Monk added. This one was easy! RoP addition was interesting to come up with but I think there is much greater potential for it.
oneADseven said:
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.
I think specialization within a class would indead need to be balanced, otherwise, the players will find the optimum spec that gains the most but loses the least.
For instance, Clerics, say they can spec in healing or damage/damage mitigation. Essentially a "Healing Cleric" or a "Battle Cleric".
If let's say the specs increase damage effieciency for the battle cleric by 20% but only reduce their healing efficiency by 5%, then in most situations, a Battle Cleric would be a preferred spec.
There needs to be a balanced give and take when you specialize, so as one spec does not become the server preferred, which then reduces specialization to not being an true player option.
Fulton said:oneADseven said:
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.
I would prefer to see each specialization offer situational benefits rather than them being weighed against each other in every regard. Using monks as an example, I imagine most monks going down the "Body" path first as it's more DPS oriented and closer aligned to their primary role. As the monk becomes more advanced, they can take on the "Soul" path and now be able to play as a situational off-tank. Looking at the two side by side, I imagine "Body" being much more consistently utilized by monks. And that's fine ... if monks can learn both, most would probably specialize in Body first, and get around to Soul later. Either way ... they have a choice, and eventually, through progression, they can master both and have a more well rounded kit.
I think specialization within a class would indead need to be balanced, otherwise, the players will find the optimum spec that gains the most but loses the least.
For instance, Clerics, say they can spec in healing or damage/damage mitigation. Essentially a "Healing Cleric" or a "Battle Cleric".
If let's say the specs increase damage effieciency for the battle cleric by 20% but only reduce their healing efficiency by 5%, then in most situations, a Battle Cleric would be a preferred spec.
There needs to be a balanced give and take when you specialize, so as one spec does not become the server preferred, which then reduces specialization to not being an true player option.
If players can learn both specializations, they don't need to be balanced. Using monks as an example, "Body" is the more DPS oriented spec which fits their primary role in groups. "Soul" is more of a situational off-tank spec. If you put the two of them side by side, I would imagine "Body" being more consistently utilized. And that's fine ... most monks would probably go down that path first and then take on the "Soul" spec down the road. Either way, they would have the choice and it wouldn't have to be permanent. I don't like the idea of having to constantly weigh each spec vs it's counterpart. I would rather see specialization be something that is used as a form of situational progression just like gear, acclimation, resists, faction, etc.
Can we brainstorm alternatives to talent points, I absolutely despise that system.
Just thinking about assigning talent points makes me gag.
Although I sort of disagree 1AD7.
The pathways shouldn't have a completely biased best choice for 90% of content.
In Fulton's example there are few situations one would want anything other than a battle cleric. Making the healing mode probably a raid or "trap" spec. There do need to be pronounced give and takes, even if they arent exactly 50/50 in his proposed example I can't see a time for group content I wouldn't want the battle cleric. (Though full disclosure that might be personal bias, since that's how I always played my cleric in EQ).
At the end of the day dps rules these games, because you can't support or utility a mob to death, so the goal becomes, bring just enough healing, just enough CC, and just enough utility, then stack dps to the gills, and cleave through anything in your way.
On the flip side if the battle cleric spec lost 20% heals for 5% dmg increase, unless you were still above the survival threshold given the loss, that would be the trap spec.
I'm not saying they "should" have a biased choice for 90% of content, just that if there is, it doesen't break the game. Not all classes will have a specialization that allows them to take on a new role such as monks with off-tanking. In the case of monks, I think it's perfectly okay. I just don't think that each spec needs to be weighed against each other for the sake of balance.
oneADseven said:Fulton said:oneADseven said:
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.
I would prefer to see each specialization offer situational benefits rather than them being weighed against each other in every regard. Using monks as an example, I imagine most monks going down the "Body" path first as it's more DPS oriented and closer aligned to their primary role. As the monk becomes more advanced, they can take on the "Soul" path and now be able to play as a situational off-tank. Looking at the two side by side, I imagine "Body" being much more consistently utilized by monks. And that's fine ... if monks can learn both, most would probably specialize in Body first, and get around to Soul later. Either way ... they have a choice, and eventually, through progression, they can master both and have a more well rounded kit.
