If they tank "equally" well, they are the same. If they tank better or worse depending on a specific situation, they do not tank "equally" well, they tank well based on specific circumstances. If the outcome is the same, but the ability different in all situations, they are homogenized, all we did was give them each special little skills with different names all to achieve the same thing. The result is all that matters, who cares what you name the skill.
At that point, why bother with multiple classes of tanks if there is no choice or consequence because the outcome is all the same?
Because gameplay differences are differences. And those gameplay differences arent actually equal in every circumstance in practice, but they may approximate equality on average over all circumstances. And thats the goal in a good mmo.
Maybe use an example, because that makes no sense at all.
There have been plenty of examples in the thread but you insist on claiming that if there is equal power that they might as well be the same gameplay. It seems like to you all that matters is how good the tank is and the actual gameplay to get there is irrelevant. Gameplay is the most important part of a game, to most people.
If they tank "equally" well, they are the same. If they tank better or worse depending on a specific situation, they do not tank "equally" well, they tank well based on specific circumstances. If the outcome is the same, but the ability different in all situations, they are homogenized, all we did was give them each special little skills with different names all to achieve the same thing. The result is all that matters, who cares what you name the skill.
At that point, why bother with multiple classes of tanks if there is no choice or consequence because the outcome is all the same?
Because gameplay differences are differences. And those gameplay differences arent actually equal in every circumstance in practice, but they may approximate equality on average over all circumstances. And thats the goal in a good mmo.
Maybe use an example, because that makes no sense at all.
There have been plenty of examples in the thread but you insist on claiming that if there is equal power that they might as well be the same gameplay. It seems like to you all that matters is how good the tank is and the actual gameplay to get there is irrelevant. Gameplay is the most important part of a game, to most people.
You haven't explained anything, nor have you even pointed to another posters comments to say that is what you mean. I asked for clarification, you dismissed it.
If you have been reading my responses, my discussions have been completely about game play. You see, rather than making all the tanks produce the same results, but different in action, I am suggesting each have pros/cons to a given design of their class which results in different solutions to different situations causing the player to adapt as well as the group to provide for those solutions.
In your example, each tank just does a different thing, but is ultimately the same thing. I will do an example to explain what I think you are saying.
Tank A is a mitigation tank, the damage they take is slow, even, steady. Tank B is an avoidance tank, the damage they tank is spikey, avoidance based taking more damage, but avoiding more as well. Tank C is a mitigation tank less than Tank A, but procs life taps while fighting which makes up for their less mitigation. When parsing, all tanks produce the same mitigation result rating of 100. Sure, they do things differently, but all of them are essentially the same tank, because everything has been balanced so they can all be equal.
This is what you seem to be implying, but the point I am making is that design is a pointless waste of time. There are no choices, there are no consequences, there is no "game play", there is just people hitting different buttons to produce the same result because they are deathly afraid someone else may do something better and they may not be as popular as one of the other kids.
Game play is choice, challenge, decisions, weighting pros/cons. There is no weighting in your class design, it is an illusion. Your design is the problem I have been pointing out that exists in games today. People are so obsessed with social acceptance, not playing a game and so they demand everything be the same "but different" which isn't different at all. Game play is important, not attending to the social ills of the player base.
edit:
By the way, your design is what leads to constant tantrums as one class claims they are not as good as the other class because they are constantly measuring their performance to the others causing the developers to chase these pointless expectations resulting in one nerf/buff after another continuously messing with peoples play in game in order to keep a bunch of narcissists happy because they are deathly afraid of having to make a choice and then live with the consequences of that choice, both good and bad. People aren't playing games, they are just smashing buttons while they gab online.
If all classes under 1 umbrella are equally as good as all other jobs in all situations that is a problem. (Example if all DPS jobs with gear that is the same strength do = dmg with a parser on all fights... that is not a good thing).
All Class Roles should have strengths and weaknesses, but not enough to warrant the class being worthless in said content in my opinion. All fights should be clearable with a reasonable balance party setup, if you have the optimal setup it should be slightly easier in that specific fight but both should be doable.
If a mob is weak against fire or say blunt dmg, then things that cast fire should be better then things that cast say earth magic and things that are blunt dmg should be better then things that do slashing. Ect.
IF the class is exactly the same except a few mechanics, then untimely it is the same thing just a different rotation. Over Balance in PvE is a bad thing overall, just as under balancing thing is equally as bad.
Example FFXIV is ultra balanced where almost everyjob except pld is balanced to be exactly the same in output and dmg. The outcome is there is everything is the same, there is no strategy... it is simply do the maximum dps on everything everytime... oh and dodge the circle. This is not good game design, at least it is not strategic or requires any thought.
If your group is missing a say puller class that is the best. Then you should have to improvise. It should be doable still but things have to change. If you are missing the Best tank for X encounter then change the strategy some and kill it anyways. IF you are missing the best healer on X encounter, take more support to cover for having a slightly subpar healer for X encounter and so on.
I started writing you a specific example (VG) Sinist but I'd need details I don't remember. At a simple level:
In vanguard, the warrior was aoe agro, the paladin focused agro and the dk had more utility like fear immunity so it would depend on the encounter.
The thing is different tanks would work better with other different players, eg high dps players need to attack based on what attacks others are doing. Also healing styles vary greatly depending on the other players (eg disciple vs blood mage). So it's the combination not the individual. Also I remember gear was critical for tanks. I remember some guilds preferring paladins but other decent guilds rolled with dk and war.
