Four official classes, each with around 10 'souls' or trees of skills. You combine three souls to create a build or spec, and acquire more points as you level up, gradually becoming more powerful. Every class has at least one pet soul, tanking soul, healing soul, etc. A re-spec is cheap, or you can just buy another build slot (you can have up to 20!).
This means you can make a spellcasting warrior or a tanking mage or a healing rogue. On your cleric, you might have a tanking build, two kinds of healing builds (tank and raid), a single target dps build, an aoe dps build and a high-HP build for soloing group content. Then swap between them on the fly for whatever content you are tackling.
At the end of the day, the player feels like they have a lot of options and control over how they want to play.
It seems like a good system, but only in a game where that is centered mostly on combat with little backstory/lore IMO. By switching classes you are kind of losing your identity in game at the same time.
Four official classes, each with around 10 'souls' or trees of skills. You combine three souls to create a build or spec, and acquire more points as you level up, gradually becoming more powerful. Every class has at least one pet soul, tanking soul, healing soul, etc. A re-spec is cheap, or you can just buy another build slot (you can have up to 20!).
This means you can make a spellcasting warrior or a tanking mage or a healing rogue. On your cleric, you might have a tanking build, two kinds of healing builds (tank and raid), a single target dps build, an aoe dps build and a high-HP build for soloing group content. Then swap between them on the fly for whatever content you are tackling.
At the end of the day, the player feels like they have a lot of options and control over how they want to play.
It seems like a good system, but only in a game where that is centered mostly on combat with little backstory/lore IMO. By switching classes you are kind of losing your identity in game at the same time.
That's exactly how I feel...I hate having 1 character be two different classes or utilizing two different classes. In FFXIV everytime I want to try a new class I create a new character. Unfortunately, you HAVE to level at least 2 classes to level 15, but that's not that bad. I wish MMO's would go back and remember 1 class per toon = stronger identity.
Four official classes, each with around 10 'souls' or trees of skills. You combine three souls to create a build or spec, and acquire more points as you level up, gradually becoming more powerful. Every class has at least one pet soul, tanking soul, healing soul, etc. A re-spec is cheap, or you can just buy another build slot (you can have up to 20!).
This means you can make a spellcasting warrior or a tanking mage or a healing rogue. On your cleric, you might have a tanking build, two kinds of healing builds (tank and raid), a single target dps build, an aoe dps build and a high-HP build for soloing group content. Then swap between them on the fly for whatever content you are tackling.
At the end of the day, the player feels like they have a lot of options and control over how they want to play.
It seems like a good system, but only in a game where that is centered mostly on combat with little backstory/lore IMO. By switching classes you are kind of losing your identity in game at the same time.
That's exactly how I feel...I hate having 1 character be two different classes or utilizing two different classes. In FFXIV everytime I want to try a new class I create a new character. Unfortunately, you HAVE to level at least 2 classes to level 15, but that's not that bad. I wish MMO's would go back and remember 1 class per toon = stronger identity.
1 toon per player = strongest identity regardless of class, class combo, or classlessness
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Four official classes, each with around 10 'souls' or trees of skills. You combine three souls to create a build or spec, and acquire more points as you level up, gradually becoming more powerful. Every class has at least one pet soul, tanking soul, healing soul, etc. A re-spec is cheap, or you can just buy another build slot (you can have up to 20!).
This means you can make a spellcasting warrior or a tanking mage or a healing rogue. On your cleric, you might have a tanking build, two kinds of healing builds (tank and raid), a single target dps build, an aoe dps build and a high-HP build for soloing group content. Then swap between them on the fly for whatever content you are tackling.
At the end of the day, the player feels like they have a lot of options and control over how they want to play.
It seems like a good system, but only in a game where that is centered mostly on combat with little backstory/lore IMO. By switching classes you are kind of losing your identity in game at the same time.
That's exactly how I feel...I hate having 1 character be two different classes or utilizing two different classes. In FFXIV everytime I want to try a new class I create a new character. Unfortunately, you HAVE to level at least 2 classes to level 15, but that's not that bad. I wish MMO's would go back and remember 1 class per toon = stronger identity.
I'm just not a fan of that. I think Class Trees are a bottleneck approach to class design and make it very singular and a very dull experience. Too many limits.
What is good class design? Class Design is very subjective because it needs to compliment the type of combat mechanics you have associated with your classes as well a the type of gameplay you want your players to experience.
To ask what is good Class Design you have to also ask a lot more questions. What is the purpose for classes? What type of gameplay will you have in your game? PVE, PVP? Will classes have defined roles? Will there be pure classes? Hybrid Classes? There is a lot more depth to this question.
I am very passionate about Class Design and Combat Mechanics. So I might be bias. I could probably write a novel about this topic, but instead I'll give you a basic understanding of my Class Design Philosophy for the Classes I am building for a PVE centric game.
Adaptable Combat Mechanics
This is the foundation for my classes. The main problem today is that combat mechanics are too simplistic and therefore class design also follows the simplistic route. Adaptive combat mechanics are a new interesting route of gameplay where the player can strategize before and while in combat and have different paths to victory. There are two variables which constitute two paths to victory.
1. Your adaptive strategy in combat
2. Your play style.
Multiple paths of victory means that there are more than one way to win a fight. This allows the player freedom to play the way they wish to play with out binding them in a class tree or build. It gives the player an equal effective way to play their class depending on their play style.
In order to have adaptable combat mechanics your classes cannot follow a specified rotation. It would nullify the objective to adaptive combat mechanics.
Another hindrance would be attempting to limit or omit complete gear dependency. When your character focuses on gear to do the work for you, it negates the opportunity to have to adapt. I am not saying gear isn't viable, I am saying that gear should be a perk but ultimately your knowledge of the game and your class should overcome the odds in a hefty battle.
I mentioned above that I didn't want gear to be a sole deterrent to carry a player in a fight. I think it would be fun and rewarding to allow the player to casually have a thought process while in battle depending the difficult of the mob which can adapt.
With that in mind, I also don't want the combat to be twitched based either to depend on players physical reactionary skills either. I am looking for a good balance of player thought processes and character unifying each other while in combat.
This leads me to intelligent NPC AI. Where NPC's depending on rank can pattern detect a players strategy or rotation and negate their attacks. Of course throughout the world and in dungeons, there are many different ranking mobs. They're on hierarchy scale.
Class Freedom
Great examples of Class Freedom are Everquest and Vanguard. Class freedom essentially means you have full access to your class at all time.
