oneADseven said:Krixus said:oneADseven said:Krixus said:IMO skill trees and the like have no place in a game like this. It creates an absolute balance nightmare and forces min maxing. It creates a "meta". It will lead directly to crap like "looking for fire mage". A "single best path" will emerge for multiple classes, at which point anyone who isn't on that build will be screwed. Oh, you're a stun paladin instead of a group heal paladin? Sorry, we don't have room for you. Let PLAYERS be the difference in how good one cleric is vs another, not which branch of the tree they each went down.
That's exactly what could be done by allowing the PLAYER to learn all specializations through progression. There could be situations where a single spec is ideal over another spec, and it's on the PLAYER to have mastered it. Progression is a good thing.
I think making certain spells/abilties drop or quest only can be part of the solution. Progression is good, but if the game has a slow enough pace, we don't need tons of differnet paths.
It's not a matter of "needing" something. One could argue that we don't "need" plenty of the systems or mechanics that add fun and flavor to the game. Personally, I find it very annoying when every max level "end-game" character is nearly identical. In most games, the most you can do to differentiate yourself from your peers is earn different gear, and even that becomes watered down over time. The more ways we mix it up, the better. I want a "unique" character. Offering multiple specializations certainly won't solve that problem by itself, but it would definitely add another layer of "situational progression" similar to gear and acclimation. You made the same argument against acclimation ... why do we "need" acclimation? It's an additional layer of progression man. Some of us enjoy deep systems/mechanics that can't be mastered over-night. I understand some people prefer a minimalist approach with things but in an MMO ... really? Give me options ... give me flavor ... all day everyday, twice on Sunday. With your logic, what's the point in having multiple classes for each archetype? We can prevent groups from "needing a warrior" or "needing a paladin" if we just remove all tank classes and instead use a single "tank archetype" right?
I'm glad you feel strongly, but don't put words in my mouth. There are solved problems around the current class archetypes. Introducing deep specialization creates new, unsolved problems. And I would debate that "watering down" occurs when you add more, not when you keep it simple.
oneADseven said: You made a statement with the context that you could solve the problem of a "meta game" by not having specializations at all. Why couldn't that same logic be applied to classes?
I just answered that. The EQ based current class archetypes are pushing 20 years old. They've been iterated upon by some of the same creative team members for years. That is an established balance, there's a foundation of known issues and their resolutions for class balancing.
This is the internet. If you have an idea, expect someone to challenge it. And if you have an idea you believe strongly in, you should be able to defend it, like I do.
Krixus said:oneADseven said: You made a statement with the context that you could solve the problem of a "meta game" by not having specializations at all. Why couldn't that same logic be applied to classes?
I just answered that. The EQ based current class archetypes are pushing 20 years old. They've been iterated upon by some of the same creative team members for years. That is an established balance, there's a foundation of known issues and their resolutions for class balancing.
This is the internet. If you have an idea, expect someone to challenge it. And if you have an idea you believe strongly in, you should be able to defend it, like I do.
Specializations have been around for a long time as well, and the current creative team obviously has some interest in their implementation. I think it would be a damn shame to restrict creativity for the purpose of avoiding an "absolute balance nightmare" as you put it. You think it's crap when someone is "looking for fire mage" whereas I think that's awesome. I think it would be awesome if becoming a fire mage was a path of progression for wizards. That way, those who earn that designation can enjoy the sensation of feeling "needed" for groups. You say that a "single best path" will emerge and that people will get screwed over. My idea suggested that players could learn multiple paths, which means they would be accessible to all players, but they need to take that journey. It wouldn't be a matter of "Hey, you play the wrong spec" it would be a matter of "Hey, you don't happen to have fire spec do you, because that would be awesome!?"
oneADseven said:I think it would be a damn shame to restrict creativity for the purpose of avoiding an "absolute balance nightmare" as you put it.but pantheon is all about giving us back the old, tested and known experience, without adding all that new crap that sounded great but turned out to be not that great - for those who are here now. many would rather have less experiments, after seeing so many fail, and stick to the old ways. i think that's a valid attitude, and one that opens lots of dev time for other things like world building.