I think specialization within a class would indead need to be balanced, otherwise, the players will find the optimum spec that gains the most but loses the least.
For instance, Clerics, say they can spec in healing or damage/damage mitigation. Essentially a "Healing Cleric" or a "Battle Cleric".
If let's say the specs increase damage effieciency for the battle cleric by 20% but only reduce their healing efficiency by 5%, then in most situations, a Battle Cleric would be a preferred spec.
There needs to be a balanced give and take when you specialize, so as one spec does not become the server preferred, which then reduces specialization to not being an true player option.
If players can learn both specializations, they don't need to be balanced. Using monks as an example, "Body" is the more DPS oriented spec which fits their primary role in groups. "Soul" is more of a situational off-tank spec. If you put the two of them side by side, I would imagine "Body" being more consistently utilized. And that's fine ... most monks would probably go down that path first and then take on the "Soul" spec down the road. Either way, they would have the choice and it wouldn't have to be permanent. I don't like the idea of having to constantly weigh each spec vs it's counterpart. I would rather see specialization be something that is used as a form of situational progression just like gear, acclimation, resists, faction, etc.
The main thing is that you are looking at specialization as progression and i am looking at specialization as being unqiue to each toher but not in so much a way one looks better than the other, like i sad we have no idea when we can even become specialize in a spec we could be level 30 before you could choose so most of the core abilities will be in our arsenal, so yes i believe they need to be balanced, no you shouldn'y be able to be both becuase than everyone will be the same, and even with your idea of gear and everything doesn't mean anything when it comes to specialization becuase if you are dps you will more than likely gear towards st,dex as for soul will look more towards sta, agi just not to the degree of MT's, Making it premanent makes your choice matter, and honestly it should matter what you are, and like i said with the having most fo the core abilities as a monk they both can fill in a dps role, one will have slightly more dps and one be more tanky, plus if you can become both it isn't specialization anymore merely just progression becuase their wouldnt be anything special about it.
Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:Fulton said:oneADseven said:
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.
I would prefer to see each specialization offer situational benefits rather than them being weighed against each other in every regard. Using monks as an example, I imagine most monks going down the "Body" path first as it's more DPS oriented and closer aligned to their primary role. As the monk becomes more advanced, they can take on the "Soul" path and now be able to play as a situational off-tank. Looking at the two side by side, I imagine "Body" being much more consistently utilized by monks. And that's fine ... if monks can learn both, most would probably specialize in Body first, and get around to Soul later. Either way ... they have a choice, and eventually, through progression, they can master both and have a more well rounded kit.
I think specialization within a class would indead need to be balanced, otherwise, the players will find the optimum spec that gains the most but loses the least.
For instance, Clerics, say they can spec in healing or damage/damage mitigation. Essentially a "Healing Cleric" or a "Battle Cleric".
If let's say the specs increase damage effieciency for the battle cleric by 20% but only reduce their healing efficiency by 5%, then in most situations, a Battle Cleric would be a preferred spec.
There needs to be a balanced give and take when you specialize, so as one spec does not become the server preferred, which then reduces specialization to not being an true player option.
If players can learn both specializations, they don't need to be balanced. Using monks as an example, "Body" is the more DPS oriented spec which fits their primary role in groups. "Soul" is more of a situational off-tank spec. If you put the two of them side by side, I would imagine "Body" being more consistently utilized. And that's fine ... most monks would probably go down that path first and then take on the "Soul" spec down the road. Either way, they would have the choice and it wouldn't have to be permanent. I don't like the idea of having to constantly weigh each spec vs it's counterpart. I would rather see specialization be something that is used as a form of situational progression just like gear, acclimation, resists, faction, etc.
