@ Arksien
Cant find a like button! Because Id like your post into the ground lol.
@Kilsin
Thanks for the bringing the clarity
and this is just beautiful in its simplicity:
Balance in this instance means, if a class is superior at something, they cannot be the best at something else, it needs to be balanced to offset that superiority so that another class gets the superior title for something else, making everyone wanted for something.
Kilsin said:Balance in this instance means, if a class is superior at something, they cannot be the best at something else, it needs to be balanced to offset that superiority so that another class gets the superior title for something else, making everyone wanted for something.
I just hope that the "superior for something" doesn't mean superior in tanking or superior in healing. Arksien put it more eloquently than I could but it is pretty much this:
Arksien said:And Kantan is right. Who cares that druids can port or quad kite. Those abilities don't get you invited to a group. They can't heal well enough to main heal. They can't DPS well enough to fill a dps slot well. Their buffs are dated, and their CC isn't useful in the end game the way it used to be. I've never played a druid, so I'm not having a pItty party for myself. I'm saying that in EQ, I would never invite one to my group because there's no reason to. There's no gain.
Some argue, the thing what should make the cleric superior should be his healing capability. But then, what should the other healer get to make up for this, helping him in his role? What should he get that people consider him over a cleric? I can't even imagine something powerful enough to really make up for his inferiority in regards to healing capability. Who cares if the other healing class is superior in something else. He is not as good as the cleric in healing, and will never compete and that is just that.
Edit: We already have 12 revealed classes and there might be more. If 2 of them are already out of the equation with being the "best tank" (warrior) or being the "best healer" (cleric), than I feel there are way to many classes left. Without balancing their capability to tank or heal with cleric or warrior, why bother with them? If I want to be a healer in Pantheon, and the cleric is definitely not my no 1 choice because of reasons, then I am left with "the best slower". The best in "fast travel", best in "ports", best in whatever. Umm. I'd just play cleric.
@Duffy,
Which is why I discussed and Venjenz added the points about balancing around the 4 core archetypes rather than class by class. We have some veteran gamers developing Pantheon, and we'll have ample time to test the classes with even more veteran gamers/testers - I don't think we'll run into the issue of having 2 gimped healing classes at the expense of one great one. VG did the class design right (4 core archetypes), you just need to remove having all classes being able to solo effectively like they could in VG, which as Arksien discussed wouldn't be hard to do. Remove the fast regen/in-combat regen and classes ability to solo would have been drastically reduced. I would have liked to see VG with EQ's need for resource management.
Duffy said:Kilsin said:Balance in this instance means, if a class is superior at something, they cannot be the best at something else, it needs to be balanced to offset that superiority so that another class gets the superior title for something else, making everyone wanted for something.
I just hope that the "superior for something" doesn't mean superior in tanking or superior in healing. Arksien put it more eloquently than I could but it is pretty much this:
Arksien said:And Kantan is right. Who cares that druids can port or quad kite. Those abilities don't get you invited to a group. They can't heal well enough to main heal. They can't DPS well enough to fill a dps slot well. Their buffs are dated, and their CC isn't useful in the end game the way it used to be. I've never played a druid, so I'm not having a pItty party for myself. I'm saying that in EQ, I would never invite one to my group because there's no reason to. There's no gain.
Some argue, the thing what should make the cleric superior should be his healing capability. But then, what should the other healer get to make up for this, helping him in his role? What should he get that people consider him over a cleric? I can't even imagine something powerful enough to really make up for his inferiority in regards to healing capability. Who cares if the other healing class is superior in something else. He is not as good as the cleric in healing, and will never compete and that is just that.
Edit: We already have 12 revealed classes and there might be more. If 2 of them are already out of the equation with being the "best tank" (warrior) or being the "best healer" (cleric), than I feel there are way to many classes left. Without balancing their capability to tank or heal with cleric or warrior, why bother with them? If I want to be a healer in Pantheon, and the cleric is definitely not my no 1 choice because of reasons, then I am left with "the best slower". The best in "fast travel", best in "ports", best in whatever. Umm. I'd just play cleric.
