Forums » Pantheon Classes

This irks me about class discussion

    • 101 posts
    January 19, 2018 3:08 PM PST

    In nearly every thread.. someone complains about their class being pigeonholed into a particular role or playstyle..


    In the Wizzy thread about burst vs sustained dps.. the general complaint is 'its not fair melee dps dont have mana, and its 'boring' medding and nuking once a fight'

    Ranger thread about weapon types... the general complaint is 'its not fair rangers are 'assumed' bow masters and are deficient with other weapons, and its 'boring' not to have flexability'

    Tank thread comparing Warrior to Knight(caster) tanks.. the general complaint is 'its not fair warriors are the 'ultimate tanking-tank', and is 'boring' and useless playing a knight in raids'


    MMO classes are defined by unique playstyle AND distinct roles.  Distinct roles even between the different types of dps, or the different types of tanks, or the diferent types of healers, etc.  Distinct roles promote pantheon's social intent and gameplay depth.  In other words, some classes are supposed to suck at things so that other classes can excel at that thing.  Why? So when your class doesnt fill the role, you reach out to someone of another class to help/group with you.


    Wizzys are supposed to be the big chunk nuker.. I always saw them as the 'oh $h1t button' dps.  If you get a bunch of adds, for example, the wizzy can burn through a few of them in seconds and make the fight manageable(or port the group to safety).  The 'burning' costs the wizzy their manapool followed by a long meditation period, but thats why they med.  If you dont want to be that type of dps.. the game should have sustained caster dps class and you should play that other class.


    Rangers are supposed to fill the niche of a 'ranged melee' type character.  The dmg bonuses/calculations/enemy resistances applied to melee damage should be different than caster damage, and rangers fill the niche of doing melee damage out of harms way.  If you dont want to fill the role of a 'ranged melee' dps(aka bow, bow types, dart spitter, throwing axer, spear thrower, insert I dont care ranged dps..) then you should play a melee dps so you can have your fancy sword.


    Warriors are supposed to be the highest defense, because they sacrifice the utility of casting.  If your a knight who wants to be able to tank the baddest mobs, then play a warrior and proudly give up the ability to buff yourself, heal yourself, snare/stun enemies, etc.  If the game is balanced correctly, then knights will still have important roles in a raid.  If you dont like that role, then pick a class with a role you do like..


    Im sure we could come up with a million other examples between the classes. 


    Further, and this goes moreso for the wizzy and tanks examples above, its ok if a class is better suited in raid as opposed to groups.  As an EQ warrior I never complained that knights had better aggro than me for group xp.. I might have waited longer to find groups but I didnt even notice.  The warrior way if life was all I knew, I loved the gameplay mechanics, and a little extra wait for groups was worth the fun and raiding 'need bonus'.  Similarly, if wizards are less than ideal as xp group dps, then they'll be fine so long as they have their role as raid burner and/or tradskill master, or something else to fill the gap.


    rant off~




    This post was edited by Defector at January 19, 2018 3:41 PM PST
    • 3224 posts
    January 19, 2018 5:34 PM PST

    But that's what discussion is all about...if we all had exactly the same opinion, there would be nothing to discuss.  And THAT would be boring. :)  hehehe

    • 1594 posts
    January 20, 2018 2:34 AM PST

    Yeah, but some of those points *are* debatable, so people want to discuss.

    There's no reason Wizards (or any other class) in Pantheon should be like EQ, Vanguard or any other game.

    There's no reason warriors shouldn't have a power pool just like wizards.  It *is* annoying and boring to some to be meditating 3/4 of an encounter.

    The archetypes of an MMORPG are important, but aren't set in stone.

    I hope Pantheon put aside a lot of the aspects of them that can be irritating or tedious.  There's other ways to do things and we don't need to hold to 'tropes' just *because*.

    • 1728 posts
    January 20, 2018 10:45 AM PST

    I agree some points are non-negotiable, as beeing core class functionnality : IE, rogue/monks beeing sustained, wiz beeing burst and med.


    Some other aren't, like beeing bad at your role because you didn't pick the right class in a role pool.

