oneADseven said:Wouldn't this same problem still exist using an achievement system like you recommended? If I get +10 STR for killing 1,000 orcs and +10 INT for killing 1,000 skeletons, if I'm the tank leading the group, we're going to an orc camp. I can still pick and choose which bonuses I want to achieve and it could create conflict when deciding where to go. I don't see how someone could just "pick" the easy AA points with the system I recommended because acquiring each skill point would have it's own unique sense of progression. You can't keep doing the same content over and over if you want to build your AA's. You have no choice but to diversify your adventuring pattern if you want to finish out your AA tree.
As far as the level range lock, something like this would be necessary. Otherwise everybody will just blast to level 50, skipping every quest they can, only to go back and redo those quests when they are easy and trivial. Or something I would do which is even worse ... complete every quest up until the very end where you turn them in. As soon as the AA system unlocks, run around the entire world and turn in your 100 quests. Locking them to a level range ensures that doesen't happen. Ideally, everyone would still be able to fully complete the tree even without having to use Progeny, but it will become increasingly harder because there is only so much level 50 content. At some point, it might be easier to just roll your Progeny and redo all of the lower level zones to earn the AA XP for the first kill on each unique named, and for completing any quests you may have missed on the first run. It's not "forcing" people to do anything. I just prefer a system where people complete the content while it's level appropriate in order to advance through the AA trees. Otherwise, they will just work on quests while they are max level, only to "mentor down" before turn in. That's basically exploiting the system and shouldn't be allowed.
You would be able to selectively go for the stats you want yes. What I meant was more, build up 3 AA points from experience and gain 3 tiers of STR rather than having to go out and farm 5000 orcs. People would be able to stack the later tiers by doing the easier tasks.
I can see where you are coming from and I would want to do things while current as much as possible but I wouldn't want to feel like I have to do progeny in order to do so. Also following my system, let's saying the Complete 50 quests gave like 1% run speed and there are 3 tiers at 50/150/300. Would it really matter that people could go back and do easy quests for a minor upgrade? Ok well not minor as all speed helps but it won't make or break anything. There are ways to get around most systems which is the reason I stated for things to tie in directly. That way they can always adjust it as needed. If the speed boost is too great a reward for little effort, then reduce it. Hell could even change it to complete specific epic questlines or gain a certain level of faction with a race (preferably not a main player race since that race already would have an advantage while others may need far more work).
Why are you guys trying to re-invent the wheel on AA systems? Getting exp from killing at level mobs of any type + spending points in categories is a pretty foolproof way that requires no tacked-on achievement system. Add to that exponential decay (ex: total of +100 hp in hp category in 10 sets of +10 unlocks, first 7 unlocks require 1/1/1/1/1/2/3 points each, last 3 require 4/5/6 or whatever) in the categories and you're good to go. Literally nothing else is required, its simple and infinitely adaptible by just adding exp to the rewards for whatever content where that would make sense.
Anyway, +1 for hard-locking monsters to the group/raid that tags them first. Worked just fine in old games to limit zerging of open world content and doesn't preclude groups from forming outside groups to handle adds, etc.
Jimmayus said:Why are you guys trying to re-invent the wheel on AA systems? Getting exp from killing at level mobs of any type + spending points in categories is a pretty foolproof way that requires no tacked-on achievement system. Add to that exponential decay (ex: total of +100 hp in hp category in 10 sets of +10 unlocks, first 7 unlocks require 1/1/1/1/1/2/3 points each, last 3 require 4/5/6 or whatever) in the categories and you're good to go. Literally nothing else is required, its simple and infinitely adaptible by just adding exp to the rewards for whatever content where that would make sense.
Anyway, +1 for hard-locking monsters to the group/raid that tags them first. Worked just fine in old games to limit zerging of open world content and doesn't preclude groups from forming outside groups to handle adds, etc.
I was never in favor of tying an achievement system into the AA system. My suggestion was to have AA's gained through methods other than just grinding XP. The idea is to encourage players to experience as much content as possible which can help with keeping content relevant. If you make AA's a grind fest, a group might camp the same static area for a month straight. That can get boring ... but if it's the most "efficient" way of progressing, people will do it. I honestly don't care either way ... I can grind XP as hardcore as anybody. I know most people don't prefer that type of monotonous grinding though so it seems like a compromise to help facilitate a broader sense of progression through adventure and exploration.