i personally think specializations can be nice, but they can go wrong as well, and i wouldn't mind if we had none. in a risk vs reward consideration it may be better to spend the dev time on features that have better chances to make more people happy, and less chance to cause serious issues, or just not spend dev time at all and release sooner. one argument for doing it now is, that this can probably not sensefully added later (per update or expansion). so if they absolutely want it in, it has to be now.
oneADseven said:Krixus said:oneADseven said: You made a statement with the context that you could solve the problem of a "meta game" by not having specializations at all. Why couldn't that same logic be applied to classes?
I just answered that. The EQ based current class archetypes are pushing 20 years old. They've been iterated upon by some of the same creative team members for years. That is an established balance, there's a foundation of known issues and their resolutions for class balancing.
This is the internet. If you have an idea, expect someone to challenge it. And if you have an idea you believe strongly in, you should be able to defend it, like I do.
Specializations have been around for a long time as well, and the current creative team obviously has some interest in their implementation. I think it would be a damn shame to restrict creativity for the purpose of avoiding an "absolute balance nightmare" as you put it. You think it's crap when someone is "looking for fire mage" whereas I think that's awesome. I think it would be awesome if becoming a fire mage was a path of progression for wizards. That way, those who earn that designation can enjoy the sensation of feeling "needed" for groups. You say that a "single best path" will emerge and that people will get screwed over. My idea suggested that players could learn multiple paths, which means they would be accessible to all players, but they need to take that journey. It wouldn't be a matter of "Hey, you play the wrong spec" it would be a matter of "Hey, you don't happen to have fire spec do you, because that would be awesome!?"
I do like the idea of having multiple specialisations as long as it takes a considerable length of time to get them. It should not be easy to get more than one specialisation because if it was easy it would ruin the system. I'd also be pretty upset if only one specialisation was considered necessary for a specific class so in order to combat that I'd have every specialisation have an essential class skill associated with it so that no matter what specialisation you choose you are always wanted for at least one skill.
letsdance said:oneADseven said:I think it would be a damn shame to restrict creativity for the purpose of avoiding an "absolute balance nightmare" as you put it.but pantheon is all about giving us back the old, tested and known experience, without adding all that new crap that sounded great but turned out to be not that great - for those who are here now. many would rather have less experiments, after seeing so many fail, and stick to the old ways. i think that's a valid attitude, and one that opens lots of dev time for other things like world building.i personally think specializations can be nice, but they can go wrong as well, and i wouldn't mind if we had none. in a risk vs reward consideration it may be better to spend the dev time on features that have better chances to make more people happy, and less chance to cause serious issues, or just not spend dev time at all and release sooner. one argument for doing it now is, that this can probably not sensefully added later (per update or expansion). so if they absolutely want it in, it has to be now.
See: http://pantheonmmo.com/game/pantheon_difference/
It's hard for me to relate to people who want less experiments or an old, tested and known experience when the first line of that page highlights "An MMO Evolved."
And call it a semantic argument if you want, but if you can get dual specializations, or all the specializations, they aren't really specializations, are they? I'm all for "progression", done the right way, but I think specialization is a dangerous path to trod. Until we know a lot more, that's my stance. Introducing a "meta" build to the game is, imo, extremely negative. And you can't just throw out the "balance nightmare" as some kind of hyperbole. It's exponential. Every branch you create has to be balanced with every other branch.
oneADseven said:
Specializations have been around for a long time as well
In what game has that been done fairly? I haven't played one. Diablo 3 and Hearthstone get around the inherent imbalances of a hugely complex system by changing the meta every 3 months. PVE build differentiation in WOW? Lol. The cream rises to the top and that's what EVERYONE goes for or they get left in the dust. What's the point?
For an immersive game that almost demands a personal attachment to your character, is that what we really want? Respeccing or being stuck with the prospect of being the wrong build? Ugh. And again, if it's part of an overall progression scheme available to everyone, that's one thing, but a lot of people are talking about something else entirely without taking the time to consider the genuinely negative aspects.
