You make a valid point. It is possible to get to a number of classes where balancing becomes more difficult and uniqueness of classes becomes watered down. I would submit that it's impossible to say, because it would be different from game to game depending on what mechanics are in the game. The more options available to give to classes due to the mechanics of the game, the more classes you can add, and you really only need to balance the classes then for the roles they fill (not just their primary role, but also any other roles they can be expected to fill).
On the flip side, too few classes and the game becomes stagnant quickly. Not only is replay ability low, but everyone is pretty much the same.
I never felt that eq had balance issues because of the number of classes. For the most part clerics druids and shaman were not balanced because clerics were the "healers".
Same with tanks, warriors we the tanks. Pally and SK were hybrids.
Even dps, wizards rogues necro monk berserkers were pure dps, everyone else was hybrid or support.
Balance issues occur mostly due to numerical discrepencies between classes of the same role. It can also happen when developers have different expectations of a class compared to how the community perceive it, and how it plays out dynamically in a game. What I mean by that, is that developers might design a class that is supposed to be decent at many tasks, but not truly great at any (Jack of all Trades), which often means they get put aside in favour of classes designed with a more clear focus in mind. Classes with a more definded roles.
For Pantheon I hope they do design classes with this in mind, last thing I would want to see is a dozen of classes being unfavoured by the community from a general standpoint. What I'd like to see is every class designed with a primary role in mind first and foremost, and then have apply secondary roles to them for flavour and flexibility in group composition.
For instance with our support classes:
Druid - Healer first/damage secondary. Casts offensive Elemental Magic, and channels nature itself for healing group members. Heals are dominantly HoT focused, with higher throughput over time, but much less frontloaded healing compared to a Cleric. A Druid would still be able to fullfil the role of a healer in a group, but in a raid a Cleric is still required as a designated tank healer.
Shaman - Healer/debuffer. Uses poison and toxins to damage its enemies over time, while reducing their effectiveness in combat with strong debuffs. Their heals mostly being focused around damage absorbtion shields (wards), but throughput being overall lower than both the Druid and Cleric, but makes up for the lower throughput with the debuffs they apply to their enemies. In a role their job would be to keep targets debuffed, apply some damage if possible and ward team-mates when you expect big incoming damage.
Cleric - Healer/Buffer/Undead Specialist. Uses divine magic to smite foes, particularly effective against undead enemies. The have the strongest direct heals out of any healer, and as a result they deal better with spike damage than any of the supports. They also have the best defensive buffs, which also contributes to the overall reduced damage taken by the group. In a raid it would be a natural tank healer, or focus targets in general.
Obviously these are just examples on how you can make classes stand out from eachother despite filling the same role, but should illustrate on why I do not think Pantheon stands a risk of having watered out, or glaring balance issues between roles and classes. VR is a small development team, with huge amount of experience and passion for what they're making. They know what worked and what didn't work in previous similar games.
I, for one, have never been a fan of classes. I remember Ultima Online had a system where you would skill up by using skills, and you could do so until you reached the global cap for skill points invested. At that point, if you continued to raise some skills, your least used ones would de-level. It was slow to hit grandmaster in any skill, so you wouldn't be jumping from one thing to the other every day, but it added a lot of potential for non-cookie cutter builds and replayability.
Having classes in a game isn't the end of the world, but I do agree that unless you can make each one appealing, adding more classes is just a waste of developer resources. The more classes you add, the harder they are to balance so that some of them aren't simply shunned for certain content. Of course some players are always going to pick the underdog, but if the game's meta starts to exclude certain classes, it usually bleeds down to the overall player base. Note that when I talk about balancing, I don't mean every class needs to put out the same amount of damage, or heals, or have the same type of buffs and CCs. I simply mean that every class should be roughly as useful as other classes focused on the same role.
That said, I don't know if there's a hard number where you suddenly have too many classes. With respect to balancing, it depends on the developers' creativity and the resources thrown at the issue. One thing I would expect is to be able to create at least one character for each class, so I'd say if you have multiple classes you should have at least as many character slots :)
I think that as long you have a some kind of inherent (not aestetical) distinction between classes its OK.
and it is not a balance issue but saturation issue.
for example: heavy armored single target healer + buffer (cleric) vs light armored ho"t healer + debuffer (druid) is fine. they have different function.
but: light armored single target dps + cc (mage) vs light armored single target dps + cc (sorcerer) , are basically the same class just reskinned, then I have a problem with that. and it doesnt matter if one of the classes has some kind of pet and the other have some kind of utility spell, they are still the same class. (they could be different specs of the same class though)
I know it is a chore (the forum search suxxors mightily), but if we are to hope 'The Mighty Dream Crusher' (a.k.a. 'Kilsin of the Antipodes', for it is he!) is able to consolidate the idea/discussion posts into some useable format for later DEV consideration, we really need to keep our discussions in as few threads as possible! This is also to ensure that good ideas in one thread don't get lost in favour of another thread which may have other, different ideas!
