Iksar said:Sunmistress said:Can you expand on you thoughts for 2 tanking specs? What would differentiate them?
Could be sword and shield spec, traditional tanking/hunker down defense vs 2h weapon defensive spec focusing on parries/ripostes and interrupts/disarms/counterspells for defense.
I would actually alt a warrior then... good god can't believe I am thinking that.
2hander or dual wield avoidance tank with some useful melee based abilities sounds cool AF to me.
Cromulent said:I've been reading this thread a lot but haven't posted much. The only thing that really worries me about specialisation is that the mix / maxers would make a certain build the only viable option which would be a real shame. The one thing in MMOs that I really enjoy is building a unique character that is different from all the other players playing my class. I don't necessarily go with the best build in all circumstances but I tend to choose builds which help me when it comes to my own playstyle which might be quite different from another player.
That makes me better at some things and worse at other things. If specialisation is going to be a thing then I'd like multiple end goals to the specialisation that each do different things but are all useful so no matter which one you choose you'll always be wanted in a group or a raid.
I think I've changed my mind on being able to have all specialisations though. I agree with the person who said that is progression and not specialisation. I want players to be different not just all try and max out all skills based on how long they have played. Being a really good puller or really good CC because you have specialised in those tasks makes you feel different and people will want you because of that. The trick is just making sure that all specialisations are useful which is easier said than done.
You've been reading this thread a lot so I am sure you have seen plenty of people say the same stuff about there being one single flavor of the month spec. It's a super common argument and one that I feel is nullified if characters are able to learn multiple specializations. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. One can say that specialization isn't special if you can learn both specs. Does that apply in real life? Are we not able to specialize in multiple things? What about the "real masters" out there who not only specialize in multiple trades or crafts, but have actually mastered them? We can do it in real life but our fantasy heroes can't seem to diversify their portfolio some? I get that this analogy isn't always appropriate but come on ... I'm gonna try on this one anyway. One can say that specialization is specialization, and not progression ... and to that I say this: What is progression? Why can't a variety of gameplay elements be used as a form of progression?
I don't see why people seem to think that creating 2 permanent versions of monk will make them any more unique. Okay, instead of there being 1 million monks with multiple variations of specialization dependant on their commitment to progression, you get 500k body monks and 500k soul monks (or some other split, probably 800k body monks 200k soul monks if it's permanent and there is indeed a flavor of the month spec that has 100k people complaining their spec isn't balanced). How is that any more unique? Your soul monks will "still be the same" as all of the other soul monks. By being able to interchange them, you can fluidly make yourself unique on the battlefield relative to the other people in your party and their own progression and skillsets. What makes getting an epic weapon feel so special? Well you know it's cool ... it's shiny ... and it was one hell of a quest to obtain it. The same can be done with specialization. When you see a "Master Monk" that should mean something. It shouldn't be a matter of "Oh everybody is going to do that." Good for everybody who does! Round of applause for the folks who go out of their way to fully progress their character and learn not one, but two specializations! If you tie progeny into it, that is serious business. Progeny, 2 "specialization questlines" and a "master class legendary timeline" at the end? /drool
Again though ... that's just my opinion. When I think of how I want my character to be unique, I want to be able to demonstrate that through my experiences. The more options and flexibility you have, the more potential there is to be unique on an individual level. If you want your "class" to feel unique then by all means, yes, turn it into 2 sub-classes and make the choice permanent ... now your sub-class is unique compared to the other sub-class. I am just thinking along the lines of there being a high emphasis on situational combat and swapping gear, spells, and acclimation attributes around to reflect it. I am fascinated by the idea of how specialization could also be tied into that situational style of encounter mechanics. I think people are just getting hung up on the word "specialization" and want it to be more "special" than any other feature or mechanic in the game. It all depends on just how relative the word "situational" will be in Pantheon. I feel that specialization can be a situational layer added to all of the other situational layers ... and one that actually adds fun/flavor to my sessions rather than a graphic or a stat.
oneADseven said:What about the "real masters" out there who not only specialize in multiple trades or crafts, but have actually mastered them? We can do it in real life but our fantasy heroes can't seem to diversify their portfolio some? I get that this analogy isn't always appropriate but come on ... I'm gonna try on this one anyway. One can say that specialization is specialization, and not progression ... and to that I say this: What is progression? Why can't a variety of gameplay elements be used as a form of progression?
