Riahuf22 said: 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 backThe percentage based out of combat regen occurs at the demonstrated video rates without any buffs active. The buffs just make them slightly faster.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.
Keno Monster said: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.
Ugg no. In the group focused Pantheon the classic EQ wizard would be a good example of crappy class design and balance. All classes that are intended to fill a group role should be able to fulfill that group role to the same magnitude but with different gameplay styles as other classes of the same archetype.
They can have abilities that make them stronger or weaker verses specific mob types and dispositions but under the average of all group content they should be interchangeable. Bring the player not the class.
Really all class design should start from the theoretical true hybrid. The damage per round is balanced against the target number of rounds Hybrid Prime would take to kill its evil doppelganger one swing before Evil Prime kills it. Then you break Hybrid Prime into Tank Prime, Healer Prime, DPS Prime and CC prime. Those templates will have different magnitudes multipliers on Hybrid Primes DPS and Sudo HP. Group mobs (preception could easilly be used to tell the challenge of a mob without have some elite flag) will be based on killing Hybrid Prime with 5 times its base DPS and HP one swing before Hybrid Prime kills the Group Mob. A second tier of mobs roughly matching Evil Hybrid Prime could be added. To keep it clear without resorting to specific minion/elite flags or stars specific models could be reserved for the weaker mobs.
The Archetype Primes will then be differentiated by style with possible intended synergies (again at a known multiplier). The exact method of say giving a tank high sudo HP could differ greatly and be more valuable in different situations be they flat mitigation, avoidance, absorption, or ultra high base HP. Over a large enough number of rounds facing all the different possible mob types and dispositions they would come out even though better or worse vs specific types and dispositions. The same will be true for DPS just the method of gearing, range, consistency and synergies would all be thematic to the actual class but again over the same fights the tanks were balanced the DPS would be roughly balanced as well.
vjek said:Riahuf22 said: 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 backThe percentage based out of combat regen occurs at the demonstrated video rates without any buffs active. The buffs just make them slightly faster.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.
In other words, the buffs aren't giving them percentage-based out-of-combat regen. It's been the demonstrated default / baseline since 2016.
I wasn't trying to say that the buffs were increasing out fo combat regen i was saying since they made the buffs group based to speed up the buffing process they probably sped up the out of combat regen to achieve the same goal of speeding things along to show all the content they were trying to show.
It is simple.
It is a group game. Most camps/areas/roaming areas should be populated with on-level group strength in mind, with some single mobs around the edges.
Outdoor areas can be a mix of more solo-friendly spreads of mobs with the more group-oriented cmps.
But, all dungeon areas should relegate soloers to the front edge of the dungeon picking off stragglers and the easiest of the mobs. Just like Lower Guk in EQ, you didn't see on-level xp'ing in LGuk solo UNLESS sticking near the zonelines or other group camps to provide a safe spot to pull and to keep roamers/surprises to a minimum.
I am referring to fully-spawned areas of course, but even when zone areas are clear due to being overly busy and camped, that really only improves your travel chances temporarily and doesn't really make it any easier to pull mobs you encounter if you still run into any.
Heck, just traversing most dangerous camp areas alone is its own mini-game of sorts, using stealth/invis/lull/charm. Those camps and dungeons SHOULD make you enter with trepidation.
In general:
If a cluster of mobs gives an on-level group a challenge, then soloers can either pick off lone mobs or split them to only get one. Maybe two if super lucky or over-leveled a tad.
If a single mob gives an on-level group a challenge for more than 10 seconds, then soloers would die to them unless they are severely over-leveled wrt the mob. And even if you succeed, the recovery downtime to do it again should make it painfully obvious that finding a group is more effective on those.
