Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Introducing The Cleric!

ZarriyaZarriya Member UncommonPosts: 446
February's update includes an introduction to the cleric : http://www.pantheonmmo.com/classes/cleric/    and a explanation on Pantheons approach to classes http://www.pantheonmmo.com/news/latest_news/  Enjoy reading!

Introducing: The Cleric


The Cleric

It is the Frail Age of Terminus. After the Deicide War, interaction with the celestials is virtually unheard of. Thus, the Cleric can scarcely rely on their Pantheon directly. Instead, they must bind themselves to the ancient tomes of their Order; fading vestiges of remembrance from the celestials of ages past.

At its core, the Cleric is focused on healing himself and his allies - in this role he is unrivaled. In addition, the Cleric can dramatically improve the defenses of his allies through powerful signets, writs and ethereal armors. Though rare, a Cleric can perform feats of unusually great ability when granted a measure of his celestial’s influence - certain elder Clerics have been mistakenly revered as celestials themselves. Because of the Cleric’s searing devotion to celestial ways, he has evolved the ability to turn Undeath and other malignant beings.

  • Group Role: Healer, Support
  • Armor: Heavy Plate Armor, Plate-Woven Raiment
  • Weaponry: Clerics are trained in several types of 1h Blunt weaponry. Most have discarded the use of staves in order to carry their large tomes into battle, filled with powerful signets, writs and edicts.
  • Ability Arsenal: The Cleric has mastered the restorative arts of their Order, allowing them to use powerful and diversified healing abilities. Therefore, Clerics excel in most forms of healing, including : Self, Target, Group and Raid-oriented abilities. Clerics will have a variety of healing types as well, including: Direct, Heal-Over-Time, and Heal-On-Hit. In addition to their powerful healing abilities, Clerics also excel in defensive support through ethereal armors and signet blessings.
  • Iconic Ability:
    [Manifest: Pillar Shield] - High level Clerics can manifest, place and even carry massive, luminous barriers of energy called Pillar Shields. These towering, ethereal shields create an immovable barrier that enemies cannot pass. If necessary, or advantageous, the Cleric can choose to sheath his weapon in order to carry the shield short distances.

Latest News


The Cleric Reveal


Posted date / 02.10.16

Hello all, Aradune here, and welcome to our next Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen newsletter! I’m really excited to start revealing information about Classes! It’s something we’ve been wanting to do for some time and I know the community has been quite curious as well.

Before you dig into what the Cleric is all about, I wanted to talk a bit about our philosophy and goals as it relates to all of Pantheon’s classes:

  • We want our classes to be both traditional and iconic. We know a lot of you identify with certain classes and we don’t want you to choose a certain class only to discover that we’ve changed the classic role of that class into something different just for the sake of change.
  • We then want to build on the traditional class and evolve the role in new and exciting ways without changing their core identity. A lot of this will be accomplished by adding flavor and distinctive abilities to those classes.
  • Even with this innovation and evolution, class interdependence is still extremely important. In recent years many MMOs have steered away from those core roles. Allow me to quote from the FAQ: Pantheon does indeed use a class based system, and those classes do fulfill roles, especially in group and raid contexts. There will also be opportunities to focus each class on more specific and specialized roles, especially at higher levels. That said, because we feel it’s important that classes fulfill distinct roles, creating interdependence is vital to a fulfilling social and cooperative experience. If everyone is the same, this simply cannot be achieved. Likewise, if every class is absolutely unique, grouping can become overly complicated and, in some cases, certain classes could be less desirable to have in a group than others. To avoid this, Pantheon will use a ‘quaternity’ system consisting of tank, healer, DPS, and crowd-control.
  • With our emphasis on truly engaging the world, making player vs. environment means more than only fighting NPCs. Most classes will also have abilities and spells that allow them to change the environment in a meaningful way. A great example would be the Druid. He will be able to influence the weather and by doing so truly affect that region of the world. Certain spells and abilities will work better or even only be possible during, say, a lightning storm.
  • We want to see synergistic or sympathetic spells and abilities. In other words, certain powerful spells and abilities will only be possible if two or more different classes work together.
  • We want to make sure hybrids are distinct yet still desired for a group. A Crusader, for example, will be able to adequately heal but not as well as a Cleric. That said, his other abilities, his diversity as a hybrid, will bring significant value to a group. In fact, all of our classes, core or hybrid will have unique roles and identity. Another example: the Ranger will be able to adequately fill a DPS role -- perhaps not the best, but his auxiliary abilities will bring to the table enough to make him desirable and, in some situations, even more desirable than a core class.