Well the current plan is that you can only learn one tradeskill, I'd say that it would make more sense that if you could somehow master two potentially notably different life paths then it would stand that we should also be able to master all the tradeskills...because progression. But where does making as many elements in the game a form of progression end? At what end is it just there to be a grind for a sense of status? Now I feel this is for status:
"When I think of how I want my character to be unique, I want to be able to demonstrate that through my experiences."
When this is what it should be about, for all characters and for groups to be fluid and easy to put together with as many random people playing classes in as many different ways that suit their style and the situations they run into with the content:
"The more options and flexibility you have, the more potential there is to be unique on an individual level. I am just thinking along the lines of there being a high emphasis on situational combat and swapping gear, spells, and acclimation attributes around to reflect it. "
Putting all that behind some kind of "progression" gate really limits the game for a very long period of time. It makes groups less flexible except at the highest of high levels, when in reality you want players as flexible with their classes as early as possible (within the confines of the class identity) for making grouping easier and more enjoyable. For more people to have all the tools to really find out some cool tricks and play around. Other forms of personal progression don't hurt/hinder groups like this which is why I don't relish the idea of specialization.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:What about the "real masters" out there who not only specialize in multiple trades or crafts, but have actually mastered them? We can do it in real life but our fantasy heroes can't seem to diversify their portfolio some? I get that this analogy isn't always appropriate but come on ... I'm gonna try on this one anyway. One can say that specialization is specialization, and not progression ... and to that I say this: What is progression? Why can't a variety of gameplay elements be used as a form of progression?
Well the current plan is that you can only learn one tradeskill, I'd say that it would make more sense that if you could somehow master two potentially notably different life paths then it would stand that we should also be able to master all the tradeskills...because progression. But where does making as many elements in the game a form of progression end? At what end is it just there to be a grind for a sense of status? Now I feel this is for status:
"When I think of how I want my character to be unique, I want to be able to demonstrate that through my experiences."
When this is what it should be about, for all characters and for groups to be fluid and easy to put together with as many random people playing classes in as many different ways that suit their style and the situations they run into with the content:
"The more options and flexibility you have, the more potential there is to be unique on an individual level. I am just thinking along the lines of there being a high emphasis on situational combat and swapping gear, spells, and acclimation attributes around to reflect it. "
Putting all that behind some kind of "progression" gate really limits the game for a very long period of time. It makes groups less flexible except at the highest of high levels, when in reality you want players as flexible with their classes as early as possible (within the confines of the class identity) for making grouping easier and more enjoyable. For more people to have all the tools to really find out some cool tricks and play around. Other forms of personal progression don't hurt/hinder groups like this which is why I don't relish the idea of specialization.
And it should limit the game for a very long time. It doesen't make groups "less flexible" ... it makes them more flexible if players earn the right to be a "specialist." I don't think we should just start the game operating with maximum synergy potential. I like various forms of power progression to feel earned not given. I don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes from. Specialization is supposed to make grouping easier? I suppose having amazing gear makes grouping quite a bit easier as well, should we not have a "progression gate" behind that so that people can have an easier time finding groups and so that the game can be more enjoyable to them? Dungeon Finder makes grouping easier as well ... but that's an old argument. I don't even need to get into that. The point is ... easier is not always better.