Jimmayus said:Why are you guys trying to re-invent the wheel on AA systems? Getting exp from killing at level mobs of any type + spending points in categories is a pretty foolproof way that requires no tacked-on achievement system. Add to that exponential decay (ex: total of +100 hp in hp category in 10 sets of +10 unlocks, first 7 unlocks require 1/1/1/1/1/2/3 points each, last 3 require 4/5/6 or whatever) in the categories and you're good to go. Literally nothing else is required, its simple and infinitely adaptible by just adding exp to the rewards for whatever content where that would make sense.
What exactly made the previous system "good" in any way? You found the best method of gaining xp and grinded that for ever. At least by making the AA system revolve around doing things in game it gets you to experience other parts of the game. Maybe force you into area's you don't normally go to for whatever reason. Or give a reason to camp an obscure mob that doesn't really benefit you but may benefit someone else in the group.
Plus the fact that I don't believe there should be near that many tiers to anything. Should be around 3 tiers tops 5. If you start off with a big number it exponentially gets worse which means come the 3rd expansion you're looking at thousands of AA points to grind
http://eqoa-forever.wikia.com/wiki/Master_Class
Here is a page I just found that has some information on the EQOA AA system. AA's in that game were called CM's (Class Mastery) and the system was extremely deep. Every character would have at least 4 "Master Classes" that they could transform into after acquiring enough CM's from a given tree. 2 were based on class, 1 based on race, and 1 based on archetype. Let's say you are a dark elf shadow knight and you wanted to become tankier ... you could take the archetype class mastery "Soldier" ... if you wanted to do more burst DPS you could take the dark elf racial mastery "Chosen" ... or if you wanted something unique you could take advantage of the blend of aggro/stats/undead buff pet from Death Knight, or Lifetaps/Debuff Drain from Slayer.
Anyway, this "Master Class" system basically turned 15 possible classes into 46. That probably seems a bit overkill, but it's important to note that each "master class" was just a specialized version of the prior class or archetype that had some increased base stats or resists, and 2 new unique abilities. The racial master classes were a bit different because if someone really really wanted to, they could be a halfling cleric deputy. The deputy was the racial mastery for halflings and it had a very powerful taunt as well as a group buff that turned everybody into halflings and gave +70 DEX, +70 AGI, and SoW. Another example would be an ogre necromancer juggernaut. The ogre racial tree was basically a crap ton of HP and other defensive mods, and even had -25 INT, -25 WIS. In other words ... it made zero sense whatsoever for an ogre necro to go down the juggernaut path, but it was possible.
One thing I really liked about this is that it actually changed the name of your class when you obtained the Class Mastery designation. I have never felt a greater sense of progression on a character than I did when my halfling warrior became a deputy. It was a really rare class because most halflings were playing rogues or bards ... rogues would usually choose assassin/burglar, and the bards would choose between minstrel/gypsy ... or some of them might even take the archetype mastery for melee's and become a Bravo. The only way to fully utilize the Deputy class was to have a halfling tank of some sort because one of the deputy's unique abilities was a powerful taunt.
Looking back, I can see how there was plenty of room for improvement with that system. While I thought it was awesome to become a Deputy on my halfling warrior, most halfling rogues/bards probably felt a little shaded since one of their racial master class abilities was a taunt. Either way, I thought the system was pretty clever and really enjoyed the diversity that it brought to the game. It didn't really hurt the trinity system because each archetype still maintained their identity ... this just provided more unique identities to the game.
I really hope an AA system is implemented into Pantheon at some point, but with there still being so much to learn in regards to Progeny and Colored Mana, I might be able to wait it out quite a bit longer. Anyway, I just wanted to share this system because it was unique to EQOA and I've never seen anything like it in any other game I've played.
oneADseven said:http://eqoa-forever.wikia.com/wiki/Master_Class
Here is a page I just found that has some information on the EQOA AA system. AA's in that game were called CM's (Class Mastery) and the system was extremely deep. Every character would have at least 4 "Master Classes" that they could transform into after acquiring enough CM's from a given tree. 2 were based on class, 1 based on race, and 1 based on archetype. Let's say you are a dark elf shadow knight and you wanted to become tankier ... you could take the archetype class mastery "Soldier" ... if you wanted to do more burst DPS you could take the dark elf racial mastery "Chosen" ... or if you wanted something unique you could take advantage of the blend of aggro/stats/undead buff pet from Death Knight, or Lifetaps/Debuff Drain from Slayer.