Krixus said:And call it a semantic argument if you want, but if you can get dual specializations, or all the specializations, they aren't really specializations, are they? I'm all for "progression", done the right way, but I think specialization is a dangerous path to trod. Until we know a lot more, that's my stance. Introducing a "meta" build to the game is, imo, extremely negative. And you can't just throw out the "balance nightmare" as some kind of hyperbole. It's exponential. Every branch you create has to be balanced with every other branch.
In what game has that been done fairly? I haven't played one. Diablo 3 and Hearthstone get around the inherent imbalances of a hugely complex system by changing the meta every 3 months. PVE build differentiation in WOW? Lol. The cream rises to the top and that's what EVERYONE goes for or they get left in the dust. What's the point?
For an immersive game that almost demands a personal attachment to your character, is that what we really want? Respeccing or being stuck with the prospect of being the wrong build? Ugh. And again, if it's part of an overall progression scheme available to everyone, that's one thing, but a lot of people are talking about something else entirely without taking the time to consider the genuinely negative aspects.
Considering how many times WoW has reworked and overhauled entirely how talents/specs work in an attmept to make the system work, it's clearly not even remotely close to easy. I'd hate to be passed up for a group because they are looking for a "fire" mage while I am an "arcane" mage. Being able to learn both specs is still just progression for the sake of itself, a longer journey to become a complete version of your own class...which I argue you should be anyways. If I am a druid I'd rather be able to fill whichever roll a group needs (which is better for everyone in the game, being based on groups) based on what druids can do.
But whatever. We will see what VR has planned and we can give them our feedback once testing begins, as with all threads teetering on being locked: VR is experienced and has a great wealth of knowledge. Let's wait and see.
oneADseven said:See: http://pantheonmmo.com/game/pantheon_difference/It's hard for me to relate to people who want less experiments or an old, tested and known experience when the first line of that page highlights "An MMO Evolved."
*shrug* so i guess a really large part of the people posting here aren't suitable to communicate with you. besides, if one headline is all your argument, without caring about anything else, it's hard for me to take you serious. maybe you should not just read the headline, but at least also the very next sentence, explaining that they want to be different from other modern MMORPGs:
"Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will likely be a fundamentally different game compared to what you may have experienced playing other modern MMORPGs."
or maybe we go back to the roots and have a look at what Brad himself said at the Kickstarter page:
"Pantheon is a modern, high-fantasy MMORPG that strives to inject high-tension gameplay back into online games. As a spiritual successor to EverQuest, Pantheon is focused on developing an online world that is both dangerous and exciting that relies on group-focused tactics with an updated action/reaction based combat system."
yes, the game has gone a long way since back then, but the basic promise is still to be a spiritual successor to EQ, and that's also what many here expect and want.
in all threads i see you supporting for pantheon to have as many of the modern features as possible, those features that turned modern MMOs to what many - i daresay most - people here dislike. i just don't quite understand why you're so active here if you seem to have so different wishes. maybe at least stay in topic and don't just discredit others because you don't like their oppinion.
Megaera said: Id like some diversity, but what you all are describing is more like wow and rift than eq. Each class should be able to choose a path, and then very that path via AAs at some point. For examples...again.. Shaman Pet or debuff path or buff path or heal path (using 3 path option examples) Warriors Taunt, self buff, damage paths Mages Pet path, Dmg path (single target or aoe) Wizards st dmg, aoe dmg, familiar ( or ice lightning fire) And so on. There is no need to make 50 subclasses and specializations, it would be easier for individual specialization, so that each encounter could use multiple specializations that synergize with each other. An example would be your guilds normal main healer has an emergency and your ready to raid. So you could take a heal path shaman to hold the fort that raid, and still take your debuff path shaman. Then your whole raid dps goes up. You also take 3 wizards, each wizards speciliazes in a different element, and depending on how VR makes mechanics work, each wizard could buff the next wizards damage.
