Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Class Balance

    • 2130 posts
    December 11, 2015 4:03 PM PST

    Krixus said:

    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. 

    Mixing combat related balance and non-combat related balance makes no sense. It's like balancing combat effectiveness around harvesting.

    The two should be considered completely seperate spheres and be balanced accordingly. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

    In EQ, Druids were less effective healers than Clerics. It wasn't because they could port though, it was because they had a plethora of damaging spells/roots/regen buff/etc. that Clerics didn't have access to.

    • 9115 posts
    December 11, 2015 4:27 PM PST

    Let's take a breath and get back on topic guy's, minus the personal attacks please. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their opinion, when posted publicly, is also open to questioning/debate in a polite and mature manner or you can simply move on and ignore them if you do not agree with their opinion, but do not argue back and forth in the forums or either your posts will be removed or the thread will be closed.

    This is the second warning, please take a break from the forums and come back when both of your heads are clear, there is no point continuing to argue opinions or personally attack each other, no one will ever win and it brings the mood of the forums down.

    • 1714 posts
    December 11, 2015 4:33 PM PST

    Liav said:

    Krixus said:

    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. 

    Mixing combat related balance and non-combat related balance makes no sense. It's like balancing combat effectiveness around harvesting.

    The two should be considered completely seperate spheres and be balanced accordingly. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

    In EQ, Druids were less effective healers than Clerics. It wasn't because they could port though, it was because they had a plethora of damaging spells/roots/regen buff/etc. that Clerics didn't have access to.

     

    The game is the world as a whole, the experience as a whole. You don't think port spells were taken into consideration when balancing a class in combat effectiveness?  Why did monks have a severe weight restriction? That doesn't have anything to do with combat. But it was put in to balance what they COULD do IN combat. It was a sacrifice, a penalty that monks had to deal with to get amazing abiliies like feign and mend, a non combat game experience penalty for combat power. And druids got amazing utility at the sacrifice of being specialized in raid scenarios. That's real balance, not just your healing is 10 and combat is 0 and your healing is 5 and combat 5 and your healing is 3 and combat is 7. Classes in EQ weren't just made with a combat power slider and that's one of the reasons there were so many different and amazingly fun classes. 


    This post was edited by Keno Monster at December 11, 2015 4:44 PM PST
    • 1714 posts
    December 11, 2015 4:42 PM PST

    Dullahan said:

    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.

    Being able to find that rare roamer for your epic quest didn't add long term value? Knowing when a rare mob was up and where it was didn't add long term value? Saving hours a day in travel time didn't add long term value?  The "you don't get to pick locks because you get to wear plate armor and dual wield longswords" dynamic has been around for ages. Games absolutely balance combat with non combat. There's way more to the game than end game raiding. Guilds would absolutely have an invite open for only a wizard so they could get more groups into Hate more quickly. 

    • 1434 posts
    December 11, 2015 5:28 PM PST

    The point is, combat is more important. The underlying premise of the MMO is the quest for progression. The most common way to progress is combat, therefore it should be heavily weighted in determining class usefulness (balancing). How often is needing to track a rare spawn important? Usually if I'm camping a rare spawn, I keep my eyes on it or go back when its ready to spawn. How many times do you need to do an epic quest? Those are exceptions, examples of when they are necessary. On a daily basis, those things are not nearly as important as the benefit of powerful combat abilities.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at December 11, 2015 5:30 PM PST
    • 999 posts
    December 11, 2015 9:27 PM PST

    @Krixus

    I see your point, and, utility skills like ports/evacs/tracking absolutely added "value" to the classes; however, that value didn't directly translate into groups or overall combat effectivness (even if it saved a few a**es).  We did have wizards in Hate that we invited, but, if we didn't have one, we also had Wizards on standby as alts or as guild members who weren't logged on who we could use as ports to Hate.  The port in and of itself added value to the class outside of groups, but not comparitive meaningful value within it to sacrifice DPS/Healing.  

    As a warrior who often formed groups (and pick-up groups), I never formed my groups saying "We have to invite a druid/wizard" so we have Evac, even in a zone like Sebillis.  Often we had one, but I'd look for a cleric/enchanter and then Puller/DPS.  I never invited a ranger for Track, but I did have them help me get my Epic and it was nice to have one to get a Sebillis Key.

    Where I agree with Liav/Duallahan is balancing for the sake of longetivity/class usefulness has to be around combat if PvE is the focus.  One of the things I think EQ got "wrong" was the class balancing (not balancing around the core archetypes), but the right combat; whereas, VG had the right class balancing, but the combat wasn't implemented correctly (resource management).  All classes still "felt" unique in VG even though the classes could be broken down to 4 specific roles - I believe Pantheon could be developed similarly and still re-capture the magic you and I are wanting from EQ. 

    • 1714 posts
    December 11, 2015 9:52 PM PST

    There was a HUGE portion of the game that wasn't hardcore raiding. How many small groups or duo sessions were amazing because of a druid? It's not about how powerful you are, it's also about when you are powerful. 

    • 2130 posts
    December 11, 2015 10:15 PM PST

    Krixus said:

    There was a HUGE portion of the game that wasn't hardcore raiding. How many small groups or duo sessions were amazing because of a druid? It's not about how powerful you are, it's also about when you are powerful. 

    Sure, Druids brought a lot to the table in easier-to-heal content because they have a larger variety of abilities. Combat related abilities.

    No group was ever amazing because you had a Druid porting you around. One could achieve this by just having an alt Druid to port you around. Hardcore raiding isn't really relevant here, it's just that there is no real logical reason to sacrifice DPS/healing ability/tanking ability because you have some non-combat related fluff. Being able to port, run faster out of combat, etc. are examples of fluff abilities that should be balanced independently of combat abilities.