FFXI had a very diverse sub-class system and if there was ever a status grind in a game, it would be that one. FFXI was a bit extreme in that regard (although I personally enjoyed it, I understand how some could be turned off by how hardcore it was) -- but it created a massive amount of replay factor for the game. Every time you leveled up a new sub-class, the game was actually more fun. It wasn't boring or redundant. Your character was growing with the world. When you saw someone who had an interesting class/sub-class combo, it stood out. You asked when does progression end? The answer to that good sir is "the moment the game starts to grow stale" for me. Long live progression ... in as many beautiful and meaningful ways as possible.
oneADseven said:Cromulent said:I've been reading this thread a lot but haven't posted much. The only thing that really worries me about specialisation is that the mix / maxers would make a certain build the only viable option which would be a real shame. The one thing in MMOs that I really enjoy is building a unique character that is different from all the other players playing my class. I don't necessarily go with the best build in all circumstances but I tend to choose builds which help me when it comes to my own playstyle which might be quite different from another player.
That makes me better at some things and worse at other things. If specialisation is going to be a thing then I'd like multiple end goals to the specialisation that each do different things but are all useful so no matter which one you choose you'll always be wanted in a group or a raid.
I think I've changed my mind on being able to have all specialisations though. I agree with the person who said that is progression and not specialisation. I want players to be different not just all try and max out all skills based on how long they have played. Being a really good puller or really good CC because you have specialised in those tasks makes you feel different and people will want you because of that. The trick is just making sure that all specialisations are useful which is easier said than done.
You've been reading this thread a lot so I am sure you have seen plenty of people say the same stuff about there being one single flavor of the month spec. It's a super common argument and one that I feel is nullified if characters are able to learn multiple specializations. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. One can say that specialization isn't special if you can learn both specs. Does that apply in real life? Are we not able to specialize in multiple things? What about the "real masters" out there who not only specialize in multiple trades or crafts, but have actually mastered them? We can do it in real life but our fantasy heroes can't seem to diversify their portfolio some? I get that this analogy isn't always appropriate but come on ... I'm gonna try on this one anyway. One can say that specialization is specialization, and not progression ... and to that I say this: What is progression? Why can't a variety of gameplay elements be used as a form of progression?
I don't see why people seem to think that creating 2 permanent versions of monk will make them any more unique. Okay, instead of there being 1 million monks with multiple variations of specialization dependant on their commitment to progression, you get 500k body monks and 500k soul monks (or some other split, probably 800k body monks 200k soul monks if it's permanent and there is indeed a flavor of the month spec that has 100k people complaining their spec isn't balanced). How is that any more unique? Your soul monks will "still be the same" as all of the other soul monks. By being able to interchange them, you can fluidly make yourself unique on the battlefield relative to the other people in your party and their own progression and skillsets. What makes getting an epic weapon feel so special? Well you know it's cool ... it's shiny ... and it was one hell of a quest to obtain it. The same can be done with specialization. When you see a "Master Monk" that should mean something. It shouldn't be a matter of "Oh everybody is going to do that." Good for everybody who does! Round of applause for the folks who go out of their way to fully progress their character and learn not one, but two specializations! If you tie progeny into it, that is serious business. Progeny, 2 "specialization questlines" and a "master class legendary timeline" at the end? /drool
Again though ... that's just my opinion. When I think of how I want my character to be unique, I want to be able to demonstrate that through my experiences. The more options and flexibility you have, the more potential there is to be unique on an individual level. If you want your "class" to feel unique then by all means, yes, turn it into 2 sub-classes and make the choice permanent ... now your sub-class is unique compared to the other sub-class. I am just thinking along the lines of there being a high emphasis on situational combat and swapping gear, spells, and acclimation attributes around to reflect it. I am fascinated by the idea of how specialization could also be tied into that situational style of encounter mechanics. I think people are just getting hung up on the word "specialization" and want it to be more "special" than any other feature or mechanic in the game. It all depends on just how relative the word "situational" will be in Pantheon. I feel that specialization can be a situational layer added to all of the other situational layers ... and one that actually adds fun/flavor to my sessions rather than a graphic or a stat.
