Raid guilds don't concern me. I will be in the majority that focuses on the world and the things we can do and playing around with different opportunities, and does not race to maximum level or grind endlessly to get the best gear in the game.
Having a choice of spec/trait/AA options seems like a no-brainer. It is good for those of us that like to play around and it doesn't hurt the raiders in any way - as long as choices aren't irrevocable. Once they decide what the perfect spec is they can all switch to it.
If I choose a crappy spec and have trouble getting into groups that doesn't bother me either - I can either improve my spec or live with it because I get some benefit more important than easily grouping. Like maybe a spec that isn't really that great is *fun*.
I simply don't grasp why some people object to our having choices merely because some people will choose poorly. Again, assuming the choice isn't irrevocable and almost all spec/tree/trait/AA systems give respec options.
beautifully said:The cookie cutter min/max youll find on a website will not just be for the .001% im afraid to say. Depending on the size of raids, your specs might be very important as there will be only a few slots a guild might be able to carry. Sure you can run what ever spec you want for the few easy to semi-moderate bosses but once past moderate it will become much more important.
You know. I disagree with this. I have raided very high level wow, but I've also sat back and just taken it easy in lower tier guilds.
In lower tier guilds there is almost no concern over what spec someone is playing as long as their dps is decent enough. Most lower tier guilds attribute inability to kill a boss as the need to practice the fight more. And not necessarily fine tune their dps.
I mean even on the TLPs the guilds right below the top would not really care all that much about class balance. I mean when I raided as the number 1/2 guild on the servers I would absolutely spend 10 or 15 minutes at the start of each raid perfecting the groups to maximize dps. Alot of lower guilds just kinda throw groups together with no rhyme or reason and will never realize how much dps would be lost.
I honestly do not think anyone will have any issues with spell selection, epic weapons, epic spells or fear selection... UNLESS you're trying to push server firsts.
There's no need for "specs" in a game like this. People will have different gear and be of different skill/experience level. That's how people will stand out from each other.
Perhaps it's a semantic argument I'm missing, but I honestly don't understand why people keep bringing specs up. What indication has there ever been that applying points would be a thing? Maybe to attributes? There's no skill tree where you max flying kick instead of mend wounds.
Besides, the game already has "specs". They're called well designed classes.
Agreed with the above post regarding defined classes vs specs.
And, my thoughts on the July Newsletter, not related to the OP would be that some of the more nuanced skills annouced for the classes would reduce the effectiveness of multi-boxing which I would be all for.
I'm just going to melodramatize a statement of trivial importance based on semantic nitpicking and crap all over a class reveal by making fiercely pessimistic generalizations and assumptions. But I'm not hating on the game.
P.S. you are wrong about the word revive. Some of the definitions include
Raidan said:Agreed with the above post regarding defined classes vs specs.
And, my thoughts on the July Newsletter, not related to the OP would be that some of the more nuanced skills annouced for the classes would reduce the effectiveness of multi-boxing which I would be all for.
What type of nuances do you mean.
Cause I think the speed of combat is more so going to define the ability to box. I've been debating attempting to box a cleric/warrior combo... but I have yet to experience the combat for myself so it's hard to say.
Porygon said:Raidan said:Agreed with the above post regarding defined classes vs specs.
And, my thoughts on the July Newsletter, not related to the OP would be that some of the more nuanced skills annouced for the classes would reduce the effectiveness of multi-boxing which I would be all for.
What type of nuances do you mean.
Cause I think the speed of combat is more so going to define the ability to box. I've been debating attempting to box a cleric/warrior combo... but I have yet to experience the combat for myself so it's hard to say.
I'd also add that unlike EQ1, every class will need to "actively" contribute to combat to offer their full potential compared to boxing a cleric/warrior in EQ and basically just controlling the warrior 90% of the time to macro a /stand - /cast - /sit button on your cleric every 45-60 seconds. The cleric will be required to participate in melee combat and create barriers for CC while the warrior will be highly mobile jumping between targets and placing banners (if played well). That will not be impossible to box, but certainly different than "taunt/auto attack" on one toon, and hit a single key on the other. Having to interact with the environment by placing things (walls, trees, banners etc) will make boxing incredibly challenging to play multiple characters "well".
@OP
So I've read through most of everyones comments here and while I agree with some and disagree with others, I have 1 simple question to ask ...
Why are you assuming things?
You're talking about all druids being identical. We all know that isn't going to be the case. We already know that some of the harder to find skills/spells are going to be drops in the world. Most likely raid drops for the best of them. The list is just giving us a preview of how they will play, which I don't see as an EQ druid at any point (and I mained one for a long time). The list they gave shows me just how much room there will be between a decent druid and a great druid.