The main thing is that you are looking at specialization as progression and i am looking at specialization as being unqiue to each toher but not in so much a way one looks better than the other, like i sad we have no idea when we can even become specialize in a spec we could be level 30 before you could choose so most of the core abilities will be in our arsenal, so yes i believe they need to be balanced, no you shouldn'y be able to be both becuase than everyone will be the same, and even with your idea of gear and everything doesn't mean anything when it comes to specialization becuase if you are dps you will more than likely gear towards st,dex as for soul will look more towards sta, agi just not to the degree of MT's, Making it premanent makes your choice matter, and honestly it should matter what you are, and like i said with the having most fo the core abilities as a monk they both can fill in a dps role, one will have slightly more dps and one be more tanky, plus if you can become both it isn't specialization anymore merely just progression becuase their wouldnt be anything special about it.
Yeah that's fine, we can disagree man, no worries. Personally, I think advanced specialization can feel special. Are epic weapons not special because everybody can get them? What makes something feel special is the journey to get there. If it's easy to learn both specializations then yes, I would agree it wouldn't feel special for those who do it. If you make it a long, challenging journey? Then yes. If you do it through progeny? Yep. That would feel special to me.
oneADseven said:I'm not saying they "should" have a biased choice for 90% of content, just that if there is, it doesen't break the game. Not all classes will have a specialization that allows them to take on a new role such as monks with off-tanking. In the case of monks, I think it's perfectly okay. I just don't think that each spec needs to be weighed against each other for the sake of balance.
Until they reveal more about specs I can't really argue my point properly outside of some basic counterpoints.
The specialization choices should be meaningful to character development, I believe they should be balanced, because these seem like playstyle choices. If they are not balanced it has the potential to corral players in to a playstyle that they don't necessarily want to do (healers dpsing as an example).
Also on the offhand these are one and done choices (we have no idea yet) I think it best to make my stance on that particular subject now. That being: they better be balanced to each other.
Anyways I've enjoyed your thread so far, and I am pretty adamant about my personal view point and it seems you are likewise, so I doubt either of us are going to have their minds changed.
Honestly I'm fine with whatever system they decide to implement, as long as it does not change the core gameplay/role of the class, if I choose a healer it's because I wanna heal, if I choose a DPS it's because I wanna DPS, if I choose a tank it's because I wanna get smashed in the face by mobs and have multiple concussions so that I can help my party, If neither of these fit my play style there's allways the hybrids, rangers, monks, shamans, enchanter, they each do a bit of the roles and are masters of noone.
That's why I hope specs don't change the core role of the class, they can help speciallize a class in their role ( in the case of hybrids in one of the parts of their roles), but it should never change it. Your initial class choise in the creation screen should dictate what you're capable of doing not your spec.
jpedrote said:Honestly I'm fine with whatever system they decide to implement, as long as it does not change the core gameplay/role of the class, if I choose a healer it's because I wanna heal, if I choose a DPS it's because I wanna DPS, if I choose a tank it's because I wanna get smashed in the face by mobs and have multiple concussions so that I can help my party, If neither of these fit my play style there's allways the hybrids, rangers, monks, shamans, enchanter, they each do a bit of the roles and are masters of noone.
That's why I hope specs don't change the core role of the class, they can help speciallize a class in their role ( in the case of hybrids in one of the parts of their roles), but it should never change it. Your initial class choise in the creation screen should dictate what you're capable of doing not your spec.
Right this is the reason i brought up the lvl 30 to specialize into a spec idea, that way the "core abilties" of your class are alrdy there and the improvements of these abilties will be for both specs as a class ability and not a spec ability, meaning if you are a shaman and get a slow as a core ability the spec will not take this away from you but if your spec gave you a powerful buff than the other one won't give it to you kind of an idea. but like i said i want them balanced so obviously if one shaman spec gives you a powerful buff than the other shaman spec has to give you something to make it just as intriguing so it remains balanced.
just to lessen confuson if you get the slow at lvl 15 before you can specialize you would also get it at lvl 35 if that is it improvement past the specialization becuase it was part of your core abilties
Bards were a CC and support class In EQ and VG.
Curious what's your reason for disliking rogue mez exactly?
