I'm looking forward to both the bard and necro, but it wouldn't bother me at all if they were added after launch, as there is already a great variety of classes to keep me occupied. I'm just curious how this would work in terms of archetype balance. If bard and necro don't make it in for launch, the enchanter will be the only dedicated CC class, while tanks, healers, and dps all have three or more options. Joppa has said that bard will be a CC class, so that would give the folks who like to play CC another option whenever it is added. I personally think it would be great if necro were primarily a CC class as well, so the CC archetype could have three representatives to match the other roles.
I usually dislike it when a game adds just one single new class in an expansion, because then lots of people want to rush to play that class and it feels like they dominate the game for a while. I think it would actually be cool if bard and necro were released at the same time in order to help balance that out a bit. But if they were both released after launch, could people get by with only a single CC class in the meantime? The devs will have to weigh these things and do what they feel is best.
Bronsun said:As I recall, the bard was usually just a buff bot/extra dps/tank class and the necro is a dot/ pet class that has some interesting utilities, but as I mentioned before, the necro felt like a loner class and the bard felt redundant. Where do they fit? For me, they seem like bogus extra classes for the sake of having extra classes.
I get where you're going with this. But literally you can do that for every class that's not a warrior (pure tank), cleric (pure healer), wizard (pure caster) and a pure melee class.
Bards were an amazing utility class and without them the game would have been significantly harder. They did things that no other class could do and provided a unique way to buff your group. A group with a hard is significantly better than a group without one.
Necros were a long term damage class. As opposed to direct damage spells, which nearly no other class could say (except shaman). They were masters of the undead more than a pet class as the necro pets were very weak given the lack of utility spells the necros had compared to mages. Yes they were loners due to their ability to solo, but they were also amazing group centric players. The ability to directly give life and mana to the group was extremely extremely valuable and unique to that class.
If VR creates unique classes... you're always going to ve able to argue that there is an overlap. But if the class has its strong points, saying that they are useless is just dumb.
Syrif said:Is the necromancer really necessary for Pantheon? I can see the Bard being part of the game at launch or later, given the need for a second CC class (in addition to the enchanter). I've read people's thoughts about the necromancer being necessary for this game, and they are all inconsistent and some lacking. It seems the necromancer could just be more of a burden to the gameplay of Pantheon. Why not just leave the necro out and consider a few different approaches. Perhaps the Dire Lord can be a unique class in that it can spec or branch off into either a caster or melee emphasis of the class. Or, just make the Dire Lord the 'weaker' tank of the the three tank classes (Dire Lord, Pally, Warrior), but in exchange grant them more spells in line with a necro so that it would play similar to a necro while still being capable of tanking.
As for races, the 12 announced races are PLENTY I think. I noticed that part of the "MMORPG's getting easy, dumbed down, and stupid trend" have something in common: the addition of silly, pointless races in expansions - that's to say it nicely. For example, cats on the moon in EQ. Also, the addition of pandas (lmao) in WoW. How about let's do something different this time: let's abolish this icky trend. The addition of NPC-races will do just fine. We can add more classes I suppose for fun, but aren't necessary. Let's also never forget: the ultimate goal of expansions to Pantheon should always be to make the game equally or more challenging (not less...). We can and will correct the mistakes of the past. This will draw more veterans to Pantheon.
To the devs and classic-veterans and fans: what are your thoughts?
Udate: What do you think the goal of expansions to Pantheon should be?
Necromancers - are iconic, unique and fun class. I believe they have a place in any fantasy based MMO. Plus, the ability to summon corpses was great in EQ1.
As far as expansions - Content (obviously) new challenging dungeons and new rewards - new character development is high on my list. The addition of AA's was amazing in EQ. Truly let you "build" a more unique character which was awesome. New spells / skills available for heros and new levels (slowly) like 5 addtional levels or soemthing and not in EVERY expansion just periodically.
