We have different definitions of "role" apparently.
oneADseven said:Based on the reveals that we have seen so far, all classes fill at least two roles although "support" is kind of a gray area. When you look at monks, though, they actually have 3 -- Melee DPS / Off-Tank / Pulling Utility.
To me a monk is a support class that is built to pull. They can fill other roles, but not as well as classes that specialize in those roles. Monks can't DPS as well as rogues, rangers, or wizards, and can't tank as well as warriors, paladins or dire lords. To me they have one main role, not three. I think every class should fall into one of five specializations: tank, heal, dps, CC, or support.
oneADseven said:If what you are saying is that you wouldn't want to see paladins being able to flex as both a primary healer or tank then I absolutely agree.
This is exactly what I am saying. Each class has one main role.
Iksar said:dragonpriest said:Then you end up with all the loot whores that think they have to gear up each spec
Well...that's how it was in EQ and I honestly am hoping it ends up in Pantheon, not gearing each spec but people rolling on everything. EQ was a roll/pass system and I hope they incorporate that into this game over need before greed. Everyone in the group can roll on drops regardless of who can "use" it (everyone can use it in some way even if they can't equip) because everyone is there putting in the same time and effort. NBG works in games like WoW where items are mostly soulbound and having someone take other class gear is a total waste, but in a system like this a wizard taking a rare plate chest means he can sell it and get a robe or something else for his class.
I don't agree with this premise...if you are grouped and working as a team, class specific armor and weapons that drop SHOULD go to the specific designated class...not to someone's alt or for selling over General chat. Greed is when you take something that your character can't use..but someone in the group can use it as an upgrade. As a community we should be working together. If someone does that in a group I am in...deliberately grabs something that someone else in group needs as an upgrade..even if it doesn't affect me personally...I will leave. And will never group with that person again. I have strong opinions on that kind of activity....play fair or don't be in any group I am in. This isn't going to be Wow.
Cana
CanadinaXegony said:...even if it doesn't affect me personally...I will leave. And will never group with that person again. I have strong opinions on that kind of activity....play fair or don't be in any group I am in. This isn't going to be Wow.
That is the great part about having a gaming environment that relies on a cultural morality instead of superficial rules. If enough people feel like you do then the greedy people will have a hard time finding groups. Maybe part of being LFM or LFG is looking for a group / player that agrees with your loot rules. I would like to think we can handle loot as a community instead of having the devs spoon feed us.
Also, we are getting waaaay off of the topic of dual spec lol.
I think the majority of the community would be on the same page regarding loot. It's quite possible that there will be outliers where FFA is accepted, but it's probably something that would need to be advertised at the start of the group. That said, it is a little bit off topic at this point even though I completely agree with Cana's sentiment -- what I am mainly interested in moving forward is feedback related to each spec or class. If you plan on playing a ranger, how do the ranger specs look to you? If you plan on playing a paladin, what kind of specs would you be interested in? I plan on finishing all of these up as time permits. As a warrior main I am kind of torn. I'm not sure if I would prefer to have 2 flavors of tank specialization (which is what is currently listed with martial/warlord) or one spec for pure tank and another for off-DPS such as a berserker. The key point to remember is that no class would ever be able to fulfill multiple "primary" roles. Looking at paladins ... I was considering doing a primary tank spec and then another spec that would be tanky/off-healing. The off-heal spec would never compete with a true healer but it might include a group heal or group cure that could accentuate that aspect of the class.
Added Lich/Contagion for Necromancer and Arcanist for Wizard. (Check my last post on page 11.) The Rites of Passage angle has evolved quite a bit so I will likely revisit some of the earlier classes at a later date to add some much needed spice and flavor. As a disclaimer, the Arcanist has quite a bit of risk vs reward built into their kit which may be a turn-off for some folks. I figure if they will be the most powerful nukers in the game that it might be okay to balance that with some added cost. The Warlock spec (or whatever it ends up being) will likely play out a bit differently.