    Enchanters could cast illusions, but that isn't why their DPS was awful. Their DPS was awful because otherwise they would be Wizards with powerful crowd control. Similarly, Wizard DPS was amazing because they brought nothing to a group other than the ability to blow things up. Rogue DPS was amazing because they brought nothing to a group other than the ability to melt mobs with dank backstabs. Monks were slightly behind Rogues during Velious era due to a few factors, but ultimately it was made up for by being good pullers and having higher (rarely used) defensive capability

    • 999 posts
    December 11, 2015 10:30 PM PST

    @Krixus

    You're absolutely correct - some of the odd class combinations such as Necro/Shaman as mentioned earlier in this thread could create excellent pairings.  The "Where" was important as well like a Paladin/Cleric in an undead zone.  And, many duo/trio groups were a lot of fun and some of my fondest memories in EQ, but it wasn't duoing/trio'ing with odd class combinations that made them fun, but rather I enjoyed the added challenge of tackling content meant for 6 with 2-4 players.  And, agreed, the journey 1-50 for me is way more important than end-game raiding and I hope it's a huge portion.   However, it doesn't change the fact that some classes were "better" for groups/raids and if someone had to be left out, it would be the least necessary class.  Original EQ survived with the unbalanced classes due to the unrestricted raid sizes.  If raids were locked out at 24 players like today and the least necessary classes were told you couldn't come, you would have had hundreds (thousands?) of players screaming to balance the classes better.

    • 122 posts
    December 11, 2015 10:46 PM PST

    Raidan said:

    @Krixus

    I see your point, and, utility skills like ports/evacs/tracking absolutely added "value" to the classes; however, that value didn't directly translate into groups or overall combat effectivness (even if it saved a few a**es).  We did have wizards in Hate that we invited, but, if we didn't have one, we also had Wizards on standby as alts or as guild members who weren't logged on who we could use as ports to Hate.  The port in and of itself added value to the class outside of groups, but not comparitive meaningful value within it to sacrifice DPS/Healing.  

    As a warrior who often formed groups (and pick-up groups), I never formed my groups saying "We have to invite a druid/wizard" so we have Evac, even in a zone like Sebillis.  Often we had one, but I'd look for a cleric/enchanter and then Puller/DPS.  I never invited a ranger for Track, but I did have them help me get my Epic and it was nice to have one to get a Sebillis Key.

    Where I agree with Liav/Duallahan is balancing for the sake of longetivity/class usefulness has to be around combat if PvE is the focus.  One of the things I think EQ got "wrong" was the class balancing (not balancing around the core archetypes), but the right combat; whereas, VG had the right class balancing, but the combat wasn't implemented correctly (resource management).  All classes still "felt" unique in VG even though the classes could be broken down to 4 specific roles - I believe Pantheon could be developed similarly and still re-capture the magic you and I are wanting from EQ. 



    I tend to agree with this. I would like to see a hierarchy of abilities that tree branch down. I'd like to see everyone fit in to one of the four main roles first, but I'd like them to be balanced around their role classes, not around all 12 in this means. HOWEVER, I'd also like to see a bit of overlap so everyone can do a "secondary role" as well when they aren't needed for their primary role. Their secondary role should never be as strong as another class that has it as a primary role, but it should be strong enough to keep the person useful outside their main role when the situation warrents.

    Then, in addition to those broad topics, I'd like to see each class get it's own abilities that set it apart. These are things that make peoples lives easier, but aren't deal breakers. If you don't have a wizard in your groups for ports, you can still group. If you don't have a good buffer, you can still group. If you don't have a tank, you can't. This is where the EQ system broke down. Some classes were useful situationally, and some classes were useful next to always. Eventually, the next to always classes got preferrential treatment. Druids and Shamans still got groups, but in the back of their minds, a LOT of people were wishing they had a cleric or enchanter instead. That's just a fact of classic EQ. 

    Earlier in this thread, people were complaining about how hybrids wanted to be pure classes. Honestly, I'd like it to go the other way. I'd like all 12 classes to lean a bit more toward hybrid. What I'd like to see is the balance done where no one can solo, no one is a jack of all trades, but also no one is such a special snowflake that any group is lost/at a disadvantage without them. Many "common" skills/spells would be spread among each class, then a few "special" abilities/spells would be class specific.

    Here's a crude breakdown of one way I think this could work with the various classes:

    Warrior
    Primary Role: Tank
    Secondary Role: DPS
    Overall Best at: Mitigation, primary taunt, tanking Earth/Lightning mobs
    Unique Abilities: Bellowing Taunt (AE Taunt), Rage (Temporary increased DPS and Mitigation on long cooldown), Paralize (3 second stun fullowed by rooted mob)

    Crusader
    Primary Role: Tank
    Secodary Role: Support Heals
    Overall Best at: Blocking, tanking undead/ice mobs
    Unique Abilities: Holy Shackles (Snares mob briefly. If mob is undead, it is also a DoT), Martyr (pulls aggro off all groupmates.), Halo of Trasnverse Health (Heal over Time, bonus healing from any damage done by the crusader while the HoT is in effect)

    Dire Lord
    Primary Role: Tank
    Secondary Role: CC
    Overall Best at: Avoidance, tanking holy/fire mobs
    Unique Abilities: Reanimate Dead (Make pet from a fallen foe. Pet ability decays the longer it is alive), Heart of Evil (Fear), Unholy Rising (50% res on any party member killed by the undead).

    Ranger 
    Primary Role: DPS
    Secondary Role: CC
    Overall Best at: Ranged DPS
    Unique Abilities: Tracking, Making physical traps, Warg (turn into an animal temporarily for increased DPS on long cooldown).