Keno Monster said:Syrif said:Is the necromancer really necessary for Pantheon? I can see the Bard being part of the game at launch or later, given the need for a second CC class (in addition to the enchanter). I've read people's thoughts about the necromancer being necessary for this game, and they are all inconsistent and some lacking. It seems the necromancer could just be more of a burden to the gameplay of Pantheon. Why not just leave the necro out and consider a few different approaches. Perhaps the Dire Lord can be a unique class in that it can spec or branch off into either a caster or melee emphasis of the class. Or, just make the Dire Lord the 'weaker' tank of the the three tank classes (Dire Lord, Pally, Warrior), but in exchange grant them more spells in line with a necro so that it would play similar to a necro while still being capable of tanking.
To the devs and classic-veterans and fans: what are your thoughts?
Sound and unsound logic here. The direlord is already heavily designed and implemented. What good does it do for them to revamp that class intead of continuing to work on the necro?
That said, I agree with the overall idea that at some point they need to stop or else everything will be watered down, or done less well.
We need necro in this game as the 2nd pet class, and we need more support classes like bard and necro.
Thanks for seeing my point about "at some point they need to stop or else everything will be watered down, or done less well." We really need to ensure that we do not repeat history this time.. meaning that we don't make the same mistakes that Everquest, WoW, and others did.
MauvaisOeil said:We need and adept in dark magic, not to push it into a melee tanking class that should fit another role.
We have illusion and enchantment magic covered by the enchanter, evocation and alteration by the wizard, invocation and ? maybe evocation or transmutation on the summoner.
What we need more is necromancy, on the raise dead aspect but also on manipulating the life forces alltogether.
I'd also love an Abjuration oriented class, but I'm not sure they would enjoy bringing a healer-mage character.
Point taken. Thanks.
Ithaca said:Iksar said:It is definitely not added classes/races that bring down games...
Sometimes it is when not balanced. I remember when the fairy became playable with an expansion in EQ2. It was clearly broken on the PVP server. They had a huge advantage over any other races. They could glide, chose where to land and take no damage from falling. Some classes had safe fall as a passive, and the fairy racial ability was much stronger. All classes played as fairy were much stronger on the PvP server.
In pvp, it was very important to position yourself correctly. Let's say you were on a griffon tower and a melee would kick you down. That was supposed to be a great play but fairies did not care.
Exactly. Thank you Ithaca for seeing why I brought this up.
SilkyWhip said:I think the Necro is a very important class, not only for lore but as a group asset too. They shouldn't just be DOT wizards. They should be capable as a third CC to the bard and enchanter. Considereing there are 3 tanks, and 3 healers. As far as the direlords, nobody wants to play the "weaker" class just for some necro spells.
The number of races in a game doesn't make anything worse or take away from playability. They deffinitely don't "dumb" down gameplay. Take another game Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup for example, There are 27 races you can play, all with their unique quirks. They range from felines, to mummies, to octopi. None of them feel like the others.
Variety is a spice of life and will keep players trying many combinations.
Expansions should add content of varying difficulty and should be balanced with previous versions. They have to scale up in power, otherwise, what's the point?
I agree with you that the number of races does not solely dumb-down a game. Where I disagree is that I have seen a trend with mmorpg's over the past 18 years where going "class and race happy/overboard" was one of the components that lead to their downfalls. How do we fix that this time? Also, what do you think the goal of expansions to Pantheon should ultimately be?
Bonechip said:I for one will be dropping whatever character I start with like a hot potato when the Necro class gets released.
The Necromancer class has been, and always will be my favorite class in any game I have played that has them as an choice.
Saying that the Necro would be "just be more of a burden to the gameplay of Pantheon" is a very narrow minded point of view towards those that perfer it as their chosen class.
Fair point. What do you think the ultimate goal of expansions to Pantheon should be? Just curious.
Bronsun said:OK let’s walk through this. Currently we have the four group dynamics. Tank, healer, dps, and caster . Three tank classes, three healers, three melee dps classes and three caster classes. Within most of these classes so far we have the abilities to provide different roles as they are needed. Be it crowd control, extra DPS, off tanks, or buffer. Plus they have some cool extra utilities to get out of situations.
All in all, we have a pretty awesome and seemingly balanced class situation here. The question for me becomes what do the necromancer (or the bard )add or provide to a group, and to the game, outside cool ideas for new classes? I agree that both of these classes are interesting to think about. As I recall, the bard was usually just a buff bot/extra dps/tank class and the necro is a dot/ pet class that has some interesting utilities, but as I mentioned before, the necro felt like a loner class and the bard felt redundant. Where do they fit? For me, they seem like bogus extra classes for the sake of having extra classes.I would love to be wrong here ( and probably am ), but I've seen too many games with balancing issues just because the dev's wanted to have extra classes to fill some creative nook. With each new class you risk pushing another class out of its desire to be wanted in a group. UNLESS...you have them all perfectly and interchangeably balanced....... I've yet to see that.