So, there you have it. I hope you find this as appealing and exciting as we do. We definitely have some interesting new twists and ideas to build upon the traditional iconic MMO classes. Read on about the Pantheon Cleric and let us know what you think!

Until next time,

Brad “Aradune Mithara” McQuaid

Chief Creative Officer & Gameplay & Tools Programmer







«1

Comments

  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
  • ZarriyaZarriya Member UncommonPosts: 446
    Ahh thank you Suzie! That article did not show up here in this forum subsection so I did not see it. Nice job on how early you reported the news!
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    • We want to make sure hybrids are distinct yet still desired for a group. A Crusader, for example, will be able to adequately heal but not as well as a Cleric. That said, his other abilities, his diversity as a hybrid, will bring significant value to a group. In fact, all of our classes, core or hybrid will have unique roles and identity. Another example: the Ranger will be able to adequately fill a DPS role -- perhaps not the best, but his auxiliary abilities will bring to the table enough to make him desirable and, in some situations, even more desirable than a core class.


    It is too early to judge, obviously some of this needs to be seen in action to get a better idea of what issues may arise, but I am concerned about a couple of things.

    First off, it appears as if they chose the "class vs class" balance approach, or at least it seems that way due to the comments about the cleric being predominately the top healer and the mention of a Crusader being adequate, but not as good as the Cleric.

    The reason this concerns me is that the players will immediately latch on to this and it will be the trump card to any occurrence where another class may find a niche (through emergent play). As we have seen in games over the years, such will likely be the cause of strife due to the position that "class xyz" is mentioned as being "the best" as the player points to the fact that they are not praised or picked as the best in that given situation. Basically, it already sets us up with complaints demanding buffs/nerfs in order to promote that given "best at".

    This may be something that could be adjusted simply in the description noting a more generalized focus (ie strong healer in many healing focuses as opposed to implying them as "best at") without any hard lines where players can take such absolute positions. This would also allow you to adjust performance of classes without shattering a players expectations of some specific ranking. A cleric may still be predominately the best healer, it is just that you are telling the players such and so you don't put yourself in a corner if you have to make some changes, nor do you have to justify anything when the Cleric may not perform in a given situation as well as another.

    The second concern is the hybrids utility as it concerns this hierarchy. A Crusader for example is said to not heal as well as a Cleric, but has many other hybrid abilities which bring significant value to the group. This is the danger area in a class vs class system. How much better does the cleric heal? Is it significant, a no contest evaluation over the Crusader or another class with healing abilities? If not, then the concern becomes the content and its requirements. That is, unless the content is designed to absolutely require a cleric, with no substitutions, then due to the versatility of a hybrid it can very easily result in the hybrid being the more logical choice due to the added functions that they provide. This then results in the primary classes being limited or only useful in specific situations where their role of "the best" is absolutely required.

    If great care is not given, the result could be walking right into the "only the best class need apply" making hybrids simply the "filler" at the end of the group or the result of hybrids dominating most of the content with primaries being situational (raids or testing group content). Class vs Class comes with a lot of issues to attend to that can produce major issues in both game balance and community health. I am interested to see how VR handles this. Maybe they have an ace up their sleeve on how to deal with these issues.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,500
    What excites me about this update is how much thought has been given to the class, and the fact the team is obviously working hard on the game. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Amathe said:
    What excites me about this update is how much thought has been given to the class, and the fact the team is obviously working hard on the game. 
    Agreed, I am just being critical as it is key they really iron out the potential issues with this. They are doing a good job, but people need to be diligent in what they expect.
  • krulerkruler Member UncommonPosts: 589
    Well after looking at the classes they made me lose all interest in the game, no NECROMANCER, loved the EQ1 and the Vanguard one, hated the EQ2 one, dire lord looks to be a rehash of a blood-mage and a shadow-knight, OH and I have exactly sod all hope of an EQN necromancer being any good should that game ever surface .