The ability for a solo player to deal with surprises, nearby aggro, runners, pats and general crap that happens in any near-on-level dungeon worthy of the name, should be very scary and tense and more often than not lead to a corpse run if they try to delve past the outer edges alone. Even a replacement player coming in who essentially acts as a soloer in getting to the group, will have trouble unless (a) the dungeon happens to be clear due to high population activity, or (b) the group comes out to escort them (and get the player who is leaving out as well)...or some CotH ability.
I simply want to say , what does it matter who what i say .. its only sbout a few i say ...Lets make this game for a few i say . those who who few really display/. for in the end we display , Hooray
Trasak said:Keno Monster said: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.
Ugg no. In the group focused Pantheon the classic EQ wizard would be a good example of crappy class design and balance. All classes that are intended to fill a group role should be able to fulfill that group role to the same magnitude but with different gameplay styles as other classes of the same archetype.
They can have abilities that make them stronger or weaker verses specific mob types and dispositions but under the average of all group content they should be interchangeable. Bring the player not the class.
Really all class design should start from the theoretical true hybrid. The damage per round is balanced against the target number of rounds Hybrid Prime would take to kill its evil doppelganger one swing before Evil Prime kills it. Then you break Hybrid Prime into Tank Prime, Healer Prime, DPS Prime and CC prime. Those templates will have different magnitudes multipliers on Hybrid Primes DPS and Sudo HP. Group mobs (preception could easilly be used to tell the challenge of a mob without have some elite flag) will be based on killing Hybrid Prime with 5 times its base DPS and HP one swing before Hybrid Prime kills the Group Mob. A second tier of mobs roughly matching Evil Hybrid Prime could be added. To keep it clear without resorting to specific minion/elite flags or stars specific models could be reserved for the weaker mobs.
The Archetype Primes will then be differentiated by style with possible intended synergies (again at a known multiplier). The exact method of say giving a tank high sudo HP could differ greatly and be more valuable in different situations be they flat mitigation, avoidance, absorption, or ultra high base HP. Over a large enough number of rounds facing all the different possible mob types and dispositions they would come out even though better or worse vs specific types and dispositions. The same will be true for DPS just the method of gearing, range, consistency and synergies would all be thematic to the actual class but again over the same fights the tanks were balanced the DPS would be roughly balanced as well.
No to Trasak and yes to Keno. What Trasak is explaining is the exact class balance I want to see avoided. You make it sound like everyone should be equal all the time. This is horrible idea and it's the trash that is currently EQ2.
Kittik said:No to Trasak and yes to Keno. What Trasak is explaining is the exact class balance I want to see avoided. You make it sound like everyone should be equal all the time. This is horrible idea and it's the trash that is currently EQ2.
So you plan on playing the weakest class that no one invites to groups? No, I bet you wont. Unbalanced classes are all well and good for OP main character fan fictions but in actual game design everything should have a purpose or its just a waste of effort.
Its one thing to allow players to build weak characters in skill tree based games but in a rigid class based game like Pantheon where there will be virtually no character customization then it is Joppa’s primary job to make sure all classes can fill their role.
Notice though I specifically said they should be balanced against the average of all content not in all content. Melee will do better in instances where the mobs have high mana resistance, casters where armor is higher. Each ability you build into the class can give it a specialization and tools to respond to different situations. All of those specializations are moves from the middle and you need to know where the middle is to make informed choices.
Game design is not an art, it’s a science. Its driven by math equations, power growth models, challenge ratings and statistics. You then build themes and flavor text to give the builds class identity. The lore serves the math no the math the lore. Any game that starts from the “rule of cool” is a cluster-F of constantly flip flopping buffs and nerfs and new cool OP classes that drive purchasing new expansions.
I'm very happy to see strong feelings against class balancing. And this:
Keno Monster said: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
Not every class should be good at everything.