You have to have full class freedom in order to compliment adaptive combat mechanics. If you have class trees, or class builds or talent system or specs, that design element would also negate the player to adapt in combat. Which leads me to my next section.
No Class Builds/Class Trees
In my honest opinion, class builds, class trees, specs, talent trees, ect. are done to death and bottleneck your gameplay experience. You essentially "customize" your character to follow a very narrow path and ignore the rest of your class skills/spells/abilities.
Class builds are an on the surface way to distinct the player playing the same class from another. Which is true.
I am sure you're asking, if there are no class builds ect. then every person who plays a Wizard Class is always the same?
I would combat that argument by several variables.
1. You allow just 20 skills/spells to be active for your hot bar.
2. How you use the Adaptive Combat Mechanics to fit your play style/strategy.
3. There is a lot of variety of spells/skills and different ways you can use the combat mechanics associated with your archetype of class.
By creating a limited amount of access to your hot bar, a player can make "Hot Bar" sets that are for their play style and different situational circumstances.
For an example:
Wizard 1: This player really enjoys fast burst damage.
Wizard 2: This player really enjoys big time critical damage.
As you can see both wizards have a different play style and a different route to victory but both being as effective. At any time both players can switch up their play style by loading in a new hot bar set. As you can see this allows full access to the class and player freedom.
Primary & Secondary Roles
The biggest issue with class design today is knowing the balance between pure and hybrid classes. A Pure class has one distinct role and excels at it. A Hybrid class is a class that has more than one role. The problem is that usually Hybrid classes become more powerful than pure classes or Hybrid classes are not as valued as a pure class because they are not up to par. Which creates a massive imbalance.
In order to combat this, I believe you allow Pure Roles with Hybrid Classes.
To make things interested and not as bland, I came up with Primary Roles and Secondary Roles for all classes.
A Primary Role is the primary function for that class. The Role they excel at the best. Primary roles include, Tanking, DPS and Support.
Support can mean a vast array of things. When I talk support, I am meaning Crowd Control, De-buffing and Buffing.
A Secondary Role is the secondary function to help compliment party members with utility skills/spells and/or support skills/spells.
Of course the Trinity is what you need to win a fight for group content. Support roles are like luxury classes that are there to give an extra helping hand.
The Trinity roles will never overlap with Secondary Roles because that would create an imbalance. That means, Tanks and Healers will never out DPS or be on par DPS with DPS classes because it violates that role.
Immersive & Distinct Classes
When I am designing my classes, I want the player to have an immersive experience with that class. That means each class has a Core Mechanic that is associated with the theme of that class. If I want to play a Knight Class I want to feel as if I am a Knight. If I want to play a Cleric Class I want to feel as if I am playing a Cleric. The Core Mechanic(s) are unique to that class and compliment their skills/spells and how they function.
I also want to give another immersion factor other than combat for classes while adventuring in a dangerous world. For an example:
If I am playing a Wizard Class and there are magical runes or language on the Cave Wall. I would want to be able to decipher them. Or if there is a magical puzzle I would want the Wizard to be able to give an extra advantage to solving the puzzle.
If I am playing an Assassin/Rogue Class, I want to give the party members a new concealed route or make a path way for a safer route to the target by detecting traps or other things. Also because I am an Assassin/'Rogue I can give the other party members access to vulnerabilities to that NPC where certain skills/spells would be more effective.
Those are just two examples of how other ways a Class can have an Immersive experience other than combat.
Good Class Design encourages good Community and Team Play
Classes are a window of how we play the game. It's the functionality of our character. What is the purpose for classes? To me Classes are avatars for different roles for a group. Think of it as each class is apart of a body to work together to defeat a common cause. If Classes are focused on group play more than solo play, then it would encourage a better community and team play.
I also want to make clear that force grouping and you must have certain classes in a group to go out into the world to progress is something I am not catering too. What I am implying is that, there is a Trinity with classes that have defined roles and classes can group without the trinity and be successful out in a dangerous world but have more of a challenge. However, of course, having the trinity together or a full group could make the dangerous world an easier place but it's not completely necessary for victory.
Personally I would like to see a hybrid system that is part skill based, and part class defined.. It's hard to explain so I'll try and use numbers if I can.. Every character that is created in the beginning will have base abilities such as "kick" or "punch".. It doesn't matter if you are a melee warrior or spell caster.. These base skills will be under the "general" heading since they are given to every player. Every player starts at 0 (zero).. As you use your skill over time you gain experience, which will lead to skilling up. The more you skill up, the better you become. etc etc..
Beyond General skills as described above, comes Secondary skills such as "Block" , "Dodge" or one of many forms of weapon use like 1 handed sword, or 2 handed mace.. Not every class is going to have access to these skills.. Like wand for example.. That is a weapon used by a number of casters, and some hybrid classes, but is not something available to a warrior..
Finally we have a 3rd tier of skills that are class defining, such as Feign Death, or Safe Fall, or Lock Picking.. etc etc.. In addition to the progression tree is the ability and restrictions to Secondary skills.. What I mean here is that only certain classes can excel a secondary skill past maximum.. Here is an example: A Monk class will have the ability of block and dodge from their secondary tier, but a Monk can only achieve a maximum skill of 100 in Block, whereas he is able to increase his Dodge skill to 150.. However, a warrior that isn't as nimble as a Monk, might have the ability to go 150 in Block, but can only go 100 in Dodge..
It's sorta like having a main class with sub-classes that branch off, however one other twist.. Players can shift and change their sub-classes within reason.. Example: A Warrior no longer wants to train as a warrior, but follows the path of a Berserker.. He may lose his 150 Block, and drop down to a 100 block maximum, but his new career path may unlock new perks better suited for their play style..
Same type of formula can be used with spell casting as well.. similar to what EQ did with splitting up magic into areas like Evocation, Abjuration, Alteration, Conjuration and Divination.. Some classes like Wizard might reach 150 in Evocation, but has a lower limit of skill in Divination..
BUT, keep one thing in mind tho.. As much as you can move or change direction within one branch of the tree.. A warrior can not just change to Wizard..
I like a lot of the ideas I'm reading. Some are relating to EQ, some to WoW, and some to others.
Removing class specializations is a good thing IMO. Being a class it is already specializing and fulfilling some type of role in game. To take Wizard as an example you can specialize your class by seeking certain types of knowledge in the world that will help you create and learn certain types of spells. This could be built as part of the class as quests or be something you happen upon in the world while adventuring with friends. This could also be done for any other class. Another example might be a Ranger learning to be stealthy/track in the woods. It might be something or someone they need to seek out in the world/remote forest to learn said skill and advance it further. It is not just something you learn by default when leveling up. You have to find some measure of training, tomb, or something of that nature.
