Right, I know that not all classes got specializations, but what I was saying that the ones that did, got unique stances for each specialization. I also thought every class had a stance, did some casters like sorc and psi not?
I don't think rogues got a specialization, monks had 3 that was merged to 2, and shaman had bear, bird, and wolf spec, representing, tanking, caster dps, and melee dps respectively.
How it was or wasn't in vanguard isn't too important in general I guess, but if they are basing the spec system on how it was in vanguard, it may be relevant based on the information they released about the monk.
Sunmistress said:Objectively speaking what's wrong with 24 classes.
The more classes you have, the less each class is dependent on each other class, the less each individual class stands on its own. Class differentiation was a fundamental part of a game like EQ. An obviously this is perhaps more art than science. There isn't a cut and dry threshold that one can just apply as a rule that works for every game. Still, I do not at all like the idea of "specialization". It feels shallow and watered down. It's an easy way out to provide the sense of a new class but without really having to create one. We already have a bunch of hybrid classes. Do we need to split each individual class out into it's own hybrids now? We already have archetypes, tank, healer, dps, CC, support, etc, and that is hard enough to balance. It seems like a huge risk to break the classes apart even further, as I detailed before. It would suck badly to pick the "wrong" specialization and not be a valuable raid member, or to limit your viability in a group. I would make an argument that when a classes speecializes, they actually get weaker than if there was no specialization. One cleric has better buffs and one has better heals? One monk is a better off tank and one does more damage? You're losing that other thing by specializing. I want my monk to DPS and off tank. I want my cleric to buff and heal.
I disagree. Specialization adds flavor. In no way does it water anything down. EQ2 is a great example of how it can be done. They had 2 versions of each class and each was very distinctive in it's own right. Adding specialization to each class will allow more opportunities for each class to shine, in my opinion. There is no reason that these specializations have to be locked, either. It's possible that a monk can learn both specializations and thus be more desirable for more group/raid scenarios. If a monk is only trained in the arts of "Body" whereas "Soul" would be more beneficial to the group or raid for a specific fight, then it would be up to that monk to learn the "Soul" specialization as well so that it's a part of his overall skill kit. This reinforces the notion of interdependence. A monk is not a monk is not a monk is not a monk. Sometimes a group will need a "Body" monk, sometimes it will need a "Soul" monk. The monk who takes the time to learn both specializations will be more desirable as they can fill more roles overall. I'm not sure if characters will be able to master both specializations or not, but if they can, it's up to the player to properly progress their characters in both specializations if they want to be universally needed.
Krixus said:Sunmistress said:Objectively speaking what's wrong with 24 classes.
The more classes you have, the less each class is dependent on each other class, the less each individual class stands on its own. Class differentiation was a fundamental part of a game like EQ. An obviously this is perhaps more art than science. There isn't a cut and dry threshold that one can just apply as a rule that works for every game. Still, I do not at all like the idea of "specialization". It feels shallow and watered down. It's an easy way out to provide the sense of a new class but without really having to create one. We already have a bunch of hybrid classes. Do we need to split each individual class out into it's own hybrids now? We already have archetypes, tank, healer, dps, CC, support, etc, and that is hard enough to balance. It seems like a huge risk to break the classes apart even further, as I detailed before. It would suck badly to pick the "wrong" specialization and not be a valuable raid member, or to limit your viability in a group. I would make an argument that when a classes speecializes, they actually get weaker than if there was no specialization. One cleric has better buffs and one has better heals? One monk is a better off tank and one does more damage? You're losing that other thing by specializing. I want my monk to DPS and off tank. I want my cleric to buff and heal.
Yeh that picking the wrong spec part really stands out to me as the limiting factor, and how the system could cause more grief than it would prevent.
Plus the limited spell bar/aability bar will already naturally limit this (they even said no hotswapping mid combat IIRC).
So I am of the frame of mind that I generally agree with you. Though I also want to see if the system could work.
