I somewhat agree with OP, though I do have ONE concern - I'm not really a fan of giving humans one of the better if not the best set of passives. Humans will already by one of most popular races, just becouse many players like to make character as similar to them as possible. Humans used to be always "average"choice - being "a jack of all trades,master of none" - and that was OK, but giving them edges on all/most aspects of the game? Nah ;-( I wish they'd make humans the ultimate evil race on Terminus, to balance things out and change the cliched perception of them ...
Talint said:Furthermore. @Nephele. You claim you would rather have someone play "for fun" instead of conforming to the meta? What if I wanted to play a healing Paladin in Pantheon. My class fantasy is to be a Paladin (for the lore), but to heal because that is my Cleric roots; and they can heal. Would this be okay? I doubt you would bring that player because it is sub-optimal. Sure, Paladin's can heal. But is that what they're for? No. I'm all for someone playing a character how they want. Hell, if I had my choice, I would be a DPS Dire Lord. But that more than likely isn't going to happen.
EDIT: (No this is not my fantasy; proving a point)
You're using an example of a hypothetical "extreme" case (in your viewpoint) to try to convince me that I'm wrong for what I said. I think you should reflect about why you felt the need to respond to my statement in this way.
Here's the truth that I see. The vast majority of players want to succeed, both in their own eyes and those of others. Plus, they're not stupid. If someone is so good at playing paladin that they are confident in serving as a primary healer in a group or a raid situation, then that says something about their ability to play in general. Likewise, if someone thinks they can DPS as a Dire Lord effectively, why not? As long as it works, who cares if it takes a few seconds longer per fight? The fun we have along the way is what's important, not how quickly or "efficiently" we happen to mow down our opponents.
As an aside, I happened to play a paladin in EverQuest, as well as several other games where paladins were tanks with a side of healing, and I frequently have served as a backup healer or even as a primary healer a few times when we just didn't have a cleric or druid available. In EQ, I often rescued groups who wiped in dungeons. In more modern games I often keep groups alive when the dedicated healer dies. So, your example of a healing paladin is actually not all that extreme. As to whether that will work in Pantheon, I think none of us are in a position to judge until we're in beta. And I'm pretty sure at that point that if it's truly possible, there will be people who find ways to do it.
Regardless, in my viewpoint attitude and skill trump any meta and always will. To put it another way - I would rather take people along who enjoy finding creative strategies to overcome challenges and who know the ins and outs of every ability in their arsenal, than someone who thinks the only way to beat a raid encounter is to follow the same rote steps that they've seen in a video or forum post - even if that means we fail a few times before we succeed. So, if you think your DPS dire lord will give us a chance to succeed, let's try it. Sure, it's outside the norm. But that doesn't mean it can't work.
Kurgon's original post was about people caring about efficiency to the point where they actively exclude other players because those players aren't playing in what is perceived to be as efficient a manner as possible.
Regardless of what the game does, the responsibility for fixing that problem lies with all of us. In past games I have always attempted to be part of the solution, rather than the problem, and I don't intend to change my approach at this point. How about you?
This whole discussion supports a point that I have not brought up for months - the benefits of providing for somewhat rewarding solo play. Not through a whole "separate but equal" quest line but by having areas in each zone where there are mobs that a solo player can kill.
Apart from the obvious points - these give us something useful for our characters to do when we don't have the uninterrupted time available to group or are not feeling social - these let us run characters that are not very *good* but that we enjoy for roleplaying reasons or just ...because. Maybe getting half the xp per minute and half the coin per minute as if we were grouping - but still making progress and even hitting level cap ...eventually.
There was discussion years ago about how Pantheon was intended to be mostly group play with some solo play and some raid play for the outliers. I see a lot more from the raid outliers than from the solo outliers these days - time to jump in again.
People simply just read way too much into most passives nowadays, I can completely say that if someone did more damage or tanked better or whatever it is simply because they played better. Not because their passive gave them an advantage into beating me, unless if it was like 2 dps, than maybe just maybe. But, honestly I could give to crap about 2dps when it comes to my race/class selection simply play what you want, it's not going to ruin your playstyle, people who think they are being strong-armed into pick a particular race/class selection are people who is see more of a casual than a hard core player, because hardcore players know most passives are usually crap and have little to do with performance.
sub optimal for what?
i could say that ember elf is a sub optimal race for enchanter. still gon' play it cuz haters gon' hate.
and if no one is going to invite you cuz of a 'sub-optimal' choice, pvp them and show them how 'inferior' your class-race choice is.
why is the such an issue with pvers? it's marginal at best.
that's like having a juicy a5, medium rare, 20oz steak in front of my face and i'm not going to eat it because the seasoning needed to be added 2 seconds earlier after it came off the grill.
what does it matter if the player is good? whatever. things i don't care understand.
Kurgon999 said: "I miss the days when people were ok playing a suboptimal race/class combo."
I would also support this, however, while one may think they want to play an Ogre Wizard, thinking how unique they will be, etc when the reality sets in that their choice is actually terrible and that people do not want them in a group because of the horrible performance capabilities of that combination, far more often than not those people stream to the forums to whine about how their class/race choice needs to be as good as any other class/race choice.
