Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

When thinking about new content design, do you think...

    • 370 posts
    April 19, 2019 11:40 AM PDT

    Watemper said:

    Middle grounds tend to make lukewarm games. 

     

    I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. This isn't about trying to appease every fan. This is about balancing what QoL features in WoW added to the game without taking away from the community and applying those here.

    • 696 posts
    April 19, 2019 11:49 AM PDT

    So what QOL mechanics are the mechanics that should be in the game that made WoW amazing? Was it instancing? Global AH? faster leveling? being able to solo to max level at ease? flying mounts? Hearthstones? Gear milling? The only thing WoW did objectively better than EQ was raids being more involved. Everything else i ssubjective QOL to cater to mainstream gamers and thus having a bigger target audience.

    • 370 posts
    April 19, 2019 1:36 PM PDT

    Watemper said:

    So what QOL mechanics are the mechanics that should be in the game that made WoW amazing? Was it instancing? Global AH? faster leveling? being able to solo to max level at ease? flying mounts? Hearthstones? Gear milling? The only thing WoW did objectively better than EQ was raids being more involved. Everything else i ssubjective QOL to cater to mainstream gamers and thus having a bigger target audience.

     

    Quick question, and I'm not trying to be mean, I want to know where you're coming from. Did you play EQ at launch? Did you play during Kunark and Velious? Those expansions had mild QoL improvements and to this day up until Velious is considered the gold standard of MMO gaming. I don't remember anyone saying "NO I WANT TO KEEP LOOKING AT MY SPELL BOOK WHEN I MED!"

     

    Early EQ had a terrible grouping mechanic. You had to do text commands for zones to list people in those zones then message those people trying to find out who was at what camp to get on the list. The other option was to sit at zone and spam LFG in /ooc hoping someone picks you up and you don't get trained. WoW added a LFG window, EQ may have later on I honestly don't remember, before WoW ever had LFG instant queue. An LFG window with level and class would be a QoL improvement over having to do random text commands to track people down. 

     

    I still want camps to have lists and the group to be in charge of who is next in line, but a LFG window and search function would be a QoL improvement.

     

    Hearthstones actually were, and are, a good idea imo. I wouldn't want it on any form of short cool down but like once every 2 hours if a melee class could return to their starting point I'd be perfectly okay with that. Every caster is likely going to be able to. This doesn't break the game, again imo.

     

    From the arguments on time to travel you can see the community is divided on many topics, but even with that VR would be stupid to not look at other top MMO's and ask themselves which features they could implement or take and alter to make better. If you completely ignore every other MMO because it appeals to the masses or is too easy, you're going to overlook possible features, no matter how small, that could be improvements to your game.

     

    Everyone needs to stop being so black and white around here.


    This post was edited by EppE at April 19, 2019 1:37 PM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 20, 2019 7:09 AM PDT

    EppE said:

    Watemper said:

    So what QOL mechanics are the mechanics that should be in the game that made WoW amazing? Was it instancing? Global AH? faster leveling? being able to solo to max level at ease? flying mounts? Hearthstones? Gear milling? The only thing WoW did objectively better than EQ was raids being more involved. Everything else i ssubjective QOL to cater to mainstream gamers and thus having a bigger target audience.

     

    Quick question, and I'm not trying to be mean, I want to know where you're coming from. Did you play EQ at launch? Did you play during Kunark and Velious? Those expansions had mild QoL improvements and to this day up until Velious is considered the gold standard of MMO gaming. I don't remember anyone saying "NO I WANT TO KEEP LOOKING AT MY SPELL BOOK WHEN I MED!"

    Not everything EQ did was good. The first three expansions generally are considered the golden years due to the fact that it was still being run by Verant (Brad). Once SoE took over (Smed), the game went straight for mainstream sell out (if you have read Smed’s writings on games, he is hardcore mainstream design concept). There were however mistakes with various features during that time.