Generally speaking though the limited ability memorizing and such seems like enough. If you can only choose 10 possible actions, you'd naturally be picking a "specialization" just by memming XY abilities.
I mean if I am a Paladin have access to a plethora of abilities, but if I can only choose 10 individual abilities and doing my job well takes 7, that leaves little room for other things.
Naturally limiting me far better IMO than a specialization choice (which I sort of consider artificial limiting)
Or say a monk since that's the example we have.
If it takes 10 abilities to min/max dps, loading anything for survivability would be a loss, but if that loss is necessary situationally it accomplishes what an artifical limiter like the specialization is trying to achieve.
I see specs possibly boxing us into particular playstyle which could be less than desirable.
To have an constructive discussion, imo, we need to know if the Monk specs are "permanent" or temporary. If they're just an out of combat choice like RIFT versus something you choose once or re-roll, there's a considerable chasm of impact there. It's sub-class versus stances, really.
Similarly, if the spec choices for Keeper are one time or switchable, that also changes things considerably. If I can determine NPC personality with one choice, but not with the others, yet that is an "expected" choice for my role? If I get to choose one time? Between half-assed kinda maybe sorta? Not a fan of that. Why? Because of the nerf/buff effect. Every patch something is going to get nerfed and something is going to get buffed. Been that way for as long as MMO's have existed.
If I have to make a one-time choice, and don't get to re-choose when a/some/all/most of my role-defining or specialization abilities are changed, nerfed or buffed? Historically, that's been just... purely negative. On the other hand, giving players a re-roll every time you patch, while it has been done before, does tend to... rather pointedly highlight the player perception of 'mistakes' on the part of the dev team. That's not ideal either.
If both specs could be learned, it would be a mostly pointless thing to have as you are already limited to 10 ability slots and the only purpose it might serve would be to stop people from swapping abilities mid-fight.
It also creates some serious balancing issues, especially if they truly are planning very difficult end-game group content. Situations where going off-spec in a character class, like off-tank monk, just doesn't hold up next to a real tank or a DPS/CC druid being a worse choice for the group slot vs an actual DPS/CC class.
Not that it is impossible, but it is MUCH harder to really balance without reducing them to a few key abilities amongst a ton of white noise. It already seems hard enough to keep 12 classes balanced and equally desireable for grouping.
It does seem that ALL classes will be getting specializations though:
Pantheon does indeed use a class based system and those classes do fulfill roles especially in group and raid contexts. There will also be opportunities to focus each class on more specific and specialized roles, especially at higher levels. That said, because we feel it’s important that classes fulfill distinct roles, creating interdependence is vital to a fulfilling social and cooperative experience. If everyone is the same, this simply cannot be achieved. Likewise, if every class is absolutely unique, grouping can become overly complicated and, in some cases, certain classes could be less desirable to have in a group than others. To avoid this, Pantheon will use a quaternity system consisting of tank, healer, DPS, and crowd-control.
Sunmistress said:Well in that case the old class reveals seem alittle incomplete. I'd like to see what the amended cleric reveal looks like.
That is an excellent point, Sunmistress. If all classes get Specializations, the Cleric, Rogue, and Shaman specializations are currently missing that detail. Even the Rogues CC role is missing.
jpedrote said:@tehtawd
I don't think specs will change your role, as in a tank can become a DPS, or a full healer becoming an hybrid DPS, specs will just change the way you play, not the role you have withing a group.
I got a bit bored towards the end and may have made some mistaken lazy suggestions. But to clarify, I wasn't intending to have their core change. A warrior going a DPS spec should not be out-damaging a rogue if they are geared the same and played by good players. But you know what I want to see? A small 3 man group with a Monk tank, a Cleric DPS and a Rogue CC. wierd groups with non traditional specializations that can get the job done with flavor. That to me is pretty fun.
