Should VR focus on balancing all classes to be just as competant at killing a single mob, or should they ensure that some classes will be better than others in a 1v1 encounter but all classes will mater when engaging on the hardest of battles?
No.
Classes cannot be and should not be balanced with respect solo killing of a single mob. If they are, then this game goes from a group focused/oriented game to just another pile of crap game touting itself as an MMO.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. VR should not deliberately design any content to be engaged by any single player or any single class. Develop the content and let the players decide if they are capable of handling it. But just by the very nature of the world some content, even when not deliberately designed to be engaged by a solo player, can and will be soloable by one or more classes. Why? Well its simple: Location being one and proximity to other mobs being the other. A bear out in the woods can be considered soloable content. Its by itself, it doesn't have social aggro, the snake nearby won't give a flip if someone attacks the bear. The bandit hut nearby though? Yeah, social aggro would/could be an issue. Down in a dungeon? Location is a huge factor as things are packed closer together, you have less room to maneuver.
Im with vandraad and assume this is already established as "the vision" (tm). It looks like they have amended things in order to implement solo content liberally, but if that starts to cause "class balancing" effect, maybe we should scrap the solo content acquiescence. Would be another give them an inch and they take a mile scenario.
No.
No.
If you even need to ask, merely ask about this, you're part of the problem :)
(which is why i won't even explain, it's just too late for that boat. It's sailed, the world over)
Now will they do balancing? Most likely, yes; if not definitely.
We knew that when they kept "wondering" out loud about it, later on asking in the open (they had Kilsin make a relative thread) about PvP realms. That right there told one everything. Or should have. Sorry to break it to you, but..
You make of that what you will.
Definitely NO balancing when it comes to killing monsters or doing tasks like healing. There should be some "balancing" but in a way different sense - to ensure that all classes are desirable. Classes should be complementary to one another and excel in very narrow specialisation.
Solo-mobs (trying to stay with the 1ish word)
I think there is room for “solo” mobs that are balanced more based on what a single “average character” (see the dps and sudo HP of a dps, healer and tank divided by 3) can do solo. Obviously some classes will have abilities that either can burn them down before taking damage or useful CC that will make it fairly easy to solo the mob if there is plenty of room. These mobs would be most of the wandering adds in dungeons and in outside areas. The majority of the mobs in game though would be balanced around fighting one at a time by a full group of players.
I would also only make a solo mob give 1/10th the exp of a group mob and virtually no loot.
Hard no. Balancing classes against solo mobs edges dangerously close to changing a socially centric game into just another socially optional game. The market is inundated with those type of games as it is. Though I do think that every class should matter and be viable in a group or raid setting. Each class should have something of value to bring to the table in those instances.
Absolutely not in terms of soloing, for the reasons others have outlined. But classes should (and surely will) be "balanced" in terms of not making any one class objectively better than another. Of course different classes will do better or worse in different situations, which is part of the magic of a good mmo. But every class should bring something meaningful to the table in group play.
Trasak said:Solo-mobs (trying to stay with the 1ish word)
I think there is room for “solo” mobs that are balanced more based on what a single “average character” (see the dps and sudo HP of a dps, healer and tank divided by 3) can do solo. Obviously some classes will have abilities that either can burn them down before taking damage or useful CC that will make it fairly easy to solo the mob if there is plenty of room. These mobs would be most of the wandering adds in dungeons and in outside areas. The majority of the mobs in game though would be balanced around fighting one at a time by a full group of players.
I would also only make a solo mob give 1/10th the exp of a group mob and virtually no loot.
I never said "solo-mobs" I said, should it be balanced that each class is as competant at killing a single mob as all other classes.
Also, just to clarify, I'm solidly in the NO boat on this one. I think some classes should stuggle mightily in killing a single mob, while other classes would do fine at it. But then give those classes two mobs at the same time and the results could be reversed.
Take a cleric and a wizard for example:
Vs. a single mob the wizard will be done in 7 seconds, quite possibly not even getting hit by the mob once. The cleric is standing ther toe to toe with the mob for a good 5 minutes. Before eventually succeding.
Vs. 2 mobs at once. The cleric will stand there for 8 minutes still coming away victorious. The wizard might actually die.