You can go any number of directions with each class. I'll admit that bard was the first class I worked on (started off alphabetically) and that the example provided would closely resemble the duality of troubador/dirge from EQ2 but it isn't identical. I plan on giving bards a second look when I finish the other classes.
I love playing different alts but I feel I could stay more interested in one character and stay focused with the ablilty to change specs to fill different roles. I would love to see a dps/tank options for the tanks and please have a dps spec instead of a heal spec for the Paladin.
Kaylis said:I love playing different alts but I feel I could stay more interested in one character and stay focused with the ablilty to change specs to fill different roles. I would love to see a dps/tank options for the tanks and please have a dps spec instead of a heal spec for the Paladin.
I don't believe the idea proposed here by 1AD7 is for characters to be able to fill different roles.
I'm still against breaking the classes into subsets. There will be a main leveling spec then the one each class works on once they hit the level cap, which sort of frontloads the problem to a degree that we saw with AAs where people get passed over or denied but also renders an entire spec as just sort of a tacked on subset of abilities that a player rarely uses or otherwise only uses after the months long leveling journey.
I don't see a need to gate abilities behind specs at all, especially given the idea that even a DPS spec'd warrior would still be worse than any DPS class. To me it's better to have less limits and let players get creative with their ability choices based on whatever task is at hand.
Limitations are a part of the game. We already know that we'll be limited to a single hotbar during combat and that there is a lot of emphasis being put into the preparation phase. By gating abilities behind a specific specialization, you can create abilities that will be situationally amazing while also avoiding cookie cutter builds. It allows you to utilize 2 players of the same class in a group that each bring something unique to the table. You could make the argument that opening everything to everybody can also allow this to happen, but there is a much higher potential for overlap. There will be certain abilities or combinations of abilities that seem to always make sense. Specialization allows you to work around that. Again, this entire thread is based around the idea that players can interchange their specialization while out of combat.
You're going to be limited while in-combat one way or another. Specialization can create flavor opportunities without making a class a can-do-anything-OP-master. The idea is to allow players a degree of flexibility (class flavor, solo/group/raid preference) while still adhering to the limitations that appear to be a very important aspect of combat. It's all about meaningful choice. If you look at the many examples provided this will hopefully make sense. I think our classes can be more interesting if you create abilities that are truly situational in the sense that you have to choose between one ability/specialization or the other. The choice isn't permanent. I mentioned this before but I would rather make hundreds or thousands of meaningful choices over the lifespan of my character than make a single a monumental choice when it comes time to specialize. A system as described would be an ideal environment for emergent player behavior, IMO.
*Edit -- Added Elementalist to Wizard. Please check page 11!
The monk class has two specializations: Body (DPS) and Soul (Off-Tank) -- I have been using that as a premise for each class, minus the idea that each class will have a secondary "off" role. It is my understanding that players won't have to make a permanent or semi-permanent choice (can only switch specializations in town) but instead, the transition from one specialization to the next will be more fluid (possibly out-of-combat). Should a monk have to commit to a DPS or Off-Tank spec for an entire session? I don't think so. There are reasons why you gate certain abilities behind a specialization and those reasons are to prevent cookie cutter builds and OP ability combinations. The Soul spec will include abilities that grant higher evasion and potent self-healing. If you don't gate those abilities behind the Soul spec, you'll see plenty of monks opting for Body for the DPS potential who take the best of the best from Soul (evasion & healing) -- there isn't really much of a choice here. Look at some of the other examples that I shared. If you play a Direlord, you'll almost always use Shadowstep & Bloodlust. If you play a Necromancer, you'll almost always use Phylactery & Immolation. If you play a Warrior, you'll almost always use Capture & Endure. If you play a Wizard, you'll almost always use Disintegrate & Harvest Environment.