But in your reality by switching specs, or play styles you could be an MMA fighter that is a master at kung fu and know a little bit of karate, and in the next fight be a master of karate and know a lil bit of kung fu, does this sound like real life to you? Not trying to get you upset man but I'm only using your known anagoly against you, yes we can master multiple things in real life and there are a ton of people we could post to prove this, but that are a master of the thing that they do so if you put Bill Gates and switch him places with Gordon Ramsey and vise versa im sure both companies will be struggling pretty badly. And like Cromulent said if you could spec him to where there is multiple ending factors of your spec, or more than one path in your spec than there would be idfferent types of body monks and soul monks, likes saying they are different types of cooks who specialize in different types of foods.
Actually it does sound like real life. You could have an MMA fighter that is a master of multiple fighting styles but in one fight, you use the rules/guidelines of MMA and in the next fight you use the rules/guidelines of boxing. You could master both but only be able to apply the full power of your mastery if the fight calls for it. I'm pretty sure there is an epic McGregor vs Mayweather fight coming up ... McGregor is a master of MMA fighting but they will be duking it out in the boxing ring.
oneADseven said:Actually it does sound like real life. You could have an MMA fighter that is a master of multiple fighting styles but in one fight, you use the rules/guidelines of MMA and in the next fight you use the rules/guidelines of boxing. You could master both but only be able to apply the full power of your mastery if the fight calls for it. I'm pretty sure there is an epic McGregor vs Mayweather fight coming up ... McGregor is a master of MMA fighting but they will be duking it out in the boxing ring.
But thats not what you are doing at all if "unlearning" to "learn" different stuff, as in forgetting what you used to do in one fight to gain in another, if you can "flying kick" in one fight but simply forgot how to do a "flying kick" in the next that is not real life, you might choose to not use in toeards your oppoent for various reasons but to simply to forget how to use it is an entirely different story.
It isn't a matter of "forgetting" how to use it. It's a matter of playing by the rules. The rules of the "Pantheon Arena" make it so that we can only have so many abilities or spells on our hotbar at any given time. It's not that we "forget" how to do our flying kick, it's a matter of us having to choose whether or not we'll use it in the upcoming fight. If that fight is a boxing match, we obviously can't use a flying kick ability so we replace it with something that's acceptable under boxing guidelines. Either way, I don't want to get into a huge debate on real life vs fantasy. I used an example with real people being able to learn multiple specializations and it ends there. We don't need to spin every element of combat and make it real vs fantasy ... but in regards to the "ceiling" for our fantasy heroes, I think it makes sense that they could master multiple paths. Locking someone into a single choice is just an artificial barrier. Again, some people might like that. Kudos to them. I prefer options and flexibility. I prefer extended growth opportunities and feel that specialization could be used as a form of progression the same as faction, access, acclimation, resists, gear, spell mastery, etc. Others don't agree ... I get it. That point has been drilled down to the core and I'm over it. This is the point where we simply agree to disagree.
@OneADseven
I am definitely on board with many and varied levels of depth to progression. I had a conversation similar to this with Raidan just last night about the Rights of Passage. We had to agree to disagree as well. He was fine with having a quest, and fine with increased depth and challenge. But he was not okay with my approach which he considered an artificial roadblock to progression. He prefered them to be optional while I would prefer them to be forced (you cant level past this point without completion). Typically it seems like it always comes down to what level of sand you want in the box. Im more of a 50/50 guy. I do want a certain level of openness in choice, but at the same time I also want enough structure and dare I say roadblocks to create that depth. It being artificial and unimmersive doesnt bother me after a certain point.
On the topic of having to choose just one path for specialization, I could go both ways. I like the focus on interdependence of only choosing one and not getting shoe horned into a role I dont want to play (Hi am Amsai and Im all about non-healer support, perhaps youve heard of me? lol). But I also like the added depth in progression through learning/earning all paths of specialization.