Kittik said:Trasak said:Solo-mobs (trying to stay with the 1ish word)
I think there is room for “solo” mobs that are balanced more based on what a single “average character” (see the dps and sudo HP of a dps, healer and tank divided by 3) can do solo. Obviously some classes will have abilities that either can burn them down before taking damage or useful CC that will make it fairly easy to solo the mob if there is plenty of room. These mobs would be most of the wandering adds in dungeons and in outside areas. The majority of the mobs in game though would be balanced around fighting one at a time by a full group of players.
I would also only make a solo mob give 1/10th the exp of a group mob and virtually no loot.
I never said "solo-mobs" I said, should it be balanced that each class is as competant at killing a single mob as all other classes.
Also, just to clarify, I'm solidly in the NO boat on this one. I think some classes should stuggle mightily in killing a single mob, while other classes would do fine at it. But then give those classes two mobs at the same time and the results could be reversed.
Take a cleric and a wizard for example:
Vs. a single mob the wizard will be done in 7 seconds, quite possibly not even getting hit by the mob once. The cleric is standing ther toe to toe with the mob for a good 5 minutes. Before eventually succeding.
Vs. 2 mobs at once. The cleric will stand there for 8 minutes still coming away victorious. The wizard might actually die.
Bingo. And the class thats hardest to solo anything with gets to be unicorns, like the race/class combos who dont follow the prefered path.
I guess I was saying that no-one should be able to solo an equal level group mob. On the other hand everyone would likely be able to solo single-player mobs though not at the same speed as each other so no deliberate balancing across the classes. The single-player mobs would be low density, low exp and low loot to the point that no one would choose to fight them over joining a group and killing group mobs.
Trasak said:
I guess I was saying that no-one should be able to solo an equal level group mob. On the other hand everyone would likely be able to solo single-player mobs though not at the same speed as each other so no deliberate balancing across the classes. The single-player mobs would be low density, low exp and low loot to the point that no one would choose to fight them over joining a group and killing group mobs.
Makes sense. Wonder if they will implement a "dot" system like VG had?
It is against the rules of this forum to post one word responses.
There should be no such thing as solo mobs vs group mobs. There should just be mobs, and people will do them when and how they can. If a level 4 summoner can kill a mob that would require a monk to be level 6, that's great, because the monk will be better than the summoner at other things in other situations. Balance via imbalance is paramount. Otherwise we end up with a cookie cutter game like every other, where all they did to balance the game was make every classess offense/defense/utility ratings add up to the same number. We've been down that road before, we know exactly where it leads.
Kittik said:Should VR focus on balancing all classes to be just as competant at killing a single mob,
No, However if those classes learn how to figure out how to solo some things, that is a sense of accomplishment to class proficiency "Seven with one blow!" - like the old fairy tale. When trying to solo and taking hits the warrior wishes they were a caster because they could do more damage for hope before they die and the caster wishes they were a warrior because they would not die so fast.
Kittik said:or should they ensure that some classes will be better than others in a 1v1 encounter but all classes will mater when engaging on the hardest of battles?
Not that some classes will be better, just that some will handle a 1v1 encounter differently- IF they can handle the encounter at all, depending on levels. They will not be able to go to the good places, but may have to stay near town or newbie yards to get tradskill stuffs or work on skills.
On the hardest of battles all classes will matter, but not all "ideal" classes will be necessary for this is where strategy comes in. Full group no healer? strat is : stick and move, look for a spot for necessary down time before we move again- can't stay too long because of spawns and make sure we have bandages.
I agree with the consensus, classes should not be balanced. Rift is a prime example of what happens when you have too much balance. You end up having clerics DPS, Wizards healing and Rogues tanking. The entire spectrum of the game is completely out of whack. Everquest went back and forth over the years of which classes were best DPS wise, first it was Rogue's then it was Wizards, Necros, then Monks, then zerkers. It was a crap shoot. Each expansion changed things up a little bit and I think that makes for a better system than anything. Giving each classes chances to shine at different times. It wasn't enough of an adjustment to make you want to switch your character, it was just enough to give the other classes some time on top.
As for tanking balances, I don't necessarily think that should be even either. I think the types of encounters should dictate what classes shine the best. Maybe one particular target takes more damage from melee and the more melee heavy tank generates more aggro, another target is much weaker against tanks that have high AC, another target may be prone to spell attacks making a spell casting tank more prevelant.
