My entire point was based around the idea that you could only swap specs while out of combat.
"I agree, but one isn't "better" to have if you can swap them! It only becomes better if you have to pay the price when its not. get me? If you are locked into a choice then you really can 'specialize' and be more useful in some situations and not in others, if you can swap then you are always operating at optimal efficiency which isnt being specialized. If you want to be situationally better between fights, swap out skills and gear." But you just said that swapping specs out of combat would also work. It makes it so that you are "locked into a choice" and can "be more useful in some situations and not in others."
"I said I was against specialization, and if it was in, i would want you to be locked into that specialization yes, but i also said I am against specialization that changes the role of your class which seems to me to be the example you give with guardian/bezerker. Specialization to me means choosing if you are better at one area of your class than another. A Cleric can specialize in heals or buffs. A guardian can specialize in Hammers vs Swords. A wizard can be ice vs fire. something that adds depth and intrigue to your character, and a nice bonus when you fight mobs that play into it, but that aren't game-breaking or force you to regret choosing one or the other. I am not even against being able to change between these, but definetely not between combat, more like with a nice long quest and some rep grinding." Please address the other part of my post where I mentioned how monks will be able to "specialize" in either DPS or as an off-tank. That changes the role of their class. Additionally, specialization for monks seems to extend well beyond the examples you provided. One version will have a defensive stance and self-heal while the other seems to be pure DPS.
oneADseven said:If you look at what has been revealed for monks, it seems that certain abilities will be locked to specific specializations.
Ability Arsenal: Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons. The Arts of the Body consist of devastating physical attacks such as Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind and Rising Moon Kick. The Arts of the Soul allow Monks to concentrate their flow of Chi into punishing physical attacks like Surge of Chi, defensive abilities like Mountain Pose, and self-healing techniques like Resonating Palm.
You mentioned "I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid" -- this is the exact opposite of what I hope to see from this game. I don't want players to just learn every ability/spell in the game just by leveling up. I don't want every max level druid to be the exact same as the others, plus or minus their "skill cap." I don't see that much different than saying "I think every piece of situational gear should just come by the leveling journey itself. It's far more important to show off how skilled I am at using the situational gear than actually earning it." Bleh. I know it's not the same thing but I just fail to see why earning gear should be more meaningful in game than earning abilities/techniques/specializations.
I just checked the wiki...you might be more right in your thinking...
Monk-Body, Soul
Rogues-Assasin, Planetalker
Cleric-Resolute, Devout
Summoner-Crowd control
Of course the wiki is nowhere near complete but there may be something to it....
OneForAll said:oneADseven said:If you look at what has been revealed for monks, it seems that certain abilities will be locked to specific specializations.
Ability Arsenal: Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons. The Arts of the Body consist of devastating physical attacks such as Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind and Rising Moon Kick. The Arts of the Soul allow Monks to concentrate their flow of Chi into punishing physical attacks like Surge of Chi, defensive abilities like Mountain Pose, and self-healing techniques like Resonating Palm.
You mentioned "I don't feel special because I am a druid that has spent much more time than a fresh level 50 druid to more or less become a complete druid and have all the abilities a druid should have. I think all those spells/abilities are something that should just come from the leveling journey itself. I want to feel special because I AM a druid at all and not a cleric or shaman, but far more importantly I want it to feel special because I am SKILLED at being a druid" -- this is the exact opposite of what I hope to see from this game. I don't want players to just learn every ability/spell in the game just by leveling up. I don't want every max level druid to be the exact same as the others, plus or minus their "skill cap." I don't see that much different than saying "I think every piece of situational gear should just come by the leveling journey itself. It's far more important to show off how skilled I am at using the situational gear than actually earning it." Bleh. I know it's not the same thing but I just fail to see why earning gear should be more meaningful in game than earning abilities/techniques/specializations.
Whats the difference? just like gear, eventually everyone else will just grind out the abilities you have earned and you will be the same anyway. An abilitiy and peice of gear are interchangeable in this example. How is earning gear any different than earning an ability? Wether it be by raid or quest, you put in the same work. Of course every lvl 50 druid is going to be the same at max! We all pay the same sub, and will all have access to the same content. Wether its gear/abilities/specializations, eventually every lvl 50 will be close to being the same. Gear is the one thing you can continuously collect. Have fun adding 10 expansions of unique abilites over the years.
Ugh, nevermind.