Anyway, this "Master Class" system basically turned 15 possible classes into 46. That probably seems a bit overkill, but it's important to note that each "master class" was just a specialized version of the prior class or archetype that had some increased base stats or resists, and 2 new unique abilities. The racial master classes were a bit different because if someone really really wanted to, they could be a halfling cleric deputy. The deputy was the racial mastery for halflings and it had a very powerful taunt as well as a group buff that turned everybody into halflings and gave +70 DEX, +70 AGI, and SoW. Another example would be an ogre necromancer juggernaut. The ogre racial tree was basically a crap ton of HP and other defensive mods, and even had -25 INT, -25 WIS. In other words ... it made zero sense whatsoever for an ogre necro to go down the juggernaut path, but it was possible.
The sentiment behind the system is a good one but it is mostly irrelevant imo. Just like as in every other game to date with a talent spec system, there will be cookie cutter builds that everyone will follow. So all the "choices" you had at the beginning all fall away in these types of systems. If they could manage to balance them closely enough to make them all viable then that would be great but I've never seen it accomplished yet.
Enitzu said:The sentiment behind the system is a good one but it is mostly irrelevant imo. Just like as in every other game to date with a talent spec system, there will be cookie cutter builds that everyone will follow. So all the "choices" you had at the beginning all fall away in these types of systems. If they could manage to balance them closely enough to make them all viable then that would be great but I've never seen it accomplished yet.
This is why I am against all forms of AAs and Specializations. You will be required to get certain skills no matter what. Alternate advancement needs to be handled differently. I still like the idea of doing AA through the progeny system. Kill off your main to reroll his/her child and begin leveling again. Follow a different path this time and get a general bonus to stats. Keep the bonuses generalized so they are worth the effort regardless of class, race, or play style. As most of the content is group centered there will always be plenty to do. I would love to see a shift from purely vertical progression (getting max lvl, getting better and better gear as expansions are released, lvl cap increase and repeat everything you just finished doing). Expansions could then focus on bringing in more lore, content throughout all level ranges, as well as some more max level stuff. This may build more incentive to reroll using the progeny system when an expansion is released so that you can see ALL of the content as it was meant to be seen while not starting completely over with an alt.
I don't really see how taking the stat bonuses out of a pure AA system and wrapping them into Progeny avoids the issue of there not being a meta path to choose depending on what you want to do. Not only that but I still firmly believe that the Progeny system should be scrapped for innumerable reasons.
Liav said:I don't really see how taking the stat bonuses out of a pure AA system and wrapping them into Progeny avoids the issue of there not being a meta path to choose depending on what you want to do. Not only that but I still firmly believe that the Progeny system should be scrapped for innumerable reasons.
That’s just it. I am against a meta path type system. I am against any kind of system that gives you specific choices to make that will increase specific things like archery crit chance or melee damage boosts. I want to see bonuses like getting +5 to all base stats when you use the progeny system. Bonuses that make the character stronger, but doesn't lean one way or the other.
I just hate the meta game because it ALWAYS results in one specific path being optimal which makes everything else irrelevant. Regardless of how you WANT to play your character.
I remember posting this in another thread but I feel it warrants repeating:
A meta is inevitable. If it doesn't emerge in one way, it will emerge in another. No AAs? Gear meta. No gear? Strategy meta. No strategy? No game. In all likelihood, Pantheon will have both a gear and strategy meta. There's plenty of precedent for that and the proposed game systems do nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.
If getting a blanket of generic stat bonuses is your suggestion, then you're suggesting a meta where every player grinds progeny until it is determined to no longer be worthit. If the stat bonuses are too small, then they're beneath doing anyway. It's practically impossible to find a balance here.
Enitzu said:oneADseven said:http://eqoa-forever.wikia.com/wiki/Master_Class
Here is a page I just found that has some information on the EQOA AA system. AA's in that game were called CM's (Class Mastery) and the system was extremely deep. Every character would have at least 4 "Master Classes" that they could transform into after acquiring enough CM's from a given tree. 2 were based on class, 1 based on race, and 1 based on archetype. Let's say you are a dark elf shadow knight and you wanted to become tankier ... you could take the archetype class mastery "Soldier" ... if you wanted to do more burst DPS you could take the dark elf racial mastery "Chosen" ... or if you wanted something unique you could take advantage of the blend of aggro/stats/undead buff pet from Death Knight, or Lifetaps/Debuff Drain from Slayer.