In terms of skills I have thought about that as well. The EQ skill system is a fairly good one. As mentioned you have to raise your skills up and some classes have higher caps in certain skills then others. It seems to work fairly well in most cases. The only downside is that it can take a while to train all skills to cap if that's what you want, but it's not that big of a deal generally. It can be a pain for a caster to get their melee skills up though. That is why WoW removed it I think.
Hybrids are an interesting topic. I'm not certain I like hybrids that much. In EQ a hybrid is a combination of two classes. An example would be a Ranger who is like 80% warrior and 20% Druid. I'd rather have a Ranger be their own entity with their own skills geared towards what a Ranger is meant to be and do in game. The same can be said for classes like Shadow Knights, Paladins, and Beast Lords IMO. Bards are kinda of cool because they have truly unique skills and game mechanics even though their songs/spells overlap with those of the enchanter and druid/ranger. They are still completely unique. Their only issue would be that they might take roles away from other classes, but I don't think that is the case here.
The "classless" system is great in theory, but horrible in implementation. The issue is that there is typically one build that trumps them all or such a mixing of the abilities would rmove much of a difference between each player.
Exactly. That is why i like marvel heroes. Many classes that play differently.
Even a game like D3, which allows for MANY interesting builds, people doing the greater rifts uses no more than 1 or 2 (and their variant) in each class, because of exactly the problem you bring out.
The only answer is to have multiple classes, otherwise there will be a lot of skills just not being used because choosing something else will be "better" (in raiding, in dungeons, or whatever).
I would argue that even Diablo 3 lost something in this regard. In Diablo 1 and 2 the classes each sort of had a back story and the game was more about playing through the story/enjoying the world. In Diablo 3 the classes are designed from the start more with combat and repeating dungeons then with the lore and the story IMO. Perhaps it's why I don't find the classes as interesting even if they had kind of neat abilities. The game was from the start with the intention of repetition and grinding for loot. This is an ok concept, but I don't believe one that fantasy games should be based on. It completely cuts out the core of fantasy games which is the lore, store, and how the classes fit in and most right to the kill, level, and loot. To me this is part of why games have low retention rates. The players just don't care about the characters as there is nothing that would make you feel attached to them other then the time you put in to level them and gain more items.
I disagree. Lore and stories are really secondary .. and it is about gameplay. To me, lore and stories are just gravy ... a wrapper to make the gameplay happened in a pretty wrapper. The actual "fun" factor the gameplay is what lure me to play games.
And that is exactly what D3 is doing. Its story, and the setting are pretty much just a wrapper .. it is about neat abilities, and neat items (to change those abilities). And that is what makes a combat/loot game works. And most MMORPGs are just combat/loot games.
I don't think you can make players 'care' about characters as if they are people. I am "attached" to any game toon precisely because of what you say .. do i have neat abilities and items to play around.
After all, I am just playing a game. If i want emotion attachment, i read, or watch tv or movies.
Good Class Design encourages good Community and Team Play
I disagree. Not every game is about community and team play. "Good" design is about having fun. If players want to have fun solo, then it is about design neat abilities, mechanics, and show-casing them in good animation design.
The "classless" system is great in theory, but horrible in implementation. The issue is that there is typically one build that trumps them all or such a mixing of the abilities would rmove much of a difference between each player.
Exactly. That is why i like marvel heroes. Many classes that play differently.
Even a game like D3, which allows for MANY interesting builds, people doing the greater rifts uses no more than 1 or 2 (and their variant) in each class, because of exactly the problem you bring out.
The only answer is to have multiple classes, otherwise there will be a lot of skills just not being used because choosing something else will be "better" (in raiding, in dungeons, or whatever).
I would argue that even Diablo 3 lost something in this regard. In Diablo 1 and 2 the classes each sort of had a back story and the game was more about playing through the story/enjoying the world. In Diablo 3 the classes are designed from the start more with combat and repeating dungeons then with the lore and the story IMO. Perhaps it's why I don't find the classes as interesting even if they had kind of neat abilities. The game was from the start with the intention of repetition and grinding for loot. This is an ok concept, but I don't believe one that fantasy games should be based on. It completely cuts out the core of fantasy games which is the lore, store, and how the classes fit in and most right to the kill, level, and loot. To me this is part of why games have low retention rates. The players just don't care about the characters as there is nothing that would make you feel attached to them other then the time you put in to level them and gain more items.
I disagree. Lore and stories are really secondary .. and it is about gameplay. To me, lore and stories are just gravy ... a wrapper to make the gameplay happened in a pretty wrapper. The actual "fun" factor the gameplay is what lure me to play games.
And that is exactly what D3 is doing. Its story, and the setting are pretty much just a wrapper .. it is about neat abilities, and neat items (to change those abilities). And that is what makes a combat/loot game works. And most MMORPGs are just combat/loot games.
I don't think you can make players 'care' about characters as if they are people. I am "attached" to any game toon precisely because of what you say .. do i have neat abilities and items to play around.
After all, I am just playing a game. If i want emotion attachment, i read, or watch tv or movies.
I understand what you are saying. I just feel differently about it. I don't feel games are fun when they are just about killing with no purpose other then to level and get new loot. There has to be more then that to give the killing and leveling meaning, (not to mention things to do outside of just killing). The setting and the story behind the classes is what gives them meaning. It's what gave me enjoyment when playing games like Baldur's Gate, Everquest, and many other games in the past. I don't feel games today have that meaning for classes. It's more of an exploitation of getting players to do something simple like killing repeating the same content repeatedly and grinding for loot. This is not how games started out. It matters little that you feel games should only be about this. To me this is what is missing from games today. Any real purpose in the game. Without purpose you really can't have fun with the game. Gaming can be very similar to interactive movies and books. There isn't much point in arguing this with you though. I know you like X game like Diablo 3 where you can jump in, grind an instance, and jump out. I'm not certain how this entertains you for long, but whatever makes you happy.
You most certainly should have classes that is what defines ROLE PLAY,you are role playing not only a character but a class.
I think when people argue against it they are thinking of those weak game designs that LIMIT you to one class.Having classes does not mean you can't still be other classes,that would be a plausible and realistic scenario for ROLE PLAY.
