oneADseven said:Group Role: Melee DPS, Off-Tank, Pulling Utility "Pulling utility is listed last.
yes that's strange. i think there's a , missing before utility (they have short term cc, and likely other features like CR abilities as well). if this game is going to be anything remotely similar to EQ (in EQ it's the defining ability of monks), pulling will be too important to be an afterthought after dps. otherwise it'd be monk = rogue + pulling? rogue is pretty sure going to be a melee dps class, i don't think we need another that's basicly the same with extra upgrades.
letsdance said: ... rogue is pretty sure going to be a melee dps class, i don't think we need another that's basicly the same with extra upgrades.
vjek said:letsdance said: ... rogue is pretty sure going to be a melee dps class, i don't think we need another that's basicly the same with extra upgrades.
If endurance regen remains even 25% of what it's shown as in the recent video (in other words, even if they make it 75% WORSE) a Rogue will be expected to CC all the time. I mean really... a 30 second mez that you can put on two mobs, AND continue to auto attack, AND can refresh in combat?
That's better than most badly played Enchanters can pull off at their best. :) So Rogues get to be, potentially, the highest positional non-magic DPS and be the equivalent group value of a badly played enchanter? /swoon
Lol the sarcasm so strong.
Those darn rogues stealing our jerbs posts from bad enchanters gunna be fun when the game and forums go live.
I don't think it's that they get to be 3 out of 4 roles, so much as they have a main role and then a role they are proficient enough in to do when needed - Like DPS/Off-tank Monk or DPS/CC for Rogue. So when putting a group together and you need a CC you don't have to pick an enchanter or CC main and can pick one of the classes that can sub in for that role.
vjek said:If the "every class gets to be 3 out of 4 roles, minimum" design continues unabated, the class envy is going to be redonkulous. ;)
Basing my observations off my experience from EQ and what I saw on the streams so far.
Monks can dps
Off tanking isn't main tanking, so still need a tank. Especially if they do the tanking classes right. BFD if a monk can tank 1 or 2 mobs using 5 minute cooldowns.
They can split pull, which is great, if you don't have a chanter. Less efficient then facepulling with a chanter tho.
They can mend, o noz they can self heal themselves on a cooldown.
Literally nothing they couldn't do in EQ my man.
As far as the rogues CCing, well there is only 1 true CC class set for launch (less they pull it together for Bard maybe?)
Also rogues were pretty undesirable in groups in EQ because they were a one trick wonder, and games like this utility is power. Yeh cool you can stab a mob in the back, well we need a puller or CC to fill slot 6, any dps
So if other classes cannot do some sort of ghetto CC (blind, root, stun, blah blah) you NEED 1 class for every group, not 1 ROLE, 1 individual class.
So far it's looking like every role archetype but the one has 3 or more options.
It looked like wizards when they weren't busy getting rolled in 1 round could root (so CC)
Rogues can do a mez that negatively impacts their dps (probably substantially). So you gain that dps back if you Have a chanter, lose it if you do not.
So the group can function at a reduced level.
It still would have been more effective to have a real chanter, but at least you can scrape by.
Role interdependence in tact. Yet increased tactical choices beyond if we don't have a chanter you are boned.
If bad enchanters cry because they are bad, o well.
vjek said:letsdance said: ... rogue is pretty sure going to be a melee dps class, i don't think we need another that's basicly the same with extra upgrades.
If endurance regen remains even 25% of what it's shown as in the recent video (in other words, even if they make it 75% WORSE) a Rogue will be expected to CC all the time. I mean really... a 30 second mez that you can put on two mobs, AND continue to auto attack, AND can refresh in combat?
That's better than most badly played Enchanters can pull off at their best. :) So Rogues get to be, potentially, the highest positional non-magic DPS and be the equivalent group value of a badly played enchanter? /swoon
First and foremost a Rogue is a DPS class, with light CC ability that uses Endurance (75% of my bar with each cast even if it fails which is often) so with low regen, there are no way Rogues could maintain that level of lockdown on even 1-2 mobs let alone more. ;)
Enchanters and Bards will most likely be the kings of CC.
What you saw was very early gameplay that is still unbalanced, so let's wait for testing before trying to crunch numbers and create/solve problems that don't exist yet folks :)
Iksar said:Wall of text:
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.
Basically: Specializations WITHIN the class role, yes ... spelializations that allow a warrior to heal ... no, please. Thank you.
I agree that warriors shouldn't be able to heal. Unlike paladins who do get to heal, warriors make up for their lack of healing and solo efficiency by having awesome defensive abilities that can mitigate chunks of damage, albeit they would be much more reliant on their group. I have been saying for awhile that bards absolutely need to make launch. If they are one of the 2 control kings, the game would need some major re-balancing if they are implemented post-launch. Bards have always been a core class and I think there are plenty of people who would wait an extra couple months to see them make it to launch. I won't be playing one, but I would definitely wait a bit for launch if it results in them making it into the game.