    In EQ classic pre kunark, the war had litteraly no advantages except a bit higher health pool and a damage mitigation bonus resulting in far less than 5% damage taken, depending on the boss stats. At this time, paladins SK were better are threat with almost no loss in mitigation : Was it normal for you ? Would you consider the original design of EQ pre introduction of disciplines as "The goal design of the game" ? I bet war were pretty umpopular back then.

    With the introduction of disciplines and superduperhardhitting bosses, war became the MT of reference as a virtual tradeoff of an utility worthess in raid situation. Not even was it the MT, it was also the OT, the OT2, the OT3. Etc...

    Because disciplines were so much needed, that warriors rotated according to their disc duration and cooldown, thus beeing numerous in raids where you had maybe... one paladin ? One SK? Because the PLD can heal, but not as good as a healer, and he doesn't regen while hitting the boss (for very low damages), his spot is then, best spent on a healer or even a druid that will outdps the PLD while healing better.

    The SK could pull with FD, where the monk were far superior, sustained DPS and non mana dependant, making the SK replaced by a Monk a good choice.


    In that design, and that philosophy, raids spots are overtaken by mandatory roles with the most effencience (War as tanks, clerics as healing, rogue as DPS, monks as pullers and DPS) that were numerous, 6 clerics, 3 or 4 warriors, 5+ rogues, 3 monks.

    Is that what you judge as "a good design no one should rant about" ? If you level your character up to max, and raid (as an assumption raids are the true purpose of the game) only to discover no one wants your class because it sucks in every domain with their low hybrid spells, no mana regen while swinging your weapons, and that you should have picked an other class to fulfill the role you wanted to assume, as a tank/heal/dps/whatever ?


    I don't think any raid needs 4 warriors and 6 clerics again, that's a flaw of design.


    Rangers are supposed to fill the niche of a 'ranged melee' type character.

    That was not the case, not utill PoP came out with Ranged mastery and Endless quiver. Untill then ranger was a melee spellweaver with a discipline allowing a good bow burst everytime it was up, but no sustained bow DPS.

    • 251 posts
    January 20, 2018 11:15 AM PST

    So you're complaining about people complaining?  I have a complaint about that...


    In all seriousness though, part of what made EQ great was the ability to map your playstyle into a character, allowing the same class to take on different flavors depending on gear and playstyle.  The meta that you describe for certain classes didn't even exist in EQ at the onset.  The original classes were loose mappings of their D&D counterparts.  Warriors weren't just tanks, they were also great melee dps.  Rangers weren't archers (archery wasn't really a thing until Luclin era), they were light-weight warriors with a lot of utility.  I'm not a huge fan of labeling classes as needing to fill a specific role, because many of the loose class definitions traditionally span multiple roles.

    --  Wizards cast the big nukes, sure--but they also have a lot of utility at their disposal (port, root, snare, invis, etc).

    --  Warriors are combat speciallists, but that traditionally means offense as well as defense.

    --  Rangers are warriors-on-the-go, every variation of the pen&paper ranger has some degree of knowledge of the bow, but they also speciallize in swords, axes, spears, daggers and other weapons.


    What if you want to play a fighter that puts out big damage with a massive greatsword, but don't necessarilly care too much about tanking?  Right now you're probably going to have to roll a ranger, because that's the only class in the 'dps' role that would logically have skill in such a weapon.  I would argue that some variation of warrior or knight might fit that description much better, but under the current meta, since those classes are delegated to the 'tank' role, their abilities are unlikely to match a 'dps' class weilding that weapon.


    I want to be clear, I'm not saying that a warrior should have the option to be a dps class AND a tank.  I'm saying that real, lasting decisions should be made about how you want to play the class.  And if that playstyle maps to a specific class, that option should be available in some form.


    In D&D this was accomplished by choosing 'kits' that fine-tuned the more general class descriptions.  For instance, a ranger that selected a 'warden' kit might look much more like a tank than other ranger variations (They were in many ways similar to knights, basically charged by a rich nobel to protect a large swath of land, and were given access to high quality equipment by their benefactor).  A 'greenwood' ranger on the other hand wasn't allowed to wear any armor, but their skin hardened as they leveled (abilities like this were probably the origin of the 'skin-like-'x'' line of spells in EQ).  The 'beast-master' kit would allow for more of a pet class variation on the ranger.