Okay, I'll bite.
I think the major sticking point here is one of access. AA's are available to every person of that class. If you spend 2 weeks on a "solo" build and aren't desirable in a group, in another 2 weeks you can be. That's just plain progression, not what I'd consider "specialization". This whole thread was spawned because of the news(not really news) that monks would/could be broken into 2 distinct flavors, specializations.
I think you're over simplifying. It's not that we don't want the heal spec shaman to fill in for the cleric, that's good to have, it's that now your guild only wants a very limited number of that spec of shaman. Instead of wanting 6 shamans, full stop, of your healing spec they only want 2. You have just limited yourself. That is going to be DIVISIVE. That is going to keep people apart and make finding groups even more difficult. Your 3 wizards example is cool, but outside of that specific 3 wizard situation, there's almost certainly going to be a "best" wizard to have. Do you really want to lose the luck of the balance draw and be the wizard nobody wants except in your 3 wizard synergy situation? Do you honestly believe that they can or will balance all the content, again in just this one scenario for 3 different wizards, to be equal? All the loot you can get in the fire/ice/arcane dungeons will be equal? All the best leveling spots for fire/ice/arcane weak mobs will be equal? Not gonna happen.
In my examples you would want each class for a different reason. Normal group xp: If you have a debuff path shaman to go with an offensive minded warrior the minimal or normal healing the shaman puts out would be sufficent. If you have a taunt path or defensive minded warrior that takes less damage you could take the pet path shamans and load the group with more dps minded members since the tank is sturdier. I can list a few more later but making long posts on my phone isnt fun Raid content: You can have a debuff path, buff path shamans for increasing raid dps and decreasing dmg taken, and take a pet or heal path for healing the dps while adding some dps. The mage pets could be used for pulling, and buffing their and others elemental dps. Necromamcers (assuming they will have multiple paths) could be used as extra spot healers with pacts, extra mana for dps (power path), and dmg with pet/nuke path options. Yes this would mean it limits what guilds would want to take on raids, but if you have the manpower there would be no reason not to take multiple classes with different paths because they all work together. When i get home later ill sit down and make ideas for all available classes and paths for each one and list how the could synergize in raid or group content.
Also given that there would be no AAs for most likely a year and most guilds would not be trying to "low man" bosses first few times thru there would be plenty of time to make AAs synergize with class paths to keep each path option viable for synergy in raid and group content
Megaera said: In my examples you would want each class for a different reason. Normal group xp: If you have a debuff path shaman to go with an offensive minded warrior the minimal or normal healing the shaman puts out would be sufficent. If you have a taunt path or defensive minded warrior that takes less damage you could take the pet path shamans and load the group with more dps minded members since the tank is sturdier. I can list a few more later but making long posts on my phone isnt fun Raid content: You can have a debuff path, buff path shamans for increasing raid dps and decreasing dmg taken, and take a pet or heal path for healing the dps while adding some dps. The mage pets could be used for pulling, and buffing their and others elemental dps. Necromamcers (assuming they will have multiple paths) could be used as extra spot healers with pacts, extra mana for dps (power path), and dmg with pet/nuke path options. Yes this would mean it limits what guilds would want to take on raids, but if you have the manpower there would be no reason not to take multiple classes with different paths because they all work together. When i get home later ill sit down and make ideas for all available classes and paths for each one and list how the could synergize in raid or group content.
I'm really trying here. If you want each sub class for a different reason, that means the other sub classes are going to be "less than" in all the other reasons. You are describing exactly the negative I'm talking about, without seeming to understand it. There are, as of now, only 6 people in a group. Pairing the offensive warrior with the debuff shaman sounds like something you'd do when you're building your group in a game like Baldur's Gate where you have control over everything. There is no way they can balance the debuff shaman to be equal to the healing shaman. You are just layering complexity upon complexity.
But please, and I mean this, keep going.
