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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Taledar said:unbalanced=more fun/mystery
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.