Naturally you NEED some kind of restrictions,it would be highly not plausible if for example you could do 50 different things at once all completely different class ideas and carry 1500 lbs in weight of items on you as well.I was watching some game review and the one guy said "Where did you pull that giant bow from,underneath your shirt?"At least have the items showing on the outer body,your not going to be hiding a giant Bow on your body,i mean c'mon that is just lazy design.
What i look for in a good class design is one which HIGHLY supports a group and not one which has players soloing within a group.I also like to see DISTINCT differences from class to class so as to not make tons of over lapping classes.
I would like to see classes perform as would be expected,a player with a Bow for example would not be standing in your face with a Sword and Shield Warrior.
Aside from those obvious and simple things there are a LOT,too many to list little things that go into making each class look plausible realistic even in a Fantasy setting.I will use one example,i think it looks really dumb seeing games start to add in these somersault dodging effects.I want to see an Archer look like he is loading an arrow and aiming it,i completely lose interest if an Archer looks like he is shooting an automatic machine gun,same goes for magic casters.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well said Wiz.. Your post actually reminds me of original EQ and my early RPG days with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. I think personal storage of what we are carrying is just crazy silly.. We should have limitations as EQ once did.. Weight encumbrance should be a factor. I wish mandatory food and drink would make a come back. I wish tracking and foraging would be resurrected too. I feel the MMORPG genre of the 90's are gone, and are now taken over by the "hack and slash" Borg.. Resistance if futile.. But I won't be assimilated, I'll just stop playing.. lol
I was bored last night so decided to get a PS2 Emulator for my PC. I got a few RPGs and started playing PERSONA 4. Some things I quickly noticed:
1. Classes are quite evident in the golden years of RPG's. There is no, be whatever you want. If you want to be whatever you want, it comes a very high cost and normally doesn't pan out.
2. Lore isn't something you find for an achievement. It's in the story, it's in the world and you are a person that it is deeply inter-twined in it.
3. Combat is always part of the game, but it's never what the game is built around.
It's really funny that so many "new" mmo players want to play an MMO that's more like Mortal Kombat than Final Fantasy/Persona/Star Ocean....list goes on.
All that matters these days is combat. It's very important to have a great working combat system, but I find it ill-advised to make an action combat style MMO or an intricate "whack-a-mole" style combat type. For anyone who hasn't...go back and play some of the best RPG's and tell me how they resemble newer MMO's at all? They don't.
The only one that comes close and really did a fine job with lore, story and class story was and is FFXIV. The combat is old school, but not so old school that it's annoying. The fights are difficult (at endgame) but they dont require you to hit X, U, T and circle your mouse to perform at a high level. The only thing I dont like is the idea that you can be any class with one toon. It kinda kills the whole identity thing.
TSW was another that had great story and imo, great combat (although many think it sucked). The builds were more of a side-project than anything, but I think they implemented it just the right way so that your class truly didn't matter. It was still a negative though.
WoW is WoW. I liked the combat system in Vanilla, but it got heavily watered down the more xpacs came out. The story is what it is...not my cup of tea but I realize there are books and all for it. The end-game content would be fun if not for the fact that the game is packed with elitists and won't tolerate a need for a learning curve.
I understand what you are saying. I just feel differently about it. I don't feel games are fun when they are just about killing with no purpose other then to level and get new loot. There has to be more then that to give the killing and leveling meaning, (not to mention things to do outside of just killing). The setting and the story behind the classes is what gives them meaning. It's what gave me enjoyment when playing games like Baldur's Gate, Everquest, and many other games in the past. I don't feel games today have that meaning for classes. It's more of an exploitation of getting players to do something simple like killing repeating the same content repeatedly and grinding for loot. This is not how games started out. It matters little that you feel games should only be about this. To me this is what is missing from games today. Any real purpose in the game. Without purpose you really can't have fun with the game. Gaming can be very similar to interactive movies and books. There isn't much point in arguing this with you though. I know you like X game like Diablo 3 where you can jump in, grind an instance, and jump out. I'm not certain how this entertains you for long, but whatever makes you happy.
That i can answer. By playing many games? Playing a wiz in a greater rift feels very different from playing a DH, feels very different from playing Ironman in a cosmic terminal (MH's version of an instance).
So it is not grind, it is fun combat. If it is not fun, i am not doing it. And when i am bored with these 2 games, there are more ... warframe, Titanquest (old but i haven't played), Van Helsing ... the upcoming Lost Ark ... and even if i am bored with all these, there are FPS, adventure games, tv, movies.
The point is .. no one game needs to entertain me for long. I usually don't have that much time for one game anyway.
There is no "meaning" in games .. I can enjoy stories, for sure (also in movies) but that does not make them "real" or "mean anything" beyond I have fun enjoying the stories.
I understand what you are saying. I just feel differently about it. I don't feel games are fun when they are just about killing with no purpose other then to level and get new loot. There has to be more then that to give the killing and leveling meaning, (not to mention things to do outside of just killing). The setting and the story behind the classes is what gives them meaning. It's what gave me enjoyment when playing games like Baldur's Gate, Everquest, and many other games in the past. I don't feel games today have that meaning for classes. It's more of an exploitation of getting players to do something simple like killing repeating the same content repeatedly and grinding for loot. This is not how games started out. It matters little that you feel games should only be about this. To me this is what is missing from games today. Any real purpose in the game. Without purpose you really can't have fun with the game. Gaming can be very similar to interactive movies and books. There isn't much point in arguing this with you though. I know you like X game like Diablo 3 where you can jump in, grind an instance, and jump out. I'm not certain how this entertains you for long, but whatever makes you happy.
That i can answer. By playing many games? Playing a wiz in a greater rift feels very different from playing a DH, feels very different from playing Ironman in a cosmic terminal (MH's version of an instance).
So it is not grind, it is fun combat. If it is not fun, i am not doing it. And when i am bored with these 2 games, there are more ... warframe, Titanquest (old but i haven't played), Van Helsing ... the upcoming Lost Ark ... and even if i am bored with all these, there are FPS, adventure games, tv, movies.
The point is .. no one game needs to entertain me for long. I usually don't have that much time for one game anyway.
There is no "meaning" in games .. I can enjoy stories, for sure (also in movies) but that does not make them "real" or "mean anything" beyond I have fun enjoying the stories.