As for healers, it's harder to define them because mostly it has been the Cleric as the focal point of healing, with druids and shaman's being able to heal well just not as great as the cleric. But when you mixed all three they made exceptional healing because of heal over time, large slow heals, smaller spot heals.
All these things factor in and it shouldn't be reduced to one definitive outcome. It should change from target to target or area to area. Keeping everyone useful and feeling important.
Keno Monster said:It is against the rules of this forum to post one word responses.
There should be no such thing as solo mobs vs group mobs. There should just be mobs, and people will do them when and how they can. If a level 4 summoner can kill a mob that would require a monk to be level 6, that's great, because the monk will be better than the summoner at other things in other situations. Balance via imbalance is paramount. Otherwise we end up with a cookie cutter game like every other, where all they did to balance the game was make every classess offense/defense/utility ratings add up to the same number. We've been down that road before, we know exactly where it leads.
What road are you talking about? Having variation in mob difficulty is key to a rewarding game. Rewarding group combat over solo combat is key to a social group based game. Excluding solo content entirely shuts out an entire style of play and limits the accessibility of the game for players who can only log on for short snip-its of time. The only “road” I have seen is where a few OP classes can solo everything, negating the point of groups.
As far as balancing classes build points across offense/defense/utility that is called game design. If you don't do it you end up with +50% as the one or two overpowered classes and a tiny fraction as the under powered classes. The key is properly assessing the build point value of different offensive, defensive and utility powers such that each class does something different and has an effective and needed focus that fulfills one of the 4 group roles.
Keno Monster said:There should be no such thing as solo mobs vs group mobs. There should just be mobs, and people will do them when and how they can.
Well devs already stated that they are designing the game with group play in mind only - they won't purpousefuly prevent solo play, but they will not create anything solely for soloers.
Trasak said:
I guess I was saying that no-one should be able to solo an equal level group mob. On the other hand everyone would likely be able to solo single-player mobs though not at the same speed as each other so no deliberate balancing across the classes. The single-player mobs would be low density, low exp and low loot to the point that no one would choose to fight them over joining a group and killing group mobs.
Devs have clearly stated they will not actually create mobs that are meant to be soloed, everything will be made with the game to be group oriented but if you find a way to kill it by yourself than you killed it but it wasnt becuase they intended it to be soloed you simply were good enough to do so.
I'm pro-grouping, wherever possible. I think that each mob disposition should require a group working together, effectively, applying and exploiting status effects, to take down efficiently.
However.. so far, in every public combat video since 2016, Pantheon has something EQ1 does not have, and that is percentage-based out-of-combat health and mana regeneration.
So? It changes everything, on the subject of solo'ing vs. grouping. The recovery time for any class is 2-3 minutes max, from zero, currently.
Go and watch the videos. With clarity (or whatever they call it) it's even faster, but so far, all the videos shown have been shown with that feature.
Now, it's true, they could have spent the last ~3+ years testing this, and their intention is, on the very last day of beta, before launch, to switch to fixed-value out-of-combat health and mana regeneration, like EQ1 had, and invalidate all the testing they've done for all those previous years. Completely possible.
I think that's unlikely. So, with that premise in mind:
This changes everything about how combat is balanced. Time-to-kill and, likely, respawn are both much shorter in duration, as a result. Why is that?
When you know you can recover 50% of your health or mana in less than 90 seconds, WITHOUT a healer or mana regen or any other thing? There's far less resource management at play. Everyone throws everything they have at the creature, because recovery is so quick.
Now, we've known since the last big class reveal that certain classes would have in-combat-only resources to make and consume. What does this have to do with solo'ing? It means those 9 classes that have an in-combat resource become more effective the longer they're in combat. Presuming they're pressing the right buttons, of course.
Yet, being out of combat (solo or otherwise) then lets them recover their health and mana at a tremendous (and always predictable) rate, regardless of level, compared to EQ1.
IMO, based on the current publicly demonstrated design goals, the pace of combat will be amplified, both by in combat resource generation, as well as out of combat percentage based regeneration. Any class that can not die to an XP-bearing foe, predictably, will want to solo, everything, all the time, unless they change at least one thing:
The XP you get is based on your group size, not on the mob level alone. That means, if you solo creatures? You get less XP than in a group, even if you're consuming at-level group-intended content. You never get the full XP that a group would get, solo, regardless of how hard the mob is to you.