    Personally, I think it would be great if we were given the option to tailor our toons as they progressed via some solution like choosing kits or paths.  They would have to be meaningful choices -- you want the dps-warrior?  Fine, but you can't just hit a button and suddenly you're a tank again.  This sort of functionality could be accomplished by combining a 'path' mechanic with a system akin to how I've read tradeskills worked Vanguard.


    Say warriors had 3 kits available to them at the start:

    -- Protector: speciallizes in defensive abilities.

    -- Tactician: utilitarian fighter, somewhat defensive, but has abilities that help control fights.

    -- Gladiator: speciallizes in offensive skills.


    All warriors would have a core set of skills that would be available to them, but trainers would only offer the speciallized skills if you were working on that path.  Later, if you decided to switch paths, you'd lose access to the old skills but gain the ability to learn the skills for the new path.  To keep from maxing out all the kits/paths, you could implement a skill level for the paths themselves that worked as a modifier for their related abilities.  Then if someone switched paths, as they gained skill in the new path their skill in the old path would decline, along with their effectiveness in it's related abilities.  So switching paths would be possible, but enough of a chore that people wouldn't just do it on a whim.


    Something like this could also offer a form of horizontal progression.  A new expansion might offer new kits/paths like say 'berserker' for warriors.  People interested in the new warrior variant could then go persue it without the need to re-roll a toon entirely.


    tldr:  Overly limiting classes to a specific playstyle is one-dimensional and limits peoples ability to develop an attachment to their toon.  Providing meaningful options has benefits that go beyond allowing players to create the character that matches their playstyle--it also opens the door to new forms of horizontal progression.


    • 47 posts
    January 22, 2018 1:06 PM PST

    On the far end of this spectrum you end up with Rift, where every class can fill any role.  While I loved the game, the lack of identity for my class eventually detracted from my enjoyment.

    I'm perfectly ok with having Roles where a class fits into one of them and you are aware of this in advance, as long as each class in the Role can perform that Role to similar effect, and differ largely in flavor and playstyle.

    • 67 posts
    February 20, 2018 10:13 AM PST

    The OP brings up some good points, but his complaining is largely too specific to be useful. "Warriors being the only worthwhile tanks" and "Knights are useless in raids" is a largely post-Kunark Everquest problem, brought on by their access to Defensive Stance, higher hit point pool, higher skill caps on defensive skills, and ability to generate consistent aggro using their decent DPS with Dual Wield. Knights, in comparison, had some useful utility that was basically worthless in a tanking raid situation, lower hit points, and while they had better 'snap' aggro they lagged behind in their ability to generate consistent threat over a long fight due to lower weapon DPS, made worse by their reliance on a shield to compensate for their relative durability shortfall. Other games, including Everquest 2, had both Knight and Warrior archtypes fulfill useful Tank roles.

    Wizards having better burst and worse sustained DPS is a fairly common trope in MMOs. The need to be sitting and medding during a fight is a legitimate complaint. However, it again is a fairly specific problem originating from Everquest. Many other MMOs, like Rift and DDO, get rid of this problem by having sitting on your ass mid-fight being something that either isn't useful or actively dangerous to do. Yeah, you can still run out of mana and be useless in a fight, but that's kind of what the class is all about: Managing your combat resource and staying out of danger. That sort of playstyle attracts many, and those who complain about this dynamic probably are unsuited to the Wizard.

    Rangers being all about the bow is a comparitively recent thing, thrust into prominence by the Lord of the Rings movies. Before Legolas captured the imagination of a generation (Legolas was a far less popular character compared to Aragorn before Orlando Bloom), the characters people thought of as 'rangers' were more like Aragorn and Drizzt: lightly armored warriors that used swords and used their skills in the wild to track down prey and command beasts to do their bidding. The addition of Archery to the mythos, again, was mostly by Legolas. From a game-design standpoint, having Rangers be the 'bow specialist' was convenient because it helped differentiate them from Warriors and Rogues, as well as tying them closer to the 'hunter in the woods' archtype. In Everquest, as an example, Rangers were considered bow specialists even before it became viable with Shadows of Luclin due to them having access to the most powerful bows in the game as well as having not one, but two passive abilities that augmented their bow damage. Shadows of Luclin made their bows start to outdamage their melee with the introduction of Alternate Advancement abilities that simply doubled bow damage as well as allow them to use more powerful arrows without breaking the bank, and while they eventually managed to make the melee ranger more viable, this identity as bow specialists persisted in the minds of players.