My two plats :D
Thanks for your two plats! :D
Porygon said:Bronsun said:As I recall, the bard was usually just a buff bot/extra dps/tank class and the necro is a dot/ pet class that has some interesting utilities, but as I mentioned before, the necro felt like a loner class and the bard felt redundant. Where do they fit? For me, they seem like bogus extra classes for the sake of having extra classes.
I get where you're going with this. But literally you can do that for every class that's not a warrior (pure tank), cleric (pure healer), wizard (pure caster) and a pure melee class.
Bards were an amazing utility class and without them the game would have been significantly harder. They did things that no other class could do and provided a unique way to buff your group. A group with a hard is significantly better than a group without one.
Necros were a long term damage class. As opposed to direct damage spells, which nearly no other class could say (except shaman). They were masters of the undead more than a pet class as the necro pets were very weak given the lack of utility spells the necros had compared to mages. Yes they were loners due to their ability to solo, but they were also amazing group centric players. The ability to directly give life and mana to the group was extremely extremely valuable and unique to that class.
If VR creates unique classes... you're always going to ve able to argue that there is an overlap. But if the class has its strong points, saying that they are useless is just dumb.
Fair points.
ShaggNasty said:Syrif said:Is the necromancer really necessary for Pantheon? I can see the Bard being part of the game at launch or later, given the need for a second CC class (in addition to the enchanter). I've read people's thoughts about the necromancer being necessary for this game, and they are all inconsistent and some lacking. It seems the necromancer could just be more of a burden to the gameplay of Pantheon. Why not just leave the necro out and consider a few different approaches. Perhaps the Dire Lord can be a unique class in that it can spec or branch off into either a caster or melee emphasis of the class. Or, just make the Dire Lord the 'weaker' tank of the the three tank classes (Dire Lord, Pally, Warrior), but in exchange grant them more spells in line with a necro so that it would play similar to a necro while still being capable of tanking.
As for races, the 12 announced races are PLENTY I think. I noticed that part of the "MMORPG's getting easy, dumbed down, and stupid trend" have something in common: the addition of silly, pointless races in expansions - that's to say it nicely. For example, cats on the moon in EQ. Also, the addition of pandas (lmao) in WoW. How about let's do something different this time: let's abolish this icky trend. The addition of NPC-races will do just fine. We can add more classes I suppose for fun, but aren't necessary. Let's also never forget: the ultimate goal of expansions to Pantheon should always be to make the game equally or more challenging (not less...). We can and will correct the mistakes of the past. This will draw more veterans to Pantheon.
To the devs and classic-veterans and fans: what are your thoughts?
Udate: What do you think the goal of expansions to Pantheon should be?
Necromancers - are iconic, unique and fun class. I believe they have a place in any fantasy based MMO. Plus, the ability to summon corpses was great in EQ1.
As far as expansions - Content (obviously) new challenging dungeons and new rewards - new character development is high on my list. The addition of AA's was amazing in EQ. Truly let you "build" a more unique character which was awesome. New spells / skills available for heros and new levels (slowly) like 5 addtional levels or soemthing and not in EVERY expansion just periodically.
Iconic does matter, so thank you for bringing this up. I do hope they are very careful with something in-line with AA's this time. They can make or break a game. Maybe it can be called something different while having a similar goal.
Naunet said:Bronsun said:When they do add necros I hope they have an interesting story in this world and aren't so hated. :DI really like how necromancer is handled story-wise in GW2. They're creepy as hell but are fundamental to human society. Death is scary, dark, and gross, but unavoidable.
As for the expansion discussion... I love when new races are added, even more than new classes. This game already has so many, that I won't be fussed if they don't add any for a while, though. I generally think that expansions should be as their name implies - expanding the game, through the opening of new zones (significantly more, as in like a new continent), progression of storylines, implementation of new/improved game systems, etc. They're more than just a content patch; they change the game in such a way that it's almost like a new one.