To parlay off of what oneADseven said, despite our disagreement, we already have specialization. It's called 12 different classes. We already have the overlaps. We already have the raid/boss tank warrior(warrior), the aggro snare dps solo warrior(DL), the crowd control healing warrior (paladin) etc, etc, etc. We have all these things broken out already in an organic meaningful way.
No, you could simply use a heal path/ buff path shaman to make up for your lack of extra defense, or you could use any cleric considering they buff armor, and have an greater ability to heal innately. Or if you you wanted you could still take the pet path shaman and just pick up a necromancer to help with some patch healing, or a bard that heal songs. You choose your own fate if you would use this method, and its why i said you would get 1 mulligan to fix or change your character if you didn't like the path you choose.
When i get home in abit, i will type out a full scale example of what it would look like.
Also i know that there will be paladins, dire knights, and warriors, and each will be better or have different strengths than their others. Im thinkinv warriors will be the kings of pure physical mitigation, paladins king of undead tanking, dk kings of drains and other things like that.
You could take this method and specialize each tank to synergize with others, or make them viable for other roles in the raid.
Please don't make this personal folks, this is one community members idea that has been put forward publically, it is up for discussion, constructive criticism and healthy debate but arguing over personal opinions or attacking someone for their opinion will not be tolerated, you folks are better than that, so please keep it mature and on-topic or else I will be forced to remove posts or close the thread.
Also note, while discussing this that we have made our view clear on classes and combat, for the most part, any further information will be revealed as it is ready. :)
Megaera said:No, you could simply use a heal path/ buff path shaman to make up for your lack of extra defense, or you could use any cleric considering they buff armor, and have an greater ability to heal innately. Or if you you wanted you could still take the pet path shaman and just pick up a necromancer to help with some patch healing, or a bard that heal songs. You choose your own fate if you would use this method, and its why i said you would get 1 mulligan to fix or change your character if you didn't like the path you choose.
When i get home in abit, i will type out a full scale example of what it would look like.
Also i know that there will be paladins, dire knights, and warriors, and each will be better or have different strengths than their others. Im thinkinv warriors will be the kings of pure physical mitigation, paladins king of undead tanking, dk kings of drains and other things like that.
You could take this method and specialize each tank to synergize with others, or make them viable for other roles in the raid.
I believe what he (and I) am saying is that under that system, you are essentially making it so there are 24 classes (or more with 3 different mages etc) instead of 12. This is intended to be a group based game; making groups fairly easy to come by and able to be done with a good number of different compositions is very important. If a group needs heals or buffs/debuffs, they should be able to pick any shaman which would be able to fill the roles a shaman can play. If there are pet/debuff/heal specs then you have just severly limited the grouping choices of each shaman (much more so for the lesser desired/more niche spec).
For the wizard example of different schools like fire/arcane/frost, it would be very very bad. It would be like having a warrior that is limited to only using swords/maces/ or spears effectively, which is bad because some mobs will be *much* more resistant to different types of melee damage. You are limiting the options of the player here in that instead of being able to just change equipment (or elemental type for wizard) and be prepared for any battle, you are stuck either not being wanted fighting that boss or being far less effective compared to someone else of the same class with the proper spec.
It makes balancing bosses a much bigger problem as well, more factors they have to take into account and having to dumb bosses down a bit so they don't require a strict grouping of specific class specs to beat as they want all players to be useful and wanted for every encounter. No one wants to be the CC spec'd rogue and never be wanted outside of a couple fights or the fire spec wizard that no one ever wants for the Fire Lord fight.
Having a respec doesn't change that as you'd just shift into a seperate class niche and being able to learn both specs still leaves everyone with those limits for presumably a very long time. I feel the bulk of class differentiation should come later in the form of AAs, how you use your living codex augments, and with personal skill + knowledge of using your class to the full potential for each fight. Then it is up to you to be prepared and know what spells to bring to any given occation, not just having the same 10 skills loaded because you are always in heal mode or dps mode or cc mode due to your spec. Leave it in the players hands to personally prepare the same as they have to make sure they have the right acclimation gear, weapons, resists, keys, etc for wherever they are going.