Iconic abilities should add depth to an encounter, NOT be a reqisite for one. Too often in games, the big abilities are "get out of jail free" cards in big encounters/raid fights (class A has ability B which is the only way to surive an attack, or class C has this super DPS buff so theyre the only support option we'll take), and thus ONLY that class is brought along for that particular fight. Yes it is nice to be needed, but it RARELY ends well though to be 100% exclusive. A meta-type group will ALWAYS emerge which I get, but it shouldnt be REQUIRED, and too often a particular iconic/ultimate ability ends up being a large factor in this. I realize part of this comes down to how the devs develop fights, but I personally would like to see a choice on the players side with perhaps picking between a choice of 2 abilities:
Maybe one is defense oriented, one is an offensive boost. Maybe one is for large group encounters, the other for a single target. Either way player choice is always a GOOD thing for me. Additionally, this means more options for a blurring of moving away from "we explicitly need X class" towards "we need someone who can do X. Classes A B C and D can (each to varrying degrees) so get one of those and we're good".
What a particular ability looks like for a particular class. Who knows for now.
Preechr said:Ok so who gets to directly apply or negate specific area affects that require acclimation?
I envisioned that to be a role for druids. I figured weather/atmospheres/acclimation would all be related in one capacity or another but who knows. After checking out those links you shared I'm feeling pretty demoralized. I really liked where that conversation was going. I don't think I've ever been this tempted to play a necro. =P
Rather than give each class a "button" that's theirs and theirs alone, I would rather see uniqueness and distinctiveness extend to the way in which the class does everything. This makes player skill a core component of each class, while still insuring a unique flavor and a place in groups.
A few examples:
- Warriors are the masters of tactical combat, able to both apply short-term effects to themselves to help mitigate damage and survive encounters, as well as apply short-term effects to their foes to hinder them. Examples include disarms, trips, and strikes that bypass armor, or adopting tactics that grant them bonuses to parry or block incoming attacks.
- Rogues are masters of stealth, using it not just to pass by enemies unseen, but as a weapon to launch devastating surprise attacks during combat. In combat, the rogue thrives on confusion, on their enemy loving track on them, enabling them to strike when and where the enemy is least prepared.
- Monks hone their bodies and minds to overcome any hardship. In combat, the skillful monk uses momentum as a weapon, chaining attacks together in a blur of motion, too fast for enemies to react. The skillful monk will master several different combat styles, fluidly moving from one to the next to meet any situation.
- "The right spell for the job" is the motto of the wizard. Masters of the arcane, wizards excel at analyzing the weaknesses of their opponents, and then using their magical arsenal to exploit those weaknesses. Given time to analyze the situation, a wizard can be counted on to unleash devastating magical attacks, turning the very elements themselves against their foes.
I realize that this isn't quite the same as an "iconic ability", but my point is that each class should play uniquely and distinctly from others. When choosing which class to play, it shouldn't be "hmm, do I want feign death or do I want backstab?" It should be, "man, monk combos are amazing, but rogue stealth is hella fun too. I can't decide."
When it comes to utility - that is, out of combat abilities, I *do* think that each class should have something unique or semi-unique it can do. And no, I'm not talking about SoW or Clarity here. Examples of potential abilities
- Warriors can use their knowledge of combat and tactics to construct simple defenses, hindering foes within an area, or granting a defensive boost to their allies. And here those bandits thought they had you cornered.
- Summoners can use their magic not only in combat, but also to conjure temporary items and equipment to aid their party. With a set of spectral cloaks of warmth, getting through the snowy mountain pass won't be nearly as much trouble.
- Rangers are masters of tracking, able to not only see what beasts or monsters are nearby, but also (with enough practice) able to find the hidden lairs of legendary creatures. Any hunter can track a wolf, but if you want to take down Bloodfang, the Grey Ghost of the forest, you'll need a true Ranger.
- In their line of work, rogues must often deal with locks and traps. A skilled rogue can spot these, and given enough practice (and a set of tools) defeat them. Don't be the foolhardy adventurer who loses a hand trying to open a treature chest! Hire a rogue today!
I hope that explains my stance on "iconic abilities" :)
Iksar said:That's what iconic means...Feign Death for monk or backstab for rogue are about as iconic as it gets.
Making new and special abilities would be atypical/untraditional, the opposite of iconic.
Then why bother? They were iconic in EQ1, now they are cookie cutter additions to most MMO's. Semantically you are correct, but in the context of two games built 18 years apart it is hard to be proud of iconic abilities that were directly copied from the older game.