But then when it comes to RoP, I think it should straight up be roadblock. Sink or swim or go play another class (or game) if you cant rise to the challenge. But I get that might not gain too much traction with sandbox types or people worried about chasing off potential casual players. Thats why Im glad Im not a dev ~.^
I simply don't understand why you think we need flexibilty in every aspect of this game, in some cases uniqueness is just as important or more important, and i believe specialization fits in to this prefectly, like you said we will have a ton of flexibility int this game as in acclimation, resists, gear, spells, and a ton of other things so why do we need it in something that makes our characters to feel different than others? I understand your point of view and how passionate you are about it, i simply just don't agree with it like you said
I see no problem with dropping one specialization and getting another. As long as it's a long grueling road. There should be no switch you can flip by paying X amount of platinum. However it's done, it should be a process that discourages changing. Just getting the unique items and abilities that would compliment a different specialization should be a time consuming process.
Also, being a master of everything isn't done as those who actually watch UFC know. People can claim to have belts in every major martial art, but depending on the one they practice the most, and what camp they train with, they always heavily favor particular styles. People do not radically change styles from fight to fight, let alone during a fight. Not only that, the people who come up as boxers generally tend to box, as students of karate tend to kick. People that come up wrestlers always favor the ground game. You can improve all around, but so often what costs people fights in the UFC is when they attempt to leave their specialty to beat someone at their own game.
The one and done choice o has the potential of scaring me a bit into being more cautious about how I make this choice. If it's not I'll probably just facegrind to cap with whichever spec has the highest raw power, then grind the offspec.
If it is one and done I'll probably spend the entirety of Beta testing both specs to evaluate which has more raw power.
Then facegrind to cap on launch with that one.
So it's basically am I leveling once or twice. Whether or not I like the playstyle. If there's no difference in raw power, I'll pick the one I like more first.
Riahuf22 said:I simply don't understand why you think we need flexibilty in every aspect of this game, in some cases uniqueness is just as important or more important, and i believe specialization fits in to this prefectly, like you said we will have a ton of flexibility int this game as in acclimation, resists, gear, spells, and a ton of other things so why do we need it in something that makes our characters to feel different than others? I understand your point of view and how passionate you are about it, i simply just don't agree with it like you said
I don't think "we need flexibility in every aspect of this game" at all. In fact, I feel there are plenty of areas where I want it to feel restricted. I like the idea of there being various methods of gating content off, and then encouraging emergent gameplay from the players to overcome it. I also like the idea of there being a group dungeon that contains a variety of encounters where different specializations of the same class could excel. Using monks as an example, I would like to see a single dungeon that has a boss encounter that requires every ounce of DPS you could muster. Monks wouldn't be able to tank the boss so in this situation, they would need to provide the highest DPS possible. Then, in that same dungeon, I would like to see another boss where having an off-tank is critical for success. This would be a situational opportunity for monks to fulfill their "situational off-tank" role. If monks are going to be "situational off-tanks" at best, do you really think it makes sense to have a spec that specializes in being an off-tank and have that choice be permanent? What about all of the other encounters where that spec can't be utilized? Again, a lot of this depends on just how much the word "situational" means in Pantheon. I anticipate it meaning a great deal and that's why I truly think that specializations will be used "situationally." Like gear, acclimation, faction, and other systems that require progression, the more progressed our characters are, the more situations they can shine in.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:I simply don't understand why you think we need flexibilty in every aspect of this game, in some cases uniqueness is just as important or more important, and i believe specialization fits in to this prefectly, like you said we will have a ton of flexibility int this game as in acclimation, resists, gear, spells, and a ton of other things so why do we need it in something that makes our characters to feel different than others? I understand your point of view and how passionate you are about it, i simply just don't agree with it like you said
I don't think "we need flexibility in every aspect of this game" at all. In fact, I feel there are plenty of areas where I want it to feel restricted. I like the idea of there being various methods of gating content off, and then encouraging emergent gameplay from the players to overcome it. I also like the idea of there being a group dungeon that contains a variety of encounters where different specializations of the same class could excel. Using monks as an example, I would like to see a single dungeon that has a boss encounter that requires every ounce of DPS you could muster. Monks wouldn't be able to tank the boss so in this situation, they would need to provide the highest DPS possible. Then, in that same dungeon, I would like to see another boss where having an off-tank is critical for success. This would be a situational opportunity for monks to fulfill their "situational off-tank" role. If monks are going to be "situational off-tanks" at best, do you really think it makes sense to have a spec that specializes in being an off-tank and have that choice be permanent? What about all of the other encounters where that spec can't be utilized? Again, a lot of this depends on just how much the word "situational" means in Pantheon. I anticipate it meaning a great deal and that's why I truly think that specializations will be used "situationally." Like gear, acclimation, faction, and other systems that require progression, the more progressed our characters are, the more situations they can shine in.