    The spell book one was a poor choice imo. The change imbalanced casters, allowing them to “see” the dangers around them while they were medding. Casting classes were extremely powerful as ranged damage combined with control abilities was what allowed many casters to solo group content. Before the change, a caster had a VERY difficult and dangerous time medding while out in the wild. Soling was extremely dangerous because they could not see what was around them. This change allowed them to now easily see what was going around even though their character was “concentrating” medding.

    Add in another poor change (Camera views) and casters were then able to med with impunity being able to see all around them. Those QoL changes harmed game play, just like Call of the Hero began to invalidate some content by allowing people to be safely herded through areas without danger (which is why one the reasons it was banned in some zones because of how much of a cheat it became).

     

    EppE said:

    Early EQ had a terrible grouping mechanic. You had to do text commands for zones to list people in those zones then message those people trying to find out who was at what camp to get on the list. The other option was to sit at zone and spam LFG in /ooc hoping someone picks you up and you don't get trained. WoW added a LFG window, EQ may have later on I honestly don't remember, before WoW ever had LFG instant queue. An LFG window with level and class would be a QoL improvement over having to do random text commands to track people down. 

    I still want camps to have lists and the group to be in charge of who is next in line, but a LFG window and search function would be a QoL improvement.

    There is nothing wrong with certain types of interface QoL improvements, as long as they do not automate or allow correlation of data to abuse game play. Personally, I think LFG tools should be zone wide only, not realm wide. You should have to search out groups, explore, find people and journey on to such things. That said, those tools should provide a window where someone puts up a listing of what they are looking for, or that they are available.

    Because camps will be a thing, there are things I personally want to avoid. For instance, people will be LFG to get in line to camps. As I said, your LFG for a group should be in the zone you are grouping. That means if you are looking for a group in Zone A, you need to be in Zone A, not off in Zone X. This way, those who are diligent and are ready in the zone to group get the camps, not some guy soloing out 5 zones away, but because he has a port to the entrance, he can zap there quick and get the camp as this gives too much power to casting classes who can generally bind anywhere and be more mobile.

    See, even subtle features become abuses and imbalances if not considered.

     

     

    EppE said:

    Hearthstones actually were, and are, a good idea imo. I wouldn't want it on any form of short cool down but like once every 2 hours if a melee class could return to their starting point I'd be perfectly okay with that. Every caster is likely going to be able to. This doesn't break the game, again imo.

    Being able to teleport is a caster class, it is a part of the balance of their skills versus being melee. Also, allowing players to instantly pop back to their bind point is a severe imbalance of game play and violates the concept of travel having meaning and that of group reliance. If you go out in the middle of nowhere, you shouldn’t be able to just “port back” to your favorite bind spot just because you don’t like the idea of being a melee class who can’t cast spells.

    If you want the benefit of ports, play a class that can port, or cast such spells, otherwise deal with the consequences of your choices.

     

    EppE said:

    From the arguments on time to travel you can see the community is divided on many topics, but even with that VR would be stupid to not look at other top MMO's and ask themselves which features they could implement or take and alter to make better. If you completely ignore every other MMO because it appeals to the masses or is too easy, you're going to overlook possible features, no matter how small, that could be improvements to your game.

     

    Everyone needs to stop being so black and white around here.

     

    Make it better how? See, I argue game play here. I reason WHY travel needs to exist as a time based obstacle. Every aspect of play I argue for, I do so from a consistent aspect of game play concepts.

    You gave one WoW example of hearthstones and that example is at complete odds with the tenants of this game. How can travel be meaningful and group reliance exist if every class can instantly port back to their bind points? The hearthstone wasn’t a “good solution” for WoW, it was a means to reduce game play because people thought it too much of a hassle to travel anywhere.

    Is there anything else you can think of that mainstream MMOs do well? I mean, I see nothing wrong with exploring it, but anything that removes game play as a QoL is the problem in my opinion.