    Rogue 
    Primary Role: DPS
    Secondary Role: Off Tank (High parry skill)
    Overall Best at: Slashing/Piercing
    Unique Abilities: Sneak, Backstab, Poison Blade

    Monk 
    Primary Role: DPS
    Secondary Role: Support
    Overall Best at: Blunt, Hand to Hand, Kicking
    Unique Abilities: Various specialty kicks. Chant/Meditation (This one takes some explaining. I'd like to see monks "meditate" or "chant" similar to bard songs in classic EQ. If they chant, they can twist chants while performing melee combat. Each chant boosts various group stats, but the monk does slightly less DPS while chanting. If they change to meditate, they must stop attacking and sit down, but the meditations are much stronger on fellow group mates or enemies depending on the focus, but must be actively twisted like classic EQ songs keeping the player in a form of mini game).

    Summoner
    Primary Role: DPS, CC, off tank, or Support depending on Pet
    Secondary role: None. (This class has four primary roles depending on pet, but only one at a time).
    Overall Best at: Nothing. Pretty good at more than most.
    Unique Abilities: Summon a pet to either Off tank, CC, or Range DPS. The CC pet does minimal DPS but also casts debuffs on its target. The summoner channels their power through a connection with their pet, making some of their spells stronger and some weaker depending on what pet they have out. This would be balanced so that summoner's can't solo well, and can shift their role slightly depending on group need. Also summoners can cast protective spells and damage shields  on group mates, but the effects are reduced when use on their pets. 

    Enchanter
    Primary Role: Support/CC
    Secondary Role: DPS
    Overall Best at: Buffing Casters
    Unique Abilities: Mesmirize (puts mob in stasis. Damaging mob breaks stasis instantly), Chaotic Rage (Makes enemy turn against anything nearby, including fellow enemies but also your group), Charm (makes the target non-hostile for a brief period of time damaging mob breaks charm instantly).

    Wizard
    Primary Role: DPS
    Secondary Role: CC
    Overall Best at: Magic DPS
    Unique Abilities: Teleport, Freeze (roots targets to the ground in an ice block, ice mobs immune, fire mobs take DoT in addition), Siphon Mana (from enemy mob).

    Shaman
    Primary Role: Support/CC
    Secondary Role: Healer
    Overall Best at: Buffing Melee
    Unique Abilities: Shrink (Makes mob small and take more/deal less damage temporarily), Ancestral Divining (learn the exact level of target mob), Resurect Dead (up to 96% exp recovery at high end)

    Druid
    Primary Role: Healer
    Secondary Role: Support
    Overall Best at: Heal over Time and AOE Heal
    Unique Abilities: Nature's Gift (Increased Healing if fighting in a forrest), Nature's Boon ("Heal Shield" that has a chance to proc a mini heal each time the wearer takes damage), Befriend Animal (make an anmal a pet temporarily).

    Cleric
    Primary Role: Healer
    Secondary Role: Support
    Overall Best at: Fast Heals.
    Unique Abilities: Divine Intervention (instant cast complete heal on long cool down), Holy Handgrenade (deals some damage to target and heals the target's target for an equal amount), Divine Prayer (increased mana regen while sitting).

    This is not an overly-thought out/balanced list, nor would I consider it anywhere CLOSE to complete, but I just thought I'd show an example of how it's possible to have "core" roles, "secondary" roles, and unique abilities (both in group and out) that make each class valuable, but doesn't make any one class a "must have" all the time. Hopefuly, even the people who are a "must have" in a specific enviroment won't block out their "other part" if the secondary roles are balanced (so if fighting the undead, a Crusader is a preferred tank, but a warrior or dread knight could still fill another group spot without it causing problems).

    By the way, I think the ideal group number would be 6 people. I don't really like the 5 man groups.


    This post was edited by Arksien at December 11, 2015 10:51 PM PST
    • 2130 posts
    December 11, 2015 11:01 PM PST

    Far too specialized imo.

    What positive element is brought to the table by having specific tanks excel at tanking specific mobs? It seems like it would just encourage people to roll Warriors instead since the writeup here makes them seem more well-rounded.

    I'd rather see every tank be equally effective at tanking everything, but with a different flavor. For instance, DLs get some cool stuff like higher dps, lifetaps, and a skeleton pet, and they make up for it by having to tank more actively as opposed to passively. For instance, using a variety of temporary buffs to lower damage taken. Warriors, however, are the generic well rounded tank so they have the highest passive damage reduction while sacrificing dps and the ability to use spells. Paladins are like DLs, they get weaker versions of heals than Clerics, weaker buffs than Clerics, but they also get some cool temporary effects that buff their group's dps or something. In exchange for these things, they require better micromanagement with their temporary effects to tank effectively, just like a DL.

    This is much simpler than having to worry about things like secondary roles and whatnot. Another factor to consider is that having well-defined secondary roles tends to limit the group configuration possibilities because you have to be super picky. I'd rather just say "LF Tank for X" and get a tell from any of the 3 tank classes and not have to worry about whether or not they fit nicely in this specific area we're going to.

     

    • 1778 posts
    December 11, 2015 11:18 PM PST

    Arksien, you forgot bard! >.>

     

    Bard
    Primary Role: Support (buffing and debuffing)
    Secondary Role: CC
    Overall Best at: Debuffing Mobs
    Unique Abilities: Cool sounding debuffs (got lazy lol)

    • 6 posts
    December 12, 2015 3:58 AM PST

    I've been giving it some thought and I think there's a big difference between eq 16 years ago and eq "now." After 16 years there's a lot of harmonization, as in classes have blurred to extreme, also the eq developement has shifted into a more every class has a lot of things. I've played classes at max level that have 10 bars of 12 skills, that's a lot of button mashing.