For non trinity, yes some players like necro were out in the cold for raids (their pets aren't worth while or even too hazardous in a raid). Their dps was still pretty good but pretty good isn't what you're asking about.
The rogue was best dps and impossible to solo.
A shaman was kickass in nearly all groups or solo until end game raiding. Same with bard and every raid needed one. Druid was jack of all trades and wanted for specific abilities in raids same as mage (they did good dps but they were prized for dispelling). Psi was for cc and dps still parsed with the highest.
Yes it was imbalanced enough to give variety but people ultimately played what they enjoyed, not what was OP flavour of the month.
I hope this helps but it seems like in your mind you already know whats what.
I started writing you a specific example (VG) Sinist but I'd need details I don't remember. At a simple level:
In vanguard, the warrior was aoe agro, the paladin focused agro and the dk had more utility like fear immunity so it would depend on the encounter.
The thing is different tanks would work better with other different players, eg high dps players need to attack based on what attacks others are doing. Also healing styles vary greatly depending on the other players (eg disciple vs blood mage). So it's the combination not the individual. Also I remember gear was critical for tanks. I remember some guilds preferring paladins but other decent guilds rolled with dk and war.
For non trinity, yes some players like necro were out in the cold for raids (their pets aren't worth while or even too hazardous in a raid). Their dps was still pretty good but pretty good isn't what you're asking about.
The rogue was best dps and impossible to solo.
A shaman was kickass in nearly all groups or solo until end game raiding. Same with bard and every raid needed one. Druid was jack of all trades and wanted for specific abilities in raids same as mage (they did good dps but they were prized for dispelling). Psi was for cc and dps still parsed with the highest.
Yes it was imbalanced enough to give variety but people ultimately played what they enjoyed, not what was OP flavour of the month.
I hope this helps but it seems like in your mind you already know whats what.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding Sinist, as the example you just gave supports what he is talking about. Lets break this down.
In your example, you have a tank which is great at AOE tanking. There is a tank that is great at focusing aggro on a single target, and a tank which had some other utility such as fear immunity.
This translates into those tanks being good at some situations and not so good at others. For example, for tanking a raid boss, it is important to have that boss stay on the main tank. So the tank that is good at focus agro on a single mob, is ideal in that situation. Perhaps there is a different raid or dungeon in which there is a large number of mobs that if not all kept on the tank, would run around making life difficult for healers and dps and support, etc. In this scenario the tank who is great at keeping aggro on one target would not be ideal for this situation, and you would want the group aoe tank instead. Perhaps in a third scenario there is a raid boss that does lots of fears on its main target, which in most cases would be the tank, if the raid boss fears the tank repeatedly and then starts running around possibly AOEing other people, etc, etc. You then have a problem, and neither the AOE tank or the focus aggro tank are useful in this scenario. In that scenario you would want a tank who is fear immune.
The point is having 3 tanks that all do the same thing just in slightly different manners is homogenization. The differences between the classes have to be meaningful and more than just arbitrary surface differences. Its like the example of every single DPS class doing roughly the same DPS on a target, whether they do it from launching fireballs, stabbing it in the back with daggers, or punching it with fists, is inconsequential, they're essentially the same class.
What other people in this thread are suggesting is that we maintain the status quo. Where an MMO has lets say 4 tanks classes, but they all tank equally well, basically in any given situation one is no better than the other. In the status quo, all of the tanks would have fear immunity, all of the tanks would have AOE aggro abilities, all of them would have single target focus aggro abilities. The "differences" would be cosmetic, one tank's AOE aggro skill might be called "Blaze of Holy Light", and the other tanks would be "Shout of Enragement", and the others would "Wave of Pestilent Inent", or whatever. they're all the same spell/ability/whatever, they perform the same function.
Saying that the tanks are different because one is a paladin and the other is a shadow knight is meaningless unless there are actually meaningful differences between the classes. If there aren't scenarios where you either need or would heavily desire one sort of tank over the other, then the differences between them are pointless. They might as well mash them all together and make it one class. So just have the MMO with "Healer", "Tank", "DPS"
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I am a regular Project 1999 player. While the server is not the same as classic EQ (Original, Kunark, and Velious), its very close in its mechanics. I just want to weigh with a modern perspective of how EQ classes were balanced, so that we may glen what was good about the balance and what didn't work as well.
Like others have said already, EQ had classes balanced by content and not balanced on a class vs class basis. The fact that a rogues did more damage than monks was widely accepted by the player base. This is because monks could feint death to split mobs and pull. Monks were considerably more tanky than rogues. In raids, the monk's ability to pull mobs made up for the fact that rogues were always the top DPS. Both were needed and useful on the raid but in different ways.
Then there were classes like shadowknight... shadowknights are basically useless on a raid compared to warrior. They don't even have buffs that were useful like paladins, and they weren't any better at snap-aggro (getting aggro instantly) than paladins. Snap-aggro isn't even that important of a class ability in classic EQ, because Warriors used Midnight Mallets for aggro (which provide 5 charges of instant-cast slow, causing massive aggro). You could do without paladins or shadowknights -- but especially shadowknights.
Shadowknights were only "balanced to content" in the sense that they were much better at tanking groups than warriors. Compared to warrior, they had a castable feint death (much more useful for groups than raids), much quicker and better long term aggro, and other forms of utility like instant cast invisibility (Circlet of Shadow). Warriors Disciplines that made them so much more useful in raids were completely not needed in group scenarios, and things like lifetap or harm touch were probably more useful generally.
I think it is important that classes are designed to be equally balanced to content at raiding and grouping. When class X is better at raiding than class Y -- modern raid culture will just completely ostracize class Y. This goes the same for grouping.