"Having to be out of combat to change specializations is hardly a 'requirement'. If you could swap between skill sets IN combat, then you basically just have all your abilities available to you at all times, which would make swapping a redundant feature that just slows down the flow of combat. Having it be out of combat is the only thing that would actually make it a specialization." Huh? My entire point was based around the idea that you could only swap specs while out of combat.
..ok... The point is that you said you want us to be able to swap bewteen specs and I do not, at least NOT just between combat. I said being able to swap specs between combat amounts to being able to 'swap freely' and you countered me by saying that its not 'swapping freely' because there is a 'requirement' of doing it between combat. At which point i argued that you cannot call having to wait for combat to end a 'requirement' because the alternative is being able to swap IN combat, which is not specialization. anywaaaaay..
what i am arguing is that being able to swap specs between combat is bad and waters down the game and has no place. IMO. As others here have argued. thats just imo. If there is a requirement to swap specs that is more than just picky and clicky, such as a quest and a time sink, then I agree that most people will end up just picking the spec that is best and sticking with that, which is also bad. Therefore I argue we shouldnt have specializations, just enough abilities at our disposal to swap out skills on a limited bar to adjust to different situations. again, imo. I'm not against it, but again i would rather be locked in IF i am forced to specialize, so that it actually feels like specialization with the pros and cons that come with that.
Monks could off tank and DPS in EQ and they didnt need any fancy specializations.
I dont see how your assertion that monks can specialize has anything to do with this discussion. Good for them, it doesnt change my opinions on when I think they should be able to do so. It's going to be the way it is, but if swapping between roles inbetween combat while in the middle of a dungeon/raid is a thing for all classes, I will be disapointed.
I dont think that the little information we have on one class in pre alpha is enough to jump to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to specialize and role change.
Beefcake said:I see specializations as another form of horizontal progression. By allowing a character to learn multiple specializations and allowing them to switch between them, you create something additional for the completionist type players to do between expansions.
Keeping high-activity players busy between expansions is a large part of maintaining player bases between expansions. Too many players get their characters maxed out in a few months after an expansion, then move onto another game until the next expansion.
If you don't want to have ghost town servers in between expansions, you have to give as many horizontal options as possible.
How can it be called specialization if you have them in multiple things? The genera concept is that a specialization makes you stronger in a given area. To offset that you then must be weaker in that specializations opposite. That is called balance. If you can be specialized in multiple things, then all you are doing is asking for positives with no negatives and that means you just want to be overpowered. Specializions in everything is just the same as having no specializations.
One example above was choosing between Fire wizard and Ice Wizard. So if you spec in fire, you must then be lower your strength in Ice. Now when you find yourself in dungeons filled with fire based creatures, your fire based spells are now useless and because your ice spells are gimped, you're now useless in a group. Had you not specialized, your fire spells in a fire based zone will still be crap but your ice spells will still be quite powerful. In the long run, you are better off with no specializations.
The archetypes already are specializations.
OneForAll said:"Having to be out of combat to change specializations is hardly a 'requirement'. If you could swap between skill sets IN combat, then you basically just have all your abilities available to you at all times, which would make swapping a redundant feature that just slows down the flow of combat. Having it be out of combat is the only thing that would actually make it a specialization." Huh? My entire point was based around the idea that you could only swap specs while out of combat.
..ok... The point is that you said you want us to be able to swap bewteen specs and I do not, at least NOT just between combat. I said being able to swap specs between combat amounts to being able to 'swap freely' and you countered me by saying that its not 'swapping freely' because there is a 'requirement' of doing it between combat. At which point i argued that you cannot call having to wait for combat to end a 'requirement' because the alternative is being able to swap IN combat, which is not specialization. anywaaaaay..
what i am arguing is that being able to swap specs between combat is bad and waters down the game and has no place. IMO. As others here have argued. thats just imo. If there is a requirement to swap specs that is more than just picky and clicky, such as a quest and a time sink, then I agree that most people will end up just picking the spec that is best and sticking with that, which is also bad. Therefore I argue we shouldnt have specializations, just enough abilities at our disposal to swap out skills on a limited bar to adjust to different situations. again, imo. I'm not against it, but again i would rather be locked in IF i am forced to specialize, so that it actually feels like specialization with the pros and cons that come with that.
Monks could off tank and DPS in EQ and they didnt need any fancy specializations.