     

    Now if pantheon is like an updated, improved, steamlined eq of "16 years ago?" Now that is what I think Kilsin is getting at. Sure 16 years ago there were things that were compared to now weren't fully fleshed out. Pure melee not having many skills except a few buttons. Now take that eq and update, improve, steamline it, give pures a full set of skills/spells, make sure no class doesn't have a role. Even if warriors are pure the big bad tank, they will have skills/disciplines, a full set of them, not just taunt, bash, disarm basically. Knights will have spells, skills, displines. Classes like wizards that had stuff with their resist rates and all back in the day will not be in Pantheon I'm sure.

     

    Now instead of taking eq than and comparing it to eq of today like I was, take eq of 16 years ago and update/improve, give every class an identity, a role, a primary/2nd/3rd role. Now that is what I think Pantheon is going for, we've heard from Brad, the team all along that every class will have a role and identity, multiple roles/identity. We know different classes will effect the world/group in different ways, I think different classes will mesh together in ways somewhat like Vanguard was but even better.

     

    So in the end instead of taking eq of 16 years and 22, twenty-two expensions, that's a lot of time. Take eq of 16 years ago, of classic, update, improve, steamline it? That is what I think Patheon is aiming for. Update, improve and steamline.

     

    In any case perhaps I was comparing a game 16 years old and twenty-two expensions old to a game, I.E. Pantheon that is just it's base game. A game that is 16 years older in eq, which includes many things, not just looks but game ability. What I think Pantheon is aiming for is eq of classic but updated/imrpoved and steamlined. An updated classic eq, not a twenty-two expension old eq where lines are so blurred, and the eq dev team, long long after Brad left kept giving and giving skills/spells etc to every class. Every class having a fade is one thing I know of.

     

    One thing I am glad of is having spell bars in Pantheon but that pure mleee have a "spell" bar too of types too. That means that warriors/rogues/monks etc will have a full set of abilities. And Pantheon I am sure won't even reach a week into Alpha with things like, well I can't land a spell because of resist rates so I'm useless. Stuff like that will not happen I'm 100% positive.

     

    In any case, Pantheon is not eq of today, it is an updated, improved and steamlined original eqish like game. Now that, that is the game I want to play and I believe Pantheon will be. I think every eq player, that is all we wanted is an updated/improved and steamlined game of eq/vanguard and games of the like.

     

    In any case those are my thoughts after stepping back and giving it some thought.

    • 122 posts
    December 12, 2015 10:14 AM PST

    Liav said:

    Far too specialized imo.

    What positive element is brought to the table by having specific tanks excel at tanking specific mobs? It seems like it would just encourage people to roll Warriors instead since the writeup here makes them seem more well-rounded.

    Well Brad says enviroments are a big part of this game... so... also, it's not like the other tanks are BAD at tanking a mob, one class just excels. Also having a tank class that can throw a move to pull 100% aggro in an emergency doesn't sound useful? Having a pet and having a tank that can res under certain circumstances doesn't sound useful? I was worried I was under balancing the warrior when making this list.

     

    [Blockquote] I'd rather see every tank be equally effective at tanking everything, but with a different flavor. For instance, DLs get some cool stuff like higher dps, lifetaps, and a skeleton pet, and they make up for it by having to tank more actively as opposed to passively. For instance, using a variety of temporary buffs to lower damage taken. Warriors, however, are the generic well rounded tank so they have the highest passive damage reduction while sacrificing dps and the ability to use spells. Paladins are like DLs, they get weaker versions of heals than Clerics, weaker buffs than Clerics, but they also get some cool temporary effects that buff their group's dps or something. In exchange for these things, they require better micromanagement with their temporary effects to tank effectively, just like a DL.

    Good points here. On the surface I wouldn't mind seeing this. My fear is if you give the crusader and dire lord lots of neat tricks but the warrior basically innate abilities, then the crusader and dire lord need to work their asses off to be good tanks (which I like) but the warrior can turn on auto attack and do little else but still be the best tank. Even if you have a very skilled crusader, they have to prove their worth to the group but everyone knows a warrior is a safe bet. You're going to end up with a similar problem classic EQ had. I'd rather that all 3 tanks have similar passives and need to work to be a good tank. There's no reason a warrior can't have their own flavor of melee abilities to they need to use to pull aggro, while the DK and crus come from magic.

    [Blockquote] This is much simpler than having to worry about things like secondary roles and whatnot. Another factor to consider is that having well-defined secondary roles tends to limit the group configuration possibilities because you have to be super picky. I'd rather just say "LF Tank for X" and get a tell from any of the 3 tank classes and not have to worry about whether or not they fit nicely in this specific area we're going to.

    This us where you and I really disagree at a fundamental I think. I don't really want simple. I like the idea of each class having a very specific use. However, when one class has a specific use, they also need a broad use too so that you can have a scenario where you say "Cleric, ench and DK LFM" and you get a tell from a rogue, a ranger, and a war. Now you have a full group on this system. In classic EQ style you'd tell the war "sorry we have a tank," then another shout" group LFM dps. Or worse, if someone was really a jerk "lol bye DK, we got a war now so we got the good tank, sorry bout that."

    Anytime a class is balanced through innate or passive abilities and has fewer actives, they tend to be OP because while the best active player can compete with them on another class, a truly mediocre player can compete on the passive class. I'd really prefer to keep all 12 classes working.