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,713
    edited February 2016
    When I played a Druid in EQ, I happily ignored groups that wanted a Cleric over a Druid for healing.  I suppose if I had an interest in raiding, that might change things a bit as they're harder to find than groups are. 

    I liked Vanguard's approach better.  All healers were equally good, it was the flavor of their healing and the mechanics behind them that differed, along with different extraneous abilities and mechanics.  People were just as happy to have a Bloodmage along as they would a Disciple or a Cleric or Shaman.


    If they are insistent with this approach to classes, why can't they make the cleric great at killing undead, the druid at dot damage, the shaman at buffing and the crusader at tanking, while giving them equally strong healing abilities?

    image
  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    Sinist said:
    • We want to make sure hybrids are distinct yet still desired for a group. A Crusader, for example, will be able to adequately heal but not as well as a Cleric. That said, his other abilities, his diversity as a hybrid, will bring significant value to a group. In fact, all of our classes, core or hybrid will have unique roles and identity. Another example: the Ranger will be able to adequately fill a DPS role -- perhaps not the best, but his auxiliary abilities will bring to the table enough to make him desirable and, in some situations, even more desirable than a core class.


    It is too early to judge, obviously some of this needs to be seen in action to get a better idea of what issues may arise, but I am concerned about a couple of things.

    First off, it appears as if they chose the "class vs class" balance approach, or at least it seems that way due to the comments about the cleric being predominately the top healer and the mention of a Crusader being adequate, but not as good as the Cleric.

    The reason this concerns me is that the players will immediately latch on to this and it will be the trump card to any occurrence where another class may find a niche (through emergent play). As we have seen in games over the years, such will likely be the cause of strife due to the position that "class xyz" is mentioned as being "the best" as the player points to the fact that they are not praised or picked as the best in that given situation. Basically, it already sets us up with complaints demanding buffs/nerfs in order to promote that given "best at".

    This may be something that could be adjusted simply in the description noting a more generalized focus (ie strong healer in many healing focuses as opposed to implying them as "best at") without any hard lines where players can take such absolute positions. This would also allow you to adjust performance of classes without shattering a players expectations of some specific ranking. A cleric may still be predominately the best healer, it is just that you are telling the players such and so you don't put yourself in a corner if you have to make some changes, nor do you have to justify anything when the Cleric may not perform in a given situation as well as another.

    The second concern is the hybrids utility as it concerns this hierarchy. A Crusader for example is said to not heal as well as a Cleric, but has many other hybrid abilities which bring significant value to the group. This is the danger area in a class vs class system. How much better does the cleric heal? Is it significant, a no contest evaluation over the Crusader or another class with healing abilities? If not, then the concern becomes the content and its requirements. That is, unless the content is designed to absolutely require a cleric, with no substitutions, then due to the versatility of a hybrid it can very easily result in the hybrid being the more logical choice due to the added functions that they provide. This then results in the primary classes being limited or only useful in specific situations where their role of "the best" is absolutely required.

    If great care is not given, the result could be walking right into the "only the best class need apply" making hybrids simply the "filler" at the end of the group or the result of hybrids dominating most of the content with primaries being situational (raids or testing group content). Class vs Class comes with a lot of issues to attend to that can produce major issues in both game balance and community health. I am interested to see how VR handles this. Maybe they have an ace up their sleeve on how to deal with these issues.
    Too early to for this. Wait till all classes are done. Way way too early...
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    When I played a Druid in EQ, I happily ignored groups that wanted a Cleric over a Druid for healing.  I suppose if I had an interest in raiding, that might change things a bit as they're harder to find than groups are. 

    I liked Vanguard's approach better.  All healers were equally good, it was the flavor of their healing and the mechanics behind them that differed, along with different extraneous abilities and mechanics.  People were just as happy to have a Bloodmage along as they would a Disciple or a Cleric or Shaman.


    If they are insistent with this approach to classes, why can't they make the cleric great at killing undead, the druid at dot damage, the shaman at buffing and the crusader at tanking, while giving them equally strong healing abilities?
    There is nothing wrong with a role focus and nothing wrong with a cleric healing better than the rest. It is how it is presented and how it will be balanced within the expectation of the players. The players are the real issue here as they will be the thorn in the side of the developers.

    Their descriptions are for the most part pretty good. I think my biggest issue with the cleric description really sits on a single word (ie excel) as it implies a pecking order and people will latch on and complain if that description is not always met.