I definitely don't want to see the game go down the rout of WoW, where warriors, deathknights, druids, and paladins are equally good at tanking every mob (or at least intended to be). But it is stupid to have to choose between being good at raiding or being good at grouping.
I have mixed feelings about soloing. Part of me likes the concept of certain classes being better at soloing than others. This allows people that are absolutely dead set on soloing to be able to do it, without everyone in the game being highly solo capable. However, this begs the question: why not pick the solo class that is good at raiding too? Why pick a class that is terrible at soloing but equally good at raiding?
I am a regular Project 1999 player. While the server is not the same as classic EQ (Original, Kunark, and Velious), its very close in its mechanics. I just want to weigh with a modern perspective of how EQ classes were balanced, so that we may glen what was good about the balance and what didn't work as well.
Like others have said already, EQ had classes balanced by content and not balanced on a class vs class basis. The fact that a rogues did more damage than monks was widely accepted by the player base. This is because monks could feint death to split mobs and pull. Monks were considerably more tanky than rogues. In raids, the monk's ability to pull mobs made up for the fact that rogues were always the top DPS. Both were needed and useful on the raid but in different ways.
Then there were classes like shadowknight... shadowknights are basically useless on a raid compared to warrior. They don't even have buffs that were useful like paladins, and they weren't any better at snap-aggro (getting aggro instantly) than paladins. Snap-aggro isn't even that important of a class ability in classic EQ, because Warriors used Midnight Mallets for aggro (which provide 5 charges of instant-cast slow, causing massive aggro). You could do without paladins or shadowknights -- but especially shadowknights.
Shadowknights were only "balanced to content" in the sense that they were much better at tanking groups than warriors. Compared to warrior, they had a castable feint death (much more useful for groups than raids), much quicker and better long term aggro, and other forms of utility like instant cast invisibility (Circlet of Shadow). Warriors Disciplines that made them so much more useful in raids were completely not needed in group scenarios, and things like lifetap or harm touch were probably more useful generally.
I think it is important that classes are designed to be equally balanced to content at raiding and grouping. When class X is better at raiding than class Y -- modern raid culture will just completely ostracize class Y. This goes the same for grouping.
I definitely don't want to see the game go down the rout of WoW, where warriors, deathknights, druids, and paladins are equally good at tanking every mob (or at least intended to be). But it is stupid to have to choose between being good at raiding or being good at grouping.
I have mixed feelings about soloing. Part of me likes the concept of certain classes being better at soloing than others. This allows people that are absolutely dead set on soloing to be able to do it, without everyone in the game being highly solo capable. However, this begs the question: why not pick the solo class that is good at raiding too? Why pick a class that is terrible at soloing but equally good at raiding?
Couldn't agree more. You need to have 3 facets of balance. Against the environment, against the group (IE: other classes) and against the raid.
I think the issue is that when you strictly balance against the environment you create classes that are better at certain things then others which creates the NEED for them to be in a group. Such as a class that can slow in EQ, via Shamans as an example. This can create an atmosphere were groups only want certain classes in group due to survival purposes. This recreates the LFG issue EQ had were you had to have certain classes/roles in group in order to progress.
If you strictly balance with other classes only then you have the harmonization issue, via WoW. This makes classes bland and one dimensional.
I believe if you can balance both class vs. class and class vs. environment but staying true to thematic classes would be the right direction to go. The idea would be to have different group comps without the need for certain classes to survive/progress out in the wilderness/dungeons. The only difference is if you have a Shadow Knight as a tank over a Warrior your challenge changes as a group and your group must adapt to the encounter.
1) Non-combat. That is teleports, class based tradeskills (alchemy, enchanting), and non-combat buffs (run speed, etc).
These abilities are a great way to promote interdependence in every day activities, but are not worthy of much weight in the long run.
2) Solo combat. The ability to fight by oneself.
This is a little more powerful and important, but still should not be considered of such great importance that they lack abilities in the 2 categories below. Its always nice to be more self reliant and capable of making more money without needing others, but down the line these skills have less and less impact on player progression.
3) Group combat.
In a game where group content is the main focus, these class strengths should carry a lot of weight. How able a person of any class is to get a group is obviously very dependent on these skills.
4) Raid combat.
Last is a classes strengths in a raid, which often overlaps with group strengths, but should (if content is designed correctly) utilize some of the more unique and intricate capabilities of every class. Each class should bring a few things to the table that work together with the greater synergy of all classes (or multiples of each). Even though there will be less raid focus, each class much be strong enough in certain areas that they can't be easily replaced. Without balance here, you end up with min maxers only focusing on who tanks best, heals best, and does the most damage. This is where developers must create a variety of content that calls for the particular skill set of each class at different times.
A classes raid capabilities should also be more heavily weighted because, at the end of the day, the ultimate progression will be achieved in large scale, multiplayer activities. Even if that progression is minimal (item wise), how well a class performs in these scenarios will determine how viable they are at the "end game" side of the spectrum.
I would weigh them in that exact order, because the longer someone plays, the more 3 and 4 determine class viability.
Class design should be the least of our worry, as fans and supporters of this game. If there is one thing I know for sure that it will be very good in this game it's the class design. Case in point: EQ and VG. I haven't seen a single badly designed class in those games. So they got this. As for me, I'll play a Warrior main and Monk second as always, no matter how they turn out I'm sure they'll be balanced and awesome.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
Oh there was plenty bad choices initially in the class design of Vanguard. Disciple for example started as a completely superflous class, Cleric was completely OP with tanklike defenses and permanent double damage, etc.