I don't know about you, but creativity is the name of the game for me. Atypical and untraditional suit me just fine. I would rather play something new.
oneADseven said:What kind of iconic abilities do you think we might see for the classes that haven't been revealed yet, and how do you think players will go about unlocking these abilities? We have seen monks using their iconic ability "Feign Death" at level 25 on the streams, but will this be consistent between all of the classes? The description for the cleric iconic ability 'Manifest Pillar' states "High level Clerics can manifest, place and even carry massive Pillar Shields." Is 25 considered high level, or is it possible that clerics (and other classes) might not be able to unlock their iconic ability until a higher level? I'm curious whether people think we'll see traditional abilities like Call of the Hero (Summoner), Lay on Hands (Paladin), and Harm Touch (Direlord) or something new.
People are really loving the semantics. Googling; Icon means being representative of something, possibly something worthy of veneration. To be iconic of a class it would simply have to be representative of its nature and be something 'cool' I think.
By definition, it don't think it can't be new or innovative if the class is new or innovative and, since they are being designed still, there's no reason they can't have a new and innovative 'iconic' ability, surely?
Definitions and semantics aside, I'm sure the OP will come and correct the course of the thread, if necessary, but knowing 1AD7 I imagine she's enjoying the ideas too much to worry about it :^)
Personally, I love some of the old 'iconic' abilities and they make sense for the mechanics of the game. The six I picked are not an exhaustive set of fundamentals, but teleport, fast-travel, exfiltration, sneaking, feigning death and heroic opportunities aren't just picked out of the air, they are core mechanics of a group-based, combat-based, open-world game.
You could add healing, protection, resurrection, affliction, resistence, etc but you can see these are straying into more mundane mechanics which wouldn't really feel 'iconic' in the veneration/cool sense.
Maybe resurrection is more appropriate for my list than heroic opportunity, because heroic opportunity may well not be in Pantheon as a mechanic.
It would be cool to have 'new' iconic abilities, but they would have to be based on a new balanced mechanic like Perception or coloured mana to be truly 'new'. I think those mechanics are going to be class independent, which comes back to my idea of iconic abilities being more available since they are based on cool core fundamentals of the game that, perhaps, shouldn't be so restricted by class.
There's a multi-coach (long) train of thought, eh? Who wants to get on board and who wants to derail? ;^)
Xbachs said:Iksar said:That's what iconic means...Feign Death for monk or backstab for rogue are about as iconic as it gets.
Making new and special abilities would be atypical/untraditional, the opposite of iconic.
Then why bother? They were iconic in EQ1, now they are cookie cutter additions to most MMO's. Semantically you are correct, but in the context of two games built 18 years apart it is hard to be proud of iconic abilities that were directly copied from the older game.
I don't know about you, but creativity is the name of the game for me. Atypical and untraditional suit me just fine. I would rather play something new.
I hear you, Xbachs, but it looks like we're going to be keeping some/most of these previously established abilities. Look at Feign Death, for example. If there was ever an opportunity to create something new, this was it. Feign Death as it was in EverQuest, and as we've now seen in it PRF, makes no sense. Here's an excerpt from something I posted last year in a thread about split pulling:
You're running away from a pack of mobs and you just fall down and die without being hit. The mobs are all just like, "Nice! We scared another one to death. No point in making sure he's dead, boys. I know a dead guy when I see one. Let's just leave his corpse exactly where it is and not steal any of his stuff or anything. Supper's waiting at home and I've gotta get to it."
I guess you could argue that when you split a pull and the mobs leave at different times it's because some mobs are more convinced that you are dead than others, but it still seems kind of hokey. They wouldn't just stand there watching you. They'd put a spear through your eye and be sure about it. If there -is- going to be split pulling, I'd rather it be based on knocking adds out and/or creating distractions.
I think that if Feign Death is in PRF, it should be changed to something like an instant cast buff you can activate that gives you a chance to FD each time you take damage until you're successful or until you die. They could also add randomly smarter mobs that aren't fooled and have every attack taken while FD be a crit, since you are laying there helpless. They could even add a random chance of your FD no longer being effective every tick after you have successfully feigned. If they want split pulling in PRF, there are ways they can keep it in that actually make sense and aren't copied directly from something else. They've had their chance to come up with a new iconic ability for the Monk, but instead they were proud to show off Feign Death straight out of EverQuest. I'd prefer something different, but I'd say most monk players would riot if they didn't have FD. I don't think they'll change anything with Feign Death at this point, but I suppose they might. Anyway, I think it's likely that you'll see other 'cookie cutter' iconic abilities because we've already seen some, but I do think some classes will have new things, and I think that's fine. That's kind of how fantasy works. At this point, you really can't create an original fantasy world. All you can do is put your twists on things that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Maybe one of the few original iconic abilities that go into PRF will be copied by games 20 years from now. We can dream, eh?