    Pantheon has a lot of room to work in these spaces. Who says the Ranger must specialize in the bow? Frankly, if archery is all the Ranger can possibly be good at, I would consider that a failure on the part of VR. Ranger, as a creative concept, could specialize in melee, dual-wielding powerful swords. They could specialize in their tradecraft, having minor druidic magic to control the battlefield and have a truly deep understanding of their foe's weak points, allowing them to do greater damage to an enemy the longer they are in combat with them. They could 'mark' enemies that they track down with the Perception system, allowing them to do a great amount of damage to that foe and debilitate them with their first, devastating strike.

    Who is to say the Wizard could not have things to do between summoning great gouts of flame to incinerate their opponent? Perhaps the wizard could have some smaller spells that take nearly no energy to cast, allowing them to 'melee' in a sense. Perhaps wizards could use their mastery of teleportation to confound enemies, manipulating the amount of aggro they or their allies generate. Perhaps they can wrest additional mana from their enemies, or even the air itself, giving them access to deeper wells of mana without needing to sit and stare at a book.

    Nobody in their right mind will simply assume that Warriors will be the premier tanking class. I always thought the idea that Warriors were better at soaking damage compared to Paladins as being counter-intuitive. The heavily-armored, divinely empowered warrior filled with the zeal of purpose should be better at weathering any assault than a man who simply mastered the arts of combat, for the Paladin uses his faith as a second shield. The Dire Lord, using fell magic and the power of fear to debilitate his enemies should, comparitively, be weaker than both the Warrior and the Paladin in defense, for his enemies strike with less surety and with weaker arms. The Warrior, in my opinion, should probably be the most versatile of the lot, being able to tank with the best of them as well as being able to put out some serious damage when disregarding defense. Warrior is, compared to such powerful archtypes of the Paladin or the Dire Lord, a blank slate, and the idea that they can be pidgeonholed into any one role is ludicrous in my mind.

    There's something to be said about a class being able to fill multiple roles. Feeling like your Warrior is just like every other Warrior on Terminus isn't a good feeling. Even if the racial differences are meaningful, all you need to do is look around your guild hall to see a half-dozen other Warriors that are basically the same as you. On the other hand, not having a distinct identity and purpose with your class is also not desirable. If someone can fill an entire raid with only three classes because each can be differentiated enough to fill all possible situations, I call that a problem when there are twelve classes. It's wasteful to have so many classes when each can fill so many possible roles, and it weakens each class's personal identity, which hurts immersion. Finding a balance between these two extremes (Everquest on one side, RIFT on the other) is an important task that I believe VR is more than ready to take on.

    • 37 posts
    February 21, 2018 12:34 PM PST

    As long as there is some choice in each class I'm fine. Having only 1 real path for a class creates basically pre-set characters. If thats the case, you may as well call this a MOBA where you pick character 1-7 and play.

    This post was edited by DakmorKavu at February 21, 2018 12:36 PM PST
    • 1594 posts
    March 18, 2018 10:30 AM PDT

    In a role-playing game, people don't just want to fulfill part of an interdependant group mechanic in order to defeat encounters, they want to play a role.

    Someone reads the Ranger class description "In untamed regions, the Ranger is a versatile and ferocious warrior, united with the land and animals he communes with." and likes the sound of it.  If it also said "but in almost all encounters, you will not be anywhere near as tough as a pure Warrior, so you'll just stand back twanging your bow while he does the real fighting" they might not choose it so readily.

    Someone who reads "While many Wizards are driven mad through study of the arcane, those who emerge stable under the weight of this power wield a force barely imaginable in awe and effect." would perhaps be unhappy when they realise "You will, however, spend most of your time not being awesome, but sat on your butt watching everyone else being awesome" and rightly so.