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 20, 2019 7:10 AM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    April 20, 2019 7:32 AM PDT

    Tanix said:

    EppE said:

    Hearthstones actually were, and are, a good idea imo. I wouldn't want it on any form of short cool down but like once every 2 hours if a melee class could return to their starting point I'd be perfectly okay with that. Every caster is likely going to be able to. This doesn't break the game, again imo.

    Being able to teleport is a caster class, it is a part of the balance of their skills versus being melee. Also, allowing players to instantly pop back to their bind point is a severe imbalance of game play and violates the concept of travel having meaning and that of group reliance. If you go out in the middle of nowhere, you shouldn’t be able to just “port back” to your favorite bind spot just because you don’t like the idea of being a melee class who can’t cast spells.

    If you want the benefit of ports, play a class that can port, or cast such spells, otherwise deal with the consequences of your choices.

     

    Not to take this discussion too far out of track but I think this sort of has a balance on the concept of obstacles.

    At least in Everquest the casters already had all the advantages. They were either highly valued healers or ranged DPS that was in low level danger due to not needing to be in melee range. They usually had some form of ability to kite which is also something the melee didn't have.

    Monks did have feign which let them pull and scout but toe to toe DPS wise druids, wizards, necros, mages and even some enchanters if they had a good pet could out dps them, at least until the monk was very highely geared.

    Rogues could do high DPS if they had a great weapon and sneak and vanish were nice but DPS death count was usually highest amongst the rogues between agro and adds.

    Rangers were, well . . . they were rangers until kill shot.

    I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.

    The strategy behind leaving a dungeon should be just as meaningful as getting to it and allowing 2/3s of the classes to bypass the leaving portion of the challenge seems counter intuitive to the rest of the design. All have it or none have it with a leaning to the side of none. Maybe one or two classes could have some evacuate tool where you set your evacuate point with one spell and activate it with another and it pulls the entire group if you are in range. That would also tie into some disengage strategies.

     


    This post was edited by Trasak at April 20, 2019 7:34 AM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 20, 2019 7:40 AM PDT

    That is why I had an issue with the caster book being removed. At least with that, casters had a nice balance to their the spell use. In AD&D, medding left you in a completely vulnerable state where you could be killed in the same means as if you were sleeping (unless you used warning spells).

    So every little "QoL feature people ask for imbalances the design of the class between itself.

    Camera and the book gave a HUGE advantage to casters back then. So, you add in that casters are low HP VERY squishy classes, extrtemely vulnerable when medding, and basically USELES without mana and can only see in front of them... well.. you create a nice balance.

    This is why mainstream killed gaming imo. It spent all its time chasing peoples complaints about QoL at the expense of looking at the games balance and design itself. It was all about money, getting in as many people as they could and you can't do that if people are throwing tantrums about having to run too far.

    • 3852 posts
    April 20, 2019 8:15 AM PDT

    ((I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.))

     

    I agree. I see a great inherent contradiction between the position of "large world - no rapid travel other than between continents" and the position "keep classes and class abilities as close as possible to Everquest/Vanguard". Note that I agree in part with both positions but they are inconsistent.

    It is a much *larger* world with no class abilities allowing instant travel. If they *must* be there either because "they encourage socialization" or "EQ had them" or "well we don't want the world to be *that* large" ....limit them, as in the user can go only between fixed points on a grid of travel locations. Ideally a druid or mage couldn't use a mage or druid location until he or she had been there and learned it.


    This post was edited by dorotea at April 20, 2019 8:17 AM PDT
    • 223 posts
    April 20, 2019 8:30 AM PDT

    EppE said:

    From the arguments on time to travel you can see the community is divided on many topics, but even with that VR would be stupid to not look at other top MMO's and ask themselves which features they could implement or take and alter to make better. If you completely ignore every other MMO because it appeals to the masses or is too easy, you're going to overlook possible features, no matter how small, that could be improvements to your game.

     

    Everyone needs to stop being so black and white around here.