EDIT: Grammatical Error
Shucklighter said:I think that if Feign Death is in PRF, it should be changed to something like an instant cast buff you can activate that gives you a chance to FD each time you take damage until you're successful or until you die. They could also add randomly smarter mobs that aren't fooled and have every attack taken while FD be a crit, since you are laying there helpless. They could even add a random chance of your FD no longer being effective every tick after you have successfully feigned. If they want split pulling in PRF, there are ways they can keep it in that actually make sense and aren't copied directly from something else. They've had their chance to come up with a new iconic ability for the Monk, but instead they were proud to show off Feign Death straight out of EverQuest. I'd prefer something different, but I'd say most monk players would riot if they didn't have FD. I don't think they'll change anything with Feign Death at this point, but I suppose they might. Anyway, I think it's likely that you'll see other 'cookie cutter' iconic abilities because we've already seen some, but I do think some classes will have new things, and I think that's fine. That's kind of how fantasy works. At this point, you really can't create an original fantasy world. All you can do is put your twists on things that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Maybe one of the few original iconic abilities that go into PRF will be copied by games 20 years from now. We can dream, eh?
Some great ideas in this post. If we want to update and differentiate EQ1 mechanics and call them iconic I am cool with that. I really like Schucklighter's FD buff idea that has a chance to activate when you are struck. It makes pulling more dynamic, more realistic, and gives you an opportunity to use it with defensive cooldowns or other mechanics. You could even do this in conjunction with my idea from earlier in the thread. Imagine: You chuck a shriken and three mobs rush at you, actvate defensive cooldowns, all three punch you in the face, you activate Burst of Chi and send one flying and knock the wind out of them, now you have two mobs punching your face and you throw down FD and take a few more punches before it kicks in, one of the mobs wanders away and your tank grabs the other. Beautiful.
Giving any class something that only their class can do and that ability is mandatory to reasonably complete specific content is bad game design. Every encounter challenge should have at least two paths to optimal success and one brute force method.
Class Iconic Abilities are great for defining flavor and play style but should not be used as single point access to mission critical abilities. This should be true for all abilities across all character classes. Most of the classes already overlap a fair amount and would not be hard to make sure there are two instances of each key functions spread across the classes with the number of these special abilities balanced evenlyish across the character classes. This would make it so that a Paladin Druid Ranger Magician Shaman Monk can function as well as the Warrior Cleric Rogue Wizard Enchanter Dreadlord group combination. The group play style would be different but the ability to complete content as a group would be the same.
Feign Death and Mez/befuddle are just two examples of a "pulling function".
Yeah, it's a big design problem for things like FD. Emergent gameplay in EQ1 allowed it to trivialize all encounters that were intended to be "linked" from social/assist/aggro radius.
Oh, you were supposed to fight 5 mobs, but now you can always fight one at a time. Oh well! If there is a risk of death using FD, then it becomes a chance of not to die, rather than a content trivializing game-changer. But so far, there's been zero mention of anything balancing like that being added to such an OP ability. People will just skill it up to 95% chance and voila, all content is now single target. Wee.
The video with the monk confirmed this is their intent (FD pulling) so.. more creative, challenging, and innovative options (like distractions, luring, tempting, etc) haven't been mentioned at all, nor are they likely to be in Pantheon. Would love to see them, but.. I am skeptical. The 'solution' exists, there's no need to innovate. Meh. More wasted opportunities.
vjek said:Yeah, it's a big design problem for things like FD. Emergent gameplay in EQ1 allowed it to trivialize all encounters that were intended to be "linked" from social/assist/aggro radius.
Oh, you were supposed to fight 5 mobs, but now you can always fight one at a time. Oh well! If there is a risk of death using FD, then it becomes a chance of not to die, rather than a content trivializing game-changer. But so far, there's been zero mention of anything balancing like that being added to such an OP ability. People will just skill it up to 95% chance and voila, all content is now single target. Wee.
The video with the monk confirmed this is their intent (FD pulling) so.. more creative, challenging, and innovative options (like distractions, luring, tempting, etc) haven't been mentioned at all, nor are they likely to be in Pantheon. Would love to see them, but.. I am skeptical. The 'solution' exists, there's no need to innovate. Meh. More wasted opportunities.