Kilsin said:vjek said:letsdance said: ... rogue is pretty sure going to be a melee dps class, i don't think we need another that's basicly the same with extra upgrades.
If endurance regen remains even 25% of what it's shown as in the recent video (in other words, even if they make it 75% WORSE) a Rogue will be expected to CC all the time. I mean really... a 30 second mez that you can put on two mobs, AND continue to auto attack, AND can refresh in combat?
That's better than most badly played Enchanters can pull off at their best. :) So Rogues get to be, potentially, the highest positional non-magic DPS and be the equivalent group value of a badly played enchanter? /swoonFirst and foremost a Rogue is a DPS class, with light CC ability that uses Endurance (75% of my bar with each cast even if it fails which is often) so with low regen, there are no way Rogues could maintain that level of lockdown on even 1-2 mobs let alone more. ;)
Enchanters and Bards will most likely be the kings of CC.
What you saw was very early gameplay that is still unbalanced, so let's wait for testing before trying to crunch numbers and create/solve problems that don't exist yet folks :)
This Bard just got very excited. As to the OP, loved your post as its very creative. My hope for specalizations are they are more options between the aspects the classes already have while still having access to all skills. Like a rogue would be options of DPS enhancing their big hits like postion DPS like back stab or tge other option to enhance their Bleed skills. I woukd not like to see a Rogue being a pure support class. I also woukd like to be able switch specalizations with some cost. Be it a quest or a good chunk of money.
The fact is if you have it to where you can master both, or become both even if you have to be out of combat that sounds simply too much like WoW im sry, and even with all the situation that brought up by 1AD7 the simply fact if you "could be" different doesn't make it so, but if you have to pick 1 spec and be stuck with it than you WILL always be different than your counterparts that choose the different route, sometimes simply having to much flexibilty isn't a good thing, much like a lot of things. I want your choose to mean spomething, if i can pick being body at the beginning and eventually get soul later on anyway, whats the point?
Riahuf22 said:The fact is if you have it to where you can master both, or become both even if you have to be out of combat that sounds simply too much like WoW im sry, and even with all the situation that brought up by 1AD7 the simply fact if you "could be" different doesn't make it so, but if you have to pick 1 spec and be stuck with it than you WILL always be different than your counterparts that choose the different route, sometimes simply having to much flexibilty isn't a good thing, much like a lot of things. I want your choose to mean spomething, if i can pick being body at the beginning and eventually get soul later on anyway, whats the point?
Exactly. If you can do both, it's no longer specializing. It's just progressing.
@Riahuf22 @Dullahan
But if you're looked to a spec that literally changes the role of your class, them the class you're playing looses it's identity, instead of playing Monk class, you're playing the "Body Monk" class (just and example).
The initial choice of your class when creating a character should be the only "hard restriction" to what type of spells and abilites you can acquire and learn. Then you should need to specialize in one part of the class by obtain rare spells and abilities and abilites spread trough the world (essentially crafting you won spec with a wide toolkit from which you can choose the spells and abilities that fit your play style best), but restricting the type of spells and abilities you can use by spliting a class in smaller fragments that are only available if you choose one of the 2 paths doesn't seem like the way to go.
oneADseven said:If they are one of the 2 control kings, the game would need some major re-balancing if they are implemented post-launch.
Yep, when Kilsin said that there's only 2 CC kings I immediately though how the game would work if there's only 1 available at launch, It would be kind of awkard to have a game designed around CC and only having 1 class that can do that effectivly.
Disclaimer: I know CC is intended to be a group effort.
jpedrote said:@Riahuf22 @Dullahan
But if you're looked to a spec that literally changes the role of your class, them the class you're playing looses it's identity, instead of playing Monk class, you're playing the "Body Monk" class (just and example).
The initial choice of your class when creating a character should be the only "hard restriction" to what type of spells and abilites you can acquire and learn. Then you should need to specialize in one part of the class by obtain rare spells and abilities and abilites spread trough the world (essentially crafting you won spec with a wide toolkit from which you can choose the spells and abilities that fit your play style best), but restricting the type of spells and abilities you can use by spliting a class in smaller fragments that are only available if you choose one of the 2 paths doesn't seem like the way to go.
That's a strawman argument because they don't have to fundamentally change a class to allow players to choose which aspect they specialize in. A monk is a monk, even if one monk tanks better, another monk does more damage, and a third has greater self-healing capabilities.
Yes, it's problematic to keep specialization balanced, but less challenging than creating an entirely different class. With specialization you have to take into consideration the extremes of the classes and their abilities. When creating a new class, you open a brand new can of worms where every ability must be scrutinized to assure they're comparable at their primary role, are not more useful than other classes, they're useful in group and raid scenarios, and do not trivialize previous content.
