Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

So who decided that the Holy Trinity of class dynamics was a bad thing?

18910111214»

Comments

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

    A slower is slows the movement of a target?  Ummm... No.  Slowers slow attack spend and in older games was given to debuffers (a role we really don't see anymore in games).  Slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and we don't see them much anymore.  By assuming slowing meant movement speed, you've just admitted you have no experience with EQ as it was so critically important.

    Yes, actually we have had classes DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, puller, or off healer.  These are not specialist roles and there's a trade off for having additional utility.  EQ is where you want to look to this because it predates class homogenization although there are other examples that are just as good.  Monks were primarily DPS, but they lost some of the DPS in order to be better pullers and for durability to off tank.  Same goes for Rangers to a large extent.  Shaman were primarily buffers and debuffers, but had damage and healing at significantly less than specialists in those areas.  You can look to DAOC for examples from a different game.  You need to stop limiting yourself to WoW and WoW clone approaches to the Trinity.

    movement encompasses both attack speed and movement speed. You can infer that as one or the other, while I meant both, I should have been more blatant in that comment. As I said, AT BEST it was given to a debuffer, but debuffers do not exist much anymore.

    I find it extremely hard to believe that there was a class who did absolutely nothing else but pulling. As in no attacking or anything. Likewise I find it hard to believe that there was a class who did absolutely nothing but off tanking. They pretty much all  (with the exception of debuffers and buffers) were able to perform somewhere in the trinity at least. The puller may have lost damage to pull, but they STILL could do damage. Likewise, the offtanker may have lost damage to tank, but they could STILL do damage. They were not designed to specifically do that role and that role only, and once that role was either filled or no longer necessary, they were sitting through the entire fight doing nothing. Having utility was a long since forgotten relic that was once given to ranged classes, but now being a ranged dps is just a different way of playing vs melee dps. You gain no utility and lose no damage. I can believe straight buffers and debuffers, although those types of classes tend not to exist much anymore.

    I'm not sure if you are for or against the trinity btw, cause this sounds like you'd be against it.

     

    It's clear you were talking about movement speed.

     

    I didn't say that there was a class that did nothing but pulling or just off tanking.  I think the problem we're having in communication is your definition of the Trinity and my definition of the Trinity.  The Trinity roles are for specialists, pure classes or close to it.  It developed due to min / maxing.  Going back to the DnD game example, you can do a lot without a tank, healer, or damage dealer.  If I take a group with these roles, I can do a lot more.  If I add in support roles, I can do even more, but the core of what you need to start doing more is wrapped up in the Trinity.  Damage soak allocates damage efficiently.  Healer prevents tank from dying.  Damage dealer kills monster before Healer runs out of resource.  

     

    In terms of pulling, off tanking, etc, those came from "and one classes."  For content that didn't require a real Trinity set up, one that didn't require specialists, you could put them into certain Trinity spots.  I healed a lot of trivial content with my Shaman.  Monks tanked trivial content.  A very large amount of EQ was trivial content.  The Trinity only matters when you get into real group content and raiding.  The other spots are filled by non-specialists.

    I hate the current incarnation of the Trinity.  Class homogenization is a terrible thing.  For WoW when I last played, I really didn't see a substantial difference between a lot of the classes.  Aside from flavor differences, you could have one class with a tank, heal, and damage tree and things would function about the same.  Seems about the same for most of the MMOs I've played of late.  When you remove the Trinity, you've removed the cornerstone of group content.  Yes, you can design around that but the complexity of the encounters is inevitably dropped.  On the flip side, if you force everything into a Tank, DPS, or Healing class, you've done the same thing and possibly even worse.  By definition, specialists have to be on the same level.  By forcing everything into a specialty role, there's very strong pressure to homogenize and you lose qualitative differences between the classes in addition to making the encounters worse. 

    I support the Trinity I knew from early MMOs I played which is a foundation for group content.  You have to have a tank.  You have to have a healer.  You have to have DPS.  You also have to have more than this, but beyond this it largely becomes much more flexible.  It becomes difficult to design around non-specialists and specialists.  I'd prefer to see an expansion of roles and all classes given multiple roles that can be simultaneously filled.  For example, someone filling a tank and healer role should have the full capabilities of a tank and a healer.  A class filling a Debuffer and Healer class should have full capabilities in both.  Obviously, you'd have to have different standards for content design.  In designing 5 man group content for a game with 5 class roles, you'd need to design around a group filling 10 roles. 