Even without a monk that would be the case so long as your group has CC, as they do still state is a major part of the game with their whole quaternity thing. Mez pulling, sleep pulling, lull/pacify pulling, trap pulling, etc.
The good thing is that they seem to be designing single combat to be a challenge/threat as you can see with the Gurkha mobs in the May stream, chewing through even the tank.
A lot of things in games don't make much sense so singling out mobs watching someone fall over and saying it is ridiculous is odd to me. It doesn't make much sense to me that mobs would all target the most heavily armored target in a group of players because he insulted their mother/taunted them instead of always breaking off to kill healers -> casters/dps -> tanks. It doesn't make sense that a mob close enough to talk to another mob would blindly run off without alerting the other, less so when they turn the corner and see a full group of people yet they decide to just charge into it. If you were deep in a dungeon why wouldn't mobs turn and run off to set off a wide alert that intruders are deep in their home? It's just a thing for video games where stuff that wouldn't make sense in the real world works for the sake of gameplay.
Fair point, Iksar. Not everything can be realistic or make sense. It’s a fantasy computer game. I mean, just melee combat alone...could you really slash something with a sword 30 times without killing it? I was just pointing out that Feign Death seemed like the perfect opportunity for PRF to still include split pulling, but to do something different with it, instead of copying it directly from an old game.
EDIT: Typo
As long as we're not falling over the line to "jack of all trades" and multiple skill trees.
Pantheon won't be about that...far as I know. :) I have no problem with "iconic" long as that actually means something, not forgetting that Pantheon seems to be aiming at innovative. So we may be surprised at what they come up with.
For me personally, I want to see the wizard as a wanted, DESIRED member of a group...not an after thought because you couldn't get anyone else, and not just as a group port (although I am wishing for teleportation abilities again like in EQ..whether that will be is yet another question.)
When Kunark came out..rogues were given damage abilities that far surpassed what the resident nuker..the wizard could do. That pretty much eliminated one of the reasons a wizard would be invited to group. That in turn, created emergent behaviour from those that played wizard and druid classes (although the druid had port and healing abilities too)...which created what we now know as "kiting". Nobody wants to be left behind, because their class "sucks". :) Which also leads into ..my hope that we will have class leads, to bring our concerns to the Devs.
Cana
Kaen said:One thing I would love to see for the paladin would be an ability whereby activating it allows them to heal the group for a percentage of the damage they deal for 15-20 seconds (or whatever). Maybe with a 10-15 min cooldown or something. (This also heals the paladin.)
For example:
YOU activate Angelic Fervor.
YOU deal 60 damage to X.
YOU heal your group for 20 health.
YOU deal 75 damage to x.
YOU heal your group for 25 health.
Etc...
Stack this with a haste item and haste buff... :D
Dire Lords gonna be jelly.
Trasak said:Giving any class something that only their class can do and that ability is mandatory to reasonably complete specific content is bad game design. Every encounter challenge should have at least two paths to optimal success and one brute force method.
I partially agree. I agree that having a few classes with 'mandatory' abilities and leaving the others out in the cold is horrible class balance. But I disagree with your two-path assessment. Wouldn't it be better, instead of designing every fight twice without two designs affecting each other, to simply balance the classes so that the best raid comp has every class? Just make everyone significantly useful, I think that would be nice.
CanadinaXegony said:For me personally, I want to see the wizard as a wanted, DESIRED member of a group...not an after thought because you couldn't get anyone else, and not just as a group port (although I am wishing for teleportation abilities again like in EQ..whether that will be is yet another question.)
I'm pretty sure teleports are confirmed. In the FAQ 19.3 says "Before all of that is implemented, however, and by launch, some limited class abilities like those that teleport you over land would likely teleport you over water as well."
Xbachs said:I partially agree. I agree that having a few classes with 'mandatory' abilities and leaving the others out in the cold is horrible class balance. But I disagree with your two-path assessment. Wouldn't it be better, instead of designing every fight twice without two designs affecting each other, to simply balance the classes so that the best raid comp has every class? Just make everyone significantly useful, I think that would be nice.
That's why I am hoping we don't have branches within classes, so a druid is a druid and a monk is a monk, you know what you are getting from the start. Really hoping specializations aren't something for all classes and that they aren't something you are locked into one or the other, I don't want a "Body Monk" and a "Soul Monk" I just want a monk.