I never played GW2, so I can't really comment other than it sounds cool. I agree with the rest. :D
Porygon said:I get where you're going with this. But literally you can do that for every class that's not a warrior (pure tank), cleric (pure healer), wizard (pure caster) and a pure melee class.
Bards were an amazing utility class and without them the game would have been significantly harder. They did things that no other class could do and provided a unique way to buff your group. A group with a hard is significantly better than a group without one.
Necros were a long term damage class. As opposed to direct damage spells, which nearly no other class could say (except shaman). They were masters of the undead more than a pet class as the necro pets were very weak given the lack of utility spells the necros had compared to mages. Yes they were loners due to their ability to solo, but they were also amazing group centric players. The ability to directly give life and mana to the group was extremely extremely valuable and unique to that class.
If VR creates unique classes... you're always going to ve able to argue that there is an overlap. But if the class has its strong points, saying that they are useless is just dumb.
Totally agree. I loved my necro and never really had a super tough time finding groups. I never played a bard, but saw plenty in every group back in the day. I think as much as they are cool and I do take your point that every class is a hybrid outside the pure classes. I guess I like that twelve is a nice number and the bard and necro seem like style classes. I wonder if they'll take it to the extreme and keep adding classes and races. We'll see.
Time to go log in my necro now :D
Syrif said:I agree with you that the number of races does not solely dumb-down a game. Where I disagree is that I have seen a trend with mmorpg's over the past 18 years where going "class and race happy/overboard" was one of the components that lead to their downfalls. How do we fix that this time? Also, what do you think the goal of expansions to Pantheon should ultimately be?
What do you consider to be too many races? 5? 6? Pantheon only has 9. Personnally I don't count Humans or Elves. They are in every game and it's just rudimentary considering we are Humans! Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings aren't much better.
With 12-14 classes at launch it will give players opportunities to play a part of the Holy Quadrinity in a couple different ways, but still fullfill their role. Although yes, having another 10 classes on top of that, don't really play the roll and shouldn't be included. For example, having a Warrior, Paladin, Direlord, Fighter, Guardian, Berserker, Shadowknight, Knight, Dreadnaught, and Templar would just make things awefull for everyone when only 3 fulfill the Tank roll.
I think the goal of expansions is to release new content. Ranging from new maps, a level cap raise, a plethora of new adventures and raids, and new unique abilities. There are many ways to keep old content fresh too. Like having a level 5-15 cave at launch that was under construction, gets deeper and releases level 50-55 monsters into the populace. Or at launch theres a large Fort being built but not really accesible, and then when the next expansion hits, it opens a few floors and flooded with mobs. The expansion after that completes the project and is inhabited by much more powerful enemies. It gives the world a sense of immersion that it's changing around you instead of making you go somewhere different and abandoning the old zones altogether. This also plays into the devs wanting high and low level areas where players can interact.
On a side note, I think a fun way to create immersion, is If something like specific named bosses actually effect the world around them too. Imagine a Dark Lord at the top of a tower causing mobs to be more visious and tactical in the area around the tower until the Lord is slain. Players in the area can see the effect of others on their zones. What'cha think?
Bronsun said:I never played GW2, so I can't really comment other than it sounds cool. I agree with the rest. :D
Necromancers in GW2 human society are often seen caring for the remains of the dead - maintaining cemeteries, preserving a space where those passed on can be visited, respected, and loved. They're fundamental in ensuring that the dead receive proper care and treatment. Necromancy in general is considered just another type of magic, and while necromancers themselves may be seen as rather weird (obsession with death? that's pretty odd!), they're not shunned. Sylvari are often fascinated by the magic and other necromancers. Norn are the exception, as there's only one necromancer in their society that they see as a force for good, so they can be wary of others.Grenth - a half-god over death, ice, and darkness - is responsible for judging the dead, and though he has a rather ghastly appearance, he's actually venerated as something of a hero (and worshipped by many, in an earnest, non-creepy/evil way). He defeated Dhuum (the previous god of death), who enjoyed a reign of terror over lost souls.
I think it's a really clever take on necromancy and the role of death magic in society.