The icing on the cake? If the non-quest, non-raw, non-tradeskill loot you get? Also based on being in a group. In that you don't get group-loot if you walk up and one shot a creature, solo. Sure, you can get a quest update, or tradeskill loot, but not what is intended to be consumed by a group.
A quick mathematical example. Even-con, at level, grants 10 XP solo. In a full group? Same mob grants 70+XP to each member. Whatever value is required to attract people without question. At least, that's how I would do it.
Who would ever want to solo, under those conditions? You'd have to be able to kill even-con at-level mobs at least 6 times faster than a group, to get the same XP. Doesn't stop people from solo'ing, they just get to advance 6 times slower than being in a group. That way, I don't particularly care who can or can't solo, as the entire focus of the game is: get in a group as quickly as possible, no matter what.
Another idea that just came to mind while typing this out.. grant a bonus to percentage based out-of-combat health/mana regeneration based on group size. Default is say.. 1% per tick, but you get an additional 1% per tick for every additional group member. (For reference, the current video-demonstrated rate is 4-6% per tick, some variation based on regen buffs or clarity buffs)
It would change the recovery time to gain back 50% from 5 minutes (1% / solo) to 50 seconds (6% / with a full group). You could tune this value based on TTK and respawn rate design goals, but I don't think going above 6% per tick would be a very good idea.. Even if you granted only 0.5% per additional group member, 50% recovery time in a full group would be only 85 seconds.
If you want people to group, make it the most efficient, most rewarding, most social and most fun. If you grant an individual player a groups-worth of XP by killing a mob solo? You will have a game filled with solo'ers, and the problem will be amplified by both in-combat resource generation, as well as out-of-combat percentage based regeneration. That's my opinion. :)
Trasak said:Keno Monster said:It is against the rules of this forum to post one word responses.
There should be no such thing as solo mobs vs group mobs. There should just be mobs, and people will do them when and how they can. If a level 4 summoner can kill a mob that would require a monk to be level 6, that's great, because the monk will be better than the summoner at other things in other situations. Balance via imbalance is paramount. Otherwise we end up with a cookie cutter game like every other, where all they did to balance the game was make every classess offense/defense/utility ratings add up to the same number. We've been down that road before, we know exactly where it leads.
What road are you talking about? Having variation in mob difficulty is key to a rewarding game. Rewarding group combat over solo combat is key to a social group based game. Excluding solo content entirely shuts out an entire style of play and limits the accessibility of the game for players who can only log on for short snip-its of time.
You can have variation in encounter difficulty without specifically designing that encounter to be done by a solo character, a duo, a trio, a full group, etc. There should be no marker or indicator that says "this is an elite mob and therefore you should bring a group". It should just be the mob, and people will figure it out. This is supposed to be a virtual world.
Trasak said:
The only “road” I have seen is where a few OP classes can solo everything, negating the point of groups.
Seriously? That's the only one? That sure as hell wasn't how EQ or Vanguard worked.
Trasak said:
As far as balancing classes build points across offense/defense/utility that is called game design. If you don't do it you end up with +50% as the one or two overpowered classes and a tiny fraction as the under powered classes. The key is properly assessing the build point value of different offensive, defensive and utility powers such that each class does something different and has an effective and needed focus that fulfills one of the 4 group roles.
I completely disagree. Classes will be underpowered only if what they are better at than other classes doesn't make up a meaningful portion of the game. Wizards in EQ were *garbage* in groups, and arguably the single best raid class in the game. Even though raids were much fewer and farther between for most people, wizards were still balanced, despite the fact they were not a desired class in other situations. There are many examples of this. The key is not "point values", the key is making sure that if a class is underpowered most of the time overall, they are overpowered at something else that happens less often but is more important. Necros and Druids in EQ were solo powerhouses with tons of utility, but weren't particularly desirable during raids. Not every class should be good at everything. If you pick a solo class, you should expect it to not perform as well in a raid, etc, etc, etc. That is how balance via imbalance is achieved. All the casters that raced out to 50 in EQ then had to sit there and wait because they couldn't do a damn thing in lower guk without tanks and pullers. And then when your dungeon group went their separate ways, the necro could go kill hill giants, while the monk was left trying to solo greens, and that_was_okay. This is how class interdependence is achieved. This is what adds nuance to raid compositions and guild rosters.