    This post was edited by Arksien at December 12, 2015 10:15 AM PST
    • 68 posts
    December 14, 2015 5:14 PM PST

    I mean I want a unique character.  I want to fit a special role.  I want to know that if I build my Ranger I am able to beat two warriors because of my superior ranged tactics (could be reversed if I don't know how to play).  I don't want classes to be equal, I want the strategies on how I play and build my character to matter.  Sure I may never win the fit if I tried to swing it out with a warrior, but with class balancing, that is possible....

    so I vote no. :)

    J


    This post was edited by JoshuaLLFE at December 14, 2015 5:15 PM PST
    • 2130 posts
    December 14, 2015 5:18 PM PST

    Class balance doesn't necessarily imply making all classes equal. It's just ensuring that some classes aren't worthless while other classes bring too much to the table.

    • 65 posts
    February 27, 2017 6:10 AM PST

    I followed this thread when it got posted but was not a member at the time, figured i would dredge it up because I feel it is one of the most important topics to the game.

    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. :)

    I think that class balancing and encounter design or world design are topics that need to be discussed together. It is hard to make each class feel unique from each other while at the same time creating challenging content that anyone can complete regardless of their class combinations within the quaternity. I agree with the idea that it is not fun to sit out a fight because it is so difficult that your lack of contribution makes it nearly impossible to complete, but that to me could be bad encounter design instead of class balance. Is the balance of tough dungeon or raid encounters going to be balanced around the worst group or raid make up possible so that everyone can beat it? I feel like there has to be a line drawn somewhere where you say you cant take the worst mitigation/single target tank to a fight that hits super hard and fast and has a bunch of frequent, unpredictable, short range ae's and bring with you a monk a rogue a bard and one healer that can't group heal all that well and expect to win. Maybe you can defeat such an encounter without the perfect balance of classes as long as you have a few that are good at it. The same applies to an area of the world or dungeon, at what point is the group composition the determining factor in difficulty? Is something that is extremely tough for a poorly composed group going to be extremely easy for a well composed group? These seem like hard things to quantify without knowing a lot more.

    In some ways I feel like specialist roles create too many situations where classes A, B and C are just better than classes X, Y and Z. I want the game to be challenging from more of a gameplay perspective instead of did we bring rock to counter the scissors fight. It is hard to make unique classes without ending up in such a situation. I feel like a lot of it depends upon the way important encounters are laid out and the way dungeons are laid out. There should be various aspects of a zone or dungeon that each class can excel at, and some point where they feel weak at. Diversity within an area seems an important way to balance classes using world design.

    • 84 posts
    February 27, 2017 6:55 AM PST

    Balance. Balance never changes. No, wait, that's war. 

    The problem with balance is... combat. Or, not combat. Or... what does he have that I don't, and what do I have that he doesn't?

     

    See, that's the problem. There was a time in the history of EQ that rangers were complaining because they didn't tank enough to be tanks, but they didn't dps enough to be dpsers. They wanted more. To be fair, in vanilla and Kunark rangers kinda got the shaft a bit. What were they looking at? They were looking at tanks warrior/paladin/sk and saying "I want to be as good as them!" Or they were looking at monks and rogues damage and saying, "I want to be on par with them!" It's true, they couldn't tank as well as a tank, and they couldn't dps as well as a dpser. What they could do was sow, and track and snare, and ... well a whole bunch of things. But instead of looking at overall abilities it boiled down to two things. Can I smack things as hard as that guy? Can I get smacked as hard as that other guy? if the answers to both of those questions is no, than the charecter is poorly balanced and needs to be reworked. Or at least, that's how a great many people end up seeing things. 

     

    I disagree. I like the idea someone mentioned earlier of situational balance, IE: One type of tank being better for casters, one type of tank being better for holding agro for on groups of mobs, one tank being best for a toe to toe one mob one tank situation. But there's more to it than even that. There's abilities. Sure this monk can out damage that ranger, but that ranger can do so many things that monk only wishes he could do. Of course, the monk can FD to escape combat. Wait for agro to clear, sit there and bandage himself and lick his wounds and hope to find something easier next time. The ranger on the other hand can root the mob, back up a few steps, throw a dot on the mob, heal himself a bit while the dot does it's thing, and then shoot off a couple arrows before reengaging. In groups the ranger can sow and track and provide damage shields and act as a healer to help top people off during downtime. 

    I'm using the ranger example because, well, anyone who played vanilla EQ will remember the laments of rangers, but it's true of any class balancing act. It's very easy to look at what everyone else has that you don't. Girls with curly hair always want straight hair and girls with straight hair always want curly hair.

     

    Balance to me comes down to one thing. Do I have a use that groups will find desirable? Is there one thing that groups will want, that I can do better than anyone else, that is at least as useful as the thing that other classes do better than anyone else? Maybe not always as useful, and maybe not always desired, but at least as often as most others? Class balance is, for me at least, a question of, "Can I get a group with my class?" Not, "Can I get a group with my personality?" And not, "Can I get a group because I happen to be lfg and there's no one else around LFG and this group has a spot open?" But rather will there be a time when groups are sitting there with one spot open saying, "We could really use X class." If you're looking at the classes and you don't see any (or even very many) situations where you'd rather have X instead of Y, your class isn't balanced.

    • 219 posts
    March 1, 2017 8:23 PM PST

    Taledar said:

    unbalanced=more fun/mystery



    I like this post.  :)

    The problem with "balance" is that "balance" means different things to different people.

    To some people "balance" means "does the same job exactly equally well as anyone else doing that job".* 
    To some people "balance" means "competent at the same job as well as anyone else in the role, but with some niche".
    To some people "balance" means "dps/hps + utility = arbitrary constant".**

    *This tends to lead to homogenization - where you get every class in a role basically having the exact same abilities, just with different names and spell/ability animations/graphics.