I dont see how your assertion that monks can specialize has anything to do with this discussion. Good for them, it doesnt change my opinions on when I think they should be able to do so. It's going to be the way it is, but if swapping between roles inbetween combat while in the middle of a dungeon/raid is a thing for all classes, I will be disapointed.
I dont think that the little information we have on one class in pre alpha is enough to jump to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to specialize and role change.
You lost me here:
"At which point i argued that you cannot call having to wait for combat to end a 'requirement' because the alternative is being able to swap IN combat, which is not specialization. anywaaaaay.."
As far as what monks could do in EQ without specializations, I don't see how that has any relevance here. According to the monk reveal, monks will have specialization, specifically "body and soul" and based on their descriptions, one would be a "suitable off-tank" while the other is a "capable melee DPS." I assume "pulling utility" would be shared. Now I understand the significance of "the class is still very much a work in progress" and that what has been revealed thus far could potentially change. I also understand that our experience with specialization paths from different games is likely very different.
Moving along, you said "If you can swap between them freely ( non comabt w/e same thing)" and this is where we disagree. I don't view "non-combat" as the same thing as "swapping freely." Being in or out of combat are two completely separate things, and the distinction between them seems to be a big part of Pantheon, as it has been in most other games. It seems like we have different opinions on what "swapping freely" means and that's okay.
You also said "just put all the skills together from both "trees" and call it a class. it's the same thing without having to restrict yourself from certain skills between fights. It adds absolutely no depth to your character to just swap between skill sets whenever you want and it's completely immersion breaking. Sounds to me like something that belongs in an action rpg or *ahem* WoW." -- so the question I have to ask here is, what are your current thoughts on the specialization choices that have been revealed for monks? We have no idea whether or not players will be able to swap specializations, but it sounds like one would be used as an off-tank and the other would be more of a DPS class. Do you think that should be a permanent choice? I always thought of monks as a hybrid class.
You then said "I dont see how your assertion that monks can specialize has anything to do with this discussion. Good for them, it doesnt change my opinions on when I think they should be able to do so. It's going to be the way it is, but if swapping between roles inbetween combat while in the middle of a dungeon/raid is a thing for all classes, I will be disapointed." This thread is titled "Class Specializations." The reason I brought up monks, specifically, is because they are the only class that has had their specializations revealed thus far, and I find that relevant to the discussion. I understand that this realization won't change your opinion on when classes should be able to swap. As far as roleswapping being a thing for all classes, I was never suggesting that. I think it would make sense for monks just like it would make sense for other classes, including, potentially, warriors.
Finally, you said "I dont think that the little information we have on one class in pre alpha is enough to jump to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to specialize and role change." Again, I never jumped to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to role change. I also fully understand that "specializations" might not be a thing for every class. I'm just theory crafting here. I am not trying to change your mind about anything or imply any part of my opinion as fact. If I came off that way, I apologize. I hope we both find plenty of enjoyment in the game, regardless of how monks or any other classes are implemented.
Vandraad said:Beefcake said:I see specializations as another form of horizontal progression. By allowing a character to learn multiple specializations and allowing them to switch between them, you create something additional for the completionist type players to do between expansions.
Keeping high-activity players busy between expansions is a large part of maintaining player bases between expansions. Too many players get their characters maxed out in a few months after an expansion, then move onto another game until the next expansion.
If you don't want to have ghost town servers in between expansions, you have to give as many horizontal options as possible.
How can it be called specialization if you have them in multiple things? The genera concept is that a specialization makes you stronger in a given area. To offset that you then must be weaker in that specializations opposite. That is called balance. If you can be specialized in multiple things, then all you are doing is asking for positives with no negatives and that means you just want to be overpowered. Specializions in everything is just the same as having no specializations.
One example above was choosing between Fire wizard and Ice Wizard. So if you spec in fire, you must then be lower your strength in Ice. Now when you find yourself in dungeons filled with fire based creatures, your fire based spells are now useless and because your ice spells are gimped, you're now useless in a group. Had you not specialized, your fire spells in a fire based zone will still be crap but your ice spells will still be quite powerful. In the long run, you are better off with no specializations.
The archetypes already are specializations.
Call it what you want, but in other threads, they have basically stated that you will be able to complete both the specialization for each class, then switch between them, as needed for different fights. You have the strength and weaknesses for each spec while you are in the spec.
But, of course, all is subject to change.
Here is a much longer thread on this subject: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6253/dual-specialization/view/page/1
oneADseven said:[/bYou lost me here:
"At which point i argued that you cannot call having to wait for combat to end a 'requirement' because the alternative is being able to swap IN combat, which is not specialization. anywaaaaay.."