It was only over time that they managed to balance the classes better.
Even in the end there was still quite a bit potential for improvement, even if it looked great in most areas.
The Bear Shaman was completely OP, tanklike defenses in medium gear plus strong debuffs plus strong healing, basically unkillable with still pretty good damage output (about twice as much as a Cleric that wouldnt have better defenses, not as much debuffs, and unlike Shamans a mana issue), but the Phoenix Shaman was the worst of all healer classes, with hardly any better damage output than other Shamans and basically zip defenses, like a Mage, while wearing medium gear. Both Disciple and Blood Mage would outdamage Phoenix by far; Disciple had much better defenses and Blood Mage a lot more hitpoints and the ability to combine damage and healing with their lifetaps on self.
Another really problematic class was Bard. IMHO they should have given Bards better solo ability (heavy armor, shield useage, more spells and more mana to use them, better damage with ranged weapons) and nerfed their insane group buffing abilities.
Or: Lots of classes had area damage abilities without a limit, which led to all kinds of exploits. AFAICS on the Dread Knight had such an ability until the end, and thats only because they would stand next to the mobs they would AoE damage; that naturally limited the possibility of exploits.
Another really problematic class was Bard. IMHO they should have given Bards better solo ability (heavy armor, shield useage, more spells and more mana to use them, better damage with ranged weapons) and nerfed their insane group buffing abilities.
As well, bards seemed to top parses more often than not. At least, this one did.
..., but the Phoenix Shaman was the worst of all healer classes, with hardly any better damage output than other Shamans and basically zip defenses, like a Mage, while wearing medium gear. Both Disciple and Blood Mage would outdamage Phoenix by far; ...
I have to disagree with this. I LOVED my Phoenix Shaman in VG. It was nearly unkillable, had PLENTY of damage output, and had a nice amount of variety to how it performed during the coarse of any real battles. No idea what Phoenix Shaman you were playing O.o
Another really problematic
class was Bard. IMHO they should have given Bards better solo ability
(heavy armor, shield useage, more spells and more mana to use them,
better damage with ranged weapons) and nerfed their insane group buffing
abilities.
As well, bards seemed to top parses more often than not. At least, this one did.
And that is opposite to what I wrote in my posting ... why ?
I
have to disagree with this. I LOVED my Phoenix Shaman in VG. It was
nearly unkillable, had PLENTY of damage output, and had a nice amount of
variety to how it performed during the coarse of any real battles. No
idea what Phoenix Shaman you were playing O.o
Did you by any chance not play any of the other healer classes, and lack the comparison ? I had one of each, and yes I loved my Phoenix, but it had all kinds of issues. Both my Disc and even much more my BM outclassed him in dps.
And I fail to see whats "unkillable" about a class that relies on kiting. The only advantage Phoenix Shaman had over a mage was a bit more hitpoints and they could use a shield. Otherwise they had 10% max mitigation, just like a mage.
Don't know how it was down the road, but when I quit after about 6 months, my disciple was definitely not as high damage as phoenix shaman. Even with my character head to toe in top end crit + dps gear (at the time).
Have to strongly disagree with bard part. Id say nerf them the other way around. Useless for solo activities and keep the insane group buffs. Just have them be master buffer/debuffers. No real DPS to the table. No ability to solo at any relevant level. And add in some utility like movement or lighting. Make their strong point being in a group. Oh and nerf the shit out of infinite kiting. Very limited CC (like an oh shit button on long cool down). Master buffer/debuffers is how Ive alway seen them but just my opinion.
I think you have to design class "feel" around the fantasy, and class role around the content as others have said.
As with all things - balance.
You can't have tank A better at situation X than tank B, but I think you can make it "easier" for tank A with the skillset, so it's less effort but the same effectiveness.
And to balance, tank B has an 'easier' time at situation Y vs. tank A.
I think you have to design class "feel" around the fantasy, and class role around the content as others have said.
As with all things - balance.
You can't have tank A better at situation X than tank B, but I think you can make it "easier" for tank A with the skillset, so it's less effort but the same effectiveness.
And to balance, tank B has an 'easier' time at situation Y vs. tank A.
Sure you can ,FFXI made out just fine with a PLD tank and a Ninja Tank.They were completely different kinds of tanks.You do not ever need balance in PVE only in pvp which is why i don't want any pvp in my mmorpgs.
PLD=mutli hit AOE type tank,stronger defense better hate control Ninja=single hit single focus attacks,takes almost no damage due to it's shadows that absorb attacks,very weak to multi hit mobs and aoe nukes.
Every other game i have seen does things so simplified,like they might mitigate some dmg via healing feedback like a Shadowknight but overall it is the exact same math they have figured into the formula,just dispersed differently.
I would like to see Pantheon develop some truly unique classes but i fear it is going to be the same old we already done way too many times.Attk/Dmg/def/mitigation i would like to see them be more creative than that.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would add then that it depends on the content and the size of the group.
Like, for small group content, you can't have roles so specialized or you will never get certain classes into small groups.
For larger groups, it's more OK to have very specific roles/functions as you can bring a larger total number of players and bring more diversity.
So as someone else said, have to think about purpose and function for non-combat, solo, small group, and large group separately.
I think the "bring the player not the class" goal is a good one, you don't want to ostracize players because they made the "wrong" choice at character creation, but it is difficult to balance with having unique classes without too much homogenization.
I would add then that it depends on the content and the size of the group.