    **That is to say, if a Wizard does 200 DPS but has portals, than a Ranger needs to do 300 DPS since not having portals means he needs some kind of advantage to make up for that unquantifiable "utility" that the Wizard offers that he does not.  And a Rogue needs to do 350 DPS because, in addition to lacking that Wizard "utility", he also has to be in melee range and be able to get behind or on the enemy's flanks to use his hard hitting moves like Backstab (in this sense, ease of playing also factors into "balance").

    .

    My preference is for the middle one.  My reasons for this are simple:

    If you go with the first, you should just create four classes: Tank, Healer, Controler, Damager

    If you go with the third, you run into the everpresent problem of "How much DPS/HPS/Mitigation/Efficiency/Etc is THIS utility worth?"  That is, is portals worth 100 DPS or 50 DPS or 500 DPS or 5% DPS or 10% DPS or 25% DPS?  Is having mana efficient heals worth having less HPS than a healer with less efficient heals, or does it mean that you have to give up a buff or some other utility?  It's impossible to QUANTIFY (put into numbers) utility.  This is why using utility, PARTICULARLY out of combat utility, as a matter of balance, is rather problematic. 

    .

    So my preference is the middle one:

    Start by determining what the primary role and secondary role of each class will be from the Quaternity/Quiternity (depending on whether support and control will be considered one role or two distinct ones). 

    Basically, figure out what is essential for a role (for example, a Res spell, I believe, is essential for any healing class, so all healing classes need one - but the exact parameters in terms of cooldown, cast time, mana/reagent requirements, debuff applied to the resed person, xp regained, and so on may be different; all tanks need a taunt - they don't have to have the same taunt, maybe one has an AE taunt, maybe one has a taunt "field" if they can lure the enemy into it [Paladin Consecration for example], etc.)  Once you have what is essential, you give it to everyone of that role, within their variations.

    After that, you can look at other things and you can balance in combat ability against in combat ability.  Maybe a Druid's HoTs combined with their CC reducing incoming damage could be equal to a Cleric's direct heals combined with their AC buff.  But they needn't be identical, or factor in out of combat ability.

    After that, you MAY look at other things and youc an balance out of combat ability against out of combat ability.  Maybe a Shaman's downtime reducing ability can be compared against a Druid's portaling ability.

    Classes should be designed against their primary/secondary roles, and a given role should (and can, given the quaternity and 12 classes) have each of the possible combinations of primary/seconary role.  That is, with four roles:

    Tanks:
    Tank/Support
    Tank/DPS
    Tank/Healing

    Healers:
    Heal/Support
    Heal/DPS
    Heal/Tank(..?)

    Control/Support:
    Control/Heal
    Control/DPS
    Control/Tank(..?)

    DPS:
    DPS/Heal(..?)
    DPS/Control
    DPS/Tank(..?)

    ...it might actually be beneficial to separate Control and Support into two categories, that way you could replace some of the /Heal(..?) and /Tank(..?) with /Control and /Support to make a few more variations.

    .

    Also, an aside:

    First aside: Within a given role, have different specializations.  For example, Druids specializing at HoTs, Shaman at burst healing, Clerics at sustained healing.  In this way, Druids will have mainly single and AE HoTs (with a direct heal or two for use, but not as part of their core niche), Shaman will have burst single and AE heals (again with some "spamable" heal as needed), Clerics will have direct single and AE heals (with a weaker HoT and weaker burst for needed situations).  This gives each role within an archetype functionality in small group content (all three should be able to heal small group content just fine) as well as giving them a part to play in raid healing.  Each healer may have a single target burst heal or HoT, but they'll each have a niche where they're best at (so they naturally fit into a raid as part of a group).  This works for all the roles except DPS, really, although even there you can probably go with AE/burst/single target sustained.  But every class filling a given role should be at least COMPETENT at that role in small group content.

    Second aside: While one class may be the BEST at something, there should always be at least one SECOND-BEST in case the primary class is unavailable.  For example, Enchanter may be the best at Control, but Bard may be functional at it as well.  Druid may be best at controling weather by Rangers can be functional in case there isn't a Druid around (admittedly I get this from The Third Age game where the Ranger character's highest level spell was like a lightning storm or something, and they are the second most "nature-y" class).  The point: While there can be a clear "BEST" within a role or a specific branch of a role, there should be other classes able to fit in at need if that class isn't there.  In this way, every class filling a given role should have some NICHE or speciality to bring to the table in large group/raid content.

    Third aside: All abilities/buffs should stack, but with diminishing returns.  If you have a guild that has 5 healers and they all play Clerics...why shouldn't they be able to stack their buffs?  Star Wars: The Old Republic allowed this, I believe, and so groups were never upset at "Oh, we don't need a SECOND Scoundral, we already have Scound's buffs."  It also doesn't make sense in terms of lore/a universe.  Why is it a Mage may give you a boost to your intellect and a Priest a boost to your stamina, but TWO Mages can't give you TWO boosts to your intellect?  A simple system of "only one of a SPECIFIC buff may be placed on a character per player" (e.g. a Cleric may place an AC buff on a target and may place a spirit buff on the target, but can't put his AC buff on the target two times on top of itself), but that these will stack with multiple copies (a SECOND Cleric, however, can put HER AC buff on the same target), but with diminishing returns (the first buff does 100%, the second does an additional 50%, the third 25%, the fourth 12.5%, the fifth 6.25%, and so on so that you asyptotically approach 200% but never get there, meaning there's no point in getting 500 Clerics to buff someone because it gives about the same buff as what 5 Clerics could already provide).  Maybe have some cap somewhere like 5 or so, but if you have a party with two of a class, it shouldn't make the second one meaningless/redundant in terms of buffs.  It shouldn't be the difference between taking a second Wizard vs kicking the second Wizard for a Ranger because at least you'd get some more buff out of doing so.