Gating these abilities behind specialization allows you to give each class a variety of meaningful abilities without forcing a FOTM (or FOTY) build path. The system is designed to encourage consistent emergent behavior and "find a group as class X rather than Spec Y" potential. What combination of specializations make the most sense for the upcoming fight? If everybody gets everything, your choices are vastly diminished because you'll almost always be able to justify using multiple abilities from each spec on any given hotbar. If everybody gets everything, content needs to be tuned accordingly and my gut feeling is that if you allow it to happen, many of these abilities wouldn't exist. Some of these abilities would be considered too powerful when you allow a single player to use them in combination. If you want to use both Disintegrate & Metamorphosis on the upcoming fight then you bring two Wizards. If you want to use Phylactery and Immolation then you bring two Necromancers. For group content, you'll probably want to bring a different class altogether rather than a duplicate for enhanced group adaptability. Falling back to monk again ... imagine if every monk had high evasion and powerful self healing that could be used on demand. These are abilities that are suited for off-tanking but a DPS monk could just as easily fulfill that role by adding both abilities to their DPS hotbar.
That doesn't mean that the base Monk class wouldn't also have evasive maneuvers or self healing abilities. I'm sure they will, but I don't think those base abilities will be as effective as the specialized versions. It all boils down to the preparation phase of combat. I don't think players are going to be swapping their specializations every other fight. Instead, I think players would swap their specialization when they find a situation that warrants them to do it. This could be a boss NPC inside of a dungeon (The monk was rolling DPS up to this point but now he may need to assist with off-tanking) or maybe an environment that needs manipulated. The Wizard might prefer to roll as Arcanist until their group runs into a chamber with rotating atmospheres, at which point he would prefer to switch it up and play as an Elementalist. But maybe you're in a raid area where having both would be ideal. There are opportunities for abilities from each specialization to shine and rather than going in with 2 wizards who have the exact same hotbar configuration, they are both able to bring something unique to the table while preventing overlap on the most powerful abilities. If you want to go in with two of the exact same spec, that's fine too. Either way it goes, you have to make a choice prior to engaging. I have been down the road of "adjust spec only while in town" and that worked great for WoW because classes could literally switch from a primary tank role to healing role to DPS role. If you allow players to fulfill multiple "primary" roles then sure, it absolutely makes sense to restrict their ability to rotate spec. If it's a matter of multiple flavors in the same role, I don't think that barrier should exist. Monks are a hybrid class so they are an exception to the rule, but either way, their "off-tank" spec is still just that ... an "off-tank" -- they aren't going to be able to switch to a "primary" tank role.
oneADseven said:...There are reasons why you gate certain abilities behind a specialization and those reasons are to prevent cookie cutter builds and OP ability combinations. The Soul spec will include abilities that grant higher evasion and potent self-healing. If you don't gate those abilities behind the Soul spec, you'll see plenty of monks opting for Body for the DPS potential who take the best of the best from Soul (evasion & healing) -- there isn't really much of a choice here.
Gating these abilities behind specialization allows you to give each class a variety of meaningful abilities without forcing a FOTM (or FOTY) build path. The system is designed to encourage consistent emergent behavior and "find a group as class X rather than Spec Y" potential. What combination of specializations make the most sense for the upcoming fight? If everybody gets everything, your choices are vastly diminished because you'll almost always be able to justify using multiple abilities from each spec on any given hotbar. If everybody gets everything, content needs to be tuned accordingly and my gut feeling is that if you allow it to happen, many of these abilities wouldn't exist. Some of these abilities would be considered too powerful when you allow a single player to use them in combination...Falling back to monk again ... imagine if every monk had high evasion and powerful self healing that could be used on demand. These are abilities that are suited for off-tanking but a DPS monk could just as easily fulfill that role by adding both abilities to their DPS hotbar.
That doesn't mean that the base Monk class wouldn't also have evasive maneuvers or self healing abilities. I'm sure they will, but I don't think those base abilities will be as effective as the specialized versions. It all boils down to the preparation phase of combat. I don't think players are going to be swapping their specializations every other fight. Instead, I think players would swap their specialization when they find a situation that warrants them to do it. Monks are a hybrid class so they are an exception to the rule, but either way, their "off-tank" spec is still just that ... an "off-tank" -- they aren't going to be able to switch to a "primary" tank role.