    One has to understand that Brad and VR in general have years of experience in development and like many of our community members, years of experience playing other games. This is a niche game and has been from the start and any "improvement" could be someone's dislike. VR's game concept is already under way, tweaks may be dome, many features that some people like will be implemented and others will not. There are things I personally don't like but have to accept and move.

    By no means is your imput not inportant so please don't take it that way since we are a community, and we all want a kick ass fun time.


    This post was edited by Yaladan at April 20, 2019 8:30 AM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 20, 2019 8:46 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    ((I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.))

     

    I agree. I see a great inherent contradiction between the position of "large world - no rapid travel other than between continents" and the position "keep classes and class abilities as close as possible to Everquest/Vanguard". Note that I agree in part with both positions but they are inconsistent.

    It is a much *larger* world with no class abilities allowing instant travel. If they *must* be there either because "they encourage socialization" or "EQ had them" or "well we don't want the world to be *that* large" ....limit them, as in the user can go only between fixed points on a grid of travel locations. Ideally a druid or mage couldn't use a mage or druid location until he or she had been there and learned it.

    Why is it fair that a caster is weak, cant carry as much and can easily get one shot while a melee often does not have this issue? Why is it fair a melee can avoid better than a caster?

    We have to be careful about trying to tit for tat balance, this is where we end up with mainstream idealog (ie every class can do everything because it would be unfair for one class to do something that another can't).

    • 223 posts
    April 20, 2019 9:38 AM PDT

    Tanix said:

    dorotea said:

    ((I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.))

     

    I agree. I see a great inherent contradiction between the position of "large world - no rapid travel other than between continents" and the position "keep classes and class abilities as close as possible to Everquest/Vanguard". Note that I agree in part with both positions but they are inconsistent.

    It is a much *larger* world with no class abilities allowing instant travel. If they *must* be there either because "they encourage socialization" or "EQ had them" or "well we don't want the world to be *that* large" ....limit them, as in the user can go only between fixed points on a grid of travel locations. Ideally a druid or mage couldn't use a mage or druid location until he or she had been there and learned it.

    Why is it fair that a caster is weak, cant carry as much and can easily get one shot while a melee often does not have this issue? Why is it fair a melee can avoid better than a caster?

    We have to be careful about trying to tit for tat balance, this is where we end up with mainstream idealog (ie every class can do everything because it would be unfair for one class to do something that another can't).

    I agree with you there Tanix, In EQ my mai was a wizard and all the friends I made was due to my ability to teleport people around and evac, not necessarily my DPS. Once everyone was able to teleport everywhere I was replaced by other DPS classes when lfg and became a ghost of a character in general. 

    • 1315 posts
    April 20, 2019 1:16 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    dorotea said:

    ((I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.))

     

    I agree. I see a great inherent contradiction between the position of "large world - no rapid travel other than between continents" and the position "keep classes and class abilities as close as possible to Everquest/Vanguard". Note that I agree in part with both positions but they are inconsistent.

    It is a much *larger* world with no class abilities allowing instant travel. If they *must* be there either because "they encourage socialization" or "EQ had them" or "well we don't want the world to be *that* large" ....limit them, as in the user can go only between fixed points on a grid of travel locations. Ideally a druid or mage couldn't use a mage or druid location until he or she had been there and learned it.

    Why is it fair that a caster is weak, cant carry as much and can easily get one shot while a melee often does not have this issue? Why is it fair a melee can avoid better than a caster?

    We have to be careful about trying to tit for tat balance, this is where we end up with mainstream idealog (ie every class can do everything because it would be unfair for one class to do something that another can't).

     

    I am not certain that there is much of a difference between being killed in 4-8 hits verse being killed in 6-12 by a real mob. Melee DPS never really had much more HP than casters and unless you were a tank in full plate the mitigation was virtually not noticeable between chain, leather and cloth. Neither group could kill a dark blue in melee range but casters could kite so getting hit wasn't important other than letting you screw up a little. Then add in the fact that the only time a caster got hit in a group is when they were playing bad or happened to be the one a random add agroed on its even less relevant. For elemental damage sometimes the casters even had an advantage.