    Is the answer "Well, choose another class"? Hardly. There's nothing else like Ranger or Wizard when it comes to role-playing, which is, of course a fundament of the game.

    Of course, most of the people here know what Rangers or Wizards tend to be like having played similar roles in simlar games for 20 years, so they have the discussion in these forums hoping they can help shape their favourite role and have it not be so disappointing in areas they've been disappointed before.

    In a multi-player game, if people don't interact, it's pointless. Sure. But should they be *forced* to interact by making them suck in certain fundamental areas? Or should they be *encouraged* to interact, because it is always a benefit, no matter what class they are because their weaknesses can be overcome by more tactics than just someone else's class filling in for the failures of others?

    And fundamentally, this is a game. It needs to be fun.

    Now, whilst I agree that the whole all-classes-can-do-all-things concept other MMORPGs have tried was ultimately unfulfilling, it wasn't because people didn't like the roles they played. The flexibility meant the role you chose was as awesome (in your subjective definition) as it could be! The problem was, in addition to the freedom of role flexibility, they always seemed to think people should also have the freedom to be able to do 99% of content alone.

    Pantheon doesn't have to be as strict with role definition as EQ and other 'classics' were in order to be a social, group-oriented, challenging game, it simply needs to make encounters difficult enough to need a group to overcome them. It needs to make class interdependancy the most effective way to play without *forcing* anything but a perfect group make-up to really struggle.

    Also, since it's not PvP, it doesn't need to 'balance' class-vs-class. There's no reason the hybrids can't perform well enough at two roles to not be disappointing in either. It would also be nice if you didn't have to be a non-hybrid to be chosen for raids at max level... I'm sure VR can manage it.

    Also, as has been said above, it's not always about not *having* weaknesses, but perhaps making those weaknesses less boring, disappointing, whatever.  If a wizard has to meditate a lot, give them something they can only do when meditating (targetable psionic-based de-buffs?).  Give the Ranger a pet that he can order about while he stands there and twangs his bow.

    • 67 posts
    March 22, 2018 10:22 AM PDT

    You make a solid point about downtime. It would be fairly lazy of them to have Wizards, for example, sitting on their butts most of the time. There are people who like those moments of power enough to not care about the downtime, and I do understand the appeal of watching and waiting for the perfect moment to strike, but forcing downtime during the fight isn't the right answer. I've thrown some possible solutions up above, but I'll reiterate them here: Give them something that doesn't take mana to do so they get an 'autoattack' spell, like a wand-based ranged weapon or a small manaless fireball, or give them the ability to take an action to regenerate mana in combat. Give them an active skill to help them manage their aggro so they aren't just waiting for the tank to build up hate so they can nuke again (even if the skill does little-to-nothing, it gives them something to do while waiting). There's a lot of options.

    • 2575 posts
    March 22, 2018 3:21 PM PDT

    Having buttons to press just to have something to do isn't a good or engaging solution either. It's the equivalent of busy work.

    • 1728 posts
    March 22, 2018 3:35 PM PDT

    Disposalist made a good point I think about the risk of too straight roles, the fantasy of the ranger is large and a good example of a mixer role that is perfectly viable in pen & paper, but hard to define in MMORPG content, because every little advantage is quickly obfuscated if someone do it way better.

    For example, playing a ranger on P99 is a lot of fun, even if trolled all the time on forums, it's a safe and well rounded character able to travel, track, offtank, snap aggro, invis, dual wield, two handed, bow...


    Transposing it to a viable in all situation master of none seems hard, but I hope it turns out as a possibility. I wouldn't mind the skills to "show" some cookie cutter choices (like the warrior had skills oriented into tanking and threat generation, some other skills could be about two weapons or two handed weapons massive skills, bleeds an such with no bonus threat), ranger having some bow setups and melee setups allowing to chose the fighting style, spells to supplement each one of the "physical paths", like flame lick, flame burst, firefists, etc... beeing useable whatever the setup is chosen.


    I'm not a big fan of "direct paths", but more of "evident setups", like wildstar did. You had plenty of possibilities to attribute your points but it was obvious you needed a filler, a main burst and could use a decent option to add damage on a cooldown. Thus, you could do VERY BAD CHOICES, or end up with a good spec with choices easy to make, and a few slots avaliable for optionnal skills (jumps, kicks, graps, group buffs).