Like, for small group content, you can't have roles so specialized or you will never get certain classes into small groups.
Not if you do not make each specialized tool/role of a given class an absolute requirement. The idea of such is not to draw hard lines or to say "you must be this high to ride this ride", rather it is to have content to which a given tool or role is ideal for, but... with clever adaption and or more effort another role can achieve success.
This allows uniqueness in class design and purpose, but does not dumb the system down with shallow structure and function.
Err ... tankclass A being better than tankclass B in situation X is the very core of the idea of having classes ?
The point is that:
1. tankclass B wont be completely useless in situation X, just not as good as A, neither will tankclass C, D, E, etc,
2. and that there will also be a situation Y in which B is better than A, and a situation Z in which C shines etc.
In Vanguard all three tank classes had basically the same defenses and hitpoints, but each had their individual strenghts and disadvantages. People just adapted to the tank class. If it was a Dread Knight, they've been a bit more careful with initial damage than with a Paladin or Warrior.
From my personal experience with Dread Knight though they've fixed that in the late game. I could snatch aggro from any slacker tank.
Err ... tankclass A being better than tankclass B in situation X is the very core of the idea of having classes ?
The point is that:
1. tankclass B wont be completely useless in situation X, just not as good as A, neither will tankclass C, D, E, etc,
2. and that there will also be a situation Y in which B is better than A, and a situation Z in which C shines etc.
In Vanguard all three tank classes had basically the same defenses and hitpoints, but each had their individual strenghts and disadvantages. People just adapted to the tank class. If it was a Dread Knight, they've been a bit more careful with initial damage than with a Paladin or Warrior.
From my personal experience with Dread Knight though they've fixed that in the late game. I could snatch aggro from any slacker tank.
Define useless?
Being less than ideal for a given specific situation is not useless.
I personally want to see situations where of the "defensive" focused classes, some classes are better defensively than others in different situations. Does it mean that the class that is less than ideal for that given situation is "useless"? Nope... it just means they have to adapt, and reliance on another class to shore up that issue may be needed.
If that is bad, then we are back to mainstream design of the class envy wars where people are far more interested in pissing contests to shore up self esteem than they are in a vast and deep game play system. If game play is second to peoples issues of self worth, then I truly am too old and out of touch with the "gamers" of today. /shrug
I suppose that kind of depends on the game design though Sinist. I remember a a few situatuons in MMOs where it wasnt jyst un-ideal it was foolish to take x class to an encounter. Though that could be fixed with proper design decisions. Becasue Im not opposed to classes being situationally better in some cases. But loath useless class design.
I really have trouble understanding what your problem is.
Its a multiplayer game.
So ... obviously it has to be balanced.
Any multiplayer game has to be balanced... duh ?
Heck, even singleplayer games have to be balanced. TES Oblivion for example failed to do so. As a result, the player could end up being seriously underpowered. Oblivion practically forced you to powergame.
Not to mention that the TES combat system never has been much fun anyway, except for its bugs.
Stating your claim over and over again does not validate your position.
I asked you many questions, I asked you to explain your case.
Why does class vs class have to be balanced if you balance class vs content? You gave me one above reason, I explained how class vs content solves that issue.
Why does there have to be class vs class balance when you can balance class vs content?
To create an illusion of fairness, which is not needed in a PVE game. I have to agree..The idea of class on class balance has never really been something I agree with in an MMORPG (even in PVP). It defeats the purpose of having roles at all, which roles should serve utility purposes IMO. WHen the focus shifts to class balance utility isn't needed. It's a trade off yet to what end? Why should an MMO design cater to class on class (1V1) balance? It makes little sense.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I really have trouble understanding what your problem is.
Its a multiplayer game.
So ... obviously it has to be balanced.
Any multiplayer game has to be balanced... duh ?
Heck, even singleplayer games have to be balanced. TES Oblivion for example failed to do so. As a result, the player could end up being seriously underpowered. Oblivion practically forced you to powergame.
Not to mention that the TES combat system never has been much fun anyway, except for its bugs.
Stating your claim over and over again does not validate your position.
I asked you many questions, I asked you to explain your case.
Why does class vs class have to be balanced if you balance class vs content? You gave me one above reason, I explained how class vs content solves that issue.
Why does there have to be class vs class balance when you can balance class vs content?
To create an illusion of fairness, which is not needed in a PVE game. I have to agree..The idea of class on class balance has never really been something I agree with in an MMORPG (even in PVP). It defeats the purpose of having roles at all, which roles should serve utility purposes IMO. WHen the focus shifts to class balance utility isn't needed. It's a trade off yet to what end? Why should an MMO design cater to class on class (1V1) balance? It makes little sense.
That very reason in my opinion is what is one of the biggest offenders in MMOs. The idea that everyone should be equal within such focus is an emotional serving, not a gaming one. I understand peoples concerns about being useful in the content and being able to bring something useful to the group, but you can achieve that far easier with class to content balance than you can by class vs class. The latter only ends up with homogenization through a very long road of just pissing people off over and over.
I suppose that kind of depends on the game design though Sinist. I remember a a few situatuons in MMOs where it wasnt jyst un-ideal it was foolish to take x class to an encounter. Though that could be fixed with proper design decisions. Becasue Im not opposed to classes being situationally better in some cases. But loath useless class design.
Easier to fix a useless class than it is to insure that classes are performing equally. As I have argued many times in this thread, class to content balance only requires you to create either content to give a class use, or give tools to a class that takes advantage of content. Since there is no concern about tit for tatting every little thing, it is a far easier problem to solve.