Suggest:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6166/to-many-classes
with background reading of:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1937/not-all-classes-should-be-able-to-solo
; https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2737/how-are-you-deciding-what-classes-do-what
; https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2978/unlisted-classes
and off-topic, but on point:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1888/eq-classes-vs-vg-classes
not to mention a few VIP and Champion threads to boot (which I won't list since the links will break)
Evoras, may have made points in the other thread... but only his pet knows!
I see a need for at least 6 archetypes, each with 3 classes in that archetype so 18 classes total?
1) Tanks - Mitigation/HP (Warrior), Self heals/Mitigation (Pally), Magic Mitigation/spells (DireLord)
2) Healers - Big Heals (Clerics), HoTs (Druids or Shamans), AoE (Shamans or Druids)
3) Melee DPS - Monk, Rogue, and a Zerker type 2h master
4) Ranged DPS - Fire/Ice (wizard), Earth/wind (Sorcerer), Physical (Ranger)
5) CC - Magical (Chanter), Song (Bard), poison/disease based (Not sure what to name it)
6) Pet Classes - Conjurored (Summoner), Trained (Hunter/Beastlord), Control (Mesmer Type)
That would give anyone plenty to choose from that way if say you really want to be a pet class you dont have to stick to just summoned pets.
Also note with balancing more classes, you only have to balance them with in there Archetype in a game like PRF. As long as all three tanks are good in groups, and are used in raids at fairly equal levels you dont have to worry about how much DPS they do. Same for the DPS as long as all three melee DPS do about the same and through a long term fight (think 10+ minutes) are equal to caster then you have a pretty well balanced class system IMO.
I like it when there is a plethora of classes to choose from. I do like the ability to customer within the class as well, so not all warriors are the same as other warriors. I feel like balancing won't be as big of an issue due to the size of groups in Pantheon. If you have less people in a group, I feel like people would be pressured to bring the best of the best options. However with 6 people, there is no reason to do that. There is much more room for variety. I also feel like the environment will help bring an even bigger variety to the group.
The only point at which there are too many classes for me is when no class has a distinct personality and unique playstyle. Which in my opinion often happens well past the point when class balance is taken far too seriously. You'll never have complete balance, and I think it really harms the game to be constantly changing things in pursuit of it.
Too many classes is never an issue for me - too many classes that play the same is an issue.
I left DAOC when each of my 18 slots on the cooperative server had a maximum level character - each of the 18 was a different class. There were a few more classes but I was out of room. Happy days!
There should be multiple classes for each role but the absolutely critical thing is that none should be self-evidently inferior. Each class should be better than the others in the same role at enough things that a group or raid leader could rationally pick it over the other classes for certain encounters/areas. A class that can never get in a group unless the leader is a guildmate or isn't trying to get the best group is at a disadvantage.
IMO balancing is so hard to achieve but if it were me:
Clerics: Big hp/ac buffs with powerful heals
Shamans : Multiple stat buffs/ ultitybuffs/debuffs/ powerful heals
Druids: Buffs/More focused on DPS, wih a chance to maybe increase damage to target for other DPSer's
Bards, Enchanter: Huge support classes, with a chance to do some damage but not like a true DPS class
Paladins/Dire Lord/Warrior: Your tank classes
Wizards/Rogues/Monks/Ranger/Summoner/Necro: Your main DPS roles, They basically sacrafice any kind of buffs for grps, and by doing so they can push out good damage compared to other classes.
Basically i don't want to see a well played Druid doing damage like a Well played Wizard, becuase if your class can buff team mates, heal, slow, debuff or anything like this and a wizard can not than he should be able to push out more dps than someone that can, this is called keeping it balanced, to give something you have to take something away. Now im not saying that a Wizard/Rogue/Monk/Ranger is going to blow everyone out of the water either, but i am saying that they should have a higher ceiling in regards to DPS, Much like Clerics/Shamans being your best healers, Druids being behind the DPS roles in damage, and your support classes making everyone better at what they do best (basically the glue of all good groups).