    What I liked about original EQs descriptions is that they explained the general focus and even praised how good at a given role a certain class was, but didn't establish a class vs class pecking order (that was later and mainly due to urgency of the players).

    At the end of the day, I personally don't want all the healing classes healing equally in all situations, class homogenization is bad form in balancing in my opinion. You don't balance classes to compete with each other, you balance them to a role and the content they will be of use to. There also means you don't make class abilities and focuses commonly redundant (ie several classes that can heal, heal equally well in similar situations) as this runs you into problems of them competing. Best to have all classes be their own puzzle piece that fits together with the rest to provide the complete view.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    carotid said:
    Sinist said:
    • We want to make sure hybrids are distinct yet still desired for a group. A Crusader, for example, will be able to adequately heal but not as well as a Cleric. That said, his other abilities, his diversity as a hybrid, will bring significant value to a group. In fact, all of our classes, core or hybrid will have unique roles and identity. Another example: the Ranger will be able to adequately fill a DPS role -- perhaps not the best, but his auxiliary abilities will bring to the table enough to make him desirable and, in some situations, even more desirable than a core class.


    It is too early to judge, obviously some of this needs to be seen in action to get a better idea of what issues may arise, but I am concerned about a couple of things.
    <snip>
    Too early to for this. Wait till all classes are done. Way way too early...
    Nothing wrong with having early concerns and discussing them, especially if those discussions are not definitive to a given position.
  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    Sinist said:
    carotid said:
    Sinist said:
    • We want to make sure hybrids are distinct yet still desired for a group. A Crusader, for example, will be able to adequately heal but not as well as a Cleric. That said, his other abilities, his diversity as a hybrid, will bring significant value to a group. In fact, all of our classes, core or hybrid will have unique roles and identity. Another example: the Ranger will be able to adequately fill a DPS role -- perhaps not the best, but his auxiliary abilities will bring to the table enough to make him desirable and, in some situations, even more desirable than a core class.


    It is too early to judge, obviously some of this needs to be seen in action to get a better idea of what issues may arise, but I am concerned about a couple of things.
    <snip>
    Too early to for this. Wait till all classes are done. Way way too early...
    Nothing wrong with having early concerns and discussing them, especially if those discussions are not definitive to a given position.
    I understand. I am also very excited about Pantheon and would like to talk about it more. But discussing something that we know little about is kind of pointless.
  • ZarriyaZarriya Member UncommonPosts: 446
    The iconic ability (sheild) seems really powerful - I am looking forward to hearing about the other classes iconic abilities. Cleric was one of the classes I was interested in playing and I was happy to see they had a reactive heal and a heal over time.

     I am hoping the plate woven raiment winds up looking a bit more elaborate than flat out plate. I play a female character and whenever I play a plate class I do like a bit more embellishment. I know I know its there to protect me not make me look good. I am not asking for TERA like plate design, but I would like to look a little more elegant.
  • AmsaiAmsai Member UncommonPosts: 299
    Good stuff. Cleric seems cool.

    Loved the hybrid bit. Good balance should be something not OP vs something thats not LOL .

    Druid is starting to sound a lot like FF series Geomancer. Wonder if it was the inspiration for this direction?

    A little disappointed no list of race restrictions.

    Looking forward to more Class reveals. Particularly whatever ends up being debuff master.


  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    carotid said:
    I understand. I am also very excited about Pantheon and would like to talk about it more. But discussing something that we know little about is kind of pointless.
    Not at all. With each iteration of ideas and concepts we discuss, so do we spur such in the developers minds. Maybe we discuss something they didn't think of? Maybe we hit on an idea that wasn't key in their evaluation and by doing such and it changes the direction to which they pursue? Maybe just a basic idea purposed causes a waterfall of evolution in others responses or that of the developer themselves?

    Discussion on the "possibility" of such is no negative. It is not a detriment to discuss the positive and negative aspects of given designs or focus. I would argue not discussing, not speculating, not contemplating on the their progression would be far more pointless and detrimental to this game.