Also screw these awful forums, they can't even maintain the same font and font size in the same post. **** is agonizing.
vjek said:I'm pro-grouping, wherever possible. I think that each mob disposition should require a group working together, effectively, applying and exploiting status effects, to take down efficiently.
However.. so far, in every public combat video since 2016, Pantheon has something EQ1 does not have, and that is percentage-based out-of-combat health and mana regeneration.
So? It changes everything, on the subject of solo'ing vs. grouping. The recovery time for any class is 2-3 minutes max, from zero, currently.
Go and watch the videos. With clarity (or whatever they call it) it's even faster, but so far, all the videos shown have been shown with that feature.
Now, it's true, they could have spent the last ~3+ years testing this, and their intention is, on the very last day of beta, before launch, to switch to fixed-value out-of-combat health and mana regeneration, like EQ1 had, and invalidate all the testing they've done for all those previous years. Completely possible.
I think that's unlikely. So, with that premise in mind:
This changes everything about how combat is balanced. Time-to-kill and, likely, respawn are both much shorter in duration, as a result. Why is that?
When you know you can recover 50% of your health or mana in less than 90 seconds, WITHOUT a healer or mana regen or any other thing? There's far less resource management at play. Everyone throws everything they have at the creature, because recovery is so quick.
Now, we've known since the last big class reveal that certain classes would have in-combat-only resources to make and consume. What does this have to do with solo'ing? It means those 9 classes that have an in-combat resource become more effective the longer they're in combat. Presuming they're pressing the right buttons, of course.
Yet, being out of combat (solo or otherwise) then lets them recover their health and mana at a tremendous (and always predictable) rate, regardless of level, compared to EQ1.
IMO, based on the current publicly demonstrated design goals, the pace of combat will be amplified, both by in combat resource generation, as well as out of combat percentage based regeneration. Any class that can not die to an XP-bearing foe, predictably, will want to solo, everything, all the time, unless they change at least one thing:
The XP you get is based on your group size, not on the mob level alone. That means, if you solo creatures? You get less XP than in a group, even if you're consuming at-level group-intended content. You never get the full XP that a group would get, solo, regardless of how hard the mob is to you.
The icing on the cake? If the non-quest, non-raw, non-tradeskill loot you get? Also based on being in a group. In that you don't get group-loot if you walk up and one shot a creature, solo. Sure, you can get a quest update, or tradeskill loot, but not what is intended to be consumed by a group.
A quick mathematical example. Even-con, at level, grants 10 XP solo. In a full group? Same mob grants 70+XP to each member. Whatever value is required to attract people without question. At least, that's how I would do it.
Who would ever want to solo, under those conditions? You'd have to be able to kill even-con at-level mobs at least 6 times faster than a group, to get the same XP. Doesn't stop people from solo'ing, they just get to advance 6 times slower than being in a group. That way, I don't particularly care who can or can't solo, as the entire focus of the game is: get in a group as quickly as possible, no matter what.
Another idea that just came to mind while typing this out.. grant a bonus to percentage based out-of-combat health/mana regeneration based on group size. Default is say.. 1% per tick, but you get an additional 1% per tick for every additional group member. (For reference, the current video-demonstrated rate is 4-6% per tick, some variation based on regen buffs or clarity buffs)
It would change the recovery time to gain back 50% from 5 minutes (1% / solo) to 50 seconds (6% / with a full group). You could tune this value based on TTK and respawn rate design goals, but I don't think going above 6% per tick would be a very good idea.. Even if you granted only 0.5% per additional group member, 50% recovery time in a full group would be only 85 seconds.
If you want people to group, make it the most efficient, most rewarding, most social and most fun. If you grant an individual player a groups-worth of XP by killing a mob solo? You will have a game filled with solo'ers, and the problem will be amplified by both in-combat resource generation, as well as out-of-combat percentage based regeneration. That's my opinion. :)
Well i do remember on a stream they said that the group buffs and such like that was to speed up the process and actually show us the content they were actually trying to show us and not just sit there and have us wait to get there mana back
Now again i could be wrong, but i think it actually would become turned down a notched so to encourage grping even more, as i think they would be something that would obviously do such a thing.