Anyway, this "Master Class" system basically turned 15 possible classes into 46. That probably seems a bit overkill, but it's important to note that each "master class" was just a specialized version of the prior class or archetype that had some increased base stats or resists, and 2 new unique abilities. The racial master classes were a bit different because if someone really really wanted to, they could be a halfling cleric deputy. The deputy was the racial mastery for halflings and it had a very powerful taunt as well as a group buff that turned everybody into halflings and gave +70 DEX, +70 AGI, and SoW. Another example would be an ogre necromancer juggernaut. The ogre racial tree was basically a crap ton of HP and other defensive mods, and even had -25 INT, -25 WIS. In other words ... it made zero sense whatsoever for an ogre necro to go down the juggernaut path, but it was possible.
The sentiment behind the system is a good one but it is mostly irrelevant imo. Just like as in every other game to date with a talent spec system, there will be cookie cutter builds that everyone will follow. So all the "choices" you had at the beginning all fall away in these types of systems. If they could manage to balance them closely enough to make them all viable then that would be great but I've never seen it accomplished yet.
With the idea that there will be "situational gear" why couldn't something like "situational AA's" be implemented? Instead of allowing players to simply "reassign" their AA points, they would have to unlock and learn each individual AA tree.
For example. 500 AA points maximum per character, consisting of 5 seperate 100 point trees.
Tree#1: Universal Mastery obtainable by all characters. Provides small boost to all base stats, increased health, increased mana/stamina/resource, increased resists, small movement speed enhancer, unlocks Trees #2-5
Tree #2: Archetype Mastery. Every class belonging to this specific archetype can learn this tree. Provide generic buffs/boons/abilities that are relevant to the archtype, whether it's an extra taunt for tanks, heal for healers, attack for DPS, or group buff for Utility.
Tree #3: Class Mastery #1. Specialized version #1 of 2 for every class. (Thief for Rogue, Bloodletter for Direlord, Earthcaller for Druid, Ninja for Monk, Shieldsworn for Warrior, Elder for Shaman, etc)
Tree #4: Class Mastery #2. Specialized version #2 of 2 for every class. (Brigand for Rogue, Lich for Direlord, Windspeaker for Druid, Sensei for Monk, Berserker for Warrior, Mystic for Shaman, etc)
Tree #5: Racial Mastery. Any character belonging to a certain race can learn this tree. Tie the racial mastery/benefit into their lore/celestial. Doesen't have to provide equal benefit to all classes. Maybe a gnome wizard or ogre warrior will be more likely to use this tree compared to a gnome warrior or ogre wizard.
When AA opens up, you have to start with Tree 1. Once Tree 1 is learned, it becomes a permanently learned tree for your character and then opens up Trees #2-5. At this point you can choose to specialize in any tree that you wish. Each tree must be learned individually, but once learned, will allow players to interchange between their various masteries. Tree 1 will serve as a permanent upgrade to your character, whereas trees #2-4 can never be used in tandem with each other. You cannot learn Tree #2 and then decide you want to reassign those points into Tree #3, as each tree will need to be learned separately in order to use the master form exclusive to that given tree. Once both trees #2 and #3 are learned separately, you can then interchange between them.
A system like this opens up a much longer window for progression for even the most hardcore of players. Obtaining all 4 Master Classes won't make a character over-powered because they can only use 1 Master Class at any given time. Learning all of them will, however, make them more flexible. It fits well with the "dynamic outward" progression model that I have seen referenced various times. This stays true to the quaternity concept because all classes and archetypes maintain their identity, and in most cases, it provides even more unique qualities to each class. The racial mastery is the slight exception because of the interesting combinations that can be created, but I still feel that this can be controlled enough to where it won't allow anybody to "multi-class." Let's say the Ogre Racial Mastery includes a bunch of extra defensive stats. That won't make an ogre wizard a tank ... it will just give an ogre wizard more survivability if that's the spec that they would like to use. It won't be as common as the other 3 mastery forms but it would add nice flavor to the system and allow people to have a certain degree of freedom when it pertains to how they want to play. My understanding is that there will be restrictions on certain class/race combinations anyway, and that may end up preemptively solving this small balancing issue before it has the chance to actually become an issue in the first place.