Dullahan said:That's a strawman argument because they don't have to fundamentally change a class to allow players to choose which aspect they specialize in. A monk is a monk, even if one monk tanks better, another monk does more damage, and a third has greater self-healing capabilities.
Yes, it's problematic to keep specialization balanced, but less challenging than creating an entirely different class. With specialization you have to take into consideration the extremes of the classes and their abilities. When creating a new class, you open a brand new can of worms where every ability must be scrutinized to assure they're comparable at their primary role, are not more useful than other classes, they're useful in group and raid scenarios, and do not trivialize previous content.
I didn't say it changed the class, I said if a spec allows you to change your role, for example, a shaman becoming a DPS intead of a buffer/debuffer the class identity is being lost, even if the role is not changed and a shaman needs to choose between debuffer or buffer specs the class is still being diluted.
Why would they create a new class? I'm sure it will happen down the line but that's not relevant to speciallizations.
I was worried about content dependency for Rogues. But giving them "light CC" is a stroke of genius, provided it doesn't get nerfed into the ground. Currently, it only takes 5 seconds to recover 75% of the endurance bar, so locking down 2 mobs with Smoke And Mirrors, even with a 50% failure rate, should be reasonably easy for an experience MMO player. Yet, even if it's nerfed down to one mob? It still adds an incredible desirability to Rogues that was lacking in EQ1.
I look forward to seeing what the rest of these "light" roles are, given the extraordinary power shown thus far.
Nanfoodle said: The idea of changing specialization does not break the game. As long as the change takes real sacrifice. IMO just keeping people locked is a bad idea as it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when they feel the need to switch because they picked wrong. Or the guild does not need your spec. Now you are forced to re-role the same class if you want to fit in your guild. That happened to me in SWToR.
This sounds more like a bad design by the game itself, than the actual idea of being stuck with a specialization, or maybe even your guild for not allowing you to play the way you wanted to play to be honest.
Another thing we have to think about is if/when even get these dual specs we have no iea on whaen we are actually getting them, we could be lvl 30 and talk to our guildmaster and he gives us a choice and by than you'll have a feel for your character and how you want to play him, and what this also opens up is that a good portion of your "Core Abilties" will already be achieved so the difference between the specs will be mininumal, but enough so you feel the difference between the two specs.
Dullahan said:jpedrote said:@Riahuf22 @Dullahan
But if you're looked to a spec that literally changes the role of your class, them the class you're playing looses it's identity, instead of playing Monk class, you're playing the "Body Monk" class (just and example).
The initial choice of your class when creating a character should be the only "hard restriction" to what type of spells and abilites you can acquire and learn. Then you should need to specialize in one part of the class by obtain rare spells and abilities and abilites spread trough the world (essentially crafting you won spec with a wide toolkit from which you can choose the spells and abilities that fit your play style best), but restricting the type of spells and abilities you can use by spliting a class in smaller fragments that are only available if you choose one of the 2 paths doesn't seem like the way to go.
That's a strawman argument because they don't have to fundamentally change a class to allow players to choose which aspect they specialize in. A monk is a monk, even if one monk tanks better, another monk does more damage, and a third has greater self-healing capabilities.
Yes, it's problematic to keep specialization balanced, but less challenging than creating an entirely different class. With specialization you have to take into consideration the extremes of the classes and their abilities. When creating a new class, you open a brand new can of worms where every ability must be scrutinized to assure they're comparable at their primary role, are not more useful than other classes, they're useful in group and raid scenarios, and do not trivialize previous content.
I don't see why specialization needs to be balanced. Classes need to be balanced, yes. Specializations within a class? They offer different flavors of how the class can be played and there is no need to balance them equally against each other if a player is capable of learning multiple specs. Players can prioritize whatever style they want first and can continue to evolve/progress their character over time. The idea of progression is something that many more games have adopted over the years because it allows players to become more vested in their characters and extend the opportunity to enjoy meaningful advancement. Sports games, adventure games, puzzle games, shooter games, fighting games ... just about every genre has worked progression into their games. MMORPG's should be the kings of progression and specialization could be used the same way as gear, resists, acclimation, faction or keying.
jpedrote said:oneADseven said:If they are one of the 2 control kings, the game would need some major re-balancing if they are implemented post-launch.
Yep, when Kilsin said that there's only 2 CC kings I immediately though how the game would work if there's only 1 available at launch, It would be kind of awkard to have a game designed around CC and only having 1 class that can do that effectivly.
Disclaimer: I know CC is intended to be a group effort.
Your group effort statement is correct, just because we have 1-2 CC kings (I don't know about Bard so don't hold me to it, I said "most likely") but Rogue has a blinding mez, Wizard has a root etc. so other classes have short duration capabilities but if you want to rely on two DPS classes to lock down group content in dungeons and expect to steamroll and score fat loot those people will get a rude shock pretty early on in their dungeon run lol.
You would want a CC master to worry about that while the two DPS classes focused on what they excel at, killing things. ;)