No, it would make a tank superior in a portion of tanking, for example, Warrior may have the best mitigation/single target aggro, Dire Lord may be superior in evasion/multi-target aggro, all tanks will be best at tanking and able to do their jobs properly within their archetype but each will have pros and cons just like all other classes and therefore, will be better against some mobs and worse against others. They will still be able to tank everything, though. It is just getting that balance right, but we will not alienate the Dire Lord, for example, and make the Warrior the supreme tank, otherwise what's the point in even bothering to create the Dire Lord? ;)
Simply put, we want all classes to be best at something and need the help of other classes for the things that they are not best in or if they decide to go on without that help or a different class in place of the optimum class, then it will be harder and take longer but will still be doable as to not completely make groups dependent on particular classes or not be able to complete content at all.
Again, it's a fine balance but an important one to get right. :)
Simply put, we want all classes to be best at something and need the help of other classes for the things that they are not best in or if they decide to go on without that help or a different class in place of the optimum class, then it will be harder and take longer but will still be doable as to not completely make groups dependent on particular classes or not be able to complete content at all.
Spot on !
Kilsin said:No, it would make a tank superior in a portion of tanking, for example, Warrior may have the best mitigation/single target aggro, Dire Lord may be superior in evasion/multi-target aggro, all tanks will be best at tanking and able to do their jobs properly within their archetype but each will have pros and cons just like all other classes and therefore, will be better against some mobs and worse against others. They will still be able to tank everything, though. It is just getting that balance right, but we will not alienate the Dire Lord, for example, and make the Warrior the supreme tank, otherwise what's the point in even bothering to create the Dire Lord? ;)
Simply put, we want all classes to be best at something and need the help of other classes for the things that they are not best in or if they decide to go on without that help or a different class in place of the optimum class, then it will be harder and take longer but will still be doable as to not completely make groups dependent on particular classes or not be able to complete content at all.
Again, it's a fine balance but an important one to get right. :)
Thanks for clarification, Kilsin. As you put it, that's the exact thing I'd like to see for Pantheon! Phew, that made my day (yes I know I am overly worried/emotional about this).
The hybrid lament is so freaking common and it almost always comes down to hybrid tanks and healers with the misguided belief that they simply cannot ever get a group because why would anyone choose the 95% tank over the 100% tank, or (and even in this thread we got the standard druid whineplay) why would you ever use a non-cleric healer? In the end, it's the philosophy of accepting advantages and disadvantages as a concept.
But let us examine the perfect Holy Quaternity as our core - WAR, CLR, ROG, ENC. Now let's add the perfect puller, MNK. and we'll toss in the best ranged DPS - WIZ. OK, mob is at 40% health and starts running away. Now what? Not one of the "perfect" classes has the ability second only to Mezz in an indoor environment - snare. Sure, WIZ/ENC have root, which breaks when the mob takes dmg. Now let's say mezz bounces twice in a row, and the add is now hammering the ENC, soon to be hammering the CLR....uh oh, you didn't bring the best snap-aggro tank did you? Man, a PAL would be really handy right about now, eh? All your mobs are dual wield flurry mobs? Boy, how nice would a dmg shield on the tank be? Damn shame we brought the worst of all the DS casters....man would a druid's DS be handy.
Tank spank, CH chain, support the WAR and 4 CLR vs the Avatar of War is the top 1% of the top 1% of the game's content, and even then, that's 5 slots out of 24-36 needed to make that encounter work. For the other 99.99% of the content, YOU DON'T NEED THE HOLY QUATERNITY CLASSES. It's a myth created almost entirely by whining paladin and druid players, who always boo hoo'd that nobody ever loved them. For the vast majority of the content in the game, you need maybe 75% effectiveness at any given role, but you have to cover the bases.
That's the reality. And under that reality, if you go by Kilsin's "if you are superior at any one thing, you will not be superior at another, but you can be above average at multiple things" the "nobody loves my hybrid" nonsense is just that - pure nonsense.