Even with specialization you will have cookie cutter ability sets but with the added layer of community "enforced" build paths (which spec to level first).
But this is all based on a lot of assumptions. You don't have to gate these things behind different specs, if abilities are somehow too strong to be able to combine on one bar then add limitations. Things like shared cooldowns for key high combat power/influence abilities, specific requirements for use, or don't give classes "must have" abilities that are notably stronger than others (and if they do then maybe have them take up 2+ ability slots so taking more than one actually puts someone at a disadvantage). For warrior you could have their better tanking/mitigation abilities require a shield to use and/or give their DPS abilities a boost when fighting dual wield or with a 2-hander but otherwise be somewhat weak. For monk I imagine evasion isn't going to be terribly useful most of the time when in a DPS role and the self-healing abilities that could be too strong to have as a DPS can be made to where they are only useable after successful dodges or taking a certain amount of hits or damage, which they won't be doing most of the time as a DPS. There are plenty of ways to make it happen without boxing people into specs (or boxing them out of creative mixes of spells/abilities).
Being able to have a mostly DPS bar with a few off-tank abilities would allow the monk to play as I imagine their role is intended: DPS with a backup ability to do limited tanking when necessary/**** hits the fan, the same as Rogue is DPS but can fill in CC when necessary.
Iksar said:Being able to have a mostly DPS bar with a few off-tank abilities would allow the monk to play as I imagine their role is intended: DPS with a backup ability to do limited tanking when necessary/**** hits the fan, the same as Rogue is DPS but can fill in CC when necessary.
This is the impression I've gotten from what's been revealed so far. The fact that they've announced body/soul specs for the monk makes me think it goes a little deeper than just ability specs, like maybe the colored mana specialization is still in the works. But I haven't seen any indication that there are plans to have people make permanent choices during character progression.
@Iksar -- I don't understand the argument. You don't want to box players into a specialization or out of creative mixes of spells/abilities, but the solution revolves around more limitations or conditional restrictions? How does that even make sense? I'm fine with certain abilities requiring an associated weapon (Shield Bash requires a shield, Backstab requires a piercing weapon, Flame Arrow requires a weapon that can shoot arrows) but giving a boost to all DPS abilities based on whether or not you have a 2 hander or dual wield? Come on. Creating abilities that require 2 slots on the hotbar rather than 1? Huh? Shared cooldowns, abilities that only trigger after taking a certain amount of hits or damage. That sounds like a programming nightmare for the sake of having a programming nightmare. If you want to color something orange, why not use an orange crayon instead of sorting through countless variations of red/yellow mixtures? You are correct in saying "there are plenty of ways to make it happen" but the "without boxing people into" part is really off-base. As I am sure you are aware, I am a fan of "conditional logic" but it seems like you're using it as a crutch to counter dual specialization. I think it should be used to create dynamic combat elements, not as a core design philosophy intended for balance.
oneADseven said:Ranger: Rangers thrive in open space but won't hesitate to leverage their cunning and perception in tight quarters. Their combination of stealth, tracking, survival, and herbalism pack the utility of a swiss army knife while braving the wilds ... but it's their proficiency with the bow that strikes fear (and death) into the hearts of their adversaries.
Forester: Your wisdom of all things nature allows you to communicate with the planet in ways that the untrained eye and ear could never comprehend. Speak with the trees and the wind, and harvest the nourishing properties of the earth around you. Rangers trained in the arts of Forester can harness the environment by calling upon the animal whose very instinct was forged within it, allowing them to share in the evolution of natural order.
- Herbalism: Identify and harvest natural resources that can be used to create makeshift tools, salves, reagents, or companion snacks. (Various regen/curing elements, fletching material, toxins, armor/weapon modifications, and player/pet consumables.)
- Camouflage: Blend in with the environment, allowing you to avoid visual and scent detection methods. (Avoiding audial detection is a core ranger ability.)
- Advanced Tracking: Observe various trails by following the story that nature shares with you. Creatures that are successfully tracked are open to pre-emptive bonus damage.