    We can go back and forth about EQ class balance which was never ever balanced and was in a constant state of flux between each patches buffs and nerfs.

    The really point though is if we are looking at adding obstacles what is the rational that pure caster should have a self only teleport to their bind location while the non pure caster classes do not. That is giving up an opportunity for added challenge for everyone and breaks up the needs and desires of the group.

    Assuming everyone only has 2 hours to play and it takes 10 minutes to run to a dungeon from the group up location, then 10 minutes to fight your way to your camp leaving you with 100 more minutes to play. A caster has 100 minutes that they can stay at the camp as they can just recall back to their bind location not only increasing their play efficiency but also avoiding the danger in leaving a dungeon. Mean while the non pure casters must stop after 80 minutes in order to fight their way back to the entrance then walk their way back to end their session at 2 hours. Rationally training to zone just to get out quickly should be considered a faux pas as its just inconsiderate.

    Giving caster recall is just a way to avoid content. Advocating for a few classes to have QoL advantages is worse than asking for easy mode, its asking for easy mode just for yourself. Its better for it to remain a limited use group ability. Personally I would make it a summoner skill and maybe a bard or necro skill depending on how its flavored and then only to a specific point near the entrance to the dungeon. If one person has to run everyone should have to.

     

    • 223 posts
    April 20, 2019 1:34 PM PDT

    Trasak said:

    Tanix said:

    dorotea said:

    ((I never understood how it was fair for all full casters to get gate. They didn't need it for balance reasons and flavor wise it was only slightly justifiable. If ports remain I kinda hope only druids and wizards have them and then only from one fixed point to another fixed point rather than from anywhere to a fixed point.))

     

    I agree. I see a great inherent contradiction between the position of "large world - no rapid travel other than between continents" and the position "keep classes and class abilities as close as possible to Everquest/Vanguard". Note that I agree in part with both positions but they are inconsistent.

    It is a much *larger* world with no class abilities allowing instant travel. If they *must* be there either because "they encourage socialization" or "EQ had them" or "well we don't want the world to be *that* large" ....limit them, as in the user can go only between fixed points on a grid of travel locations. Ideally a druid or mage couldn't use a mage or druid location until he or she had been there and learned it.

    Why is it fair that a caster is weak, cant carry as much and can easily get one shot while a melee often does not have this issue? Why is it fair a melee can avoid better than a caster?

    We have to be careful about trying to tit for tat balance, this is where we end up with mainstream idealog (ie every class can do everything because it would be unfair for one class to do something that another can't).

     

     

    I am not certain that there is much of a difference between being killed in 4-8 hits verse being killed in 6-12 by a real mob. Melee DPS never really had much more HP than casters and unless you were a tank in full plate the mitigation was virtually not noticeable between chain, leather and cloth. Neither group could kill a dark blue in melee range but casters could kite so getting hit wasn't important other than letting you screw up a little. Then add in the fact that the only time a caster got hit in a group is when they were playing bad or happened to be the one a random add agroed on its even less relevant. For elemental damage sometimes the casters even had an advantage.

    We can go back and forth about EQ class balance which was never ever balanced and was in a constant state of flux between each patches buffs and nerfs.

    The really point though is if we are looking at adding obstacles what is the rational that pure caster should have a self only teleport to their bind location while the non pure caster classes do not. That is giving up an opportunity for added challenge for everyone and breaks up the needs and desires of the group.

    Assuming everyone only has 2 hours to play and it takes 10 minutes to run to a dungeon from the group up location, then 10 minutes to fight your way to your camp leaving you with 100 more minutes to play. A caster has 100 minutes that they can stay at the camp as they can just recall back to their bind location not only increasing their play efficiency but also avoiding the danger in leaving a dungeon. Mean while the non pure casters must stop after 80 minutes in order to fight their way back to the entrance then walk their way back to end their session at 2 hours. Rationally training to zone just to get out quickly should be considered a faux pas as its just inconsiderate.