It is okay if you want to treat games that way. I kind of treat many games that way these days because they are basically built to be disposable entertainment. That is not how they have always been and gaming has always been an important hobby to me. I think as I grow older and see gaming going down hill (IMO) to entertain the masses I feel even more strongly about it. I try to find what made certain games special to me over the years. This is where I feel perhaps I should stop playing games and start trying to experiment with the origins of games like ideas for table top RPG games. Things like creating your own world, classes, lore, and whatever is fun to you. Trying to use your imagination instead of just following a billion simple quests and using a lot of simple combat mechanics without any real purpose other than to as you say (enjoy the combat). To me a RPG is about a lot more then that and I do care about it because I feel this important parts of games come from. It's the creativity, feeling, and stories. The combat, classes, and loot are all just devices to further your enjoyment of the fantasy world you are lucky to be able to enjoy IMO. There are a lot of little details in games these days that have been taken out to simplify them for mass appeal. I think this has really destroyed gamming as something special and made it into something that disposable. I'm will continue to try and find out what made certain games special to me. This is kind of my quest.
I see the whole 'class' discussion as a mechanism that places restrictions on characters. These restrictions help provide some mechanisms for the developer to balance the game. A wizard does massive damage, so they're good to have around to kill monsters, but they can't wear plate armor, so they don't survive fights too well. This creates a degree of dependence on other players. A character can't do everything exceptionally well, so there is a need for specialists. A class definition therefore provides a list of positive and negative attributes. These can be skills, spells, or abilities. They help delineate the character's place (role) within the game world (typically limited to combat-related functions).
The class system, then, determines how this character 'fits' into the world, providing their specialization. It is a rudimentary (but incomplete) depiction of an inhabitant of the game world. It is a convenient shorthand for a specific set of skills shared by a group of characters.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I see the whole 'class' discussion as a mechanism that places restrictions on characters. These restrictions help provide some mechanisms for the developer to balance the game. A wizard does massive damage, so they're good to have around to kill monsters, but they can't wear plate armor, so they don't survive fights too well. This creates a degree of dependence on other players. A character can't do everything exceptionally well, so there is a need for specialists. A class definition therefore provides a list of positive and negative attributes. These can be skills, spells, or abilities. They help delineate the character's place (role) within the game world (typically limited to combat-related functions).
The class system, then, determines how this character 'fits' into the world, providing their specialization. It is a rudimentary (but incomplete) depiction of an inhabitant of the game world. It is a convenient shorthand for a specific set of skills shared by a group of characters.
But are restrictions a bad thing? A class is the avatar for a defined role that is the makeup of a group. That is what I always thought it was intended to be, even in old school rpg games and early in the mmorpg genre.
I don't know how many cared to read my post about my class design philosophy, but I am a big supporter on classes. Like some have previously said, the reason why classes seem so cookie cutter is solely based on bland combat mechanics. I still the think trinity class design is something that should be approved on and works well for group centric gameplay.
Once the we get more intuitive combat mechanics and more creative classes we'll see a change of mind and players will once again enjoy the trinity.
I see the whole 'class' discussion as a mechanism that places restrictions on characters. These restrictions help provide some mechanisms for the developer to balance the game. A wizard does massive damage, so they're good to have around to kill monsters, but they can't wear plate armor, so they don't survive fights too well. This creates a degree of dependence on other players. A character can't do everything exceptionally well, so there is a need for specialists. A class definition therefore provides a list of positive and negative attributes. These can be skills, spells, or abilities. They help delineate the character's place (role) within the game world (typically limited to combat-related functions).
The class system, then, determines how this character 'fits' into the world, providing their specialization. It is a rudimentary (but incomplete) depiction of an inhabitant of the game world. It is a convenient shorthand for a specific set of skills shared by a group of characters.
But are restrictions a bad thing? A class is the avatar for a defined role that is the makeup of a group. That is what I always thought it was intended to be, even in old school rpg games and early in the mmorpg genre.
I don't know what they were thinking, but I get the impression that classes were created for fun more then anything in the original D&D. The classes are obviously not that balanced. The Rogue is fairly weak in combat. They do have a nice role in terms of disarming traps, stealing, etc. I believe what happened original is these people were large fans of things like the Lord of the Rings and wanted to enjoy their favorite characters roles in that type of world. The classes just seem a way to flesh out what the different characters did. There were also multi and dual classes. I think things went downhill from there because the multi and dual classes were always far more powerful then the single class counterparts and could take on multiple roles.
Good Class Design encourages good Community and Team Play
I disagree. Not every game is about community and team play. "Good" design is about having fun. If players want to have fun solo, then it is about design neat abilities, mechanics, and show-casing them in good animation design.
True, not every game is about community. Games such as Dragon Age, Fallout and Elder Scrolls: Oblivion are excellent examples of games that allow complete focus on a single player.
For MMO's, however, community building is mandatory for the long term health of the game.
Even if an individual players chooses a solo play style, they are still part of the games community. To this end, there is nothing wrong with certain classes better at solo play than team play. Druids in Everquest's early days are a good example. They were not as good at healing as Clerics, less DPS than wizards, rogues or rangers and not as effective at buffing/debuffing as enchanters or shaman. Druids, however, could track down their desired target, quad kite and self heal if something went wrong.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
It is okay if you want to treat games that way. I kind of treat many games that way these days because they are basically built to be disposable entertainment. That is not how they have always been and gaming has always been an important hobby to me. I think as I grow older and see gaming going down hill (IMO) to entertain the masses I feel even more strongly about it.
I suppose we differ by our philosophy towards games. Games more important to me when i was much younger but now ... there are so many other much more (to me, of course) important things i can do (like fun work that actually will get me somewhere, or spending time with family) that i feel games are a waste of time.
Certainly it is a "good" waste of time in the sense that it helps me relax, recharged, but I do not want to focus too much on it. Sure, i probably still do more than most people (like i would read about builds, and choose one i like, and optimze gear to some extend) .... but i don't want to play any game "seriously" any more.
And i have other hobbies (like collecting toys .. which is a lot more expensive than games, but less time consuming) and there is no reason why games should be more important than others.
Comments
It seems like a good system, but only in a game where that is centered mostly on combat with little backstory/lore IMO. By switching classes you are kind of losing your identity in game at the same time.
That's exactly how I feel...I hate having 1 character be two different classes or utilizing two different classes. In FFXIV everytime I want to try a new class I create a new character. Unfortunately, you HAVE to level at least 2 classes to level 15, but that's not that bad. I wish MMO's would go back and remember 1 class per toon = stronger identity.
1 toon per player = strongest identity regardless of class, class combo, or classlessness
I'm just not a fan of that. I think Class Trees are a bottleneck approach to class design and make it very singular and a very dull experience. Too many limits.