@VR - easy way to avoid this drama before you even launch the game for beta testing - do not have classes that even remotely resemble druids, rangers or paladins. Like 95% of all your incoming complaints disappear if you simply nix those three classes from the roster.
Venjenz,
well the thing is, Pantheon is not Everquest, but a game in its own right. Vanguard also didn't do a 100% conversion of Everquest classes and it had even 4 distinct healing classes, none of them hybrids. At least for me that was a good thing and it worked quite well.
Venjenz said:The hybrid lament is so freaking common and it almost always comes down to hybrid tanks and healers with the misguided belief that they simply cannot ever get a group because why would anyone choose the 95% tank over the 100% tank, or (and even in this thread we got the standard druid whineplay) why would you ever use a non-cleric healer? In the end, it's the philosophy of accepting advantages and disadvantages as a concept.
You are very right that it is a misguided belief and one where those of us who know better profit from that knowledge. As a long time Shaman player, I knew that for my groups it was better to have the SK/PALs as the tank, ROG and RNG as DPS and a DRU for all their utility and healing backup. Take all the melee buffed to the gills with Shaman buffs while having the druid damage shield and regen the main tank and pit them against debuffed and heavily DoT'd mobs and groups like that could grind through mobs with stunning efficiency. Great times, great XP, fast leveling...loved it.
Vandraad said:You are very right that it is a misguided belief and one where those of us who know better profit from that knowledge. As a long time Shaman player, I knew that for my groups it was better to have the SK/PALs as the tank, ROG and RNG as DPS and a DRU for all their utility and healing backup. Take all the melee buffed to the gills with Shaman buffs while having the druid damage shield and regen the main tank and pit them against debuffed and heavily DoT'd mobs and groups like that could grind through mobs with stunning efficiency. Great times, great XP, fast leveling...loved it.
My last go 'round, we did a lot of SHM/DRU healers with PAL/SK tanks. The hybrids synergize so well in groups. On my ENC, my favorite healers by were DRU by far. Snare/DS/heals + respectable DD. And oh yeah, when we're done, port us on out of here. That's just great no matter you slice it. I liked being with SHM on my NEC. My favorite non-standard group pairing ever, actually. That was a great duo to back a PAL tank.
Point being, most hybrid "balance" complaints come from wanting to be top glory slot on top boss raid. Group with 5 other good players, and balance takes care of itself. Nice to see someone else gets it.
EDIT - per your fast leveling comment, stack SK/DRU/MAG/BRD/ENC/WIZ-ROG, and find flurry dual wield mobs....stupid DS stacking + ENC uses Tash/Cripple vs Tash/Slow. It's as fast as you can grind mobs in EQ. Fast, light hitting mobs up against the silly use of DS mechanics...man is that fun.
Amsai said:Quick Question: Got lost in the EQ terminology. What is DS? (dispell?)
Damage Shield. Mob hits you and by doing so takes damage. Magicians had one (fire based) and Druids had one (thorns). I can't remember if they stacked, but I doubt it. The damage shield was not inconsequential to say the least. Sometimes a 2nd mob beating on the main tank would be nearly dead by the time the group finished the first mob solely because of the damage shield. Was great for helping hold aggro.
SKs were significantly better pullers than monks in some situations because they had spells and range. They could pull with disease cloud, feign, and then get up with aggro clear and the disease cloud tick would bring the mob. Monks were perhaps the best pullers in the most difficult situations, but SKs could do alllll sorts of things that monks could not with pulling.
edit: a better example would be the darkness spells. Pull with darkness and then FD. The mobs all start walking back together except one is slow now. Boom, separated and anyone could complete the pull from that point. Nobody else could pull like that. Were SKs "less desirable" in those uber raid situations because of DPS, sure, but from off tanking, to emergency aggro, to pulling to small group dynamics, SKs were miles better than warriors. And that is the balance of the imbalance of EQ.
Ever seen a monk pull Velk to the zone line FROM the zone line? SKs could.