    Giving caster recall is just a way to avoid content. Advocating for a few classes to have QoL advantages is worse than asking for easy mode, its asking for easy mode just for yourself. Its better for it to remain a limited use group ability. Personally I would make it a summoner skill and maybe a bard or necro skill depending on how its flavored and then only to a specific point near the entrance to the dungeon. If one person has to run everyone should have to.

     

     

    Yes! Thas the reason people wanted a wizad or druid friend in EQ to help transport everyone, there was many long nights when I was the firs and last to go in a raid that required a portal by a wizard, I never minded since it came with the territory and responsibility. I would even help other guilds when the didnt have a wizard on hand. Squishy but usefull.

    • 1785 posts
    April 20, 2019 3:41 PM PDT

    EppE said:

    From the arguments on time to travel you can see the community is divided on many topics, but even with that VR would be stupid to not look at other top MMO's and ask themselves which features they could implement or take and alter to make better. If you completely ignore every other MMO because it appeals to the masses or is too easy, you're going to overlook possible features, no matter how small, that could be improvements to your game.

     

    Everyone needs to stop being so black and white around here.

    Well said EppE - and from the statements that VR and team have made over the past two years, I think this is truly what they are trying to accomplish.  They have a vision they want to adhere to, but they've said repeatedly they aren't trying to remake EQ or any other game.  Ultimately, they're going to implement the systems that they think will work best for the experience they're wanting to build - and I don't think they've taken anything off the table.

    I feel fairly confident in saying that those of us who are willing look for innovative solutions and who value the final experience more than the individual systems will be far more pleased with the end product of Pantheon than the people who only see things in black and white.

    I suppose we'll have to wait and see whether I'm right about that during alpha and beta though :)

    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 10:27 AM PDT

    Trasak said:

    I am not certain that there is much of a difference between being killed in 4-8 hits verse being killed in 6-12 by a real mob.

     

    Casters tended to be one shot, maybe two in many mobs, so there was a big difference. A melee had avoidance, mitigation through heavier armor and skills which would allow them to last out a bit longer. It was noticeable to be honest. I remember watching a necro over agro the Frenzy Ghoul in EQ in a single round go down while any melee would last a 2-3 three rounds (allowing them to be healed, a stun to go off, a FD to be used, etc…).

     

    Point is, casters were squishy in EQ, big time.(well, until AA's cheated and gave melee based skills to casters, but that is a different argument).

     

    Trasak said:

    Melee DPS never really had much more HP than casters and unless you were a tank in full plate the mitigation was virtually not noticeable between chain, leather and cloth. Neither group could kill a dark blue in melee range but casters could kite so getting hit wasn't important other than letting you screw up a little. Then add in the fact that the only time a caster got hit in a group is when they were playing bad or happened to be the one a random add agroed on its even less relevant. For elemental damage sometimes the casters even had an advantage.

     

    Monks had avoidance (this is why they could rampage tank raids and were common MT’s for groups). Rogues also had that avoidance which gave them benefit. There was a noticable difference between mitigation of that of leather, chain and plat. Cloth wasn’t much of a mitigation and the fact was that caster mitigation skills were capped, so even if they could wear plate, it wouldn’t help much (not to mention, weight being a game factor decreased any avoidance and put penalties on such, ie... if you were over weight, you were crit every hit... hence another reason why weight should be a factor in the game).

     

    The differences were between the calculations of skills and armor that worked in conjunction to provide a more defensive means to an NPC attacks. This is why it was very difficult to kite as most casters would be one shot (or near death) if they were ever touched by a mob.

     

    Trasak said:

    We can go back and forth about EQ class balance which was never ever balanced and was in a constant state of flux between each patches buffs and nerfs.

