Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Bind Point

    • 1921 posts
    November 17, 2017 6:46 PM PST

    Zorkon said:

    Liav said:

    I'm trying to come up with equally beneficial utility and I'm failing.

    Tracking

    Stealth

    Teleports

    Sow

    Summons (coh)

    Etc. Etc.

    Well, Bind & Gate in EQ1 were given to every pure INT/WIS caster ( Bind: Enchanter level 12 , Magician level 12,Wizard level 12,Necromancer level 12,Druid level 12,Shaman level 14,Cleric level 10 | Gate:Enchanter level 4 ,Magician level 4 ,Wizard level 4 ,Necromancer level 4, Druid level 5, Shaman level 5 ,Cleric level 5 ) so that's 7 out of currently 12 classes that might get it in Pantheon if they follow a similar pattern.

    Class specific abilities like Call of the Hero (Kunark/L55) Stealth and Tracking (yeah, I know, Druids), I'm not sure really compare. 
    Gate is a Teleport, so giving the other 5 hybrid & melee classes Origin or something similar would certainly level the playing field in this regard.  I suspect that's why it was given in the first place in EQ1, to address the long term disparity.
    SoW?  A movement speed buff that three original classes had...meh, don't really think it's in the same category as Bind.

    Balancing combat vs. combat and non-combat vs. non-combat abilities is where designers need to earn their paycheck.  There are ways to do it, but given the current public design goals, I think disparity is just going to be part of the equation and melee will continue to get the shaft in this regard. :|  I don't see how a non-combat Endurance based ability can be made to compare with Magic, and remain internally consistent.  Maybe everyone will just get magic?  /shrug  Maybe they just won't care and will use Endurance as mana and give melee the same abilities with different names?

    • 1303 posts
    November 18, 2017 5:20 AM PST

    vjek said:

     /shrug  Maybe they just won't care and will use Endurance as mana and give melee the same abilities with different names?

    This would make me die inside a little. 

    Please don't let it be. 

    • 1281 posts
    November 18, 2017 9:45 AM PST

    Feyshtey said:

    vjek said:

     /shrug  Maybe they just won't care and will use Endurance as mana and give melee the same abilities with different names?

    This would make me die inside a little. 

    Please don't let it be. 

    I think that this is already a thing...  For instance, the Rogue Shadow Walk (I think that's the one), uses it.  This wouldn't be a whole lot different from an invisibility spell.

    • 74 posts
    November 18, 2017 10:05 AM PST

    It does sound like this discussion is going the route of trying to balance everything out so that things are 'fair' for each class. Please don't start down this road. Some classes will excel at withstanding large amounts of damage, some at doing AOE dps, some at CC, some at healing, some at sneaking, etc.. These all add flavor to the game and help define roles. 

     

    Only allowing some classes the ability to bind in EQ worked just fine in the original game. It encouraged dependency on others and people were happy to help each other out.

    • 1921 posts
    November 18, 2017 11:10 AM PST

    Prindan said: ... Only allowing some classes the ability to bind in EQ worked just fine in the original game. It encouraged dependency on others and people were happy to help each other out.

    I would say the existence of Origin would counter some of that nostalgia.
    Defining non-combat roles for all classes is... well, it would be new.  What possible reason could you give another player to approach a non-magic user, out of combat, for something they can offer?

    Rogue: Group stealth? Ranger: Tracking?  Ok, and beyond that?  What about Dire Lords, Paladins, Monks, and Warriors?  Should they be given buffs they can "cast" on others? (Yes, I'm aware, Paladins can in EQ1)

    • 2130 posts
    November 18, 2017 3:49 PM PST

    "Worked just fine" might be my least favorite phrase ever. Most people who played EQ probably just didn't care about things like class balance. That tends to happen when something is so new.

    People in 1999 tolerated quite a lot of clunky, poorly designed crap because they didn't think there was any other way that things could be.

    • 74 posts
    November 18, 2017 4:25 PM PST

    We have seen all the wonderful "improvements" to MMOs that have occurred since 1999. How are those working out? ;p

    • 2130 posts
    November 18, 2017 4:34 PM PST

    Good in some ways, bad in other ways. DAoC, Vanguard, EQOA, EQ2, etc. all came out after 1999 and have all featured what I would consider to be improvements over EQ. WoW is a much better game than EQ in a lot of ways, and a much worse game than EQ in other ways, at least in my opinion.