Even when told up front, in no uncertain terms, that their particular choice can result in not just a sub-optimal but actually terrible consequences many will still complain about the poor balance. So it is better to avoid that from the beginning.
Heh I read the OP and some of the other statements and am here sitting thinking. Well yeah thats what being a Ranger was like all my toons life. Only thing I was really ever good for at one point was pulling when there was not a monk around. The fact I could kite 2 or 3 mobs while the group killed the one that was needing to be dead made me useful. I would usually have the last one near dead from bowing the poor thing whilst kiting all the others.. worked well.. sigh those were the days I felt usefull
After that it was using my riposte to tank if the tank went down. Of course I was done but by that time they had the tank rezzed and was back in the game.
Nephele said:Talint said:Furthermore. @Nephele. You claim you would rather have someone play "for fun" instead of conforming to the meta? What if I wanted to play a healing Paladin in Pantheon. My class fantasy is to be a Paladin (for the lore), but to heal because that is my Cleric roots; and they can heal. Would this be okay? I doubt you would bring that player because it is sub-optimal. Sure, Paladin's can heal. But is that what they're for? No. I'm all for someone playing a character how they want. Hell, if I had my choice, I would be a DPS Dire Lord. But that more than likely isn't going to happen.
EDIT: (No this is not my fantasy; proving a point)
You're using an example of a hypothetical "extreme" case (in your viewpoint) to try to convince me that I'm wrong for what I said. I think you should reflect about why you felt the need to respond to my statement in this way.
Here's the truth that I see. The vast majority of players want to succeed, both in their own eyes and those of others. Plus, they're not stupid. If someone is so good at playing paladin that they are confident in serving as a primary healer in a group or a raid situation, then that says something about their ability to play in general. Likewise, if someone thinks they can DPS as a Dire Lord effectively, why not? As long as it works, who cares if it takes a few seconds longer per fight? The fun we have along the way is what's important, not how quickly or "efficiently" we happen to mow down our opponents.
As an aside, I happened to play a paladin in EverQuest, as well as several other games where paladins were tanks with a side of healing, and I frequently have served as a backup healer or even as a primary healer a few times when we just didn't have a cleric or druid available. In EQ, I often rescued groups who wiped in dungeons. In more modern games I often keep groups alive when the dedicated healer dies. So, your example of a healing paladin is actually not all that extreme. As to whether that will work in Pantheon, I think none of us are in a position to judge until we're in beta. And I'm pretty sure at that point that if it's truly possible, there will be people who find ways to do it.
Regardless, in my viewpoint attitude and skill trump any meta and always will. To put it another way - I would rather take people along who enjoy finding creative strategies to overcome challenges and who know the ins and outs of every ability in their arsenal, than someone who thinks the only way to beat a raid encounter is to follow the same rote steps that they've seen in a video or forum post - even if that means we fail a few times before we succeed. So, if you think your DPS dire lord will give us a chance to succeed, let's try it. Sure, it's outside the norm. But that doesn't mean it can't work.
Kurgon's original post was about people caring about efficiency to the point where they actively exclude other players because those players aren't playing in what is perceived to be as efficient a manner as possible.
Regardless of what the game does, the responsibility for fixing that problem lies with all of us. In past games I have always attempted to be part of the solution, rather than the problem, and I don't intend to change my approach at this point. How about you?
The last lines are me to the T..... It is damn tiring though.
If they develop the classes and races correctly, the sub-optimal concept will not exist. It's all about trade offs. As long as a class/race/combo is not sub-optimal the majority of the time, we're good. Nothing wrong with being sub-optimal for specific content, that's actually a good thing for class independence and individualism. Joppa seems to be aware of this. I'm curious to see the melee/tanking weaknesses he has up his sleeve for Ogres.
Let's not pretend there won't always be a "best." There is always a best and always a worst. It's just how things work. Something will always be better, even if it's miniscul. Some people like to push the best, others don't. This topic started out as race/class combo - to which I said, do what you want; no matter what you pick, it won't be that big of a difference. I also stated, I have never seen a single person turn someone away because of the race they picked. Literally never.
With that being said. This game (to our knowledge), doesn't have specs. I personally hope it has talent trees, but it's not something we've heard about yet. With that, there won't be a "best spec" - so everyone can now stop worrying about that. HOWEVER, there will be a best rotation. As I said before, there will always be a 'best' something. It's just the nature of not only games, but life.
EDIT: I feel like people just want to complain about the small difference in races. It will literally be a non factor. If you're a good player, you will outplay any average player that picked the "optimal" race.
You may see some of the top end raids require you to have a certain race for min/maxing, but most don't care, every race should be viable at any class they are allowed to be. In FFXI when it first released, it was one of the mage classes, I think galkas had to be level 2 before they had enough mp to cast their level one spell, I think they have changed this now, but some of the best white and black mages I grouped with were galka, it was a little different for them in the lower levels, but once they got mid to high level it wasn't a big deal.
mallanb81 said:In FFXI when it first released, it was one of the mage classes, I think galkas had to be level 2 before they had enough mp to cast their level one spell.