Anyway, this is just an idea on how a system like that can be implemented without the notion of there being a "best cookie cutter build." Sure, the majority of players of a given class or race may decide to spec into a certain tree first compared to some of the others, but the idea is that over time people can spec into all of them. Because of how diverse this game is going to be with situational gear, acclimation buffs, etc, I feel that an AA system like this could compliment that theme pretty nicely. There is no "universally best cookie cutter build" ... rather, each class mastery would have it's moment to shine. Choosing which one to work on first would be the hard part. And maybe for most players, 1 master class is all they ever obtain because of the work required to get to that point. Maybe those players will utilize the "cookie cutter" mastery that seems to accomodate as the "best" for the "majority" of content. But for the people willing to go the extra mile, they'll have an extra trick (or 3) up their sleeve that can allow them to play a more meaningful and diverse (yet still specialized) role in the group.
The idea behind it is really no different than that of talent trees in vanilla wow. Anyway you try to spin it there would be a cookie cutter build. Take rogue for instance using your example. If the thief tree meant more of a focus on stealth and movement where brigand focused more on damage, where do you think that cookie cutter build is going to fall? It's going to fall in whichever one promotes your role in group gameplay. Which for the rogue would be the brigand. It would end up being the best possible dps without the loss of too much of your utility. That is the job of the rogue, to put out damage.
Now making the points refundable just means that whenever I would decide to go scouting for mobs, I could simply swap them over to the stealthy build. There really would be no way to stop this from happening. It's the problem that has plagued every game that has tried it. There's really no way to diversify between them while having them completely equal. One set will always be worth more than the others. In most games, some different builds could be used for soloing and such but in a group based game that wouldn't be the case. You will almost always be in a full DPS build.
It's a balance nightmare, honestly. Best argument against it. In an ideal world we could have a system where we could be flexible and our effectiveness would be relatively consistent on a situational basis. However, that's not the reality.
The reality is you're exponentially increasing the design complexity of every class which leads to thousands of hours of developer time culminating in what will likely be a very imperfect system. A simple game like EQ can't even balance their classes.
Liav said:It's a balance nightmare, honestly. Best argument against it. In an ideal world we could have a system where we could be flexible and our effectiveness would be relatively consistent on a situational basis. However, that's not the reality.
The reality is you're exponentially increasing the design complexity of every class which leads to thousands of hours of developer time culminating in what will likely be a very imperfect system. A simple game like EQ can't even balance their classes.
I don't understand why there is this incessant need for everything to feel perfectly balanced. What type of balance are you even referring to? Survivability as tanks? Healing output as healers? DPS output for DPS? Who cares if one spec can dish out more damage than their counterpart? The solution is to create a variety of content where "Ohmagerdmaxburndps!" isn't the only idea on people's minds. I'd like to see a blend of content where on one given fight, the Direlord has to go pure aggro mode to handle the seemingly infinite amount of adds that spawn. On another fight in the same zone maybe he has to go pure damage absorption mode because the fight consists of 2 bosses that have to be tanked separately. On another fight, that same direlord may have to spec into Bloodletter because that gives him the strongest solo survivability from lifetaps/drains and he becomes the ideal character to handle a single remote add that has to be fought far enough away from the raid that he won't be able to get any heals or assistance from other players.
The idea behind creating all of this "variety" is completely contradictive of the need for "perfect balance." I specifically said how there would be "situational" AA's. Is that the problem with balance that you speak of? Coming up with enough content ideas so that each spec has a perfect balance of viability/utility? I'd argue against that too. Maybe there is a certain spec that is only used 10% of the time, but for THAT 10% of the time, it's the best spec. Most people won't have that spec because of how rarely it can be fully utilized ... but for those who do ... do you see where I am getting at here? It's a form of progression. Just like with gear. Should all gear be "balanced?" No ... they said there will be situational gear that is better for some situations compared to others. The entire concept that I outlined is using THAT mentality.
All of this talk about perfect balance makes me sick ... it really makes me think of WoW. Classes needed to be "balanced" so that paladins, monks and druids can tank, heal, and DPS. Priests can heal or go DPS. Shamans can heal or go DPS. Warriors can tank or go DPS, so on, and so forth. This gets to the point where the game is overly balanced in my opinion.