    Classes originally weren’t supposed to be balanced between each other, they were balanced to their skills and focuses. My point is that a class within itself should balance to its own skills, not with that specifically of another class. A caster having ranged damage was balanced out by mana usage. This is why even the best kiting players could only take on a certain level of mob.

     

    Trasak said:

    The really point though is if we are looking at adding obstacles what is the rational that pure caster should have a self only teleport to their bind location while the non pure caster classes do not. That is giving up an opportunity for added challenge for everyone and breaks up the needs and desires of the group.

     

    Well, I think if a caster can’t see around them (has to look at a book because they are intently reading and meditating to memorize their spells), and a caster is a “squishy one hit wonder”, that this makes “medding” combined with a limited mana resource a good balance.

     

    I don’t care about “caster to melee” balance exactly, more of my focus is internal to each class. The poster who argued for “hearth stones” didn’t make an internal argument of balance to the melee class, they made a typical class envy argument of “But they have it! Why can’t I?” and those types of arguments are exactly how many mainstream classes ended up being homogenized.

     

    Trasak said:

    Assuming everyone only has 2 hours to play and it takes 10 minutes to run to a dungeon from the group up location, then 10 minutes to fight your way to your camp leaving you with 100 more minutes to play. A caster has 100 minutes that they can stay at the camp as they can just recall back to their bind location not only increasing their play efficiency but also avoiding the danger in leaving a dungeon. Mean while the non pure casters must stop after 80 minutes in order to fight their way back to the entrance then walk their way back to end their session at 2 hours. Rationally training to zone just to get out quickly should be considered a faux pas as its just inconsiderate.

     

    I don’t care about how long a person has to play. This is a mainstream design concept and it is the same envy based design of tit for tat, equality in outcome design of game play that leads us to the bland pointless mainstream games of today. Your RL does not matter in game play, no such consideration should be afforded to that reasoning.

     

    The solution to your problem is this. If you like that sort of benefit, play a caster. See, we solved the problem, but this is not what I think you desire. What you seem to be arguing for is that you have the class you want to play and they should develop all the QoL things you want of the class while not forcing you to choose and balance your decision.

     

    Trasak said:

    Giving caster recall is just a way to avoid content. Advocating for a few classes to have QoL advantages is worse than asking for easy mode, its asking for easy mode just for yourself. Its better for it to remain a limited use group ability. Personally I would make it a summoner skill and maybe a bard or necro skill depending on how its flavored and then only to a specific point near the entrance to the dungeon. If one person has to run everyone should have to.

     

    Ah, ok.. so is SoW, any run speed, invis, ports, etc… right? That is what you are getting to with your argument of extremes? Since some classes have some elements to “circumvent” content, then all should right?

    Brilliant, lets give every class the same spells, same skills, same abilities. Then everyone will be happy!

    This is a mainstream design argument, that if all can not be equal in outcome, then somehow someone is being short changed.

     


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 21, 2019 10:32 AM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    April 21, 2019 1:43 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    Trasak said:

    We can go back and forth about EQ class balance which was never ever balanced and was in a constant state of flux between each patches buffs and nerfs.

    Classes originally weren’t supposed to be balanced between each other, they were balanced to their skills and focuses. My point is that a class within itself should balance to its own skills, not with that specifically of another class. A caster having ranged damage was balanced out by mana usage. This is why even the best kiting players could only take on a certain level of mob.

     

    in his best 300 impression This is Pantheon!!!

    Really though, don't care about EQ at all.

    Tanix said:

    I don’t care about how long a person has to play. This is a mainstream design concept and it is the same envy based design of tit for tat, equality in outcome design of game play that leads us to the bland pointless mainstream games of today. Your RL does not matter in game play, no such consideration should be afforded to that reasoning.

     

    I can see #communitydoesnotmattertoTanix. Its a group based game. The game session starts when you group up and ends when everyone is safely back. If you leave your group before everyone has gotten out then you are a bad group mate.