How would you prefer they increase rogue desireability?
In EQ 12/14 classes at launch had some kind ghetto CC via blinds, fears, snares, FD (split pulling is basically CC), roots, ,blurs, lulls, etc. So how is this a large change from that basis?
I can list the abilities if you would like?
A class doesn't change roles just because it has some limited utility. A specialization should augment the core parts of a role, not expand in areas that would cause them to overlap into other roles.
For instance, a monk can self-heal. A monk shouldn't heal others unless it's extremely limited like allowing their mend to become targetable on long cooldown.
A rogue is about dps, sneaking, disarming traps, scouting etc. Their specializations should therefore enhance different dps builds, enhance their sneak, their ability to disarm/detect traps and so forth. It would be bad for their specialization to enhance crowd control, because that's a secondary or even tertiary ability, not core.
Being against specialization because of role overlap is being against it for the wrong reason. I believe we can trust that VR understands that a class should not go beyond their core identity when creating specialization for them.
Dullahan said:A class doesn't change roles just because it has some limited utility. A specialization should augment the core parts of a role, not expand in areas that would cause them to overlap into other roles.
For instance, a monk can self-heal. A monk shouldn't heal others unless it's extremely limited like allowing their mend to become targetable on long cooldown.
A rogue is about dps, sneaking, disarming traps, scouting etc. Their specializations should therefore enhance different dps builds, enhance their sneak, their ability to disarm/detect traps and so forth. It would be bad for their specialization to enhance crowd control, because that's a secondary or even tertiary ability, not core.
Being against specialization because of role overlap is being against it for the wrong reason. I believe we can trust that VR understands that a class should not go beyond their core identity when creating specialization for them.
I 100% agree with this. Specializations should deepen the current roles not change what role the class plays. For a Rogue one side would make them do more bleed damage and the other could make the Rogue better at positional damage like Backstab.
Dullahan said:A class doesn't change roles just because it has some limited utility. A specialization should augment the core parts of a role, not expand in areas that would cause them to overlap into other roles.
For instance, a monk can self-heal. A monk shouldn't heal others unless it's extremely limited like allowing their mend to become targetable on long cooldown.
A rogue is about dps, sneaking, disarming traps, scouting etc. Their specializations should therefore enhance different dps builds, enhance their sneak, their ability to disarm/detect traps and so forth. It would be bad for their specialization to enhance crowd control, because that's a secondary or even tertiary ability, not core.
Being against specialization because of role overlap is being against it for the wrong reason. I believe we can trust that VR understands that a class should not go beyond their core identity when creating specialization for them.
I 100% agree with this. Specializations should deepen the current roles not change what role the class plays. For a Rogue one side would make them do more bleed damage and the other could make the Rogue better at positional damage like Backstab.
Dullahan said:A class doesn't change roles just because it has some limited utility. A specialization should augment the core parts of a role, not expand in areas that would cause them to overlap into other roles.
For instance, a monk can self-heal. A monk shouldn't heal others unless it's extremely limited like allowing their mend to become targetable on long cooldown.
A rogue is about dps, sneaking, disarming traps, scouting etc. Their specializations should therefore enhance different dps builds, enhance their sneak, their ability to disarm/detect traps and so forth. It would be bad for their specialization to enhance crowd control, because that's a secondary or even tertiary ability, not core.
Being against specialization because of role overlap is being against it for the wrong reason. I believe we can trust that VR understands that a class should not go beyond their core identity when creating specialization for them.
I 100% agree with this. Specializations should deepen the current roles not change what role the class plays. For a Rogue one side would make them do more bleed damage and the other could make the Rogue better at positional damage like Backstab.
Sounds good to me. I am especially curious how specializations will be handled with warriors. I almost expect a defensive/offensive warrior, something like guardian/berserker. I would prefer to see 2 defensive tank specs though ... if other classes do indeed having specializations, that is. I'll take an order of 5 warrior specializations to go please ... oh, and 5 orders of Progeny to go with them. That would be boss. =D
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'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.