What is good class design? Class Design is very subjective because it needs to compliment the type of combat mechanics you have associated with your classes as well a the type of gameplay you want your players to experience.
To ask what is good Class Design you have to also ask a lot more questions. What is the purpose for classes? What type of gameplay will you have in your game? PVE, PVP? Will classes have defined roles? Will there be pure classes? Hybrid Classes? There is a lot more depth to this question.
I am very passionate about Class Design and Combat Mechanics. So I might be bias. I could probably write a novel about this topic, but instead I'll give you a basic understanding of my Class Design Philosophy for the Classes I am building for a PVE centric game.
Adaptable Combat Mechanics
This is the foundation for my classes. The main problem today is that combat mechanics are too simplistic and therefore class design also follows the simplistic route. Adaptive combat mechanics are a new interesting route of gameplay where the player can strategize before and while in combat and have different paths to victory. There are two variables which constitute two paths to victory.
1. Your adaptive strategy in combat
2. Your play style.
Multiple paths of victory means that there are more than one way to win a fight. This allows the player freedom to play the way they wish to play with out binding them in a class tree or build. It gives the player an equal effective way to play their class depending on their play style.
In order to have adaptable combat mechanics your classes cannot follow a specified rotation. It would nullify the objective to adaptive combat mechanics.
Another hindrance would be attempting to limit or omit complete gear dependency. When your character focuses on gear to do the work for you, it negates the opportunity to have to adapt. I am not saying gear isn't viable, I am saying that gear should be a perk but ultimately your knowledge of the game and your class should overcome the odds in a hefty battle.
I mentioned above that I didn't want gear to be a sole deterrent to carry a player in a fight. I think it would be fun and rewarding to allow the player to casually have a thought process while in battle depending the difficult of the mob which can adapt.
With that in mind, I also don't want the combat to be twitched based either to depend on players physical reactionary skills either. I am looking for a good balance of player thought processes and character unifying each other while in combat.
This leads me to intelligent NPC AI. Where NPC's depending on rank can pattern detect a players strategy or rotation and negate their attacks. Of course throughout the world and in dungeons, there are many different ranking mobs. They're on hierarchy scale.
Class Freedom
Great examples of Class Freedom are Everquest and Vanguard. Class freedom essentially means you have full access to your class at all time.
You have to have full class freedom in order to compliment adaptive combat mechanics. If you have class trees, or class builds or talent system or specs, that design element would also negate the player to adapt in combat. Which leads me to my next section.
No Class Builds/Class Trees
In my honest opinion, class builds, class trees, specs, talent trees, ect. are done to death and bottleneck your gameplay experience. You essentially "customize" your character to follow a very narrow path and ignore the rest of your class skills/spells/abilities.
Class builds are an on the surface way to distinct the player playing the same class from another. Which is true.
I am sure you're asking, if there are no class builds ect. then every person who plays a Wizard Class is always the same?
I would combat that argument by several variables.
1. You allow just 20 skills/spells to be active for your hot bar.
2. How you use the Adaptive Combat Mechanics to fit your play style/strategy.
3. There is a lot of variety of spells/skills and different ways you can use the combat mechanics associated with your archetype of class.
By creating a limited amount of access to your hot bar, a player can make "Hot Bar" sets that are for their play style and different situational circumstances.
For an example:
Wizard 1: This player really enjoys fast burst damage.
Wizard 2: This player really enjoys big time critical damage.
As you can see both wizards have a different play style and a different route to victory but both being as effective. At any time both players can switch up their play style by loading in a new hot bar set. As you can see this allows full access to the class and player freedom.
Primary & Secondary Roles
The biggest issue with class design today is knowing the balance between pure and hybrid classes. A Pure class has one distinct role and excels at it. A Hybrid class is a class that has more than one role. The problem is that usually Hybrid classes become more powerful than pure classes or Hybrid classes are not as valued as a pure class because they are not up to par. Which creates a massive imbalance.
In order to combat this, I believe you allow Pure Roles with Hybrid Classes.
To make things interested and not as bland, I came up with Primary Roles and Secondary Roles for all classes.
A Primary Role is the primary function for that class. The Role they excel at the best. Primary roles include, Tanking, DPS and Support.
Support can mean a vast array of things. When I talk support, I am meaning Crowd Control, De-buffing and Buffing.
A Secondary Role is the secondary function to help compliment party members with utility skills/spells and/or support skills/spells.
Of course the Trinity is what you need to win a fight for group content. Support roles are like luxury classes that are there to give an extra helping hand.
The Trinity roles will never overlap with Secondary Roles because that would create an imbalance. That means, Tanks and Healers will never out DPS or be on par DPS with DPS classes because it violates that role.
Immersive & Distinct Classes
When I am designing my classes, I want the player to have an immersive experience with that class. That means each class has a Core Mechanic that is associated with the theme of that class. If I want to play a Knight Class I want to feel as if I am a Knight. If I want to play a Cleric Class I want to feel as if I am playing a Cleric. The Core Mechanic(s) are unique to that class and compliment their skills/spells and how they function.
I also want to give another immersion factor other than combat for classes while adventuring in a dangerous world. For an example:
If I am playing a Wizard Class and there are magical runes or language on the Cave Wall. I would want to be able to decipher them. Or if there is a magical puzzle I would want the Wizard to be able to give an extra advantage to solving the puzzle.
If I am playing an Assassin/Rogue Class, I want to give the party members a new concealed route or make a path way for a safer route to the target by detecting traps or other things. Also because I am an Assassin/'Rogue I can give the other party members access to vulnerabilities to that NPC where certain skills/spells would be more effective.
Those are just two examples of how other ways a Class can have an Immersive experience other than combat.
Good Class Design encourages good Community and Team Play
Classes are a window of how we play the game. It's the functionality of our character. What is the purpose for classes? To me Classes are avatars for different roles for a group. Think of it as each class is apart of a body to work together to defeat a common cause. If Classes are focused on group play more than solo play, then it would encourage a better community and team play.
I also want to make clear that force grouping and you must have certain classes in a group to go out into the world to progress is something I am not catering too. What I am implying is that, there is a Trinity with classes that have defined roles and classes can group without the trinity and be successful out in a dangerous world but have more of a challenge. However, of course, having the trinity together or a full group could make the dangerous world an easier place but it's not completely necessary for victory.