As far as what monks could do in EQ without specializations, I don't see how that has any relevance here. According to the monk reveal, monks will have specialization, specifically "body and soul" and based on their descriptions, one would be a "suitable off-tank" while the other is a "capable melee DPS." I assume "pulling utility" would be shared. Now I understand the significance of "the class is still very much a work in progress" and that what has been revealed thus far could potentially change. I also understand that our experience with specialization paths from different games is likely very different.
Moving along, you said "If you can swap between them freely ( non comabt w/e same thing)" and this is where we disagree. I don't view "non-combat" as the same thing as "swapping freely." Being in or out of combat are two completely separate things, and the distinction between them seems to be a big part of Pantheon, as it has been in most other games. It seems like we have different opinions on what "swapping freely" means and that's okay.
You also said "just put all the skills together from both "trees" and call it a class. it's the same thing without having to restrict yourself from certain skills between fights. It adds absolutely no depth to your character to just swap between skill sets whenever you want and it's completely immersion breaking. Sounds to me like something that belongs in an action rpg or *ahem* WoW." -- so the question I have to ask here is, what are your current thoughts on the specialization choices that have been revealed for monks? We have no idea whether or not players will be able to swap specializations, but it sounds like one would be used as an off-tank and the other would be more of a DPS class. Do you think that should be a permanent choice? I always thought of monks as a hybrid class.
You then said "I dont see how your assertion that monks can specialize has anything to do with this discussion. Good for them, it doesnt change my opinions on when I think they should be able to do so. It's going to be the way it is, but if swapping between roles inbetween combat while in the middle of a dungeon/raid is a thing for all classes, I will be disapointed." This thread is titled "Class Specializations." The reason I brought up monks, specifically, is because they are the only class that has had their specializations revealed thus far, and I find that relevant to the discussion. I understand that this realization won't change your opinion on when classes should be able to swap. As far as roleswapping being a thing for all classes, I was never suggesting that. I think it would make sense for monks just like it would make sense for other classes, including, potentially, warriors.
Finally, you said "I dont think that the little information we have on one class in pre alpha is enough to jump to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to specialize and role change." Again, I never jumped to the conclusion that every class is going to be able to role change. I also fully understand that "specializations" might not be a thing for every class. I'm just theory crafting here. I am not trying to change your mind about anything or imply any part of my opinion as fact. If I came off that way, I apologize. I hope we both find plenty of enjoyment in the game, regardless of how monks or any other classes are implemented.
Fair points, I think you have me cornered :) My opinion on the current Monk specializatin spec is that I don't like it, because it scares me and I hate things I don't fully understand. As I have said if we are going to be able to swap abilities between fights I would rather just do that by pulling from a pool of different abilties from my spell/ability list, and changing my gear, enabling me to "customize" my own specialization, rather than having the choices made for me arbitrarily by swapping preset skill sets. Alas I digress. I can understand your point where by design you are supposed to be able to fill more than just a DPS role as a Monk traditionally. If the class design is to be able to provide DPS but also provide off-tank/Puller abilities and VR feels like we need a button to press to distinguish between them, thats fine, I just hope it doesnt filter down to every class where we end up with Wizards healing, Druids tanking and Clerics doing ranged DPS. Thats my fear.
Of course youll see me shutting my mouth as soon as they annouce a ranger melee offtank spec lol.
metteec said:I would prefer a system without class specialization for a couple of reasons:
1) It is much easier to balance 12 base classes rather than 24 different classes;
2) When I play a class, I want to play it to its maximum potential, not watered down based upon a specialization choice.
3) Specialization typically implies permanancy. I would not want to select a specialization and learn that it was not the one I wanted and be unable to change.
I agree with wanting to avoid too much specialization. This also lends itself to a lack of experimenting, or flexibility. People determine what is best, and look for that specific class/spec only to fill a role for a group etc.
Things like specializing on the METHOD of damage/tanking/healing/cc (Direct damage vs dots, damage absorbtion vs debuffing mob damage, direct heals vs protection spells, confusion vs snares etc etc) are ways to still enable a class to lean a certain direction, but that ultimately would still keep the class identity regardless of which path you went down.