- Animal Companion: Summon a companion that can provide various degrees of utility depending on the situation.
Deadeye: Picking foes apart from range is the tried and true approach of those who have mastered the bow and arrow. Using pinpoint accuracy and refined technique can render your foes vulnerable, but finding the right angle and positioning can be tricky. Rangers trained in the arts of Deadeye can inflict very high damage under the right circumstances -- whether it's launching a rain of arrows into a calculated radius, a flurry of arrows in the same direction, or a single devastating headshot ... enemies are terrified of being caught in their gaze.
- Volley: Let loose a hail of arrows that will damage all creatures within a medium sized radius.
- Barrage: Temporarily modify your bow to allow a multitude of shots in rapid succession. (Movement is decreased significantly for duration of this channeled effect)
- Cripple: High damage attack that impairs the movement speed, avoidance, attack speed, or accuracy of your opponent, depending on your range and angle relative to the target.
- Headshot: Massive attack that does bonus damage based on available health. (The higher their current HP % is, the larger the bonus.)
Rites of Passage: Rangers can enhance their survival techniques by seeking out various earthly trials scattered around the world of Terminus. Each trial is meant to test their endurance and cunning, requiring them to tap into their surroundings in order to survive through the night. Each trial will reward the ranger with a new foraging technique, companion to summon, or tool that further refines their mastery of the bow and arrow.
oneADseven said:@Iksar -- I don't understand the argument. You don't want to box players into a specialization or out of creative mixes of spells/abilities, but the solution revolves around more limitations or conditional restrictions? How does that even make sense? I'm fine with certain abilities requiring an associated weapon (Shield Bash requires a shield, Backstab requires a piercing weapon, Flame Arrow requires a weapon that can shoot arrows) but giving a boost to all DPS abilities based on whether or not you have a 2 hander or dual wield? Come on. Creating abilities that require 2 slots on the hotbar rather than 1? Huh? Shared cooldowns, abilities that only trigger after taking a certain amount of hits or damage. That sounds like a programming nightmare for the sake of having a programming nightmare. If you want to color something orange, why not use an orange crayon instead of sorting through countless variations of red/yellow mixtures? You are correct in saying "there are plenty of ways to make it happen" but the "without boxing people into" part is really off-base. As I am sure you are aware, I am a fan of "conditional logic" but it seems like you're using it as a crutch to counter dual specialization. I think it should be used to create dynamic combat elements, not as a core design philosophy intended for balance.
Things like shared cooldowns or taking up more than 1 ability slot is in response to your proposed abilities that are apparently so powerful that you would otherwise gate them behind specializations so that players would only ever have access to one at a time for any given encounter. I'd rather they not have abilities like that altogether but those were my proposed solutions if they were to exist.
My agrument leans far more on the conditional requirements. Requiring a shield for most defensive/mitigation abilities on a warrior for example or having bonus modifiers for damage-centric abilities when dual wielding or maybe just when using a 2-hander, this is assuming that swapping weapons in combat is going to be allowed (with a few seconds of "channel" time for swapping). This would still allow a player to change as needed with the flow of combat to whatever degree they prepared their abilities beforehand. Same thing with the monk and needing to be taking hits/dodging/blocking/whatever to use the off-tank portion of his abilities that heal or could be seen as too strong to also be used when DPSing. I don't see how that is more limiting to a players choices compared to gating entire parts of a classes kit behind specs while also watering down abilities to make the specs worthwhile.
In the end though I'd rather none of the limitations and just let each class have all their tools open to them at all times with no conditions or specs. 10 slots for skills: choose wisely and feel free to be creative. I'd imagine off-role abilities won't really be things that can be exploited while performing in a classes main role anyway (I don't think it's likely a monk would be using most/any of his off-tank abilities while DPSing anyway).