Personally I would like to see a hybrid system that is part skill based, and part class defined.. It's hard to explain so I'll try and use numbers if I can.. Every character that is created in the beginning will have base abilities such as "kick" or "punch".. It doesn't matter if you are a melee warrior or spell caster.. These base skills will be under the "general" heading since they are given to every player. Every player starts at 0 (zero).. As you use your skill over time you gain experience, which will lead to skilling up. The more you skill up, the better you become. etc etc..
Beyond General skills as described above, comes Secondary skills such as "Block" , "Dodge" or one of many forms of weapon use like 1 handed sword, or 2 handed mace.. Not every class is going to have access to these skills.. Like wand for example.. That is a weapon used by a number of casters, and some hybrid classes, but is not something available to a warrior..
Finally we have a 3rd tier of skills that are class defining, such as Feign Death, or Safe Fall, or Lock Picking.. etc etc.. In addition to the progression tree is the ability and restrictions to Secondary skills.. What I mean here is that only certain classes can excel a secondary skill past maximum.. Here is an example: A Monk class will have the ability of block and dodge from their secondary tier, but a Monk can only achieve a maximum skill of 100 in Block, whereas he is able to increase his Dodge skill to 150.. However, a warrior that isn't as nimble as a Monk, might have the ability to go 150 in Block, but can only go 100 in Dodge..
It's sorta like having a main class with sub-classes that branch off, however one other twist.. Players can shift and change their sub-classes within reason.. Example: A Warrior no longer wants to train as a warrior, but follows the path of a Berserker.. He may lose his 150 Block, and drop down to a 100 block maximum, but his new career path may unlock new perks better suited for their play style..
Same type of formula can be used with spell casting as well.. similar to what EQ did with splitting up magic into areas like Evocation, Abjuration, Alteration, Conjuration and Divination.. Some classes like Wizard might reach 150 in Evocation, but has a lower limit of skill in Divination..
BUT, keep one thing in mind tho.. As much as you can move or change direction within one branch of the tree.. A warrior can not just change to Wizard..
I like a lot of the ideas I'm reading. Some are relating to EQ, some to WoW, and some to others.
Removing class specializations is a good thing IMO. Being a class it is already specializing and fulfilling some type of role in game. To take Wizard as an example you can specialize your class by seeking certain types of knowledge in the world that will help you create and learn certain types of spells. This could be built as part of the class as quests or be something you happen upon in the world while adventuring with friends. This could also be done for any other class. Another example might be a Ranger learning to be stealthy/track in the woods. It might be something or someone they need to seek out in the world/remote forest to learn said skill and advance it further. It is not just something you learn by default when leveling up. You have to find some measure of training, tomb, or something of that nature.
In terms of skills I have thought about that as well. The EQ skill system is a fairly good one. As mentioned you have to raise your skills up and some classes have higher caps in certain skills then others. It seems to work fairly well in most cases. The only downside is that it can take a while to train all skills to cap if that's what you want, but it's not that big of a deal generally. It can be a pain for a caster to get their melee skills up though. That is why WoW removed it I think.
Hybrids are an interesting topic. I'm not certain I like hybrids that much. In EQ a hybrid is a combination of two classes. An example would be a Ranger who is like 80% warrior and 20% Druid. I'd rather have a Ranger be their own entity with their own skills geared towards what a Ranger is meant to be and do in game. The same can be said for classes like Shadow Knights, Paladins, and Beast Lords IMO. Bards are kinda of cool because they have truly unique skills and game mechanics even though their songs/spells overlap with those of the enchanter and druid/ranger. They are still completely unique. Their only issue would be that they might take roles away from other classes, but I don't think that is the case here.
I disagree. Lore and stories are really secondary .. and it is about gameplay. To me, lore and stories are just gravy ... a wrapper to make the gameplay happened in a pretty wrapper. The actual "fun" factor the gameplay is what lure me to play games.
And that is exactly what D3 is doing. Its story, and the setting are pretty much just a wrapper .. it is about neat abilities, and neat items (to change those abilities). And that is what makes a combat/loot game works. And most MMORPGs are just combat/loot games.
I don't think you can make players 'care' about characters as if they are people. I am "attached" to any game toon precisely because of what you say .. do i have neat abilities and items to play around.
After all, I am just playing a game. If i want emotion attachment, i read, or watch tv or movies.
I disagree. Not every game is about community and team play. "Good" design is about having fun. If players want to have fun solo, then it is about design neat abilities, mechanics, and show-casing them in good animation design.
I understand what you are saying. I just feel differently about it. I don't feel games are fun when they are just about killing with no purpose other then to level and get new loot. There has to be more then that to give the killing and leveling meaning, (not to mention things to do outside of just killing). The setting and the story behind the classes is what gives them meaning. It's what gave me enjoyment when playing games like Baldur's Gate, Everquest, and many other games in the past. I don't feel games today have that meaning for classes. It's more of an exploitation of getting players to do something simple like killing repeating the same content repeatedly and grinding for loot. This is not how games started out. It matters little that you feel games should only be about this. To me this is what is missing from games today. Any real purpose in the game. Without purpose you really can't have fun with the game. Gaming can be very similar to interactive movies and books. There isn't much point in arguing this with you though. I know you like X game like Diablo 3 where you can jump in, grind an instance, and jump out. I'm not certain how this entertains you for long, but whatever makes you happy.
You most certainly should have classes that is what defines ROLE PLAY,you are role playing not only a character but a class.
I think when people argue against it they are thinking of those weak game designs that LIMIT you to one class.Having classes does not mean you can't still be other classes,that would be a plausible and realistic scenario for ROLE PLAY.
Naturally you NEED some kind of restrictions,it would be highly not plausible if for example you could do 50 different things at once all completely different class ideas and carry 1500 lbs in weight of items on you as well.I was watching some game review and the one guy said "Where did you pull that giant bow from,underneath your shirt?"At least have the items showing on the outer body,your not going to be hiding a giant Bow on your body,i mean c'mon that is just lazy design.
What i look for in a good class design is one which HIGHLY supports a group and not one which has players soloing within a group.I also like to see DISTINCT differences from class to class so as to not make tons of over lapping classes.
I would like to see classes perform as would be expected,a player with a Bow for example would not be standing in your face with a Sword and Shield Warrior.