You say something about combat being nothing new ... what about clerics having placeable and movable objects to block a mobs pathway. That's very different from every other game. I actually can't think of 1 off the top of my head where you could purposely block other people/mobs. Hell if it blocks dmg as well from that direction we maybe looking at another way to combat raid mechanics. There are new and exciting things to look at.
And now to the "dead" comment. We all knew years ago that a lady was brought in to try to help push the project to completition. The game was not technically "dead" but imo she pushed it to be more Hello Kitty Island Adventure with rainbows and unicorns rather than our Pantheon. So yes the game was scrapped and revamped years ago. This is not new or misconstrued information.
Enitzu. I believe the statement about Pantheon being revived from the dead raised concerns because it was generally read as applying to more recent times - the last year or two - not the older history that you refer to. In other words, after the game was redesigned and repurposed it almost died again without any hints of this (other than slow progress) reaching the forums. Probably before the completion of series A funding but maybe not a long time before that. This is what Kilsin said didn't happen and the July feature was just carelessly written and poorly edited. Kilsin certainly wasn't saying that the restart much earlier never happened. I am referring only to the one word that set off a mini firestorm - overall the feature was well written and/or well edited.
Whether every druid that has taken the time to get every druid ability is identical in abilities - we don't know and will not know until later in development. The preview we have gotten is not presented as everything whatsoever that will be available to the class between level 1 and the end of character progression.
Moving things to block mob pathing - interesting. LOTRO has this although only in a specialized form of combat called big battles. The LOTRO version gives the characters a choice of three progression paths (releveant only to big battles) - one of which gives the ability to move things and two of which do not.
To the OP. There isn't going to be any differences in this game. A warrior will be a warrior, a cleric a cleric a wizard a wizard (even though they haven't done those reveals, but I can't imagain them doing different spec caster classes when there are no different spec anything else classes). So I think they are just going basic with everything. If you were or are looking for innovation look else were, it's been obvious this game is trying to just be the new EQ. Everyone here knows and mostly expects that.
Maleficia said:Sorry, but without a like button I just have to say...This.
So very, very much this.
"Choice" in MMOs is simply the choice between going to an 'elitistjerk' website and building the way they tell you, or choosing to be a 'b' or 'c' player, unwanted even by the 'b' and 'c' skilled groups.
Then, when updates hit, going back to said website and rebuilding the way they tell you.
Choosing between skills and passives, unless they are situational, is simply a matter of no one ever using the ones that are deemed sub-optimal by theorycrafters. Its not even easter-egg content, it's simply content that will never be used in mid to high tier play. And thus a waste of dev time.
That's the irony of talent tree choices isn't it? The real truth about that choice is that there is no choice. In every MMO with multiple talent trees it always comes down to just a few right choices or you're doing it wrong. Example: Tanks might have a few different specs that need to be changed depending on the situation, which also means changing gear. RIFT may be the only MMORPG I've played (doesn't mean there are some out there I haven't played) that did this in a way that didn't become annoyingly tedious by allowing you to have multiple saved soul (talent tree) builds that you could swap on the fly and would also change to your gear for that build as well. But many other games you are just relegated to heading off to a respec trainer and doing a reroll setup, then off to the bank to change gear, go do what needed to be done, go back to the respec trainer, and do it all again.
The reason I like the simple class build like EQ and Pantheon is that sometimes simple really is better. The classes are standardized so you can choose your loadouts and focus on learning that class. In that the devs can make the skills useful and meaningful and not waste time developing a whole tree of sdtats and skills that no one will ever use because they are not part of the best ordaned class builds.The thing that makes us different at that point becomes gear, skill, and our charming personality. :)
Kratuk said:
The real truth about that choice is that there is no choice. In every MMO with multiple talent trees it always comes down to just a few right choices or you're doing it wrong. RIFT may be the only MMORPG I've played (doesn't mean there are some out there I haven't played) that did this in a way that didn't become annoyingly tedious
LOTRO did that in a quite intelligent and interesting way . For every class you had 3 possibilities - offensive , defensive and support all had some abilities in common and some other specific skills, spells and abilities . Swapping from defensive to offensive or to support was just 1 click (or 2 if you were changing gear too) . Of course this was possible only out of battle . This was very useful for every class because depending on the group set up and on the type of fight a tank could choose to be more DPS or more tanky . Healer could choose a full heal set up or less heals and CCish support . Etc . So no choice was inferior to another because everything depended on circumstances .
Obviously this LOTRO philosophy allows for much more flexibility but somewhat blurs sharply defined class identities . Finally it is a matter of taste - some will prefer sharply defined and very differentiated class identities and some will prefer flexibility and better adaptation to circumstances .