    It's almost like the world isn't completely black and white.


    This post was edited by Liav at November 18, 2017 4:34 PM PST
    • 1921 posts
    November 18, 2017 4:38 PM PST

    Prindan said:

    We have seen all the wonderful "improvements" to MMOs that have occurred since 1999. How are those working out? ;p

    Oh, by all means, Prindan, I will still play if they leave it as is, at 7/12.  Because under those conditions, I know exactly what classes I will only play, ever:  Those 7/12 with Bind & Gate.

    But if everyone had Origin, in Pantheon?  Then I would play every class.  Hm, I wonder which implementation would tend to keep enough paying customers subscribed until the first expansion?

    • 168 posts
    November 18, 2017 5:19 PM PST

    I think it would be interesting to see a bind system relative to the various classes..

    For instance:
    Clerics paladins and dire lords can bind in temples

    Druids, shamans and rangers can bind in forests

    wizards, enchanters, summoners and necromancers(?) can bind most anywhere

    warriors, rogues and monks can bind at inns

    ( or you can have dire lords and necromancers bind at graveyards )

    This would create a more attuned feeling and gathering place for like-class players to meet. As it would be difficult to form a decent group with only those classes in the area the player would still be forced to venture forth to find and meet other class-types.

    • 999 posts
    November 18, 2017 5:22 PM PST

    Liav said:

    Fairness is impossible to achieve when comparing apples and oranges, such as the ability to bind with literally any other mechanic that isn't binding.

    I agree that pursuing fairness to a faulty extent where casters are just a mirrored version of a melee with fireballs, that is not a desirable outcome. However, it is completely arbitrary to give specific classes extremely strong out-of-combat utility.

    I doubt we'll see Rogues casting port spells. At the same time, WIzards casting port spells is pretty overpowered unless other classes get something cool, too. Binding as a very strong utility ability that is arbitrarily limited to classes that cast spells doesn't sit right with me. You could easily have NPC binders required for all classes, or crafted items with a single charge of a bind spell.

    I've talked about this with many different people over the years.  How to have class interdependence and utility for the modern age versus EQ's version, because a warrior's skillset wasn't "fair" compared to a wizard's utility like you describe.  That's where I always talked about trying to balance the classes by providing meaningful utility versus homogenizing the actual skill/spell sets.  I had created a thread or added to one, can't remember now back in 2014 here before the purge of the postings.  But, I wouldn't want "all" classes to have the same utility, but, I think you can get creative to get closer to balancing it.  You also have to realize that some utility with classes are class definining spells as well - such as resurrection.  Is it utility, yes - but, I'd argue that some of it is the cost of class interdependence.

    Warrior:  /Slam walls for hidden passages and/or bust open chests/locked doors.  /Success chance based off strength modifier.  10% chance of ruining items in them and/or activating traps versus....

    Rogue: /Lockpick and /Disarm trap.  If successful, no trap activiation or lost loot.  Etc. etc.  They still may not be in line with all caster skills, but you can get creative even within a D&D RPG capacity and give classes meaningful utility.

    As far as binds go, I would agree with Krixus - I want the most /hardcore MMORPG possible, and I would want /bind to be restricted to the typical EQ-type classes, but I see no reason that a warrior shouldn't be able to be bound by casters at any location that caster could bind themselves.  Another Money-Maker for casters anyway - /Binding outside of Unrest - 1 pp per bind!


    This post was edited by Raidan at November 18, 2017 5:25 PM PST
    • 2130 posts
    November 18, 2017 5:41 PM PST

    Pretty much. I don't necessarily mind bind being restricted to classes with spells as it was in EQ, but I just don't want a repeat of EQ's horrible imbalance.

    If they can't achieve that then it might be prudent to do NPC-binds only. It just depends on what they're caapable or willing to do developmentally.

    • 1399 posts
    November 18, 2017 9:12 PM PST

    Prindan said:

    It does sound like this discussion is going the route of trying to balance everything out so that things are 'fair' for each class. Please don't start down this road. Some classes will excel at withstanding large amounts of damage, some at doing AOE dps, some at CC, some at healing, some at sneaking, etc.. These all add flavor to the game and help define roles. 

     

    Only allowing some classes the ability to bind in EQ worked just fine in the original game. It encouraged dependency on others and people were happy to help each other out.