Aside from those obvious and simple things there are a LOT,too many to list little things that go into making each class look plausible realistic even in a Fantasy setting.I will use one example,i think it looks really dumb seeing games start to add in these somersault dodging effects.I want to see an Archer look like he is loading an arrow and aiming it,i completely lose interest if an Archer looks like he is shooting an automatic machine gun,same goes for magic casters.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I was bored last night so decided to get a PS2 Emulator for my PC. I got a few RPGs and started playing PERSONA 4. Some things I quickly noticed:
1. Classes are quite evident in the golden years of RPG's. There is no, be whatever you want. If you want to be whatever you want, it comes a very high cost and normally doesn't pan out.
2. Lore isn't something you find for an achievement. It's in the story, it's in the world and you are a person that it is deeply inter-twined in it.
3. Combat is always part of the game, but it's never what the game is built around.
It's really funny that so many "new" mmo players want to play an MMO that's more like Mortal Kombat than Final Fantasy/Persona/Star Ocean....list goes on.
All that matters these days is combat. It's very important to have a great working combat system, but I find it ill-advised to make an action combat style MMO or an intricate "whack-a-mole" style combat type. For anyone who hasn't...go back and play some of the best RPG's and tell me how they resemble newer MMO's at all? They don't.
The only one that comes close and really did a fine job with lore, story and class story was and is FFXIV. The combat is old school, but not so old school that it's annoying. The fights are difficult (at endgame) but they dont require you to hit X, U, T and circle your mouse to perform at a high level. The only thing I dont like is the idea that you can be any class with one toon. It kinda kills the whole identity thing.
TSW was another that had great story and imo, great combat (although many think it sucked). The builds were more of a side-project than anything, but I think they implemented it just the right way so that your class truly didn't matter. It was still a negative though.
WoW is WoW. I liked the combat system in Vanilla, but it got heavily watered down the more xpacs came out. The story is what it is...not my cup of tea but I realize there are books and all for it. The end-game content would be fun if not for the fact that the game is packed with elitists and won't tolerate a need for a learning curve.
That i can answer. By playing many games? Playing a wiz in a greater rift feels very different from playing a DH, feels very different from playing Ironman in a cosmic terminal (MH's version of an instance).
So it is not grind, it is fun combat. If it is not fun, i am not doing it. And when i am bored with these 2 games, there are more ... warframe, Titanquest (old but i haven't played), Van Helsing ... the upcoming Lost Ark ... and even if i am bored with all these, there are FPS, adventure games, tv, movies.
The point is .. no one game needs to entertain me for long. I usually don't have that much time for one game anyway.
There is no "meaning" in games .. I can enjoy stories, for sure (also in movies) but that does not make them "real" or "mean anything" beyond I have fun enjoying the stories.
It is okay if you want to treat games that way. I kind of treat many games that way these days because they are basically built to be disposable entertainment. That is not how they have always been and gaming has always been an important hobby to me. I think as I grow older and see gaming going down hill (IMO) to entertain the masses I feel even more strongly about it. I try to find what made certain games special to me over the years. This is where I feel perhaps I should stop playing games and start trying to experiment with the origins of games like ideas for table top RPG games. Things like creating your own world, classes, lore, and whatever is fun to you. Trying to use your imagination instead of just following a billion simple quests and using a lot of simple combat mechanics without any real purpose other than to as you say (enjoy the combat). To me a RPG is about a lot more then that and I do care about it because I feel this important parts of games come from. It's the creativity, feeling, and stories. The combat, classes, and loot are all just devices to further your enjoyment of the fantasy world you are lucky to be able to enjoy IMO. There are a lot of little details in games these days that have been taken out to simplify them for mass appeal. I think this has really destroyed gamming as something special and made it into something that disposable. I'm will continue to try and find out what made certain games special to me. This is kind of my quest.
I see the whole 'class' discussion as a mechanism that places restrictions on characters. These restrictions help provide some mechanisms for the developer to balance the game. A wizard does massive damage, so they're good to have around to kill monsters, but they can't wear plate armor, so they don't survive fights too well. This creates a degree of dependence on other players. A character can't do everything exceptionally well, so there is a need for specialists. A class definition therefore provides a list of positive and negative attributes. These can be skills, spells, or abilities. They help delineate the character's place (role) within the game world (typically limited to combat-related functions).
The class system, then, determines how this character 'fits' into the world, providing their specialization. It is a rudimentary (but incomplete) depiction of an inhabitant of the game world. It is a convenient shorthand for a specific set of skills shared by a group of characters.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But are restrictions a bad thing? A class is the avatar for a defined role that is the makeup of a group. That is what I always thought it was intended to be, even in old school rpg games and early in the mmorpg genre.
I don't know how many cared to read my post about my class design philosophy, but I am a big supporter on classes. Like some have previously said, the reason why classes seem so cookie cutter is solely based on bland combat mechanics. I still the think trinity class design is something that should be approved on and works well for group centric gameplay.
Once the we get more intuitive combat mechanics and more creative classes we'll see a change of mind and players will once again enjoy the trinity.
I don't know what they were thinking, but I get the impression that classes were created for fun more then anything in the original D&D. The classes are obviously not that balanced. The Rogue is fairly weak in combat. They do have a nice role in terms of disarming traps, stealing, etc. I believe what happened original is these people were large fans of things like the Lord of the Rings and wanted to enjoy their favorite characters roles in that type of world. The classes just seem a way to flesh out what the different characters did. There were also multi and dual classes. I think things went downhill from there because the multi and dual classes were always far more powerful then the single class counterparts and could take on multiple roles.
True, not every game is about community. Games such as Dragon Age, Fallout and Elder Scrolls: Oblivion are excellent examples of games that allow complete focus on a single player.
For MMO's, however, community building is mandatory for the long term health of the game.
Even if an individual players chooses a solo play style, they are still part of the games community. To this end, there is nothing wrong with certain classes better at solo play than team play. Druids in Everquest's early days are a good example. They were not as good at healing as Clerics, less DPS than wizards, rogues or rangers and not as effective at buffing/debuffing as enchanters or shaman. Druids, however, could track down their desired target, quad kite and self heal if something went wrong.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I suppose we differ by our philosophy towards games. Games more important to me when i was much younger but now ... there are so many other much more (to me, of course) important things i can do (like fun work that actually will get me somewhere, or spending time with family) that i feel games are a waste of time.
Certainly it is a "good" waste of time in the sense that it helps me relax, recharged, but I do not want to focus too much on it. Sure, i probably still do more than most people (like i would read about builds, and choose one i like, and optimze gear to some extend) .... but i don't want to play any game "seriously" any more.
And i have other hobbies (like collecting toys .. which is a lot more expensive than games, but less time consuming) and there is no reason why games should be more important than others.