    Tanix said:

    Ah, ok.. so is SoW, any run speed, invis, ports, etc… right? That is what you are getting to with your argument of extremes? Since some classes have some elements to “circumvent” content, then all should right?

    Brilliant, lets give every class the same spells, same skills, same abilities. Then everyone will be happy!

    This is a mainstream design argument, that if all can not be equal in outcome, then somehow someone is being short changed.



    This is another example of you flying off the handle all the way to an extreme. I never suggested any of that drivel and you know it. You are just making crap up to be argumentative and deliberately obtuse. I am specifically calling out recall as not needed. Notice that it has not even shown up on any of the player reveals so it may not even be in the game to start with so this discussion is pointless.

    Ill just point out that you are contradicting yourself in this own thread. You claim you want obstacles then endlessly defend one of the biggest tools to avoid obstacles.

     

    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 2:01 PM PDT

    ...


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 21, 2019 9:46 PM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    April 21, 2019 2:07 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    here let me try this modern aregumentative approach:

    #gobacktellreditandtwitterfolkwhyyouareupsetbecauseIdon'tcareaboutmainstreamsocialgenerationdefectiveargumentsbasedonemotoinaltripeandsheepishnarccisism

    #mainstreamrocks!

    #areyoumadbro?

    /wave

    Slightly more coherent then most of your arguments I agree, but it seems counter to what you usually pitch.


    This post was edited by Trasak at April 21, 2019 2:08 PM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 2:12 PM PDT

     

    ...


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 21, 2019 9:46 PM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    April 21, 2019 2:57 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    Trasak

    Either be honest to the discussion or don't bother responding to me. IF you are going to insult, dismiss, and straw man, then go argue with someone else. I know you are mad at me which is why you white knighted in other threads, which is also why you mispelled my name from day one, etc..

    1. I always try and think my responses through before posting though I do occasionally externally processes so some of my thoughts come out half baked.

    2. I do not agree with the concept of straw man arguments as a means to dismiss someones opinion. I also think you over use the term and use it incorrectly at times. If you find the language and structure I have used in this thread as insulting then you should review your own comments and you will notice that I was attempting to copy your structure in this thread which is a departure from my standard writing style.

    3. You may call it white knighting but I considered it as a way for me to be supportive of fellow community members who have been on the receiving end of your negative and aggressive posts when they neither asked for it nor deserved such treatment.

    4. Funny story, I originally read your name as Tranix not Tanix. I was reading without my glasses on and some how it got stuck in my head that way for a few weeks. I've since figured it out.



    Tanix said:

    Grow up and be an adult, you don't have to like my opinions, but for the love of sanity stop acting like an emotional narcicistic, it is getting a bit tiring. If you want to attend to my comments, attend to the details, counter them specifically, but don't make an accusation, not quote it and then proclaim victory, it is not arguing, it is petty emotional bantering.

    So either respond like an adult or run along, I have no desire to attend to childish antics.

    1. Growing up and being an adult are very nebulous concepts, but I get the fact that you are trying to label me in a derogatory manor. It is exhausting to have someone tear apart everything you write and spin it out of context into a way that suits them.

    2. I actually don't like breaking down an entire post bit by bit. I comes across as very aggressive and nit picky. I often skip over sections that I feel are either a rabbit hole of personal opinions, I don't have anything relevant to add, or are blatantly false or opinions represented as fact and I am choosing not to get dragged in. Likewise over quoting someone is also a very aggressive posting method and frankly takes up too much screen space. Either way I feel it is rude to try and “counter” opinions as they are opinions and everyone is entitled to them.

    3. I believe I have but I suppose perception is everything.

     

     

     

    • 372 posts
    April 21, 2019 4:10 PM PDT

    General Rules to follow- The following will not be tolerated:

    1) Flaming or insulting other forum members

    6) Derailing a thread's topic (attempts to get the post back on track will be made before it is moderated, cleaned up or closed)



    Let's go back to discussing the topic rather than whatever is happening here <3