SKs were also the best taunters in the game. When the SHTF, harm touch. For normal agrro taunting, shadow vortex and disease cloud had HUGE hate generation. A warrior could never keep a mob off an SK if the SK wanted it. Pally's with stuns were good too, but nobody could sustain aggro generation like an SK. Their little drain spells were 5 and 10 mana mobs HATED them. SKs were absolute lifesavers.
SKs were fantastically balanced and significantly better than warriors and even monks in many situations. Small groups were a huge part of the game, and SKs shined extremely bright in those situations. The SK/Shaman or SK/Druid partnership was also amazing synergy. Efficiency and versatility through the roof.
I think a lot of people posting in this thread have forgotton what games like EQ used to be like. EQ was a virtual world, not just a combat simulator arcade game like most all MMO's have been since. You discuss class balance as if combat and exp groups are the only function of a class. Many say rangers were the worst class in EQ, I tend to disagree because, before there were wiki's with every single known spawn location of every mob in the game, there were rangers tracking those mobs, learning spawn rotations, and spreading that knowledge to their friends.
How a class performs in combat is not the only factor involved in deciding how to balance them, what they bring to the social/community arena should also be considered. I highly doubt the spawn rotation for QUillmane would have ever been figured out if there weren't rangers. And I also highly regard paladins and shadowknights in EQ as well, while the exp penalty was a bad idea, those classes in small groups performed drastically better than pure tank warriors, warriors shined in perfect group setups, and also raid tanking. They lacked the ability to solo at all, and were very hard to play outside a group.
Rallyd said:I think a lot of people posting in this thread have forgotton what games like EQ used to be like. EQ was a virtual world, not just a combat simulator arcade game like most all MMO's have been since. You discuss class balance as if combat and exp groups are the only function of a class. Many say rangers were the worst class in EQ, I tend to disagree because, before there were wiki's with every single known spawn location of every mob in the game, there were rangers tracking those mobs, learning spawn rotations, and spreading that knowledge to their friends.
How a class performs in combat is not the only factor involved in deciding how to balance them, what they bring to the social/community arena should also be considered. I highly doubt the spawn rotation for QUillmane would have ever been figured out if there weren't rangers. And I also highly regard paladins and shadowknights in EQ as well, while the exp penalty was a bad idea, those classes in small groups performed drastically better than pure tank warriors, warriors shined in perfect group setups, and also raid tanking. They lacked the ability to solo at all, and were very hard to play outside a group.
Exactly. It's not a numbers game, who did more, who mitigated more, who healed more. You can't measure things like porting, tracking, taunting, pulling, etc, etc.
Well I dont know about everyone here, but I havent forgotten about all the little extras like tracking and what not brought to a game. Those are great things that are not to be taken lightly. But I think what it basically boils down to for most is "dont make my class useless in X content". Which from a couple of Kilsins last posts, doesnt appear to be an issue. So I doubt people have forgotten these other things. Its just as neat as those are, it doesnt make up for: You cant come, because your a terrible (fill in the role), we are gonna get the (favored role instead).
But I will say this if for some reason Pantheon wanted to make classes that were just out and out superior to all others in their roles. I wouldnt agree with it but it wouldnt be a game killer. That being said Id like a detailed explanation at that point of what each of the classes in a given role were designed to do (such as solo, small group, regular, raid, etc). That way if I choose a class that was designed for a role within a small group, I couldnt whine later about not being invited to raids. So all those little extras are nice, but I still wouldnt want to essentially be locked out of content. I say why cant we have good ballance as well as have each class add their own little extras as well.
Krixus said:
SKs were also the best taunters in the game. When the SHTF, harm touch. For normal agrro taunting, shadow vortex and disease cloud had HUGE hate generation. A warrior could never keep a mob off an SK if the SK wanted it. Pally's with stuns were good too, but nobody could sustain aggro generation like an SK. Their little drain spells were 5 and 10 mana mobs HATED them. SKs were absolute lifesavers.