    You had choices, and with it, the choice to screw up by only using subpar or supportive skills. But you don"t really need more than 4 or 5 active combat abilities, 2 or 3 role buffer/ehancer (blackjack kick as an example), and a few utilitaries to make a good cookie cutter bar.

    • 45 posts
    March 24, 2018 7:31 AM PDT

    You got to think man, most people are used to garbage dynamics in a game where everyone can perform every role, Korean MMOs like BDO push off this type of garbage thinking where casters can tank, due to higher DP or Warriors can burst better than casters because of AP it's just a asnine way of thinking, where everyone sees it as the norm.

    I for one hope and pray that we don't see any of this sort of nonsense in Pantheon and that 60-70% of non-leveling content involves the trinity system (balanced around all classes and group make up of course).

    I want to see and play a different game where classes have specific roles, honestly.


    Also as far as down time goes, I rather see down time than a group running through a dungeon speed killing or rushing without preperation, reason I quit WOW and Never winter nights online.

    This post was edited by Gomok at March 24, 2018 7:34 AM PDT
    • 47 posts
    March 25, 2018 1:14 AM PDT

    i can understand why ppl would like to change things up from how it used to be with the long downtime to not doing anything but auto firing with the bow. But I also see that it is that thinking that has gotten most of the games where they are now, with everyone doing everything.

    I played a war and necro in eq1. As a war did I main tanked in raids yes I did and that is why I rolled a war. But if I took my war out and tried to solo then I was either doing a corpse run or I ran to zone.

    So you see I was able to main tank most any raid mob with the help of the raid but as far a solo I had no chance unless I did lower mobs. So there was a tradeoff main tank = no soloing for me… and I think if you look at most of the classes you will see the same thing.

     They all have tradeoffs and understanding them will let you chose the class best for how you want to play.. Do I want to see a wiz never running out of mana and able to take out 40 mobs at once…No Do I want to see a war that can tank anything and DPS like a rog…. No…..

    So for me their has to be tradeoff for all classes

    Of course that is just my 2CP

    • 15 posts
    March 31, 2018 9:13 AM PDT

    I'm only really interested in reading the reminiscient and "if Pantheon that then I'll do this" threads.  Arguing over what classes should and shouldn't have, when we have no true idea how Pantheon defines the classes, is completely pointless, and I once I realize a thread is going there, I stop reading.  Once people who've actually played the alpha post about Pantheon's actuality, then we'll have something to discuss.  Otherwise you're basically arguing about EQ/Vanguard under the false premise that Pantheon will be the same, when we expect that it won't. 

    The thing that bothers me the most are people who seem to want to take away the ability for Pantheon devs to develop the game as they see fit.  To rally people to a false cause with the threat that if Pantheon doesn't fit the game into their precise little box, there will be a riot incited on the forums.  That's bullshit.  Let the Pantheon devs do their job and critique after you've seen a bit of it.  They've been thinking about this far harder than you or I, and they've probably come up with a far better solution to balance that what existed in EQ/Vanguard.  Give it a chance to happen.

    • 16 posts
    March 31, 2018 3:02 PM PDT

    Defector said:

    In nearly every thread.. someone complains about their class being pigeonholed into a particular role or playstyle..



    I disagree with how you see games and how classes should be made. 

    Here is the problem... Not all roles and abilities that help a class fill a role are created equal. Taking EQ, one of the games this team has worked on. One class gets a fade, but it fails a lot... Another class gets a Feigh Death, like SK/Necro/monk and it works very well. My Ranger has 3 versions of fade and I'd take a simple FD anyday. 

    So... In EQ A wizzy that can do a "oh ****" nuke spam but can't sustain DPS would be useless on raids. That same super nuke wizzy thats gone full retard on a group of mobs should not somehow be granted no agro issues to make it possible? If all a Wizzy can really do is nuke super hard but not get agro, why not always nuke hard? If a wizzy can do a nuke or 2 in a whole fight (as you suggest) it makes you wonder how easily that same wizzy would be able to solo? 