-Todd
I'm not a huge fan of specializations. I really think it can be broken down 3 ways:
1. Homogenizes classes
2. Creates Cookie-Cutter Builds
3. No point
With the first, if you offer multiple roles per class, you'll ultimately bleed over into other classes specialities, and if you don't, and it only improves on a classes pre-existing skillset, then it's really not a specialization, but more just increasing in power/leveling.
With the second, using a specialization system versus an AA type system where all paths are available, ultimately there will be some best "build" or specialization that players will gravitate toward, and it will result in a continual nerfing/balancing process.
And the third, there's no point if you can learn all specializations, as it is not really a "specialization system" at that point, but an expanded skillset, which usually bleeds over into point #1.
I'd agree more with Krixus on this topic and would like to see unique/defined classes and if you want to play a different "role" roll an alt or see what the progeny system entails ultimately.
Raidan said:I'm not a huge fan of specializations. I really think it can be broken down 3 ways:
1. Homogenizes classes
2. Creates Cookie-Cutter Builds
3. No point
With the first, if you offer multiple roles per class, you'll ultimately bleed over into other classes specialities, and if you don't, and it only improves on a classes pre-existing skillset, then it's really not a specialization, but more just increasing in power/leveling.
With the second, using a specialization system versus an AA type system where all paths are available, ultimately there will be some best "build" or specialization that players will gravitate toward, and it will result in a continual nerfing/balancing process.
And the third, there's no point if you can learn all specializations, as it is not really a "specialization system" at that point, but an expanded skillset, which usually bleeds over into point #1.
I'd agree more with Krixus on this topic and would like to see unique/defined classes and if you want to play a different "role" roll an alt or see what the progeny system entails ultimately.
Agreed especially on point 2. I want to play my class, not the class some epic raider guy online posted for me to copy so that I can get into raids. Rather than specializations I'd like to see more classes, if there's really room for them.
As has been stated numerous times, it's possible to create multiple specs and to allow players to master all of them. This removes the notion of there being a "cookie cutter" build. There could be multiple builds which each excel under different conditions. Learning each spec ensures that you have an ideal kit for every situation. Specialization could be a form of progression rather than being something you are permanently stuck with. Specialization and the potential progression that can be associated with it could end up being a ton of fun.
oneADseven said:As has been stated numerous times, it's possible to create multiple specs and to allow players to master all of them. This removes the notion of there being a "cookie cutter" build. There could be multiple builds which each excel under different conditions. Learning each spec ensures that you have an ideal kit for every situation. Specialization could be a form of progression rather than being something you are permanently stuck with. Specialization and the potential progression that can be associated with it could end up being a ton of fun.
My point would be that I wouldn't want everyone to have an ideal kit for every situation. I'd rather have some players exceed better in some situations than others - i.e. paladins vs. undead. As far as specialization being a form of progression, we agree more than we disagree. I loved EQ's AA system to give me a reason to keep playing at max level to "improve" my character, even if it was only very minor progression - what I don't want to see is a class being redefined and homogenized due to it.
I tend to step more in support of class paths, but for one main reason. I want to be able to play how I like. Now, before I get everyone excited, let me explain. I dont mean that I want to be able to play any class in any role I want. Absolutely not!.
I have 3 worries currently!
1. Bard wont make it for launch (or doesnt seem likely).
2. Want to play a class/style that I would enjoy.
3. Some classes might have aspects that I would consider fun, but wouldnt want to be shoe-horned in to a role I dont want to play due to legitimate player expectations.
Example: Druid
Maybe I like the potential DPS and weather releated buffs/debuffs and protections but dont want to heal?
Example: Enchanter
Maybe I like the overall concept of CC, and buffs and debuffs, But dont want to have party members pissed at me due to me not wanting to use Charm (dont like pets)?
Ideally Id want to play a non-healing, pure support class that doesnt use pets. Likey that wont be possible because any class like that would share CC or DPS or such.