I think all classes should have their own identity and useful utility that they can bring to a group. Opening up Master Classes only deepens the capacity for each class to feel more unique. Again, the entire idea behind this is that the AA tree would be opening up "situational" specs that will at times be better than others. That's the purpose.
Quoting Enitzu here:
"Take rogue for instance using your example. If the thief tree meant more of a focus on stealth and movement where brigand focused more on damage, where do you think that cookie cutter build is going to fall? It's going to fall in whichever one promotes your role in group gameplay. Which for the rogue would be the brigand. It would end up being the best possible dps without the loss of too much of your utility. That is the job of the rogue, to put out damage. Now making the points refundable just means that whenever I would decide to go scouting for mobs, I could simply swap them over to the stealthy build. There really would be no way to stop this from happening."
That's exactly my point. Different specs are viable for different situations. What's wrong with that? If I played a rogue, I would probably decide to master the "brigand" spec first because it would be the ideal spec for my consistent grouping endeavors. But beyond that, I'd also like to level thief. Maybe there will be content where thief is more ideal? I disagree that "best dps" is always the best spec. If that were the case tanks and healers would just roll their best DPS specs right? Come on ... think a little more outside the box here. You can't imagine how having a stealthy rogue would be more ideal than just a dps? That type of mentality is what limits the potential for each character to be unique. Why couldn't there be content where sneaking around in stealth is more ideal than just blowing things up? What if the thief mastery increased the % of a rare crafting material to drop, or increased how much gold they dropped? What if there were random treasure boxes in dungeons that could only be opened up by a thief? Is Brigand still the best spec?
My idea says to hell with balance. Let's use AA's as a form of progression. Different master classes will be better for different situations, and how many of those situations YOU as a player can provide the ideal solution for your group depends on how far up the progression ladder you are.
oneADseven said:Different master classes will be better for different situations, and how many of those situations YOU as a player can provide the ideal solution for your group depends on how far up the progression ladder you are.
This is the entire sentiment. It completely depends on why you are playing and what your focus is. If all you want to do is casually progress through the game then sure it doesn't matter which route you take. But those looking to maximize the benefits would follow the same route. Question is, how many would take the less optimized one?
I don't really have much to say other than "to hell with balance" just makes no sense. The word "balance" has essentially become a curse word, however, it has merit. You can't have several specializations without handcrafting each of them to fill a niche. You also can't give too much diversity to one class without destroying the concept of the trinity/quaternity.
"To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place.
Enitzu said:oneADseven said:Different master classes will be better for different situations, and how many of those situations YOU as a player can provide the ideal solution for your group depends on how far up the progression ladder you are.This is the entire sentiment. It completely depends on why you are playing and what your focus is. If all you want to do is casually progress through the game then sure it doesn't matter which route you take. But those looking to maximize the benefits would follow the same route. Question is, how many would take the less optimized one?
I don't understand how a certain route being more optimal takes away from my initial point that AA's could be used as a form of progression? So what if there is an optimal path? Only the MASTER rogue will have attained all 4 paths, thus being desirable in a broader set of equations. To answer your question specifically, only time would tell. If the thief spec provided all of the incentives that I mentioned in my last post, are you so sure that everybody would still master brigand before thief?
Everyone who pushed to progress would. More dps means faster kills, means faster leveling, means faster boss deaths. In a world where DPS racing is a thing pushing more DPS could mean the difference between your loot and a waste of 20 minutes. Does you no good to have increased drop chances or gold if you don't even get the kill.
I'm not a big fan of achievements. They are like a list of tasks to complete. That is heading down the road of a theme park IMO.
I'd prefer to have long and complex quests that required you to travel around the world many times over looking for specific mobs, NPCs, and items. It would be nice if the mobs and NPCs could change location with a bit of dynamic coding.
I also like the idea of raid or group bosses occasionally leaving their home on rare occasion and reeking havoc on just about any zone. People of all levels could join together and try to defeat them. It would be nice if these events could be somewhat random. This would allow for a measure of surprise. Use a random number generator to pick a zone and mob. Obviously this wouldn't occur constantly. Maybe it would happen once a day, every few days, once a week, or once a month. That could also be random to keep people on their toes.