    Basically the reason people argue or debate what a class should be allowed to do is because lets say 2 classes can do the same thing, like "Tank..." but one can do it far better with a lot less issues. If there are 2 tanks and one can do ok DPS, great Tanking but only decent agro, and the other Tank can do bad DPS but comes with great agro and great ability to tank, the one that holds better agro and can tank wins in the end. At first it's not a big deal, but when the game narrows itself to the best of the best for filling roles, Hybrid classes lose or end up OP and nerfed later. 

    I'm someone in the Ranger thread who wants Archery as a high end DPS to be the main focus of the class. It's not that I don't want melee useable by the Ranger class, it's that mixing the 2 forms of DPS means Ranger run a very high probability of being a lame class like it was in EQ due to dilution. Giving rangers group utility, group ADPS, buffs for others, Track, lame tankability and so on means that of the actual roles fillable in a game like Pantheon shrink, unless as I mentioned before you make the class OP. 

    So to sum it up, just because you can do something really well, like massive quick DPS does not mean your class has the role filling staying power needed if you are only able to do quick DPS then have to med out of combat. You have to consider the role, compare it to others that fill that role and then look at the demands of the game, solo, duo, grouoed and raids. 

    • 764 posts
    April 24, 2018 12:13 PM PDT

    Why would you play an enchanter if you want to tank the mob? The role system is designed this way because it requires the team to work together and accomplish the goal. I can understand blending a few things here and there, but dont play a rogue and complain about not having FD as an ability.

    • 12 posts
    April 27, 2018 7:36 PM PDT

    One thing I can say about the whole "it can be boring to be sitting for half the fight" complaint is that this gives the opportunity for a class to shine that is focused on buffing people's regenerative capabilities. Bards and Red Mages in FFXI, for instance, were very good at doing this and highly desirable in a group. They cut down on the amount of downtime a healer/mage had to have and made the party function much better overall. However, when you couldn't find a Red Mage or Bard, it was difficult to get parties started, so there was that side of things as well. Overall, I think, in a camp based game focusing on community and getting to know people, it is crucial to have downtime, though. This is something new games don't do, and something I severely miss. Planned downtime in game design is what affords you the opportunity to get to know people, especially in pugs, which might cause you to make a new friend when you otherwise wouldn't talk to them at all. One person's boredom is another person's treasure. Plus, if there's no conversation happening, it's a good time to go take a bathroom break or make a sandwich, or alt tab and look at cat pictures.

    • 20 posts
    April 29, 2018 12:20 PM PDT

    Vivere said:

    One thing I can say about the whole "it can be boring to be sitting for half the fight" complaint is that this gives the opportunity for a class to shine that is focused on buffing people's regenerative capabilities. Bards and Red Mages in FFXI, for instance, were very good at doing this and highly desirable in a group. They cut down on the amount of downtime a healer/mage had to have and made the party function much better overall. However, when you couldn't find a Red Mage or Bard, it was difficult to get parties started, so there was that side of things as well. Overall, I think, in a camp based game focusing on community and getting to know people, it is crucial to have downtime, though. This is something new games don't do, and something I severely miss. Planned downtime in game design is what affords you the opportunity to get to know people, especially in pugs, which might cause you to make a new friend when you otherwise wouldn't talk to them at all. One person's boredom is another person's treasure. Plus, if there's no conversation happening, it's a good time to go take a bathroom break or make a sandwich, or alt tab and look at cat pictures.

    I think the game will be slower paced that modern MMOs but Chris Perkins (  has already said that Wizards handle downtime differently in Pantheon. He talks about wanting Wizard to be more actively engaged in combat and being able to manage both their expenditure and recovery of mana. He wants them to be able to contribute damage while recuperating mana.

    We can also see this designed philosophy in their FAQ section 1.0.1

    "We also understand that while gamers’ tastes don’t fundamentally change over time, their situations, lives, and responsibilities do. Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game."

    So I'm sure Pantheon will have more downtime than your typical MMO - but I don't think it's going to be close to what it was like in EQ - no alt tabbing to look at cat pictures! lol. I think they're banking on the necessity of grouping and modern tools - like built-in voice communication - to help with socializing during shorter windows of time.