     

     

    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

    A slower is slows the movement of a target?  Ummm... No.  Slowers slow attack spend and in older games was given to debuffers (a role we really don't see anymore in games).  Slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and we don't see them much anymore.  By assuming slowing meant movement speed, you've just admitted you have no experience with EQ as it was so critically important.

    Yes, actually we have had classes DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, puller, or off healer.  These are not specialist roles and there's a trade off for having additional utility.  EQ is where you want to look to this because it predates class homogenization although there are other examples that are just as good.  Monks were primarily DPS, but they lost some of the DPS in order to be better pullers and for durability to off tank.  Same goes for Rangers to a large extent.  Shaman were primarily buffers and debuffers, but had damage and healing at significantly less than specialists in those areas.  You can look to DAOC for examples from a different game.  You need to stop limiting yourself to WoW and WoW clone approaches to the Trinity.

    People like you need to stop acting like WoW isn't just like EQ was with more than the primary 3 roles of the trinity.

     

    You agreed with the guy but act like he said nothing but lies. He said a slower is at best a debuffer but CURRENTLY that is someone that has a mechanic to slow the movement speed of a target.

     

    YOU said a slower slow attack speed and in older games was given to debuffers(a role you dont see anymore in games). and slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and WE DON'T SEE THEM MUCH ANYMORE.

     

    So you agree you don't see a class who's sole job is to debuff enemies anymore, they delegated the role of debuffer to the other classes by giving them the mechanics that a debuffer used to have. just like the guy said, you yourself recognize that you don't see debuffers anymore.

     

    Holy paladins are the best tank healers in the game. Druid healers can't be touched when it comes to their heal over times to keep up the group. Shamans can't be touched with their insane instant heals via chain heal. Rogues are the kings of burst dps. Warriors are the kings of high dmg numbers.

     

    All those are those classes pluses, they have those pluses at the cost of other capabilities. Rogues don't have nearly as much aoe capability as other classes. As long as you can play keep away from a warrior, you're fine as they don't have pretty much any ranged attacks. Shamans don't do so well tank healing. etcetc. Stop acting like EQ is sooo much better than WoW cause its not, they're pretty much the same when it comes to classes cause they both use the trinity.

    I'm not acting like EQ is so much better than WoW.  It is significantly better in terms of classes.  It's horribly dated in terms of design and combat mechanics.  EQ Warriors were horribly designed in terms of game play.  You target the mob.  Turn on autoattack.  And done.  I only had fun playing one when I was boxing, but I don't think that was because I was playing a Warrior.  A lot of classes had similar game play designs.  It was acceptable when games hadn't advanced beyond that point.  I also don't see anywhere I've agreed with him. 

    We don't see anything in the current games (Rift excepted although I'm not a huge fan of it) outside the DPS, Tank, Healer roles.  The debuffs and buffs roles were not parceled out to the various classes.  They were simply eliminated.  On a shaman in a raid or group in EQ, buffing and debuffing was what you spend most of your time doing.  You didn't simply cast a 30 minute buff or a one and done debuff. 

    You are pointing to flavor differences between classes.  I don't play WoW anymore.  So I can't speak to how it is currently, but in terms of healing roles there were minor, at best, differences between class ability (in terms of what could be accomplished not skill abilities).

    Your assessment that EQ is similar to WoW in terms of class design and functionality is completely off and flat out false.  WoW was a great game for a long time.  I don't think I'd call it bad now, but it has elements and has moved in a direction that I would classify as negative in class design with homogenization. 

    I do agree largely with your earlier post about zerging although you are wrong about how taking down bosses with open world PvP.  That depends largely on the game's design particularly with death mechanics.  We've had games with open world PvP that did not rely on instances and it did not play out as you predict.

  • cowboyonicowboyoni Bellevue, NEPosts: 36Member

    To answer the OPs original question I think it's just the trendy thing to say right now. Kind of how at one time the trendy thing every mmo dev or player was saying was 'No more grinding mobs'. Of course that just turned into grinding dungeons and quest but that's another discussion. 

     

    My personal opinion on the holy trinity being bad or good for mmos depends on how people mean it. When they say holy trinity meaning tank/dps/healer then yeah I think it is way over done and limiting to how players can play their character in a game. Now if by holy trinity you mean the fundamental concept of offense/defense/support I think there is nothing wrong with that and is instrumental in engaging team pve content.  The difference in these two ways of looking at the holy trinity I think is obvious. Defense for example does not have to strictly mean 'my gear set has the highest DEF stat so my job is to maintain aggro threw out the fight', defense means just that, you defend the rest of the party.  Creative game developers I think can come up with many ways for a player to perform the basic role of defending the party.