So class paths would allow me to tailor a class (not change its role) to be more what I want to play. Instead of getting in a group and people basically expecting "Hey you are a Druid, we invited you because we need a healer.......... so heal". I know some people would say something like well just specify that up front to the group. That doesnt always work, and I could understand why groups would be upset. Its important to be able to fully do your role, and be a team player.
So the short version. Im worried about currently not seeing a playstyle/role that I want to play. And if choosing the best possible substitute, getting basically forced to do things and use skills and abilities that I would not want to use. And I think with class specializations that could be solved with me being a "Weather Master Druid" for instance as opposed to a "Healing Druid".
Of course the simple solution would be if VR had a non-healer, non-pet class that specialized in support..................... but we cant always get what we wish. I dont think Im being selfish. I just want a playstyle I truly enjoy.
Raidan said:oneADseven said:As has been stated numerous times, it's possible to create multiple specs and to allow players to master all of them. This removes the notion of there being a "cookie cutter" build. There could be multiple builds which each excel under different conditions. Learning each spec ensures that you have an ideal kit for every situation. Specialization could be a form of progression rather than being something you are permanently stuck with. Specialization and the potential progression that can be associated with it could end up being a ton of fun.
My point would be that I wouldn't want everyone to have an ideal kit for every situation. I'd rather have some players exceed better in some situations than others - i.e. paladins vs. undead. As far as specialization being a form of progression, we agree more than we disagree. I loved EQ's AA system to give me a reason to keep playing at max level to "improve" my character, even if it was only very minor progression - what I don't want to see is a class being redefined and homogenized due to it.
I didn't mean that every class have an ideal kit for every situation, literally. I meant for their class. So imagine a "master class" rogue who has learned the 3 major specs, DPS, Debuffing, and Utility. By learning all the specs, they can interchange their hotbars freely based on the encounter ahead of them. If you allow players to learn all specs, they can be universally desirable for groups/raids ... if they have progressed their character to the point where they have actually mastered every spec. To start, a rogue would probably go the DPS spec as it would apply to most situations. Then maybe they go debuffing or utility, depending on their playstyle or what feels needed the most. My main point is that there would be no "cookie cutter" build because all builds would be viable under different circumstances. While DPS would be the most commonly used, there could be occassions where debuffing or utility would be more beneficial and the rogues who learned those specs would have an edge compared to those who have not. It's all about progression, for me. I don't like the idea of permanently locking specialization choices, or making them a pain in the ass to switch. Using specialization as a form of progression would be wonderful for this game. Every class sticks to their true identity but players with advanced progression have a larger kit to draw from when preparing for the next battle.
1ad7 can you explain in your opinion how that is any different then spell selection?
They said there is no going to be no midfight spell swapping, so that seems to accomplish exactly what you are suggesting. There will be a limited (10?) Abilities we can mem. Intelligent players will naturally accommodate selection on an encounter basis, or "What can I expect to need" basis.
I don't see how that accomplishes anything in addition to the already proposed limitation.
Caveat being specializations being long level required quests that boost all the abilities under their sphere of influence, but if you are able to switch them out of combat, I see that being no different then stances (which I am not necessarily opposed to)
However if it's a one and done choice, I can see that causing some heartbreak down the road.
The information they gave is open to a lot of interpretation
Let’s look at what monks had in EQ up to 60
Mend (self-healing)
Kick (damage)
Feign Death (utility/pulls)
Stonestance Disc (60% melee damage reduction)
Whirlwind Disc (riposte every attack)
Hundred fists Disc (IAS/Damage buff)
Yada yada…
Well with that list of skills what is a monk exactly? You could easily say depending what gear you have equipped and your group make up monks can function as a tank
Nothing they showed really indicates monks will do anything that different from in EQ.
What do they mean by the word specialise? Do they mean you can pick which 10 skills best suit the situation and use them along with suitable gear and role fill as a tank in some groups that have the right setup? Or do they mean it’s something you learn from a trainer and have to be in that stance and being a soul monk will literally make you as good as a warrior tank?