Deadshade said:LOTRO did that in a quite intelligent and interesting way . For every class you had 3 possibilities - offensive , defensive and support all had some abilities in common and some other specific skills, spells and abilities . Swapping from defensive to offensive or to support was just 1 click (or 2 if you were changing gear too) . Of course this was possible only out of battle . This was very useful for every class because depending on the group set up and on the type of fight a tank could choose to be more DPS or more tanky . Healer could choose a full heal set up or less heals and CCish support . Etc . So no choice was inferior to another because everything depended on circumstances .
Obviously this LOTRO philosophy allows for much more flexibility but somewhat blurs sharply defined class identities . Finally it is a matter of taste - some will prefer sharply defined and very differentiated class identities and some will prefer flexibility and better adaptation to circumstances .
LOTRO is one I played and enjoyed many years (Though it has been quite a while since I last played). I wouldn't call the older system a talent tree in the vein of what I was referring too (mainly the 3 tree system like many games have used). Though the classes were all standard builds much like that from EQ and Vanguard but with the skills to compliment each stance rather than having to roll out the build respecs, and the deed/trait system offered some flexibility in that regard. As for the offensive and defensive stances, I agree. I loved that on my Guardian. And if I recall correctly the hotbars also swapped. Being able to swap the stance is something I expect will probably be in Pantheon. Let's hope.
LOTRO has been my only MMO while waiting for Pantheon and I think the trait tree system mentioned above works quite well. I think that Pantheon should have a similar system so that each class offers the player a choice of different ways to play a class.
On Deadshade's comment that this blurs class identities.
I think it is *very* important that VR design any system keeping in mind the core philosophy that different classes are intended for different roles and one class should not be able to handle multiple roles. Not that I worry about them *forgetting* this.
So while LOTRO, which has a different philosophy, uses the trait tree system to allow a healer or tank to switch between a focus on damage, healing or support, Pantheon would *not*.
Pantheon *could* use such a system to allow a one-role class to choose among different ways of performing that role. A healer could be stronger at direct heals and weaker at heals over time or wards for example. A tank could have a tree better against single enemies and a tree better against trash for off-tanking. A nuker could have a choice between better burst damage or better damage over time. An archer class could have a choice between bows or crossbows with differences in range, damage, accuracy, speed etc. A stealth class could have a tree that focused heavily on positional play and one that focused on poisons.
So while the LOTRO trait tree system is one of several good approaches for how to give classes choices, I don't think many of us would want it implemented in a way that blurs class/role lines. I certainly do not.
dorotea said:Pantheon *could* use such a system to allow a one-role class to choose among different ways of performing that role. A healer could be stronger at direct heals and weaker at heals over time or wards for example.
Good news! This is already in the game as a healer can be a cleric, druid, or shaman for various ways of performing that role!
Iksar said:dorotea said:Pantheon *could* use such a system to allow a one-role class to choose among different ways of performing that role. A healer could be stronger at direct heals and weaker at heals over time or wards for example.
Good news! This is already in the game as a healer can be a cleric, druid, or shaman for various ways of performing that role!
Yep. This isn't "that" game. This is a different game. There are enough of the other games with the traits and skill trees and all that. It's time to go back and try something that worked before, where how you played your class and how you treated those around mattered more than what points were distributed across what tree. These new systems that people think they have to have are played out.
I don't want *this* game to be *that* game.
We will have enough classes that I can live with each one being immutable and unchangable.
Maybe the examples with archers and stealthers were better than the example for healers since as you say we will have multiple healing classes.
But I remain convinced that if they can do it giving each class two different ways to do whatever it is designed to do is better than having every character in that class identical in what it can do once it has gotten all the skills. We all have different styes of play - the more ways to play a class the more of us it will appeal to. Like a rogue but hate positional play and are too clumsy and slow to always be in the right place at the right time facing the enemy's back not its sides. Not a problem - specialize in making poisons instead.
Interesting comments about LOTRO. I played a guardian main in Shadows of Angmar (thier vanilla). The class system back then was, it seems, pretty similar to what Pantheon is aiming for. Every class was designed for a specific role.
You had your traits which you could select and tweak your build a bit, but for the most part there was a high degree of similarity between players of the same class. You could spec out of your primary role, but it was guaranteed to be sub-optimal. You would never bring a guardian for a DPS spot unless you had no other option. Champs could tank in a pinch, but not on challening content.
I remember arguing wishfully back in the day for a multiple spec, talent tree style system where the classes could have more opportunity to specialize in different roles. I wanted a full 2h dps tree for a guardian, a healing and tanking tree for the Captain, a Pet spec for the LM, etc. etc. But having gone back and played the game after everything I was advocating for was implemented, honestly I think the game lost a lot of its charm. Classes kind of lost their core identities. There is less need for players to work together outside of instances/raids. Maybe some of this is nostalgia creeping in, but regardless I'm really looking forward to the game that VR is building. I hope they'll stick to their guns. As players, it's natural to always want more and more options, but maybe it's not always best in the end.