Liav said:I don't really have much to say other than "to hell with balance" just makes no sense. The word "balance" has essentially become a curse word, however, it has merit. You can't have several specializations without handcrafting each of them to fill a niche. You also can't give too much diversity to one class without destroying the concept of the trinity/quaternity.
"To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place.
The types of diversity I mentioned would all still be tied into each classes specific archtype within the quaternity system. Again, my idea is to REINFORCE the idea that each specialization is handcrafted to fill a given niche, and the more masteries you learn, the more niches you can fill for your given class. I don't understand how that doesen't make sense. And as far as this statement goes:
""To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place."
How is that true at all? The entire idea behind implementing these class specializations is to create incentives that are unique to each class, not each archetype. Tying Progression into these AA trees is just a way of helping each class feel more dynamic as players continue to advance their characters. Instead of just filling out an archetype role in the quaternity, each class would have it's own unique flavor within their given archetype.
Enitzu said:Everyone who pushed to progress would. More dps means faster kills, means faster leveling, means faster boss deaths. In a world where DPS racing is a thing pushing more DPS could mean the difference between your loot and a waste of 20 minutes. Does you no good to have increased drop chances or gold if you don't even get the kill.
I disagree that faster is always better. What if you're completing content that can safely be done with a thief instead of a brigand? Just because it dies faster on the brigand doesen't mean that having a brigand is more optimal. I would imagine thief would be more ideal in these situations because the group would still be able to kill the boss whether the rogue is specialized as a thief or a brigand, but with the thief giving a chance for extra crafted rares, groups would opt for the slower kill that provides the overall biggest yield in loot. Using this same logic, the thief might not be as viable on a raid encounter or difficult group encounter because the lack of DPS from thief prevents the group from killing the boss in the first place. Again ... there is nothing wrong with different specs being more ideal on specific encounters. This type of dynamic outward progression makes a rogue that is mastered in both brigand and thief more desirable overall.
oneADseven said:The types of diversity I mentioned would all still be tied into each classes specific archtype within the quaternity system. Again, my idea is to REINFORCE the idea that each specialization is handcrafted to fill a given niche, and the more masteries you learn, the more niches you can fill for your given class. I don't understand how that doesen't make sense. And as far as this statement goes:
""To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place."
How is that true at all? The entire idea behind implementing these class specializations is to create incentives that are unique to each class, not each archetype. Tying Progression into these AA trees is just a way of helping each class feel more dynamic as players continue to advance their characters. Instead of just filling out an archetype role in the quaternity, each class would have it's own unique flavor within their given archetype.
Look at it this way.
A Rogue's primary role is DPS. They don't heal, they don't tank. Maybe they get some CC utility.
How do you propose you make a class that already fills a niche like that fill an even more obscure niche? If you have an AOE oriented spec, and a single target spec, you've covered two. What else is there? There's only so far you can take a relatively pure DPS class before you start violating the quaternity.
I don't care if my Rogue has DOTs or a DD. I care if they can pump a lot of damage into a mob in the shortest amount of time possible.
Edit: I can see that you're talking about things like tying crafting into combat specializations. I'm thoroughly disinterested in this now.
oneADseven said:Liav said:I don't really have much to say other than "to hell with balance" just makes no sense. The word "balance" has essentially become a curse word, however, it has merit. You can't have several specializations without handcrafting each of them to fill a niche. You also can't give too much diversity to one class without destroying the concept of the trinity/quaternity.
"To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place.
The types of diversity I mentioned would all still be tied into each classes specific archtype within the quaternity system. Again, my idea is to REINFORCE the idea that each specialization is handcrafted to fill a given niche, and the more masteries you learn, the more niches you can fill for your given class. I don't understand how that doesen't make sense. And as far as this statement goes:
""To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place."
How is that true at all? The entire idea behind implementing these class specializations is to create incentives that are unique to each class, not each archetype. Tying Progression into these AA trees is just a way of helping each class feel more dynamic as players continue to advance their characters. Instead of just filling out an archetype role in the quaternity, each class would have it's own unique flavor within their given archetype.
I don't really mind having AAs, but if they forced you to play a specific way I would not like it. I'd rather you could have all the AAs and utilize all the skills in your arsenal however you wanted. For instance I wouldn't have to specialize in healing, damage, cc, or buffing as a Druid. I could do all four using each in different situations during combat. I'd rather not be stuck with only one of those roles because I chose to have AAs in healing. There are a lot of different classes to choose from. Hopefully each will have a large variety of abilities that make them intersting to use in different ways.