    I agree, i dont see "fair" or even much balancing applying to a PVE game. And to make it "fair" as some suggest will only remove interdependencies. fair and Ballance belong in a PVP world. Im pretty shure when countries go to war the foot solders don't complain much that it not fair that their air support has bombs and they don't. I would expect instead they're cheering them on for clearing the path for them. IF the Deves want Pantheon to be a race to the finish between players then yes it needs to be "fair".

    This cant go without saying I do feel all classes should have differant, lore correct abilities, that they can share/sell to others. As an EQ Wizard and then later a WoW Warlock I all too often had that bit of left out feeling when it came to givng out buffs. I couldent count the times i would be asked for buffs and all i had was levetation (that most dident want anyway) but I felt even worse for the Warriors, they had nothing. The limited balance, or fairness i see is all classes should have something. And it's possable to give pure melee some buffs or other abilities they can share and still stay true to the class/lore (as opposed to adding a silly line in the lore some place thats says "all of terminus can do magic" TaDa, it's now lore correct....NOT) 

    Melee have strength, as was mentioned by someone else bashin doors, breaking open chest. How about bending bars or crushing Rocks. One i think really need to be looked at Adrenaline from battle speeches think of 

    William Wallis in Braveheart 

    King Elizabeth, Hoist the Colors

    300 This Is Sparta

    They can easly keep a PVE game as "fair and Balanced" as it needs to be without giving every player every ability. Casting bind is magic and should be a magic user only ability.

    Imo

    • 98 posts
    November 18, 2017 11:48 PM PST

    Kargen said:

    I think it would be interesting to see a bind system relative to the various classes..

    For instance:
    Clerics paladins and dire lords can bind in temples

    Druids, shamans and rangers can bind in forests

    wizards, enchanters, summoners and necromancers(?) can bind most anywhere

    warriors, rogues and monks can bind at inns

    ( or you can have dire lords and necromancers bind at graveyards )

    This would create a more attuned feeling and gathering place for like-class players to meet. As it would be difficult to form a decent group with only those classes in the area the player would still be forced to venture forth to find and meet other class-types.

    I like this idea! Although I think everyone should be able to bind at inns. It'd be funny if your necro buddy died and you had to retrieve him from the local graveyard XD

    • 793 posts
    November 19, 2017 3:19 AM PST

    vjek said:

    Prindan said:

    We have seen all the wonderful "improvements" to MMOs that have occurred since 1999. How are those working out? ;p

    Oh, by all means, Prindan, I will still play if they leave it as is, at 7/12.  Because under those conditions, I know exactly what classes I will only play, ever:  Those 7/12 with Bind & Gate.

    But if everyone had Origin, in Pantheon?  Then I would play every class.  Hm, I wonder which implementation would tend to keep enough paying customers subscribed until the first expansion?

     

     

    I don't play pure casters, not because I think they suck or anything, but purely because I like to be up in the face of the fight, not standing back casting.

    The best thing about individual classes that are unique and different from each other is that, people will gravitate toward one that fits their personality. I mean you don't really want a masochist as your cleric do you? ;) 

    • 1315 posts
    November 19, 2017 8:20 AM PST

    sorn said:

    Kargen said:

    I think it would be interesting to see a bind system relative to the various classes..

    For instance:
    Clerics paladins and dire lords can bind in temples

    Druids, shamans and rangers can bind in forests

    wizards, enchanters, summoners and necromancers(?) can bind most anywhere

    warriors, rogues and monks can bind at inns

    ( or you can have dire lords and necromancers bind at graveyards )

    This would create a more attuned feeling and gathering place for like-class players to meet. As it would be difficult to form a decent group with only those classes in the area the player would still be forced to venture forth to find and meet other class-types.

    I like this idea! Although I think everyone should be able to bind at inns. It'd be funny if your necro buddy died and you had to retrieve him from the local graveyard XD

    I do like both of these concepts.  Having bind points have a lore/class feel and not just a strategic advantage "feels" better to me.  All classes can "rent a room" at the inn, a priest can pray at a local alter, an arcane casters can attune themselves to a ley line, a necromantic character can tie themselves to a place of eternal rest, nature focused characters can bind themselves to significant objects in nature, melee combatants can train themselves at battle fields or arena's.

    There are lots of options.