Aside: I had an erudite shadowknight back when everyone thought it was a terrible combo. New warrior to the guild joined our open group and said "okay I'm tanking now." A few mobs later when he didn't even sniff so much as a round of DPS he said, "I get it... you can hold aggro." I replied, "you never asked if you were main tank and you didn't say please." Kept it up until he said, "May I main tank, please?" :D
Krixus said:Exactly. It's not a numbers game, who did more, who mitigated more, who healed more. You can't measure things like porting, tracking, taunting, pulling, etc, etc.
Aggro can trivially become a numbers game. Not hard at all.
Porting and tracking are completely irrelevant, this is an apples and oranges comparison so obviously it doesn't apply.
Pulling? Well, not a numbers game, but it's easy to tell if your puller sucks.
Liav said:Krixus said:Exactly. It's not a numbers game, who did more, who mitigated more, who healed more. You can't measure things like porting, tracking, taunting, pulling, etc, etc.
Aggro can trivially become a numbers game. Not hard at all.
Porting and tracking are completely irrelevant, this is an apples and oranges comparison so obviously it doesn't apply.
Pulling? Well, not a numbers game, but it's easy to tell if your puller sucks.
Troll on, troll.
Liav said:Krixus said:Troll on, troll.
Are you really just going to follow me around the forums and spam "troll" at me because you disagree? How childish.
You don't get that there's more to a character and balancing of classes than numbers in combat? Seriously? You clearly aren't stupid, yet you say things like "Porting and tracking are completely irrelevant". Sounds like a troll job to me.
Class balance is exactly an apples to oranges comparison. It's not hard to grasp. There are huge factors beyond how much damage you do, mitigate or heal that go into making a class useful, powerful, fun and balanced. I gave a number of examples which you dismissed out of hand. Not being able to stop and rationally think is childish.
Krixus said:You don't get that there's more to a character and balancing of classes than numbers in combat? Seriously? You clearly aren't stupid, yet you say things like "Porting and tracking are completely irrelevant". Sounds like a troll job to me.
Trolling means I'm intentionally inciting a negative emotional response from people. This isn't trolling. You just disagree with me.
Class balance only ever has to do with combat effectiveness, generally. Things like porting and tracking are completely irrelevant to combat effectiveness, yes.
Liav said:Krixus said:You don't get that there's more to a character and balancing of classes than numbers in combat? Seriously? You clearly aren't stupid, yet you say things like "Porting and tracking are completely irrelevant". Sounds like a troll job to me.
Trolling means I'm intentionally inciting a negative emotional response from people. This isn't trolling. You just disagree with me.
Class balance only ever has to do with combat effectiveness, generally. Things like porting and tracking are completely irrelevant to combat effectiveness, yes.
So being able to evac doesn't count? Being able to get TO your combat 45 minutes faster doesn't count? Saving someone's life with a well placed aggro spell that does no damage doesn't count? Pulling doesn't count? A HUGE portion of these games takes place outside of combat. And even IN combat there are things that you cannot factor with numbers. It's exactly posts like this that make people tell you go to back to Wow. Your interaction with the environment, combat or no, was a huge part of EQ and seems like it will be a huge part of this game too.
Porting and tracking are definitely not "irrelevant", but you can't place much weight on those things as they don't add to the long term value or viability of a class in general applications. At the end of the day, you have the balance the usefulness of the class in group and raid scenarios (specifically, combat). It isn't something that is entirely quantifiable, but some abilities contribute less to a class' overall worth than others (such as ports).
For instance, take EQ in the early years (pre-Luclin). Wizards, rangers, even druids were generally regarded as a bit underpowered. Sure, velious gave them some new abilities but ultimately the amount of usefulness wizards had in particular was inferior to that of melee classes because their damage was so contingent on power (mana). Thus, things like portals or tracking did not make them viable or 'balance their usefulness' in the long-term.
The trick of making those classes more balanced is add more value to those abilities. For instance, if tracking was more necessary in your average situation, tracking would add more value to that class. Then of course by adding a source of power or energy that melee classes are dependent on, suddenly you've leveled the playing field a bit for pure casters without pets. The same could be said of rogues if sense/disarm traps or lock picking was more important, etc.