That's fine. We obviously have different philosophies on this topic. When I read the description for monks, it's hard to imagine them being able to utilize both Body & Soul at the same time while in combat. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but there were 6 abilities mentioned. Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind, and Rising Moon Kick for Body -- Surge of Chi, Mountain Pose, and Resonating Palm for Soul. Add in the Iconic ability Feign Death and you now have 70% of your bar filled out with specialized/iconic abilities, leaving another 30% for the rest of your kit. I'm not saying that players will always use all seven of these abilities in tandem if they were able to, but I do think that making them all simultaneously accessible increases the likelihood of cookie cutter builds.
I don't see why Body & Soul would be called "specializations" if you could use them both simultaneously. Unless specialization is considered "the art of unlocking body/soul themed abilities" that requires some sort of special training, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What does make sense, to me, is tying the Body abilities to a Body spec'd Monk and the Soul abilities to a Soul spec'd monk ... otherwise you just have a monk. This part of the class description "Body will be the prototypical hand-to-hand DPS class" becomes invalidated because you aren't a class or specialization when your "special abilities" aren't exclusively tied to your spec. Without gating these abilities behind specialization, there can be no "Body Monk."
In the end mainstream/cookie cutter builds are inevitable and I think a far more effective way to combat that is to have a high variance of mob types as well as the behaviors/dispositions within them. With enough to where players often (but not tediously) have to change out abilities or consider risks (do the mobs have a high chance to spawn with a disposition for calling for help? Are they highly resistant to CC and could easily need an off-tank for any adds?). At any given time even cookie cutter builds for a specific mob type could underperform compared to more exotic/creative ability combinations.
As for the body/soul, I think the problem is the monk write up is a little too ambiguous. I see where you are coming from and I can only share how I read it:
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies."
The monk class wields their body and soul as the basis of their abilities.
"Ability Arsenal: Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons. The Arts of the Body consist of devastating physical attacks such as Flurry Punch, Strike of the Wayward Wind and Rising Moon Kick. The Arts of the Soul allow Monks to concentrate their flow of Chi into punishing physical attacks like Surge of Chi, defensive abilities like Mountain Pose, and self-healing techniques like Resonating Palm."
Reinforces the idea that Monks as a class use both body and soul abilities (not body or soul). Gives a small sample of a larger pool of abilities and lists which part of the monk design they fit in with.
"We spoke with Creative Director Chris Perkins about the Monk, and while the class is still very much a work in progress, he had few interesting design ideas about the class he shared with us. The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank. The class will feature two specializations - Body and Soul. Body will be the prototypical hand-to-hand DPS class while Soul is envisioned to be a stalwart off-tank with self-healing mechanics and high avoidance. Fans of the traditional Monk and of Vanguards Disciple will feel right at home with this highly utilitarian class."
Sort of just restating what was said above but with a little confusion mixed in. He mentions two specializations of body and soul, specialized generally meaning restricted in some way...or he could be saying specializations of body and soul as in monks specialize in dps and off-tanking (specialized in those two roles out of all the roles available in the game). Then it says monks are a highly utilitarian class...so are they restricted/specialized or are they utilitarian and able to fulfill a number of purposes rather than a single specialized one?
I read all of that same material and stand by my original theory. It seems like we agree on several points, including the idea that "Monks as a class use both body and soul abilities." Just like warriors use 2 handers AND shields, this doesen't mean that they can use them both at the same time. The class is highly utilitarian because they fulfill multiple roles, just like the swiss army knife (how often do people use multiple functions of this knife simultaneously?). I believe the "base monk" will have abilities that allow players to cover multiple roles (DPS/Off-Tank/Pulling) but specialization will allow players to accentuate DPS or Off-Tanking in specific. This doesn't box players in. They are still versatile as ever, but if they want to focus their energy into expanding upon one of their roles, they can.
I basically look at specialization as a "stance" that can only be rotated while out of combat. I wouldn't be surprised if there are in-combat stances as well, but using specialization as an out-of-combat stance really compliments the idea of preparing for the next fight and that seems to be a pretty big deal in this game. That said, I think it's possible that there will be some sort of epic "master class" quest where players might be able to leverage the benefits of both specs at the same time, possibly with some limitations similar to what you described with shared cooldowns on specific abilities. If it were up to me, I would require a full re-level through progeny (as a prerequisite) before players could start the epic master class quest. I'm not against the idea of combined mastery at all ... in fact, I would love it! I just think it should be a prestigious accomplishment ... the more difficult it is to achieve, the better. This would add a ton of value to progeny as it would function similarly to the sub-class system from FFXI.