Level 2???? So 4 minutes into playing the game?? And that isn't a racial ability problem. That is a game design problem.
What top end raid has ever required that? I have never heard of any guild saying that someone has to play a specific race??? The only time I can even think of something remotely like that is when some players in Method switched to Goblin for the rocket jump on mythic Kil'Jaedan - and not even everyone switched, even if their class and race did line up.
wow, as a game is about maxing dps. the friend can run an unusual spec if the dps charts say its good. but if he's doing 2K less dps than the other two that are his same class, then it's a problem. he needs to conform.
But, i agree with your post. I think everyone saw the racials and freaked out because without all the pieces to the puzzle one looks to have an advantage.
On paper it looks as if Humans and their 2% spell haste is a win win for ANY caster or Healer. But what about starting stats.
Example: my main will be cleric. on paper, human and 2% haste is a must have.
but, what if the human has a 8 str, agi, dex, int, wis, con and the Dorf has a 12 str, 7 dex, 9 agi, 13 INT, 14 WIS, and 9 con and can also see at night without a torch. (starting stats / lev 1)
Now, which is "better" ?? Say my main two stats are INT and WIS. The dorf clearly destroys the human, until they both hit Hard caps on stats. At cap, the human still has 2% more haste than I do as a Dorf, but I can take a hit better because of the stamina bonus. The human has 3000 hit points buffed and the Dorf has 4750 hit points buffed. Can't heal if you are Dead, right? Now which is better?
I could go on, but you should be following me by now. too many variables to say 100% for sure human is a better healer than a Dorf. (in my made up numbers example above)
In this day and age with better AI, specs being able to be differentiated, stats being able to be differentiated, it should be possible - on the server side - to have differing rolls (pro and con) given the encounter (encounters) where there is not one optimal build for everything and not one sub optimal build for everything. It doesn't need to be published but could be figured out by those invested in playing. Anyone who is worth their salt will want to be able to figure it out and adapt to the situation/encounter. Melee attack or defense, spellcasting attack or defense.
If in all these years they have not been able to progress beyond the standard straight roll resulting in one optimal build all the time for all things, then things really haven't advanced very much these past twenty years. I think we're all waiting for something that has actually advanced these past twenty years. Not the same old same old. Everything boils down to just one number.
Not having absolutely one optimal build for all things at all times or most things most of the time should one-hundred-percent make for better players because they will play the encounter and change and adapt or figure out they need to change and adapt according to their build.
At this point, I'd say have no passives, or actives, but than people would be complaining that there is no difference inbetween races, lol this is a idiotic circle of two sides of a coin. I honestly find this whole thing hilarious how people are seeing these passives and go O.O oh my goodness that passive is SO STRONG, when i bet its simply marginal at best if even to be considered, like the 10 skill to daggers, i bet at best adds a .5% to hit which means after 200 swings you could have an extra hit that another class might not of, big whoop, or the extra attack power from dex, so what maybe like 1-2 dmg on every swing after to consider defenses of the mob and everything again big whoop, stop looking at these passives like they are twisting your arm and MAKING you choose a race/class combo, IT DOESN'T EXSIST and never have, ppl just try to meta and find out only a handful of players actually truly show the potential of that passive to even be considered, to be the reason they are doing more damage, most of the time they are simply just outplaying you and understanding they're rotation better than you and have nothing to do with their passives or actives at all.
arazons said:Please do not listen to calls to "balance" to the point where there is no difference between the races other than a cosmetic skin/model.
If this was to me i was making a dumb statement, in regards of how people look at passives, I wasn't actually avocating to get rid of passives or actives.
Either way I don't see them being huge difference makers, the devs knows they can't be, it makes race/class combos way to one dimensional, they're has to be a balance, as someone pointed out warrior main item seems to be a shield and the human gains a passive to shields to give them an edge, but they hp pool could be lower than a ogre's or dwarves or skars, while 2 have a passive for it the ogre's i would be thinking would simply have a higher starting stat to give them that edge, but human get the natural midigation of the shield passive(i'm thinking this will be one thing shield skill will have tied to it). or where they might not have as much health maybe they can midigate better even if it slightly, but when all said and done between everypone they will all be pretty close to the same in regards to tanking, and i don't see how any of the numbers or % that i have seen makes this theory incorrect.
I've always said, play what you love, and what you're good at (generally in that order, but sometimes I find I love what I'm good at :) ). For those talking about being excluded, especially in WoW, they're mostly referring to the Group/Raid finder where you're trying to get into a pug raid, which is a problem with a game like WoW that promotes soloing and friendless gaming experiences (LFR, Random Dungeon Que's with strangers/foreigners who cannot communicate with you due to language barriers, etc.).
In short, I think this won't be as much of an issue here, as you'll be building a reputation of skill and personality that will follow you, and the game will almost require friendships to be forged as we play together as a community. And real leaders in that kind of community won't care if you want to be a Fairy princess coal miner, as long as you're developing your skills and above all, having fun in the process.
Honestly, there were times when I thought suboptimal just had more character to it. :)