Edit: BTW this is what i have envisioned a DRuid being in regards of either being DPS, this probably isn't true but i put him in their just as what i think, so if he becomes a healer, than he obviosuly being doing less damage than most classes than be behind the DPS roles.
Edit: I'm also not saying tht all DPS classes will do the same damage either, either by mechanic or what the mob is resistant to, along with whatever other ideas people have, just merely saying they have a higher ceiling than the other and even over themselves depending on what i said above.
i liked how many classes were in DaoC, wished there was double the classes in Pantheon.
Its a Role playing game, why does every DPS class have to be equal in DPS. as long as they contribute in some way or another
its suppose to be a cooperative game. not i must be the best .. he does 10 more dps than me . NERF
many diverse classes for me .
I think that there will be more and I hope a LOT more. I would like to see a return of the Blood Mage and a Psionicist class as well. Diplomats and Loremasters. Berzerkers and S'Kage Wetboys. I could name a hundred and not be done. I think that the slow decline of subscriptions is that eventually everyone plays the same 4 to 6 classes and it gets boring. Bring forth the classes! Bring the hybrids. Bring the things no one ever thought about. Bring it all - in due time.
I loved the progression of classes that EQ2 did originally, and thought it was somewhat tragic that it got removed. I loved the diversity that used to be available with talents in WoW, and hated that they diluted it so much in the name of balance.
Give me more classes. Give me so many that I can't ever thoroughly explore them all in a lifetime. Keep me finding new in a game and I'll stick with that game for exponentially longer.
Feyshtey said:The only point at which there are too many classes for me is when no class has a distinct personality and unique playstyle. Which in my opinion often happens well past the point when class balance is taken far too seriously. You'll never have complete balance, and I think it really harms the game to be constantly changing things in pursuit of it.
This right here.
It's time to stop making new classes when they're no longer able to make distinct classes with their own, unique playstyle. EQ2 had that problem.
Another fun thing might be to make certain classes obsolete after a while. What I mean by that is say after two years, the Blood Mage is no longer able to be created - but existing Blood Mages get to stay. Imagine this: ten year anniversary party and a Blood Mage walks in. Everyone stops and stares - "Holy crap! That guys a Bloodmage!"...
You could create dozens of hybrid classes etc. and still stay within a certain number of classes at any one time.
I prefer more than less in regards to classes, but with the strict understanding that each available class has their own unique flavor and group/raid utility. Specialization can go a long way in this regard. An ideal scenario for me would be allowing multiple specialization paths for each class, and allowing players to unlock a "master class" version where they are adept with both specializations. They can never be both at once, but they could switch their specialization while out of combat. For example, with monks ... there is body/soul. I envision a "master monk" who can rotate between both body and soul while out of combat.
This could be gated behind progeny. Upon reaching max level you can then roll a progeny monk choosing either body or soul. Once you level that progeny to max, you can then reroll a second time and level up the other specialization. Once that monk is capped they are now able to switch back and forth between each spec. This allows you to create "niche" or "situational" specializations that can perform at a high level under specific circumstances, but without having to lock that player into a role that is overall pretty limited. The more niche the role, the more likely it is to be mastered in the later tiers of progeny progression.
All in all i could see maybe 5 more classes, hopefully more towards the utilty type classes like what i have my Druid class stated as in a above post, i just don't want to see the lines being crossed, and extremely hard to balance, but even if we don't get any classes i would be happy with that as well, for as long as the balance is there, which is all i really care about
I don't think there is any set number where there becomes too many, it really depends on how well they are implemented and how unique the classes feel without stepping on the toes of existing ones too much. Without knowing abilities I could still see them having plenty of room for things like Berserker, Blood Mage, and Shifter/Polymorph.
Liav said:Beastlords weren't great honestly. The Druids of melee.
Mediocre damage, worse slows than a Shaman, worse buffs than a Shaman. Only thing they did well was Paragon and the Savagery line of spells.
Nothing to do with anything but Beastlords were a hybrid of Shaman/Monk, not druid
Riahuf22 said:Liav said:Beastlords weren't great honestly. The Druids of melee.
Mediocre damage, worse slows than a Shaman, worse buffs than a Shaman. Only thing they did well was Paragon and the Savagery line of spells.
Nothing to do with anything but Beastlords were a hybrid of Shaman/Monk, not druid
I'm aware. I was implying that Beastlords were equally as useless as Druids.
Considering how bad Druids were, I guess it's no surprise that Rangers were terrible too.