  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Amsai said:
    A little disappointed no list of race restrictions.
    Same, but I am sure it will come in time. Race restrictions, bot positive and negative are key to this game in my opinion.
  • RattenmannRattenmann Member UncommonPosts: 613
    I actually loved the "news" part more then the actually cleric stuff... maybe because i never got into healing THAT much, maybe because of: 

    • We want our classes to be both traditional and iconic. We know a lot of you identify with certain classes and we don’t want you to choose a certain class only to discover that we’ve changed the classic role of that class into something different just for the sake of change.
    • We then want to build on the traditional class and evolve the role in new and exciting ways without changing their core identity. A lot of this will be accomplished by adding flavor and distinctive abilities to those classes.
    *Droll*. They still target me as a player. They really do. Hell yeah. Finally a game that at least promises to cater to me and not the millions of "i want NOW!" - kids.

    MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.

    Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    What amazing imagination goes into this game. After years of Dungeons and Dragons clerics, years of Everquest clerics, in this new world of fantasy we get... clerics.
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Adjuvant1 said:
    What amazing imagination goes into this game. After years of Dungeons and Dragons clerics, years of Everquest clerics, in this new world of fantasy we get... clerics.

    That is what iconic means. Traditional classes filling traditional roles.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,528
    I like healer and rogue classes.  I may start with a healer Cleric so I can experience dungeons more easily my first time around :)
  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,713
    Sinist said:
    When I played a Druid in EQ, I happily ignored groups that wanted a Cleric over a Druid for healing.  I suppose if I had an interest in raiding, that might change things a bit as they're harder to find than groups are. 

    I liked Vanguard's approach better.  All healers were equally good, it was the flavor of their healing and the mechanics behind them that differed, along with different extraneous abilities and mechanics.  People were just as happy to have a Bloodmage along as they would a Disciple or a Cleric or Shaman.


    If they are insistent with this approach to classes, why can't they make the cleric great at killing undead, the druid at dot damage, the shaman at buffing and the crusader at tanking, while giving them equally strong healing abilities?
    There is nothing wrong with a role focus and nothing wrong with a cleric healing better than the rest. It is how it is presented and how it will be balanced within the expectation of the players. The players are the real issue here as they will be the thorn in the side of the developers.

    Their descriptions are for the most part pretty good. I think my biggest issue with the cleric description really sits on a single word (ie excel) as it implies a pecking order and people will latch on and complain if that description is not always met.

    What I liked about original EQs descriptions is that they explained the general focus and even praised how good at a given role a certain class was, but didn't establish a class vs class pecking order (that was later and mainly due to urgency of the players).

    At the end of the day, I personally don't want all the healing classes healing equally in all situations, class homogenization is bad form in balancing in my opinion. You don't balance classes to compete with each other, you balance them to a role and the content they will be of use to. There also means you don't make class abilities and focuses commonly redundant (ie several classes that can heal, heal equally well in similar situations) as this runs you into problems of them competing. Best to have all classes be their own puzzle piece that fits together with the rest to provide the complete view.


    There was nothing homogenized about the healing classes in Vanguard.  While all were perfectly functional as healers, they all played very, very differently.  People hail FFXI as the epitome of class design, I hail Vanguard.

    image
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    There was nothing homogenized about the healing classes in Vanguard.  While all were perfectly functional as healers, they all played very, very differently.  People hail FFXI as the epitome of class design, I hail Vanguard.
    That is the definition of such. Multiple classes blending multiple roles together. All healing well as well as attending to their focuses. That is the one thing I disliked about Vanguard. You had multiple classes that could heal, or tank, or dps.. etc...

    The only systems I think are ideal are those that did not cater to balance in classes, but sought class designs to the content. AD&D was not concerned about tit for tat class balancing, it was only concerned that each class met a given usefulness in play. This is what I think games should focus on rather than the idea that all classes should be equal in ability or balanced to a specific idea of balance between each other. That is what leads to homogenization.
  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,144
    edited February 2016
    Well to me there should be at least an average balance other wise you have problems like being left out of X content because this other class is so much better. That being said I don't mind if there are some what noticeable differences as long as they aren't huge. D&D is not the same as an mmorpg. A dungeon master can make content to fit a given situation a lot easier and balance it better.
    Post edited by drivendawn on
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Well to me there should be at least an average balance other wise you have problems like being left out of X content because this other class is so much better. That being said I don't mind if there are some what noticeable differences as long as they aren't huge. D&D is not the same as an mmorpg. A dungeon master can make content to fit a given situation a lot easier and balance it better.