    Fourth aside: It IS okay to have a "premier" class in a role, so long as the others of that role have specializations (as per point (2)) and have full functionality in small group content (as per point (1)).  But to do so, they should be giving up something to gain that specialization.  For example, if a Cleric is "the best healer", then this means that they shouldn't be able to support, dps, control, or tank in any realistic way other than slow dps/limited control when soloing Undead or farming or the like.  Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Bard/Wizard(or Rogue) being the premier Tank/Healer/Controler/Supporter/DPSer is fine...provided others in the role have niches and are more hybrid capable, having both capacity in small group content, niches in raid content where they're better than the "premier" (who is more a generalist), and having more capacity in their secondary role whereas the "premier" effectively gives up having a secondary role in order to be "the best".

    .

    And final thoughts:

    Back up to the top at the person I quoted.

    I like games in their early days.  In the early days of an MMO, it's not about min/Maxing, it's not about every possible rotation and gear set being parsed and theorycrafted.  There's mystery, there's uncertainty, there's potential to find new and curious and inventive ways of doing things.  Like in early WoW, there were abilities like Amplify or Dampen Magic (effected damaging AND healing, so there was some interesting tactical choice to using them), Paladin's Divine Intervention (kills the Paladin, grants an ally sanctuary/invulnerability status), and so on.  People found ways to use these to cheese some fights here and there.  Instead of seeing this as an interesting thing for players to do, the devs decided they didn't like inventive players, and so simply removed all of these abilities from the game.  And with them, a lot of class flavor.

    I hope Pantheon has all these quirky and random abilities (and given we have 8-10 combat abilities that we can set for a given fight, you can give classes a LOT of abilities and let them choose to use or not use those as they see fit), and I hope that it keeps them over time instead of getting rid of them.

    There's also a piece of me that would like classes to have subspecializations based on the 8-10 abilties they pick - e.g. a Cleric could pick all their single target and single target boosting heal abilities to make themselves outstanding single target healers but not so great at other things, or they could pick a rounded kit of single and AE heals, or they could pick only a few heals but all sorts of short duration situational buffs so they could function in the fight as more of a tactical buffer.  I'm not sure if the game will go this way, but it would basically shatter the very idea of "balance" as "balance" would be entirely determined by what kit a player chooses to take into combat that day.  Or even that ENCOUNTER.  :)

    .

    Anyway, rambled long enough.  Maybe there's a worthwhile idea in there somewhere...

    • 162 posts
    March 1, 2017 8:36 PM PST

    Man, I love balance, even if it isn't for PvP. Class balance in my eyes is the key to making every class usable. But, there should be a curve. Let's say I'm playing a cleric, he should by far be the best direct healer in the game, and by direct i mean if i cast a heal for 30khp it's instant 30khp, whereas the way i see a druid is being just as proficient in heals as, if they cast their heal for 30khp it should be a heal over time, so maybe 30 seconds tops to recieve that whole 30khp, then the shaman, along with debuffs is able to heal in a similar way, whereas instead of needing a 30khp heal because they have debuffs they won't need that heal. Instead it could be 15k heal because slows and dmg breaks are making up that extra 15k.

    Same for tanking, and the same for DPS, and the same for CC. There should always be a way that a class is better than another, but at the same time just as effective. Like Rogue's and Necro's for another example. Same exact DPS numbers, but they dps differently, whereas a rogue is a melee and all of his hits are direct damage, the necro usually focuses more on poisoning and doing damage over a period of time. The way EQ1 did it was amazing. Some really good class balance, no class was stronger than another, but they all had their own perks, and forms of DPS. 

    Wizards and Magicians is another good example, wizards had great burst, and ran out of mana pretty fast, but that burst holds them over for a while, whereas magicians have a weaker burst dps, still burst, but their pet makes up the difference in the nukes. 

    Class balance is very important, everyone should have the chance of being at the top of the parse, DPS wise, then healers should all have their own focus. And tanks should be able to tank just in different ways. Warrior is super defensive, paladin is also defensive, but not as much and instead can toss some heals onto himself to make up for the lack of defenses, then shadow knights same as paladin except lifetapped to make the difference in their defense. 

    • 542 posts
    March 2, 2017 12:25 AM PST

    Amsai said:

    Arksien, you forgot bard! >.>

     

    Bard
    Primary Role: Support (buffing and debuffing)
    Secondary Role: CC
    Overall Best at: Debuffing Mobs
    Unique Abilities: Cool sounding debuffs (got lazy lol)

    no forgetties about bards ,it is bad for moral

    The only thing really important in my view is unique ability that makes each class indispensable from a group environments.In such a way that it becomes a dilemma to select a class best to fullfill a role.When groups take a full group of warriors or whatever because they are the most efficient and discriminate all other classes,preventing them from joining the group

    thats when there is a problem with class balance.

    So each class should be able to bring as much to the table and yet offer something unique that can't be missed from a group

    Thinking about it,a moral system might actually provide many solutions too,could affect hit-rating ,a full group of warriors would have difficulties keeping moral up etc .Warriors could bring heroism to the table instead.A lack of that would be bad too.Classes like druids would provide a bonus to natural resistance.In this case it is no longer a moral system solely though

     

     


    This post was edited by Fluffy at March 2, 2017 1:10 AM PST
    • 84 posts
    March 2, 2017 2:12 AM PST

    Dubah said:

    Man, I love balance, even if it isn't for PvP. Class balance in my eyes is the key to making every class usable. But, there should be a curve. Let's say I'm playing a cleric, he should by far be the best direct healer in the game, and by direct i mean if i cast a heal for 30khp it's instant 30khp, whereas the way i see a druid is being just as proficient in heals as, if they cast their heal for 30khp it should be a heal over time, so maybe 30 seconds tops to recieve that whole 30khp, then the shaman, along with debuffs is able to heal in a similar way, whereas instead of needing a 30khp heal because they have debuffs they won't need that heal. Instead it could be 15k heal because slows and dmg breaks are making up that extra 15k.