The real problem is player perception and that can never be attended to as it is always subjective, always biased to a given desire, and always unhealthy to the game. It is the bad customer syndrome. You attempt to please reasonable customers, as they will result in making your money, promoting your brand, etc... but if you waste time on unreasonable customers, you will never please them, you will lose money and they will still talk shit about you anyway. Best to cut them loose early on.
The point is, don't balance on emotions and belief, balance on practical and reasonable position. As long as a class provides use, ie has benefit to the content, and brings that benefit to groups, then you have all the balance you need. Class vs class balance will only result in continued chaos as is evident in every single game that exists that hasn't already homogenized the classes completely (and even then some people still complain. /boggle).
Comments
If you have been reading my responses, my discussions have been completely about game play. You see, rather than making all the tanks produce the same results, but different in action, I am suggesting each have pros/cons to a given design of their class which results in different solutions to different situations causing the player to adapt as well as the group to provide for those solutions.
In your example, each tank just does a different thing, but is ultimately the same thing. I will do an example to explain what I think you are saying.
Tank A is a mitigation tank, the damage they take is slow, even, steady. Tank B is an avoidance tank, the damage they tank is spikey, avoidance based taking more damage, but avoiding more as well. Tank C is a mitigation tank less than Tank A, but procs life taps while fighting which makes up for their less mitigation. When parsing, all tanks produce the same mitigation result rating of 100. Sure, they do things differently, but all of them are essentially the same tank, because everything has been balanced so they can all be equal.
This is what you seem to be implying, but the point I am making is that design is a pointless waste of time. There are no choices, there are no consequences, there is no "game play", there is just people hitting different buttons to produce the same result because they are deathly afraid someone else may do something better and they may not be as popular as one of the other kids.
Game play is choice, challenge, decisions, weighting pros/cons. There is no weighting in your class design, it is an illusion. Your design is the problem I have been pointing out that exists in games today. People are so obsessed with social acceptance, not playing a game and so they demand everything be the same "but different" which isn't different at all. Game play is important, not attending to the social ills of the player base.
edit:
By the way, your design is what leads to constant tantrums as one class claims they are not as good as the other class because they are constantly measuring their performance to the others causing the developers to chase these pointless expectations resulting in one nerf/buff after another continuously messing with peoples play in game in order to keep a bunch of narcissists happy because they are deathly afraid of having to make a choice and then live with the consequences of that choice, both good and bad. People aren't playing games, they are just smashing buttons while they gab online.
All Class Roles should have strengths and weaknesses, but not enough to warrant the class being worthless in said content in my opinion. All fights should be clearable with a reasonable balance party setup, if you have the optimal setup it should be slightly easier in that specific fight but both should be doable.
If a mob is weak against fire or say blunt dmg, then things that cast fire should be better then things that cast say earth magic and things that are blunt dmg should be better then things that do slashing. Ect.
IF the class is exactly the same except a few mechanics, then untimely it is the same thing just a different rotation. Over Balance in PvE is a bad thing overall, just as under balancing thing is equally as bad.
Example FFXIV is ultra balanced where almost everyjob except pld is balanced to be exactly the same in output and dmg. The outcome is there is everything is the same, there is no strategy... it is simply do the maximum dps on everything everytime... oh and dodge the circle. This is not good game design, at least it is not strategic or requires any thought.
If your group is missing a say puller class that is the best. Then you should have to improvise. It should be doable still but things have to change. If you are missing the Best tank for X encounter then change the strategy some and kill it anyways. IF you are missing the best healer on X encounter, take more support to cover for having a slightly subpar healer for X encounter and so on.
In vanguard, the warrior was aoe agro, the paladin focused agro and the dk had more utility like fear immunity so it would depend on the encounter.
The thing is different tanks would work better with other different players, eg high dps players need to attack based on what attacks others are doing. Also healing styles vary greatly depending on the other players (eg disciple vs blood mage). So it's the combination not the individual. Also I remember gear was critical for tanks. I remember some guilds preferring paladins but other decent guilds rolled with dk and war.
For non trinity, yes some players like necro were out in the cold for raids (their pets aren't worth while or even too hazardous in a raid). Their dps was still pretty good but pretty good isn't what you're asking about.
The rogue was best dps and impossible to solo.
A shaman was kickass in nearly all groups or solo until end game raiding. Same with bard and every raid needed one. Druid was jack of all trades and wanted for specific abilities in raids same as mage (they did good dps but they were prized for dispelling). Psi was for cc and dps still parsed with the highest.
Yes it was imbalanced enough to give variety but people ultimately played what they enjoyed, not what was OP flavour of the month.
I hope this helps but it seems like in your mind you already know whats what.
In your example, you have a tank which is great at AOE tanking. There is a tank that is great at focusing aggro on a single target, and a tank which had some other utility such as fear immunity.
This translates into those tanks being good at some situations and not so good at others. For example, for tanking a raid boss, it is important to have that boss stay on the main tank. So the tank that is good at focus agro on a single mob, is ideal in that situation. Perhaps there is a different raid or dungeon in which there is a large number of mobs that if not all kept on the tank, would run around making life difficult for healers and dps and support, etc. In this scenario the tank who is great at keeping aggro on one target would not be ideal for this situation, and you would want the group aoe tank instead. Perhaps in a third scenario there is a raid boss that does lots of fears on its main target, which in most cases would be the tank, if the raid boss fears the tank repeatedly and then starts running around possibly AOEing other people, etc, etc. You then have a problem, and neither the AOE tank or the focus aggro tank are useful in this scenario. In that scenario you would want a tank who is fear immune.