From what we saw in the video, a monk just gets some utility skills that allow them to fill in as a tank briefly or if perhaps you’re farming an area where you’re a bit over-leveled/geared you could actually tank it with the right buffs
With everything they’ve said about dependence on others, having defined roles and from what we saw on the stream, other than getting a taunt button, I highly doubt the pantheon monks’ role will differ that much from the role of a monk in EQ through early expansions.
It seems to me they’re just aiming to give each class enough spells/abilities to be really good at one thing and decent enough at another so depending what you put on your bar and what gear you wear you can be a *little* flexible. I would be surprised if we see anything that locks you into a specific ‘type’ of monk/ranger/etc. But we might.
Allowing people to master all paths defeats the purpose of specialization. Specializing should be a decision according to your personal preference. Otherwise everyone is the same and it doesn't benefit the multiplayer aspect of the game. There should be reasons to have 2 classes with different builds in the same group or raid, and giving them unique specialization gives cause for that.
I disagree that specialization will homogenize classes. If a class has XYZ abilities and you give paths that enhance either X, Y or Z, they've merely enhanced the original design, not changed it or gone beyond. Considering it's done right. For instance, a monk has some healing mending abilities, some ability to tank, and decent damage dealing capacity. If you were to create three specialization that enhances/provides new/better healing, or better tanking abilities, or greater dps abilities, they haven't gone beyond the scope of the class.
Does specialization mean that there would only be changes for the adventuring class? This seems to be what everyone is assuming. However, could it be that specialization means changes to the chosen tradeskill class also?
Example: An enchanter can specialize in improving mezzes during combat OR an enchanter could improve the crafting of more unique runes for whatever profession has them.
Perhaps this is another way to integrate crafting and adventuring in addition to the "forge in the volcano only reachable by grouping" example.
Land said:Does specialization mean that there would only be changes for the adventuring class? This seems to be what everyone is assuming. However, could it be that specialization means changes to the chosen tradeskill class also?
Example: An enchanter can specialize in improving mezzes during combat OR an enchanter could improve the crafting of more unique runes for whatever profession has them.
Perhaps this is another way to integrate crafting and adventuring in addition to the "forge in the volcano only reachable by grouping" example.
Crafting types will have their own specializations independent from character class.
Honestly in my opinion only the more verstile classes should have dual specing, as in Monk, Ranger, maybe PAL/DL but with them alrdy being caster tanks or at least tanks with other than warrior abilties, that kind of is there dual spec alrdy in place, maybe summoner depending on how they have them implemented, but most classes are what they are in my eyes, like Warriors are tanks, Clerics are healers, and wizard, rogues are dps, only reaosn i say rngers could have dual spec is due to being experts at close and range combat. I just see only a slight few having it to where you don't have 2 dps, heal, tank specs for the same class it really doesn't make any sense to me.
oneADseven said: You can still have a Body monk and a Soul monk in the same raid. Allowing multi specialization does nothing more than add player flexibility. Let's say you have 3 monks ... 1 master, 1 body, 1 soul. If the body or soul are unavailable, the master can flex in and play whatever is needed. Master monk couldn't be both at once ... but rather be able to rotate between them as needed. Not every monk would be the same. You could have 2 master monks that both have entirely different hotbars.
I understand what your saying but i have to agree with Dul on this one if there is 2 specs but you can master both of them then there isn't really anypoint in having them, you might has well not have the dual spec system, granted it might be easier to fully progress your character with it not being there, but it doesn't make you feel any different than another monk if you could maser both becuase in a few months to maybe 8 months most decent players would max out both and wouldn't make you feel any different than the others, but if you get stuck with one and you choose Soul, and had 4 other monks in your guild and they choose Body, you would always know there were things you could do that they couldn't and vise versa.
Plus having it to where you could switch back and forth between the two sounds way to much like WoW, and honestly there are a ton of things that they did after vanilla that really started to ruin the game for a ton of players so lets not try to make the same mistakes on this game.