    I keep seeing that sort of reference for healers, and my two copper on the healing balance? 

    I'd love to see it a three prong system, with three types of heals, and three ratings for heals. Call them "Great" "Meh" and "Junk"

    Clerics come out with Great direct heals, Meh Heal over Time, and Junk group heals.

    Druids come out with Great heal over time, Meh Direct heals, and junk group heals

    Shaman come out with Great group heals, Meh Heal over time, and Junk direct heals

    (You could reapportion that however you like, but the idea is... each class excells in one, is meh in another, and junk in the third).

    Why do I like that division? Because it checks off a few boxes. Will each of those healers have situations where they're the best bet? Check. Does it create great group synergy? Check. Have you avoided too much overlap? Check. Have you managed to implement healing in a way that compliments each classes other abilities? .... that'll depend on what all other abilities you end up with, but it could be a big ole checkaroo there too.

     

    In the end it comes down to one simple question. Will there be a time when a group is going to say, "Man, we could really use X class for this." If you're looking at a class and you don't see that, in a combat situation, you're class isn't balanced. Teleports are great, but if you're expecting people to get groups due to that, you're (mostly) mistaken. Most of the time a group is going to find some wayward porter, out soloing, offer him a big ole stack of plat to port them (even if he has to make two trips cause they were a full group) and go on about their business. In some dungeons there might be the need to bring an evacer along, in which case (at least in classic eq) they'll have a choice between wizard and druid. The wizard brought bigger nukes and an evac, thus the druid was left to solo. Tracking is great and all (and in outdoor zones made pulling much easier) but... unless you're specifically looking for a rare mob, that whole "But he can see the rare mobs!" thing is pointless. Most groups would rather just bring someone who is more efficient. So the ranger can now count on getting a group... when you're hunting for epics? No, seriously, please tell me there are folks here who remember seeing people in zones where rare spawns who dropped loot needed for epic saying in OOC that they'd pay for a ranger to tell them and track this-or-that when it spawned. That's not a group, that's a freaking bounty, and while it might add cash value, you don't want to be playing a class that's only wanted when someone needs to track a mob for their epic.

    Now, rangers were the best outdoor pullers, so they usually didn't have too much trouble finding groups in big outdoor zones (I can remember, right after Kunark dropped, in Dreadlands, it was one of the few times you'd see people "LFTracker!" for groups, it was big enough and spread out enough that you couldn't just sit in a convenient spot and pull from your surroundings easily, unlike say, sitting near the Aviak tree in whichever karana it was) much of Kunark was large and outdoors, so rangers had a strong place there, but for much of what came before it (and some of what came after it) rangers were... well they were down near the bottom of the pecking order. If this were a game on the playground and people were picking teams you'd end up with the druid and the ranger both standing there after everyone else was picked going, "don't let me be picked last, don't let me be picked last," but inevitably one of them had to be picked last... unless everyone decided to play without them, so they had to either solo or duo (I will say this, even with the druid and ranger having a poopton of overlap in their spells (like all of them) they did make a pretty awesome duo).

     

    Anyway. Yeah, stuff.

    • 3852 posts
    March 2, 2017 7:31 AM PST

    Interesting discussion of the relevance of non-combat abilities. On the one hand, having significant non-combat abilities is a strong incentive to create a class and level it up. On the other hand, if the class is significantly worse at its combat role groups won't want it if they have a choice, and if it is even a bit worse the min-max group leaders/guilds won't want it.

    In LOTRO back when travel was more difficult and it was often hard to get to some major endgame areas the hunter was a very valued class because of its ability to bind at campfires and teleport groups to useful locations. Pantheon may well have that same dynamic in terms of difficulty getting to places quickly or safely.  But the hunter was also a high dps class though maybe not the best, so it was welcome in groups. Would I want a class with that type of high miscellaneous value if it wasn't very good in combat. No I don't think so except as, how did someone put it, an alt class. Raised to the level where the special ability was available and then left to rot except when that ability was needed.

    Ideally combat value will be balanced - classes that provide that value in very different ways but balanced none the less. And miscellaneous abilities will also be balanced although this is less important. If two classes are balanced for combat but GREATLY unbalanced in other areas that can be an issue too.

    • 5 posts
    March 2, 2017 8:04 AM PST

    I for one do NOT want the classes to all be "balanced".  I enjoy some classes being more specialized and narrow and to have a harder time out in the game world than others.  Do we all remember the little message at the bottom of the class/race combo description when creating a new character in everquest? "your class race is of X is hard difficulty"...  Yes let it be so.  

    So forget class balance, just let the player know upfront they are going to be playing on hard mode and let them choose that path if they want.  

    • 84 posts
    March 2, 2017 8:48 AM PST

    Locnar said:

    I for one do NOT want the classes to all be "balanced".  I enjoy some classes being more specialized and narrow and to have a harder time out in the game world than others.  Do we all remember the little message at the bottom of the class/race combo description when creating a new character in everquest? "your class race is of X is hard difficulty"...  Yes let it be so.  

    So forget class balance, just let the player know upfront they are going to be playing on hard mode and let them choose that path if they want.  

     

    I don't care if one class is harder, one class is easier, one is more nuanced, whatever. Balance to me has nothing to do with the ease with which the character can be played but rather with the classes desirability withi groups. Period. If a class is "balanced" in such a way that they spend 90% of their time unable to find groups because everyone else does everything else better, that's not a more difficult class, that's unbalanced.