The point is having 3 tanks that all do the same thing just in slightly different manners is homogenization. The differences between the classes have to be meaningful and more than just arbitrary surface differences. Its like the example of every single DPS class doing roughly the same DPS on a target, whether they do it from launching fireballs, stabbing it in the back with daggers, or punching it with fists, is inconsequential, they're essentially the same class.
What other people in this thread are suggesting is that we maintain the status quo. Where an MMO has lets say 4 tanks classes, but they all tank equally well, basically in any given situation one is no better than the other. In the status quo, all of the tanks would have fear immunity, all of the tanks would have AOE aggro abilities, all of them would have single target focus aggro abilities. The "differences" would be cosmetic, one tank's AOE aggro skill might be called "Blaze of Holy Light", and the other tanks would be "Shout of Enragement", and the others would "Wave of Pestilent Inent", or whatever. they're all the same spell/ability/whatever, they perform the same function.
Saying that the tanks are different because one is a paladin and the other is a shadow knight is meaningless unless there are actually meaningful differences between the classes. If there aren't scenarios where you either need or would heavily desire one sort of tank over the other, then the differences between them are pointless. They might as well mash them all together and make it one class. So just have the MMO with "Healer", "Tank", "DPS"
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Like others have said already, EQ had classes balanced by content and not balanced on a class vs class basis. The fact that a rogues did more damage than monks was widely accepted by the player base. This is because monks could feint death to split mobs and pull. Monks were considerably more tanky than rogues. In raids, the monk's ability to pull mobs made up for the fact that rogues were always the top DPS. Both were needed and useful on the raid but in different ways.
Then there were classes like shadowknight... shadowknights are basically useless on a raid compared to warrior. They don't even have buffs that were useful like paladins, and they weren't any better at snap-aggro (getting aggro instantly) than paladins. Snap-aggro isn't even that important of a class ability in classic EQ, because Warriors used Midnight Mallets for aggro (which provide 5 charges of instant-cast slow, causing massive aggro). You could do without paladins or shadowknights -- but especially shadowknights.
Shadowknights were only "balanced to content" in the sense that they were much better at tanking groups than warriors. Compared to warrior, they had a castable feint death (much more useful for groups than raids), much quicker and better long term aggro, and other forms of utility like instant cast invisibility (Circlet of Shadow). Warriors Disciplines that made them so much more useful in raids were completely not needed in group scenarios, and things like lifetap or harm touch were probably more useful generally.
I think it is important that classes are designed to be equally balanced to content at raiding and grouping. When class X is better at raiding than class Y -- modern raid culture will just completely ostracize class Y. This goes the same for grouping.
I definitely don't want to see the game go down the rout of WoW, where warriors, deathknights, druids, and paladins are equally good at tanking every mob (or at least intended to be). But it is stupid to have to choose between being good at raiding or being good at grouping.
I have mixed feelings about soloing. Part of me likes the concept of certain classes being better at soloing than others. This allows people that are absolutely dead set on soloing to be able to do it, without everyone in the game being highly solo capable. However, this begs the question: why not pick the solo class that is good at raiding too? Why pick a class that is terrible at soloing but equally good at raiding?
I think the issue is that when you strictly balance against the environment you create classes that are better at certain things then others which creates the NEED for them to be in a group. Such as a class that can slow in EQ, via Shamans as an example. This can create an atmosphere were groups only want certain classes in group due to survival purposes. This recreates the LFG issue EQ had were you had to have certain classes/roles in group in order to progress.
If you strictly balance with other classes only then you have the harmonization issue, via WoW. This makes classes bland and one dimensional.
I believe if you can balance both class vs. class and class vs. environment but staying true to thematic classes would be the right direction to go. The idea would be to have different group comps without the need for certain classes to survive/progress out in the wilderness/dungeons. The only difference is if you have a Shadow Knight as a tank over a Warrior your challenge changes as a group and your group must adapt to the encounter.
1) Non-combat. That is teleports, class based tradeskills (alchemy, enchanting), and non-combat buffs (run speed, etc).
These abilities are a great way to promote interdependence in every day activities, but are not worthy of much weight in the long run.
2) Solo combat. The ability to fight by oneself.
This is a little more powerful and important, but still should not be considered of such great importance that they lack abilities in the 2 categories below. Its always nice to be more self reliant and capable of making more money without needing others, but down the line these skills have less and less impact on player progression.
3) Group combat.
In a game where group content is the main focus, these class strengths should carry a lot of weight. How able a person of any class is to get a group is obviously very dependent on these skills.
4) Raid combat.
Last is a classes strengths in a raid, which often overlaps with group strengths, but should (if content is designed correctly) utilize some of the more unique and intricate capabilities of every class. Each class should bring a few things to the table that work together with the greater synergy of all classes (or multiples of each). Even though there will be less raid focus, each class much be strong enough in certain areas that they can't be easily replaced. Without balance here, you end up with min maxers only focusing on who tanks best, heals best, and does the most damage. This is where developers must create a variety of content that calls for the particular skill set of each class at different times.
A classes raid capabilities should also be more heavily weighted because, at the end of the day, the ultimate progression will be achieved in large scale, multiplayer activities. Even if that progression is minimal (item wise), how well a class performs in these scenarios will determine how viable they are at the "end game" side of the spectrum.
I would weigh them in that exact order, because the longer someone plays, the more 3 and 4 determine class viability.
If there is one thing I know for sure that it will be very good in this game it's the class design.
Case in point: EQ and VG.