Syrif said:Keno Monster said:Syrif said:Is the necromancer really necessary for Pantheon? I can see the Bard being part of the game at launch or later, given the need for a second CC class (in addition to the enchanter). I've read people's thoughts about the necromancer being necessary for this game, and they are all inconsistent and some lacking. It seems the necromancer could just be more of a burden to the gameplay of Pantheon. Why not just leave the necro out and consider a few different approaches. Perhaps the Dire Lord can be a unique class in that it can spec or branch off into either a caster or melee emphasis of the class. Or, just make the Dire Lord the 'weaker' tank of the the three tank classes (Dire Lord, Pally, Warrior), but in exchange grant them more spells in line with a necro so that it would play similar to a necro while still being capable of tanking.
To the devs and classic-veterans and fans: what are your thoughts?
Sound and unsound logic here. The direlord is already heavily designed and implemented. What good does it do for them to revamp that class intead of continuing to work on the necro?
That said, I agree with the overall idea that at some point they need to stop or else everything will be watered down, or done less well.
We need necro in this game as the 2nd pet class, and we need more support classes like bard and necro.
Thanks for seeing my point about "at some point they need to stop or else everything will be watered down, or done less well." We really need to ensure that we do not repeat history this time.. meaning that we don't make the same mistakes that Everquest, WoW, and others did.
I try to explain why I disagree, and give credit to the other opinion/idea. This demonstrates I've given the person and thought actual consideration, and therefore "deserve" the same.
Sometimes.
Bronsun said: Currently we have the four group dynamics. Tank, healer, dps, and caster . Three tank classes, three healers, three melee dps classes and three caster classes. Within most of these classes so far we have the abilities to provide different roles as they are needed. Be it crowd control, extra DPS, off tanks, or buffer. Plus they have some cool extra utilities to get out of situations.
The 4 class types are Tank, Healer, DPS and Support/CC.
If they decide to add Necro it could either be the 3rd Spell DPS or 3rd Support class depending on how they build the class.
Kreed99 said: ... help balance the good vs evil classes ...
Why is it that people associate faction with 'Good' or 'Evil'. Your Race does not make you Good or Evil. It only may define who likes you and who hates you at the start of the game. This has nothing to do with Evil or not. If Ogre's and Humans don't like each other at the start it doesn't mean one is good and the other is evil, it simply means they don't like each other.
A Class also doesn't have to be a pre-defined Good or Evil. Paladins may not actually be Good. Think of the Children of the Light in the Wheel of Time, they talked about Righteousness and fighting Evil, but ultimately they were one of the most Evil groups in the world based on their actions.
Necromancers may not actually be Evil. You assume that because they deal with the Dead that links them with demons or evil spirits. But perhaps they are those who care for the souls of those who die by giving them a chance to live on after they have passed. Or maybe it's about honoring the Bodies of former living beings by giving them new life after the spirit has left. It's not the Power that a class wields that defines good or bad, it's the way that they use that power. If they use it to do Evil deeds then maybe they are Evil, but if they use it to do good deeds this could define them as Good even though they do it by reanimating bodies of the dead.
- that depends on the necro class,
and i think that we should stop with the necromancer is dot DPS with pet.
i hope it will be support class like the enchanter, with lots of CC and debuffs, and its DPS will be only from raizing dead enemies :)
( yes that means Necros will be hard to solo, because you have to kill an enemy before you can do damage, but awesome in parties)
Necro is 100% necessary IMO. It will be my class of choice once released. I honestly wouldn't mind if they just simply dragged and dropped EQ1 necro into Pantheon, but, I also really hope they find something fun, NEW and UNIQUE, most importantly; FUN.
Necro is definatley something I want in the game. It brings a balance to the spectrum of classes, with the holy paladin at one end and the necro at the other. No other class really epitomizes rot, stench and evil like the necro. Not even the rogue. Not to mention that no other class plays like the old school EQ necro. it's a completely different experience than anything else. Sure, the enchanter and mage had summoned pets. But the comparison rapidly fails from there. I personally dont think you can ever have too many classes if you continue to find ways to make them play in unique ways. EQ did that well even with the volume of classes that were available. And on the list of reasons EQ and WoW have declined in quality over the years, you would have to scroll quite a ways down to find class/race quantities.