    You can't control people being left out without making everyone exactly the same. In order to give meaning to variation in classes, you have to have situations where one will excel over the other at times, that is what gives depth to game play. The key is to make sure there is enough content in the game for all classes shine in. If there is enough and it is varied throughout, then there will always be options for people. Not only that, but without situations where a class may be less than ideal, there is no urgency or goal to find ways to make it work (ie emergent play).

    I think if EQ were designed by today's standards, many of the emergent features that came about through EQ's player would have never existed. There needs to be winners and losers as it concerns being ideal to content or there is no point, it just becomes a social exercise in catering to insecurities. 
  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,144
    edited February 2016
    Sinist said:
    Well to me there should be at least an average balance other wise you have problems like being left out of X content because this other class is so much better. That being said I don't mind if there are some what noticeable differences as long as they aren't huge. D&D is not the same as an mmorpg. A dungeon master can make content to fit a given situation a lot easier and balance it better.

    You can't control people being left out without making everyone exactly the same. In order to give meaning to variation in classes, you have to have situations where one will excel over the other at times, that is what gives depth to game play. The key is to make sure there is enough content in the game for all classes shine in. If there is enough and it is varied throughout, then there will always be options for people. Not only that, but without situations where a class may be less than ideal, there is no urgency or goal to find ways to make it work (ie emergent play).

    I think if EQ were designed by today's standards, many of the emergent features that came about through EQ's player would have never existed. There needs to be winners and losers as it concerns being ideal to content or there is no point, it just becomes a social exercise in catering to insecurities. 
    I have to disagree on this. A company can make 2 unique healing classes or tanks or whatever and balance them well enough to make them both viable enough in all content but be very different in play style. I think devs. not doing this is lazy game design. Not to mention leaving paying customers out of particular content in the name of some emergent game play sounds silly and hurtful to the game in my opinion.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Sinist said:
    Well to me there should be at least an average balance other wise you have problems like being left out of X content because this other class is so much better. That being said I don't mind if there are some what noticeable differences as long as they aren't huge. D&D is not the same as an mmorpg. A dungeon master can make content to fit a given situation a lot easier and balance it better.

    You can't control people being left out without making everyone exactly the same. In order to give meaning to variation in classes, you have to have situations where one will excel over the other at times, that is what gives depth to game play. The key is to make sure there is enough content in the game for all classes shine in. If there is enough and it is varied throughout, then there will always be options for people. Not only that, but without situations where a class may be less than ideal, there is no urgency or goal to find ways to make it work (ie emergent play).

    I think if EQ were designed by today's standards, many of the emergent features that came about through EQ's player would have never existed. There needs to be winners and losers as it concerns being ideal to content or there is no point, it just becomes a social exercise in catering to insecurities. 
    I have to disagree on this. A company can make 2 unique healing classes or tanks or whatever and balance them well enough to make them both viable enough in all content but be very different in play style. I think devs. not doing this is lazy game design. Not to mention leaving paying customers out of particular content in the name of some emergent game play sounds silly and hurtful to the game in my opinion.
    Examples? If the result is the same, it really doesn't matter. You could have a straight healing class whose entire focus is healing directly in single, group, raid... then you could have an indirect healing class that heals based on their actions (melee hits, certain reactive abilities, etc...), but also achieves equal healing for single, group, and raid.

    Thing is, they might as well be the same class, they achieve the very same result. It is just smoke and mirrors with no real point. Where is the choice and consequence in the class selection? Where do you say... hmm... this healer can do well in this situation, but not this one, or against these types, but not those. That brings about actual game play where the player deals with their strengths and weakness in play. Making them all heal the same kills game play and panders to the whole "class envy" issue.



    I didn't say "leaving people out of content", I said "situations where one will excel over the other at times". This means that one healer might do exceptionally well in one case, but poor in another which may require reliance on another class to shore up the differences. If you design content in a marbling style of design (ie content changes within itself making the ideal become less than in phases) then there will never be the "perfect" class for every situation, even in some group environments there will be changes in content as the group moves through.

    This is how you create dynamic and challenging game play where no class is perfect and each class must deal with their short comings as they encounter them, causing more reliance on other classes, making the skill of being able to adapt to a situation on the fly coveted, and promoting emergent play.



Sign In or Register to comment.