     

    I think GW2 for example both failed and succeeded in this. They managed to get rid of the tank/dps/healer set up which I thought was a good thing. But they didn't really replace it with anything, or I should say they didn't give players the abillity to full fill a basic role in a party. In a party setup in that game everyone does the same thing as everyone else, which eliminates the filling of team synergy or any deep strategy to boss encounters.

     

    Well there's my two cents :)

  • GinazGinaz Calgary, ABPosts: 1,731Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

     

    That is an extremely simplistic and arrogant view.  Maybe it's because, like me, I've tried other non-trinity games like GW2 and found them lacking.  Don't assume just because people prefer the "old" way they haven't experienced the "new".

    image

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ginaz
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

    That is an extremely simplistic and arrogant view.  Maybe it's because, like me, I've tried other non-trinity games like GW2 and found them lacking.  Don't assume just because people prefer the "old" way they haven't experienced the "new".

    He didn't post that people who like the trinity don't try new things. He posted a basic reality about human nature - whether it's in a game or out in the real world - which is that when people are comfortable with a system, they tend to stick with that system rather than try things outside of it. They already know they enjoy and are familiar with the existing one, and none of that is a given with a new one.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXPosts: 3,493Member Uncommon
    I'm going to have to say that GW2's non trinity style of combat is not more complex than the traditional trinity style combat, but rather more interactive, that is all.

    image

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Ginaz
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

    That is an extremely simplistic and arrogant view.  Maybe it's because, like me, I've tried other non-trinity games like GW2 and found them lacking.  Don't assume just because people prefer the "old" way they haven't experienced the "new".

    He didn't post that people who like the trinity don't try new things. He posted a basic reality about human nature - whether it's in a game or out in the real world - which is that when people are comfortable with a system, they tend to stick with that system rather than try things outside of it. They already know they enjoy and are familiar with the existing one, and none of that is a given with a new one.

    This is pretty true ^.

    Data has shown that gamers are extremely conservative in the games they play. While most gamers are extremely vocal about wanting change, progress, and innovation, few are actually open to those things. This is a phenomina we're seing on these forums right now, with the recent 180 degree turn of opinion from 'MMOs have gotten stale, give us something new!' to 'why don't we have the same games we used to, this is the only way to make an MMO!'.

    It'd be amusing if I didn't actually plan on playing MMOs.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    I'm going to have to say that GW2's non trinity style of combat is not more complex than the traditional trinity style combat, but rather more interactive, that is all.

    Care to explain?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    I'm going to have to say that GW2's non trinity style of combat is not more complex than the traditional trinity style combat, but rather more interactive, that is all.

    Care to explain?

    Combos!  Combat in GW2 became twice as entertaining for me when I actually learned how to look for and use those.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • GinazGinaz Calgary, ABPosts: 1,731Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Ginaz
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

    That is an extremely simplistic and arrogant view.  Maybe it's because, like me, I've tried other non-trinity games like GW2 and found them lacking.  Don't assume just because people prefer the "old" way they haven't experienced the "new".

    He didn't post that people who like the trinity don't try new things. He posted a basic reality about human nature - whether it's in a game or out in the real world - which is that when people are comfortable with a system, they tend to stick with that system rather than try things outside of it. They already know they enjoy and are familiar with the existing one, and none of that is a given with a new one.

    Ah, that's exactly what he said: except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

    image

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member Common

    If I play a game for years, which is the way how I play MMOs, I dont need something exciting new every day. I want something that is know to work longtime.

    This "it has to be new" approach works best with games you play for ten hours tops - shooter games. These games could try something new quite freely. Unfortunately, last I checked, they usualy are the least likely to be inventive.

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer

    The "problem" with the (un)Holy Trinity playstyle arose from the game designers building encounters that could only be done a certain way.

     

    Take EQ1 at release;

    Warriors did more damage than any other class with the same Stats and Weapons (100% + Str Bonus vs. 75% and no bonus). As well with the first expansion gained a skill that reduced incoming damage to a degree vastly greater than any other class could even dream of.

    Clerics, Shaman and Druids got the 'same' Heals spells, except the Shaman and Druids version healed less and were acquired at a later level (ie 360 vs 400iirc). As well, ONLY Clerics got Complete Heal, the best HP/AC buffs, no one else came close.

    Enchanters were only second at Slowing a targets attack, but were bar none first at Speeding players attack speeds, Crowd Control, Mana regen, and more.