That said, class balance has to happen at the group level and not for raiding.
Iksar said:Xbachs said:I partially agree. I agree that having a few classes with 'mandatory' abilities and leaving the others out in the cold is horrible class balance. But I disagree with your two-path assessment. Wouldn't it be better, instead of designing every fight twice without two designs affecting each other, to simply balance the classes so that the best raid comp has every class? Just make everyone significantly useful, I think that would be nice.
That's why I am hoping we don't have branches within classes, so a druid is a druid and a monk is a monk, you know what you are getting from the start. Really hoping specializations aren't something for all classes and that they aren't something you are locked into one or the other, I don't want a "Body Monk" and a "Soul Monk" I just want a monk.
That said, class balance has to happen at the group level and not for raiding.
Iksar beat me too it. Raid encounters of 24+ people you can reasonably assume one of each class is available but for group content you need interchangeability.
The idea of each class being able to learn two separate masteries/specializations that could both be useful sounds amazing. It would extend progression and allow more flexibility when it comes to some of the concerns I have seen expressed on this thread. Maybe it is possible to give another class a CoH or FD type ability ... but rather than utilizing it as a core ability for the class, make it so players have to unlock the mastery/specialization that is associated with it. Allow players to pick a path at level 25, and if they reroll as progeny, they can unlock the second path on their second journey. Each class would maintain their role regardless of what specialization they choose but if you want to have that extra layer of versatility, you commit to the dedication that is required to unlock it. This would very closely resemble my experience in FFXI where you had to level up a second time in order to achieve the full power of your character. It was great for the game in so many ways.
oneADseven said:The idea of each class being able to learn two separate masteries/specializations that could both be useful sounds amazing.
Amazing but a nightmare to balance. You would have to balance each class against the other as well as each specialization against the other, the latter further complicating the former. I would rather just have them do a fantastic job of balancing the classes and have a rogue be a rogue, as some others have said. If you want an alternate specialization why not just try a whole different class? Specializations just seem like a short cut to mediocrity where everyone does everything and I get bored and move on.
Xbachs said:oneADseven said:The idea of each class being able to learn two separate masteries/specializations that could both be useful sounds amazing.
Amazing but a nightmare to balance. You would have to balance each class against the other as well as each specialization against the other, the latter further complicating the former. I would rather just have them do a fantastic job of balancing the classes and have a rogue be a rogue, as some others have said. If you want an alternate specialization why not just try a whole different class? Specializations just seem like a short cut to mediocrity where everyone does everything and I get bored and move on.
Absolutely Xbachs if I am playing a Wizard..I am a Wizard, not an enchanter, not a Magician, not a Druid. Tired of all these games that cater to people who can't make up their minds what class they are playing, so they end up with abilities from all classes, to compensate.
EQ2 would like to have a word with anybody who doubts how each class can have two specializations without straying away from their core identity. The game was balanced pretty damn good. Pantheon would have to take a slightly different approach for a couple classes (Paladin/Shadowknight were both a specialization for Crusader, and Necromancer/Conjuror were both a specialization for Summoner) but it's definitely doable. We aren't talking about Wizard/Enchanter hybrids. We're talking Wizard/Warlock. They were both sorcerers. If the class is a hybrid, you could use specialization to accentuate each of the roles similar to what we see with the monk right now but you don't necessarily have to do it that way for all of them. One of the catch phrases for Pantheon is "Challenge Reborn." It's possible that it could be challenging to balance things ... I look at that as an opportunity, not a nightmare.
Iksar said:CanadinaXegony said:For me personally, I want to see the wizard as a wanted, DESIRED member of a group...not an after thought because you couldn't get anyone else, and not just as a group port (although I am wishing for teleportation abilities again like in EQ..whether that will be is yet another question.)
I'm pretty sure teleports are confirmed. In the FAQ 19.3 says "Before all of that is implemented, however, and by launch, some limited class abilities like those that teleport you over land would likely teleport you over water as well."
Xbachs said:I partially agree. I agree that having a few classes with 'mandatory' abilities and leaving the others out in the cold is horrible class balance. But I disagree with your two-path assessment. Wouldn't it be better, instead of designing every fight twice without two designs affecting each other, to simply balance the classes so that the best raid comp has every class? Just make everyone significantly useful, I think that would be nice.
That's why I am hoping we don't have branches within classes, so a druid is a druid and a monk is a monk, you know what you are getting from the start. Really hoping specializations aren't something for all classes and that they aren't something you are locked into one or the other, I don't want a "Body Monk" and a "Soul Monk" I just want a monk.