I haven't seen a single badly designed class in those games.
So they got this.
As for me, I'll play a Warrior main and Monk second as always, no matter how they turn out I'm sure they'll be balanced and awesome.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
It was only over time that they managed to balance the classes better.
Even in the end there was still quite a bit potential for improvement, even if it looked great in most areas.
The Bear Shaman was completely OP, tanklike defenses in medium gear plus strong debuffs plus strong healing, basically unkillable with still pretty good damage output (about twice as much as a Cleric that wouldnt have better defenses, not as much debuffs, and unlike Shamans a mana issue), but the Phoenix Shaman was the worst of all healer classes, with hardly any better damage output than other Shamans and basically zip defenses, like a Mage, while wearing medium gear. Both Disciple and Blood Mage would outdamage Phoenix by far; Disciple had much better defenses and Blood Mage a lot more hitpoints and the ability to combine damage and healing with their lifetaps on self.
Another really problematic class was Bard. IMHO they should have given Bards better solo ability (heavy armor, shield useage, more spells and more mana to use them, better damage with ranged weapons) and nerfed their insane group buffing abilities.
Or: Lots of classes had area damage abilities without a limit, which led to all kinds of exploits. AFAICS on the Dread Knight had such an ability until the end, and thats only because they would stand next to the mobs they would AoE damage; that naturally limited the possibility of exploits.
I have to disagree with this. I LOVED my Phoenix Shaman in VG. It was nearly unkillable, had PLENTY of damage output, and had a nice amount of variety to how it performed during the coarse of any real battles. No idea what Phoenix Shaman you were playing O.o
Did you by any chance not play any of the other healer classes, and lack the comparison ? I had one of each, and yes I loved my Phoenix, but it had all kinds of issues. Both my Disc and even much more my BM outclassed him in dps.
And I fail to see whats "unkillable" about a class that relies on kiting. The only advantage Phoenix Shaman had over a mage was a bit more hitpoints and they could use a shield. Otherwise they had 10% max mitigation, just like a mage.
Have to strongly disagree with bard part. Id say nerf them the other way around. Useless for solo activities and keep the insane group buffs. Just have them be master buffer/debuffers. No real DPS to the table. No ability to solo at any relevant level. And add in some utility like movement or lighting. Make their strong point being in a group. Oh and nerf the shit out of infinite kiting. Very limited CC (like an oh shit button on long cool down). Master buffer/debuffers is how Ive alway seen them but just my opinion.
As with all things - balance.
You can't have tank A better at situation X than tank B, but I think you can make it "easier" for tank A with the skillset, so it's less effort but the same effectiveness.
And to balance, tank B has an 'easier' time at situation Y vs. tank A.
PLD=mutli hit AOE type tank,stronger defense better hate control
Ninja=single hit single focus attacks,takes almost no damage due to it's shadows that absorb attacks,very weak to multi hit mobs and aoe nukes.
Every other game i have seen does things so simplified,like they might mitigate some dmg via healing feedback like a Shadowknight but overall it is the exact same math they have figured into the formula,just dispersed differently.
I would like to see Pantheon develop some truly unique classes but i fear it is going to be the same old we already done way too many times.Attk/Dmg/def/mitigation i would like to see them be more creative than that.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Like, for small group content, you can't have roles so specialized or you will never get certain classes into small groups.
For larger groups, it's more OK to have very specific roles/functions as you can bring a larger total number of players and bring more diversity.
So as someone else said, have to think about purpose and function for non-combat, solo, small group, and large group separately.
I think the "bring the player not the class" goal is a good one, you don't want to ostracize players because they made the "wrong" choice at character creation, but it is difficult to balance with having unique classes without too much homogenization.
This allows uniqueness in class design and purpose, but does not dumb the system down with shallow structure and function.
The point is that:
1. tankclass B wont be completely useless in situation X, just not as good as A, neither will tankclass C, D, E, etc,
2. and that there will also be a situation Y in which B is better than A, and a situation Z in which C shines etc.
In Vanguard all three tank classes had basically the same defenses and hitpoints, but each had their individual strenghts and disadvantages. People just adapted to the tank class. If it was a Dread Knight, they've been a bit more careful with initial damage than with a Paladin or Warrior.
From my personal experience with Dread Knight though they've fixed that in the late game. I could snatch aggro from any slacker tank.
Being less than ideal for a given specific situation is not useless.
I personally want to see situations where of the "defensive" focused classes, some classes are better defensively than others in different situations. Does it mean that the class that is less than ideal for that given situation is "useless"? Nope... it just means they have to adapt, and reliance on another class to shore up that issue may be needed.
If that is bad, then we are back to mainstream design of the class envy wars where people are far more interested in pissing contests to shore up self esteem than they are in a vast and deep game play system. If game play is second to peoples issues of self worth, then I truly am too old and out of touch with the "gamers" of today. /shrug
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The real problem is player perception and that can never be attended to as it is always subjective, always biased to a given desire, and always unhealthy to the game. It is the bad customer syndrome. You attempt to please reasonable customers, as they will result in making your money, promoting your brand, etc... but if you waste time on unreasonable customers, you will never please them, you will lose money and they will still talk shit about you anyway. Best to cut them loose early on.
The point is, don't balance on emotions and belief, balance on practical and reasonable position. As long as a class provides use, ie has benefit to the content, and brings that benefit to groups, then you have all the balance you need. Class vs class balance will only result in continued chaos as is evident in every single game that exists that hasn't already homogenized the classes completely (and even then some people still complain. /boggle).