Also with the devs having said we'd be needing to have specific gear for specific situations, this to me at least, implies we'll be needing fire weapons, and cold, and slashing, and blunt etc etc so that a character is limited in effectiveness not by its own inherent build (which is then VERY difficult to go back and change), but in how well you prepared your gear (much easier, more flexible, and less of a chance to exclude a specific role from a group etc b/c its not "meta"). Let people figure out the best type of gear/setup for an area, then maximize their unique abilities to compliment/enhance that area.
Games like Rift and WoW made a serious design error when they included "specs" for classes. The whole talent tree concept should have been kept in games like Diablo 2, because in an MMORPG those types of systems will always have a "best spec" which means there is no real choice if you are trying to tackle the hardest content. I'll give an example from WoW: warriors had the option of Arms, Protection, and Fury spec but every single spec included the 5 points in fury for 5% more critical hit. There were also dud talents in the trees that were considered a waste of points. Later on WoW had "dual spec" and then completely changed the way the talent system worked and "streamlined" it which in my opinion is an admission of failure of the system.
Specializations, talent trees, whatever you want to call them they usually lead to the tanks and healers choosing to dps instead of performing their class role. Or you get that guy who puts all the talent points in the wrong places for whatever reason and is operating at 50% effectiveness. If an MMORPG has a class system then each class should have it's specialty and stick to that. It's stupid to have a cleric who has 30 points in "healing spec" be able to heal well and a cleric who has zero points in "healing spec" be borderline useless as a healer. I would argue it's bad design because why did you bother having classes in the first place?
Ziegfried said:Specializations, talent trees, whatever you want to call them they usually lead to the tanks and healers choosing to dps instead of performing their class role. Or you get that guy who puts all the talent points in the wrong places for whatever reason and is operating at 50% effectiveness. If an MMORPG has a class system then each class should have it's specialty and stick to that. It's stupid to have a cleric who has 30 points in "healing spec" be able to heal well and a cleric who has zero points in "healing spec" be borderline useless as a healer. I would argue it's bad design because why did you bother having classes in the first place?
I do think that having builds that the idea of a "wrong place" for a point, is part of whats wrong with MMO thought these days though. Too much "its not in the right place" and you stifle build creativity entirely. The trick is making each choice (a or b) at any given split worth while. It should be a tough choice to make and one that may reflect a desire to specialize, or a desire to have a skill/ability that fits your playstyle (even if its not the "norm" for the class). Maybe a healer thinks they have enough raw healing and wants to have some damage options for a little 2 man or solo play variety. Maybe a tank wants a small self heal or 2 to let the healer focus on other group support stuff etc etc. None of this would take them OUT of their main role, but it allows them to be flexible (if they wish to do so). If players ARENT free to make choices in their build, you may as well justh have 12 premade characters to pick from and play those. I dont think anyone wants that to be the case.
The idea that a "wrong" decision or build may be made is GREAT. It allows for a player to make a character that fits their style but most importantly it is a real chance to learn and experiment. Too many times on forums across MMOs like Rift, WoW, ESO etc, you see players posting things like "Looking for ranger build" or "best wizard DPS build?" and just going along with what the accepted "meta" is for that current build. As long as there is some way to reallocate or reassign points (how easy/difficult this may be would be its own separate issue) then I am all for allowing players to have some choice in the design of their abilities, knowing that there may be pros/cons to each.
Using your cleric example of two clerics who have different amounts of healing power...I would argue that is EXACTLY what is needed. Healer 1 may dump 30 points into healing and be a pure nanny bot because he feels the groups he is with often need that. Cleric 2 may feel they provide enough raw healing with say 10 or 15 points (even if its less, it may be enough for them) but feel also that too many times they take too much damage and cant stay alive to keep healing people. Healer 2 then may spend only 15 points on healing, but toss a few points into something to give them a bit of tankyness so they can survive on their own better. These kind of decisions wouldnt take them far enough into DPS or tanking to make them NOT a healer, but it would still let 2 healers with a different style have a character that fits them. Now may healer 2 relize "oh, I was just grouping with crap tanks who couldnt protect me?" and eventually switch? Sure. Maybe healer 2 doesnt, and is happy to do less healing but appreciates the survivability when soloing a little or running 2 man groups. Both of these players are still clerics (with enough shared class abilities) but a cleric focusing on different play styles (not different roles).
@DakmorKavu
Instead of muddying classes though from specializations, I'd rather just have your race selection matter more, and the actual stats that the race has be more meaningful. For example, the difference from being an Ogre Shadowknight in EQ versus a Dark Elf. Both could perform the duties of the class adequately, but, the Ogre had better Str/Sta (and not even counting the overpowering racial abilities) while the Dark Elf had more intelligence/agility/dex.