That said, class balance has to happen at the group level and not for raiding.
I'm pretty sure teleports are confirmed. In the FAQ 19.3 says "Before all of that is implemented, however, and by launch, some limited class abilities like those that teleport you over land would likely teleport you over water as well." - end quote
That reads as anyone, its generic...not specific to wizards or druids. We'll have to see what the end result is.
Seems like maybe these iconic abilities may not even be that unique or limited to a single class. The cleric has Pillar Shield that allows them to manifest a barrier that enemies can't pass... but at the same time the blurb from Summoner says "The Summoner has developed a powerful arcane command to conjure sustenance, tools, barricades, weaponry, even fantastic creatures of incredible strength - all of this at her whim."
I disagree with the assessment that each specialization has to be "balanced" against it's counterpart. Monks will be a holistic product of both Body & Soul -- does this mean the game needs to distribute content evenly where you'll want to play the DPS role half the time, and off-tank the other half? I doubt it. That seems to be more like a 70/30 ratio, maybe even 80/20. I'm far more interested in a game where each class can be utilized in a variety of scenarios where they truly stand out / feel meaningful than I am every DPS class doing the exact same amount of damage, or every healer doing the exact same amount of healing. There is nothing wrong with creating a warrior spec that is only ideal 20% of the time but still effective for the rest. Using Guardian/Berserker as an example, I would level guardian first because they would be more tanky and that is our primary role. I would level berserker second (also a tank) to add spice and flavor to my kit. Another player could start off with berserker if they wanted to. Maybe their best friend also wants to play a tank and this kind of flexibility allows them to play together without crippling the damage of their group.
I'm tired of all the games that emphasize linear progression and cookie cutter builds. Give players options and create an array of content where their choices matter. One choice I am not a fan of is "Would you rather play an offensive tank, or a defensive tank ... your choice is permanent." If you go that route, now you need to balance all of the content around that restriction to prevent certain classes from feeling left out. If you allow players to interchange their specializations, as has been described for the monk, you don't don't need to balance each spec against each other. Instead, you have more flexibility when it comes to balancing the game content. You can create situations (without adhering to a 50/50 rule) where that off-tank monk spec or off-DPS warrior spec will shine. This also alleviates the player burden of needing to sacrifice one aspect of gameplay for another. Maybe there are warriors who want to solo, group, and raid. If the warrior can unlock both guardian and berserker, now he can do all three at the very least semi-efficiently. Allowing players the ability to unlock a second specialization will give more opportunities for each class to shine.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that "Guardian & Berserker" are instead named "Bulwark & Vigor" to alleviate the concern that they are both separate classes -- the warrior is still a warrior regardless of what spec they are. Adding specialization allows you to refine specific aspects of a class and adds a layer of strategy to the preparation phase of combat. Are you going to engage in your offensive spec or your defensive spec? I understand the idea that you can still allow players to do this without specialization by giving all warriors the abilities from both specs. That's where things get hairy. I think there should be specialized abilities that only the "Bulwark" warrior has access to that can not be used simultaneously with the specialized abilities of the "Vigor" warrior. Some people might disagree with that which is perfectly fine. If you give players the best of both worlds you are 100% encouraging cookie cutter builds.
You don't have to choose between "Rampage" and "Impenetrable" for the upcoming fight -- it's quite possible that you almost ways want both! Sounds easy for the player (you don't have meaningful choices, you just whip out the cookie cutter) and difficult for the dev team (you have to balance content around players always having access to everything which obviously isn't the goal since we're limited to 1 hotbar). I would rather make thousands of meaningful "style" choices over the lifespan of my warrior (based on the preparation phase of combat) than have to make a single monumental choice when I create it. Allowing players the option to switch their spec while out of combat creates more viable group compositions (grouping is good I hear) and also allows the dev team to create more situationally meaningful abilities without our characters becoming OP everybody can always do everything classes.
I'm kind of derailing the thread a bit with all of this specialization talk so I'll end it here. I just wanted to point out that granting a CoH like ability to a single specialization of another class doesn't automatically mean that you have to balance both specializations of that class against each other. It's another topic that I am definitely interested in so if anybody wants to discuss it further, feel free to post on this thread:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6253/dual-specialization/view/page/1
oneADseven said:I disagree with the assessment that each specialization has to be "balanced" against it's counterpart.
Sure, nothing has to be anything at all. That's the beauty of creative license. But if the game is either too unbalanced or too homogenized it will flop and I will cry.