@Wig -- It's tough to say. If it were up to me, I would require a re-level through progeny if players want to be eligible to unlock a second specialization. That's probably too hardcore for some players so the odds of that happening are slim. Another possible angle would be creating an epic "master class" quest that must be completed prior to a second specialization being available. In an ideal world, each class would have their own unique master class questline ... but that would probably be too taxing on development resources. I am also a huge fan of the class mastery system from EQOA but systems like that have pretty much been ruled out for initial launch. The progeny option makes the most sense to me because it would be the easiest method to implement and would greatly enhance the feature. Some people aren't a fan of having to re-level to unlock the full power of their class but I am.
It's basically similar to an AA type system but rather than requiring players to continue XP'ing at max level and congesting the "end game", they are instead funneled back into the lower tiers of world content. There are plenty of positives to this, including: replay value, more grouping potential for each leveling tier, a more fulfilling progression curve, a solution to alleviate "ghost zones", positive economic impacts (stronger supply vs demand in each leveling tier), and player prestige. The only downside I can think of is that some folks wouldn't want to re-level. My answer to that would be "too bad." I don't mean to be rude when I say that but I loved releveling in FFXI. Releveling wasn't something people complained about ... they embraced it as a part of the game because it's easy to appreciate all of the positives that I just listed. It's important to note, though, that they could also toggle between their max level character and the low level character which I also feel would be very important for progeny. This toggle could only be done in major cities.
As far as the initial specialization choice goes, I would tie that into specialized class trainers that can be found in some unique/exotic location of the world. Open up specialization around level 25 or so (This trainer will only interact with you when are you at least 25) and allow players to learn deeper layers of that specialization all the way up to max level. This could include faction requirements or trainer objectives that function similar to a traditional quest. This could be something to the extent of "There is a Lich at the bottom of the Frozen Necropolis who holds the key to your next technique." This isn't offering a quest, but rather arming the player with information that gives them insight on how they can progress toward furthering their specialization.
That Lich is going to exist in the world regardless of whether or not you have obtained the objective from your trainer, but once you get the objective, you're now "flagged" for that encounter and should you defeat it, a special key will drop. Return to the trainer and then he gives you the next clue on what you might want to do with that key you acquired. It's possible that multiple classes would share in some of these objectives. Maybe there is a room not too far from that Lich that clerics might need to visit for their own quest. Maybe the chest that the lich-key opens is in a remote area that contains another wide-range roaming boss that summoners could be flagged for in their own specialization path. It would feel like a quest but in reality you're leveraging existing content and giving players conditional flags for beating it.
I'm all for making things a bit more unique for each class but if that's too intense on resources then an angle like this might make sense. These kind of mobs would probably be great candidates for "Ghost Content" where other players wouldn't be able to block your progression.
Xbachs said:We have different definitions of "role" apparently.
oneADseven said:Based on the reveals that we have seen so far, all classes fill at least two roles although "support" is kind of a gray area. When you look at monks, though, they actually have 3 -- Melee DPS / Off-Tank / Pulling Utility.
To me a monk is a support class that is built to pull. They can fill other roles, but not as well as classes that specialize in those roles. Monks can't DPS as well as rogues, rangers, or wizards, and can't tank as well as warriors, paladins or dire lords. To me they have one main role, not three. I think every class should fall into one of five specializations: tank, heal, dps, CC, or support.
oneADseven said:If what you are saying is that you wouldn't want to see paladins being able to flex as both a primary healer or tank then I absolutely agree.
This is exactly what I am saying. Each class has one main role.
Monks were the best class in the game for launch->velious because they were the 2nd(ish) best at 3 things, not because they were the best at any one thing. This has tremendous value and is an amazing example of the magical class synergy of Everquest.