Liav said:oneADseven said:The types of diversity I mentioned would all still be tied into each classes specific archtype within the quaternity system. Again, my idea is to REINFORCE the idea that each specialization is handcrafted to fill a given niche, and the more masteries you learn, the more niches you can fill for your given class. I don't understand how that doesen't make sense. And as far as this statement goes:
""To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place."
How is that true at all? The entire idea behind implementing these class specializations is to create incentives that are unique to each class, not each archetype. Tying Progression into these AA trees is just a way of helping each class feel more dynamic as players continue to advance their characters. Instead of just filling out an archetype role in the quaternity, each class would have it's own unique flavor within their given archetype.
Look at it this way.
A Rogue's primary role is DPS. They don't heal, they don't tank. Maybe they get some CC utility.
How do you propose you make a class that already fills a niche like that fill an even more obscure niche? If you have an AOE oriented spec, and a single target spec, you've covered two. What else is there? There's only so far you can take a relatively pure DPS class before you start violating the quaternity.
I don't care if my Rogue has DOTs or a DD. I care if they can pump a lot of damage into a mob in the shortest amount of time possible.
I wasn't suggesting that one spec would be DOT based damaged and the other be DD damage, nor did I mention anything about single target or AE damage. I proposed a thief spec that would do lower damage than the brigand, but provide other meaningful incentives to the group, such as increased gold drops, or a % based chance of dropping a rare crafting material. It has nothing to do with their DPS. The idea that rogues are "a relatively pure DPS class" is what I am trying to stray away from. And to counter the logic I'd also like to point out there there are other ways you could spec the rogue even if you wanted to make multiple DPS specs. Why couldn't one spec focus on piercing/backstab attacks while the other utilizes poisons/toxins/debuffs? If there is a boss that has extremely high physical resistances, wouldn't the added versatility of the poison/debuff spec add some value to rogues? Or what if the mob just hits so damn hard that killing it isn't the problem, but surviving it is? Having a rogue that can specialize in lowering it's attack speed or other offensive mods could be useful.
Liav said:oneADseven said:The types of diversity I mentioned would all still be tied into each classes specific archtype within the quaternity system. Again, my idea is to REINFORCE the idea that each specialization is handcrafted to fill a given niche, and the more masteries you learn, the more niches you can fill for your given class. I don't understand how that doesen't make sense. And as far as this statement goes:
""To hell with balance" is basically antithetical to the creation of specializations in the first place."
How is that true at all? The entire idea behind implementing these class specializations is to create incentives that are unique to each class, not each archetype. Tying Progression into these AA trees is just a way of helping each class feel more dynamic as players continue to advance their characters. Instead of just filling out an archetype role in the quaternity, each class would have it's own unique flavor within their given archetype.
Look at it this way.
A Rogue's primary role is DPS. They don't heal, they don't tank. Maybe they get some CC utility.
How do you propose you make a class that already fills a niche like that fill an even more obscure niche? If you have an AOE oriented spec, and a single target spec, you've covered two. What else is there? There's only so far you can take a relatively pure DPS class before you start violating the quaternity.
I don't care if my Rogue has DOTs or a DD. I care if they can pump a lot of damage into a mob in the shortest amount of time possible.
Edit: I can see that you're talking about things like tying crafting into combat specializations. I'm thoroughly disinterested in this now.
When did I ever say that the thief mastery was a combat specialization? I personally viewed thief as more of a "scout" type specialization. Using a rare crafting material was just an example. Maybe it could be some other form of valuable loot that isn't tied into crafting ... would that make it more appealing to you? If instead of a crafting component, they could "find" item enhancements, consumables, etc? Maybe the rogue could help with detecting traps or sensing ambushes. You keep falling back on the idea that rogues are a "pure DPS class" and that's what I'm arguing. There are PLENTY of ways to allow classes to fill out more "obscure" niches. The more of these that are implemented, the more fulfilling and dynamic each class can be.
I'm fine with DPS being a rogue's "primary" role ... but what's wrong with having a secondary or tertiary role that otherwise can't be fulfilled by other classes or archetypes in the quaternity? These secondary or tertiary roles can help define a class and provide for a more dynamic repertoire of group compositions.