    Trasak


    This post was edited by Trasak at November 19, 2017 8:21 AM PST
    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2017 9:03 AM PST

    I'm not 100% sure what I think yet about the whole "everyone having access to bind" concept yet.  I'm of two minds.  On the one hand, melee are not casters, so shouldn't have any "magical abilities" (with some exceptions like Paladins); on the other hand, it would REALLY suck to have to run across the world if the team wipes.  What follows is my initial thoughts.

    Only "religious" classes should be able to bind your soul to a specific place.  Those classes would be Cleric, Necro, Paladin, and the like; and they should have the ability to bind others.  However, "non-religious" classes should be able to purchase "blessed" items (crafted?) that could bind them to a spot.  Maybe as an augmentation to this there could be altars at some locations that if you offer a sacrifice or offering to them you could be bound to that spot.

    Yeah, I am aware that my initial thoughts seem sort of "hardcore".  I'm just trying to fit my initial thoughts in with gameplay and the lore of the world.


    This post was edited by Kalok at November 19, 2017 9:04 AM PST
    • 2419 posts
    November 19, 2017 9:34 AM PST

    Are we not really asking the question how quickly can I/my group get back to where we were after dying?

    Once again I have to use EQ1/2 and Vanguard as examples where those classes who have spells/abilities that affect travel had the least problems with bind points, no matter how far away.  If you had SoW, Levitate, Invis, Invis to Undead, etc you had a far easier time traveling naked than the WAR/PAL/SHD.  How quickly a group could return to their corpses was mostly determined by how quickly the main tank and main healer could get back to the zone.

    So which is better then?  Closer binds to dungeons but limited travel related abilities for non-casters or binds further away but innate travel related abilities for every class?

    All I know is this:  The more diffuclt it is to find a bind and/or the further away from dungeons anyone is allowed to bind, the more opportunities others will have to move in and take over whatever camp/area you were in when your group invariably wipes.  And I do not object to that at all. In the end, it will be those classes with the lowest ability to travel that will determine how

    We all know people will do all they can to claim an area or a camp, telling everyone it is theirs, etc even when the group wipes and is working on their corpse run. It will be interesting to see what rules of etiquette servers will come up with for this.

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2017 9:44 AM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Are we not really asking the question how quickly can I/my group get back to where we were after dying?

    Once again I have to use EQ1/2 and Vanguard as examples where those classes who have spells/abilities that affect travel had the least problems with bind points, no matter how far away.  If you had SoW, Levitate, Invis, Invis to Undead, etc you had a far easier time traveling naked than the WAR/PAL/SHD.  How quickly a group could return to their corpses was mostly determined by how quickly the main tank and main healer could get back to the zone.

    So which is better then?  Closer binds to dungeons but limited travel related abilities for non-casters or binds further away but innate travel related abilities for every class?

    All I know is this:  The more diffuclt it is to find a bind and/or the further away from dungeons anyone is allowed to bind, the more opportunities others will have to move in and take over whatever camp/area you were in when your group invariably wipes.  And I do not object to that at all. In the end, it will be those classes with the lowest ability to travel that will determine how

    We all know people will do all they can to claim an area or a camp, telling everyone it is theirs, etc even when the group wipes and is working on their corpse run. It will be interesting to see what rules of etiquette servers will come up with for this.

    At least on the server I was on, Bristlebane, the, obviously, player driven rule was that if the party wiped, they got their spot back unless they decided to not continue.  Any group that stole their spot was dealt with in the court of public opinion.  While there was the occassional dick group, it seemed to work over-all.

    Heaven forbid that the group was in a guild that had a "reputation to maintain".  For instance, two of the more respected guilds on Bristlebane were Club Fu and Arch Overseers.  Heaven forbid that a group of their people screew another group over, especially a low-level group.  That was grounds to get your butt de-guilded and shunned by the rest of the guild members.  While I wasn't a memeber of AO, I did alot of pickup raids with them.

     

    • 2419 posts
    November 19, 2017 12:56 PM PST

    Kalok said:

    At least on the server I was on, Bristlebane, the, obviously, player driven rule was that if the party wiped, they got their spot back unless they decided to not continue.  Any group that stole their spot was dealt with in the court of public opinion.  While there was the occassional dick group, it seemed to work over-all.