     

    The Devs there then built encounters that ONLY a Warrior could Tank, ONLY a Cleric could heal, and with the best support as the Enchanter. Others were only fill ins once the group had one each of these.

    Later, much later, they completely rebalanced the skills sets such that every class had a unique line and ability they brought to the table.

     

    If a Warrior wasn't available to Tank, a Cleric to Heal, an Enchanter to Buff/Debuff, others could fill in for group play, but... You were much more likely to wipe and have a bad experience. Attainable content was lesser, and Difficult content needed to be avoided.

    This is what brought the 'bad taste' to the Trinity model. 

    Did you play EQ1?  Warriors did not do more damage than any other class.  They were on a higher damage table.  They did not have the same skill caps or special abilities (Flying Kick and Backstab were far superior to Kick / Bash).

    The common heals from the Clerics, Shaman, and Druids healed for the same (they were acquired at different levels).  Complete Heal was what made raiding possible though.  It was far, far superior in terms of mana efficiency.  That was the primary reason it was used.  You don't make mention of the 10 second cast time.  That's a long cast time.  The genius who came up with Complete Heal Chains totally screwed up any content design at the time.

    Warriors never had a substantial edge in tanking.  They really only offered an advantage when you were raiding something at the edge of your guild's abilities.  Knight snap agro and just plain agro generation left warriors crying in the fetal position.

    Enchanters were primarily CC.  You didn't bring them for their buffs and debuffs.  You used a shaman for that.

    Yes I played at release and through 2004-5. Spent most of that time in a pinnacle raiding guild.

     

    Let's see...

    - Warriors started with a different damage table indeed they were at 100% of base weapon damage, and every 2 levels past 26(?) they gained +1 to weapon base damage as an innate. Hybrids were supposed to be at 75% and Healers types at 50%, but for a large portion of the early years, sadly the Hybrids (Paly, SK, Rng) were set to 50% NOT 75%, Verant denied there was a problem despite parses, Sony took over and it was rapidly admitted to and fixed.

    -Warriors got a skill at ~57 that reduced incoming damage by 80%, originally it had a 2 minute duration on a 6 minute cooldown. Later AA's could bring the duration all the way up to 100% up time. NO other class had a similar skill.

     

    -Clerics and Paladins DID have a better heal for the same common heals. Same mana cost as the other classes, the 'Divine' version just healed more. Later all heals were balanced, but that was years later.

    Here from the Project 1999 pages;

    There's plenty of things like this that haven't been fixed to be more like classic. Heals for druid/sham vs cleric should be:

    9/10 minor healing
    27/30 light healing
    90/100 healing
    250/300 greater healing

     

     

    -Yes Enchanters were pretty much only CC until the +30's when their specialty lines started kicking in. A Chanter could Haste better than any Shaman could dream of, Slow almost as well, had a HUGE ablative HP buff, and could do all that and CC/Mana regen. Most raids had room for several chanters, but only 1 shaman was ever needed Tash/Malo/EpicDoT and might as well camp out....

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    Well done Cyclops. Flash from the past. Thanks! Here some info about Rangers back in the day, too.

    Ranger Chronicles

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Adamantine

    If I play a game for years, which is the way how I play MMOs, I dont need something exciting new every day. I want something that is know to work longtime.

    This "it has to be new" approach works best with games you play for ten hours tops - shooter games. These games could try something new quite freely. Unfortunately, last I checked, they usualy are the least likely to be inventive.

    Shooters are not the only 10 hour games. There are plenty .. indie puzzle games like The ROOM. Point and click adventures. And even stealth AAA games like Dishonored have something new in almost every level, although it is more like a 20-30 hour game than a 10 hour one.

     

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer

    The "problem" with the (un)Holy Trinity playstyle arose from the game designers building encounters that could only be done a certain way.

     

    Take EQ1 at release;

    Warriors did more damage than any other class with the same Stats and Weapons (100% + Str Bonus vs. 75% and no bonus). As well with the first expansion gained a skill that reduced incoming damage to a degree vastly greater than any other class could even dream of.

    Clerics, Shaman and Druids got the 'same' Heals spells, except the Shaman and Druids version healed less and were acquired at a later level (ie 360 vs 400iirc). As well, ONLY Clerics got Complete Heal, the best HP/AC buffs, no one else came close.

    Enchanters were only second at Slowing a targets attack, but were bar none first at Speeding players attack speeds, Crowd Control, Mana regen, and more.

     

    The Devs there then built encounters that ONLY a Warrior could Tank, ONLY a Cleric could heal, and with the best support as the Enchanter. Others were only fill ins once the group had one each of these.