Make choice matter for sure, but make it where you could supplement that choice through gear choices versus feeling the need to /reroll, or /re-specialize, or /insert cookie-cutter build.
I've discussed it in other threads also, but I'd prefer that Pantheon would never allow classes to hit "max" stats, so you'd ultimately have that dynamic for meaningful stat progression throughout the game's lifespan.
Raidan said:@DakmorKavu
Instead of muddying classes though from specializations, I'd rather just have your race selection matter more, and the actual stats that the race has be more meaningful. For example, the difference from being an Ogre Shadowknight in EQ versus a Dark Elf. Both could perform the duties of the class adequately, but, the Ogre had better Str/Sta (and not even counting the overpowering racial abilities) while the Dark Elf had more intelligence/agility/dex.
Make choice matter for sure, but make it where you could supplement that choice through gear choices versus feeling the need to /reroll, or /re-specialize, or /insert cookie-cutter build.
I've discussed it in other threads also, but I'd prefer that Pantheon would never allow classes to hit "max" stats, so you'd ultimately have that dynamic for meaningful stat progression throughout the game's lifespan.
Absolutely race should matter in as you said, the innate stats of each race. The only issue for me is that if that is the most meaningful part of build differentiation, it means everyone wanting 1 play style looks 1 way, and everyone wanting a different looks another. Its like paper dolls. I pick an elf, then slap a cleric outfit on them. Thats my "evasive healer". Grab my paper orc, slap a cleric costome on and poof, thats my "tanky healer". This is basically just taking my "preset options" from the 12 classes, to 24 or whatever number of combinations. A chance to actually pick where the character goes after its been made, is what I feel really helps make a character uniquely yours. Again too much of this can REALLY muddy the waters as you said (or move a class out of its primary role) but some is definitely needed.
Few games, if any, have permanent specialization. You may need to visit a trainer, you may need to make a non-trivial payment, you may be able to do it only once a week but you can almost always "respec".
Assuming Panthron doesn't go the other way and prevent any change in a specialization after it is made. I don't see the harm in letting us customize our characters as long as we stay within the core role for the character.
If my ranger specialzes in the longbow but min/max raid leaders insist on a crossbow ranger, fine. I can play the way that suits my style and get in fewer raids or I can play the "optimum" way. Or if I really love the class I can have 2 rangers. These are choices. My bias is towards giving players choices. My strong bias is towards having a lot of ways to play the game and while 12 classes may be good 12 classes each with three distinct specifications is a lot better.
I think there are good arguments persuasively made in this thread that go the other way. Because different players enjoy playing different ways. An altoholic will feel differently than someone that will never play more than one character on many issues. I am glad I don't have to make the decisions since what I personally prefer isn't necessarily best for the game.
@Dakmorkavu
I get your point, but I wouldn't want it to create true specializations within the class, but really add a little uniqueness to them. And, as far as everyone looking the same, typically, if there is BiS gear - that would happen regardless of whether there were class specializations or not; whereas, if there were meaningful innate racial stat differences that existed even after expansions were released, and stat bloat didn't exist on gear to the point that maxing any stat becomes trivialized, you ultimately would most likely see more gear combinations instead of less. An Ogre may be focusing more on intelligence gear; whereas, a gnome may be going to strength, etc. Or. perhaps the gnome wanted to maximize their pre-existing intelligence advantage and go all intelligence. Anyway, just a thought.
I just wanted to point out that we had a similar discussion thread in the Class subforum, based on a discussion in the VIP discord about a month ago: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/7326/what-if-roles-classes-and-specializations
Doesn't invalidate this thread at all but the link might have additional ideas or insight for people.
I like the idea of specialization in general, or "class mastery" as we sort of landed on in the other thread.
I do think that "unlocking" a specialization should be a non-trivial event in the life of a character, involving a similar level of effort to an epic weapon or other class-defining sort of thing.
I also think that the benefits of specializing should be constructed in such a way that there are tradeoffs to consider.
I feel that there should be a benefit to NOT specializing, and staying on the vanilla form of a class.
Finally, I would support a system that allows people to unlock multiple specializations and switch between them, with the caveat that the switch could NOT happen mid-adventure. However we make that work. But I don't think specializations should amount to a swiss army knife for your class.