    Heaven forbid that the group was in a guild that had a "reputation to maintain".  For instance, two of the more respected guilds on Bristlebane were Club Fu and Arch Overseers.  Heaven forbid that a group of their people screew another group over, especially a low-level group.  That was grounds to get your butt de-guilded and shunned by the rest of the guild members.  While I wasn't a memeber of AO, I did alot of pickup raids with them.

    I'm So glad I was never on Bristlebane because that type of approach would have driven me to quit.  Was there at least a time limit on how long they could take to get back?  On Lanys, if your group wiped completely, you forfeited your camp because clearly you couldn't handle it.  I'll be taking the exact same approach in Pantheon. You wipe?  You lose.

     

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2017 12:59 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Kalok said:

    At least on the server I was on, Bristlebane, the, obviously, player driven rule was that if the party wiped, they got their spot back unless they decided to not continue.  Any group that stole their spot was dealt with in the court of public opinion.  While there was the occassional dick group, it seemed to work over-all.

    Heaven forbid that the group was in a guild that had a "reputation to maintain".  For instance, two of the more respected guilds on Bristlebane were Club Fu and Arch Overseers.  Heaven forbid that a group of their people screew another group over, especially a low-level group.  That was grounds to get your butt de-guilded and shunned by the rest of the guild members.  While I wasn't a memeber of AO, I did alot of pickup raids with them.

    I'm So glad I was never on Bristlebane because that type of approach would have driven me to quit.  Was there at least a time limit on how long they could take to get back?  On Lanys, if your group wiped completely, you forfeited your camp because clearly you couldn't handle it.  I'll be taking the exact same approach in Pantheon. You wipe?  You lose.

     

    Usually the waiting group would send a tel lto one or more of the group members to find out what was going on.  Waiting was handled on a case-by-case basis.

    You just up and steal my camp and you've made my shitlist.....  Period.  You're a rude camp stealer if you just up and take it, and will be handled accordingly going forward.

    • 1399 posts
    November 19, 2017 2:08 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Kalok said:

    At least on the server I was on, Bristlebane, the, obviously, player driven rule was that if the party wiped, they got their spot back unless they decided to not continue.  Any group that stole their spot was dealt with in the court of public opinion.  While there was the occassional dick group, it seemed to work over-all.

    Heaven forbid that the group was in a guild that had a "reputation to maintain".  For instance, two of the more respected guilds on Bristlebane were Club Fu and Arch Overseers.  Heaven forbid that a group of their people screew another group over, especially a low-level group.  That was grounds to get your butt de-guilded and shunned by the rest of the guild members.  While I wasn't a memeber of AO, I did alot of pickup raids with them.

    I'm So glad I was never on Bristlebane because that type of approach would have driven me to quit.  Was there at least a time limit on how long they could take to get back?  On Lanys, if your group wiped completely, you forfeited your camp because clearly you couldn't handle it.  I'll be taking the exact same approach in Pantheon. You wipe?  You lose.

     

    Yea thats the way I remember it on Innoruuk... Wipe and you lose it, unless of course you got back before another group got there. As a courtisy we would always offer to help with the corpse run, drag to the entrance or whatever.  

    • 1303 posts
    November 19, 2017 2:08 PM PST

    Did Brad or someone say they were considering spawn points at or near zones that were independent of bind locaions? I thought I remembered hearing that but maybe I was making that up. 

     

    • 1778 posts
    November 19, 2017 2:13 PM PST

    This gets into the different game cultures thing I brought up in another thread (but apparently community rules werent even the same on different servers within the same game). In FFXI there wasnt such a thing as camp stealing. It was open competition. If you have been camping for 3 days or 3 mins, its first come first serve.

    That being said if a group did wipe, it was considered rude and having no honor if you complained about another group taking over the battle that you couldnt handle. You had your chance and if you blew it, you just stepped aside. Especially on a 8 to 16 hour rare spawn. To complain publically about it was a quick way to get a very bad reputation in XI. Now that doesnt mean that the group that finishes what you started wouldnt hand out Rez to the party that wiped. There is competition, and then there is just being an asshole.

    • 1399 posts
    November 19, 2017 4:08 PM PST

    Feyshtey said:

    Did Brad or someone say they were considering spawn points at or near zones that were independent of bind locaions? I thought I remembered hearing that but maybe I was making that up. 

     

    I understood at this point thats the way it works but the final solution is still up in the air.

    What they have was just placeholder.