But on the other note of the off tank spec they said they have CC and im thinking stuns, interrupts, so even on these bosses where they can't off tank the mob they can do these thing to help the healer/tanks out by dtopping the mob from doing something that could be terrible to the group and therefore still have a spot in the group, where as the pure dps role could stop short in simply becuase of them having focused everything inot dps they might not get these abilities, but granted this concept is no way to be tested becuase we have no idea where these abilties are going, or if these stuns/ineterrupts are a core ability
Group Lead: "Group looking for 1 DPS for King camp! PST" Group Lead: "Group looking for 1 DPS for King camp! PST"
Monk: "Can I join up? 42 Soul Monk" VS Monk: "Can I join up? 42 Monk"
GL: "Sorry, really only looking for DPS specs" GL: "Come on down!"
Allowing players to change their entire memorized spell set or skill set, or gear, every encounter isn't game-breaking. Nor is it clone-making. :)
The acclimation system alone, never mind the environment combination system will necessitate changing things up often, sometimes per encounter.
The difference between "changing a specialization for every encounter" and "re-meming an entire spell/skill set for every encounter" surely is splitting hairs?
I'm a little bit scared at the idea of specs.
Precisely because of what some people has mentioned earlier. The fact that I for instance specialize and may be affected in the long term because it is not optimized for what I want to do or what a group expects me to do is a bit nerve racking. There are already a lot of classes and I expect more are going to be added (maybe not).
If you go with Flexibility, where a Class can switch from one to another Spec at a certain "cost" (special quest item from a master that's a reward from a daily quest, stacks up to 30, 1 given daily if quest is complete), then I'm okay with it. At least, personally. I just don't want to see people getting bottlenecked and groups/guilds getting wrecked because of a subclass choice.
I don't want to write a full text yet, I'm waiting to get more information and to test it in-game if possible. I want to be as constructive as possible.
Nore said:I'm a little bit scared at the idea of specs.
Precisely because of what some people has mentioned earlier. The fact that I for instance specialize and may be affected in the long term because it is not optimized for what I want to do or what a group expects me to do is a bit nerve racking. There are already a lot of classes and I expect more are going to be added (maybe not).
If you go with Flexibility, where a Class can switch from one to another Spec at a certain "cost" (special quest item from a master that's a reward from a daily quest, stacks up to 30, 1 given daily if quest is complete), then I'm okay with it. At least, personall
y. I just don't want to see people getting bottlenecked and groups/guilds getting wrecked because of a subclass choice.
I don't want to write a full text yet, I'm waiting to get more information and to test it in-game if possible. I want to be as constructive as possible.
If you want to be a dps warrior spec into that and choose that path, if you want to be a warrior tank thats the route you choose all the way thru.
If you want to be battle bard vs a group buffing matchine thats your choice, and the player should live and die by their choices.
VR should give every character 1 mulligan @ mid levels and 1 @ max level if they made a mistake or changed their mind.
If i had my way players would also place their stats and have 2 mulligans for that also. Playing an mmo is about making choices, having fun, paying the consequences for bad decisions and rolling alts.
I have messed up builds, placed stats so wrong that required me to reroll a character, its part of gaming. Seeing so many people wanting to take away risk and adventure is kinda disheartening to my wife and I.