    Later, much later, they completely rebalanced the skills sets such that every class had a unique line and ability they brought to the table.

     

    If a Warrior wasn't available to Tank, a Cleric to Heal, an Enchanter to Buff/Debuff, others could fill in for group play, but... You were much more likely to wipe and have a bad experience. Attainable content was lesser, and Difficult content needed to be avoided.

    This is what brought the 'bad taste' to the Trinity model. 

    Did you play EQ1?  Warriors did not do more damage than any other class.  They were on a higher damage table.  They did not have the same skill caps or special abilities (Flying Kick and Backstab were far superior to Kick / Bash).

    The common heals from the Clerics, Shaman, and Druids healed for the same (they were acquired at different levels).  Complete Heal was what made raiding possible though.  It was far, far superior in terms of mana efficiency.  That was the primary reason it was used.  You don't make mention of the 10 second cast time.  That's a long cast time.  The genius who came up with Complete Heal Chains totally screwed up any content design at the time.

    Warriors never had a substantial edge in tanking.  They really only offered an advantage when you were raiding something at the edge of your guild's abilities.  Knight snap agro and just plain agro generation left warriors crying in the fetal position.

    Enchanters were primarily CC.  You didn't bring them for their buffs and debuffs.  You used a shaman for that.

    Yes I played at release and through 2004-5. Spent most of that time in a pinnacle raiding guild.

     

    Let's see...

    - Warriors started with a different damage table indeed they were at 100% of base weapon damage, and every 2 levels past 26(?) they gained +1 to weapon base damage as an innate. Hybrids were supposed to be at 75% and Healers types at 50%, but for a large portion of the early years, sadly the Hybrids (Paly, SK, Rng) were set to 50% NOT 75%, Verant denied there was a problem despite parses, Sony took over and it was rapidly admitted to and fixed.

    -Warriors got a skill at ~57 that reduced incoming damage by 80%, originally it had a 2 minute duration on a 6 minute cooldown. Later AA's could bring the duration all the way up to 100% up time. NO other class had a similar skill.

     

    -Clerics and Paladins DID have a better heal for the same common heals. Same mana cost as the other classes, the 'Divine' version just healed more. Later all heals were balanced, but that was years later.

    Here from the Project 1999 pages;

    There's plenty of things like this that haven't been fixed to be more like classic. Heals for druid/sham vs cleric should be:

    9/10 minor healing
    27/30 light healing
    90/100 healing
    250/300 greater healing

     

     

    -Yes Enchanters were pretty much only CC until the +30's when their specialty lines started kicking in. A Chanter could Haste better than any Shaman could dream of, Slow almost as well, had a HUGE ablative HP buff, and could do all that and CC/Mana regen. Most raids had room for several chanters, but only 1 shaman was ever needed Tash/Malo/EpicDoT and might as well camp out....

    I was wrong.  Non-clerics did have a 10% healing penalty.  I always thought it was just from the leveling up of spells they got earlier.

     

    Monks were on the highest damage table.  All other melee was on another damage table.  Casters were on another.  All other melee was put on the Monk table at 50.  In Kunark, Monks got a new damage table above the other classes once more.

    Defensive Disc didn't reduce damage by 80%, 45% is what it started at I think...  It did not have a 6 minute cooldown...  try multiplying that by 3 to get close.  Warriors could never keep Defensive Disc up permanently.  It became one of the primary reasons that Warriors were the maintanks of primary content because it allowed you to land slows, debuffs, and made it easier to set your CHC.

     

    Enchanters have beeter haste than shaman could dream of?  Don't kid yourself.  Enchanters were better, but it wasn't by much at all even when dealing with very undergeared players with no haste.  Shaman didn't have Tash.  That's a chanter.  You needed lots of shamans on a raid even post group buff options for every spell and MGB from PoP.  Not to mention, you needed your Shaman suicide squad to slow the mob immediately and off-heals after.  Melee groups with no Avatar?  No, the fact that you think there was only room for one shaman definitely says you didn't raid in original.  Sorry.

     

    And Epic dot on a raid?  ROFL.  That's one of the biggest jokes I've ever heard.  Spear of Fate was a soloing tool.

     

    Also, going back to your earlier post, that's not how combat worked at ALL.  EQ melee damage had a range with 20 intervals mimicking a bell curve.  Attack shifted probability towards the higher damage; AC shifted probability towards the lower damage.  Then bonus damage was added in based on 1h weapon or 2h weapon and delay might have been taken into account but I don't recall.

18910111214»
Sign In or Register to comment.