I love emphasizing roles, that we need each other to explore, teams fighting our way through the world.
stonetothebone85 said: One persons balance is another’s imbalance but I don’t think any class should do particularly well at soloing in a group centric game
Only problem with this school of thought is you basically weed out anyone who wants to play a game by themselves. Or anyone without the time to find a group and play long term sessions. If people can't solo it limits them when they don't have much time online. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if the crafting system and other aspects of the game offer good entertainment. But they have to be done very well to keep the interest of someone who doesn't have a long play period. And I know VR isn't going to chase a small number of subscriptions by throwing the game out of whack, but I do think it is a delicate balance between grouping and being able to do things on your own.
vjek said:
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. :)
This is how old FF11 did it. in a group you can chain kills for maxium exp gain (must kill fast within a set time to get the chain bonus) ( 5 kill x 50 exp x 5 chain)
solo players 50 exp and slow grind
the mob difficulty ranges from " too weak to be worthwhile, incredibly easy prey, decent challenge, even match, tough, very tough, incredibly tough, impossible to gauge" most would solo tough and below but groups go for tough - incred. tough for maxium exp. but that game is very group oriented (old ff11 before trust npc)
AbsoluteTerror said:vjek said: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. :)
This is how old FF11 did it. in a group you can chain kills for maxium exp gain (must kill fast within a set time to get the chain bonus) ( 5 kill x 50 exp x 5 chain)
solo players 50 exp and slow grind
the mob difficulty ranges from " too weak to be worthwhile, incredibly easy prey, decent challenge, even match, tough, very tough, incredibly tough, impossible to gauge" most would solo tough and below but groups go for tough - incred. tough for maxium exp. but that game is very group oriented (old ff11 before trust npc)
I have been advocating for the XP chain mechanic from FF11 for years. Started a thread on it a while back that ultimately ended up getting locked down: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6403/xp-bonus-chains
Started a different thread sometime later that wasn't focused on XP chains but definitely emphasized the amazing benefits they provide to gameplay: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/9383/the-xp-journey
To be clear, Absolute Terror is 100% correct in what he is saying. Playing in a full group was the most efficient, most rewarding, most social and most fun way to acquire XP. I have never played another MMO that could hold a candle to FFXI when it comes to good old fashioned XP grinding and group interdependence.
Moloka said:stonetothebone85 said: One persons balance is another’s imbalance but I don’t think any class should do particularly well at soloing in a group centric game
Only problem with this school of thought is you basically weed out anyone who wants to play a game by themselves. Or anyone without the time to find a group and play long term sessions. If people can't solo it limits them when they don't have much time online. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if the crafting system and other aspects of the game offer good entertainment. But they have to be done very well to keep the interest of someone who doesn't have a long play period. And I know VR isn't going to chase a small number of subscriptions by throwing the game out of whack, but I do think it is a delicate balance between grouping and being able to do things on your own.
Game is being designed for group play. As far as I know devs are planning to make good matching system to resolve the issue of prolonged party serching for people with very limited time to play.
Somewhat.
Group content and ability should be the prime focus, but if would be good if they can avoid the extreme setup like in, for example, Classic EQ, where some classes just could not solo and others were more efficient when solo than when grouping.
I'm pretty sure they can manage to make classes more balanced than in EQ but maintain the overriding emphasis on the group dynamic.
The way people get mega triggered by certain words is both hilarious, and sad.
Yes, Pantheon will be balanced. Will it be balanced well? Who knows. If you believe that balance is synonymous with homogenization, you don't understand the question being asked.
The devs certainly aren't just going to throw a bunch of random numbers into a spell database and call it a day.
1. A game can be group-focused but still provide things to do when people cannot or do not want to group that day. I disagree with the antipathy some people show towards having any viable solo play. But as I have said from my first day on the forums - while solo play should be reasonably feasible group play should give better loot and better experience per minute. One makes the things one prefers players to do more efficient for them than the things one *permits* them to do simply because a game where a player can't log on, play for an hour and leave won't get as far as one that accomodates this but doesn't ...overreward it as most MMOs do now.
2. To the extent "balance" means any class can do just as well as any other class I share the general feeling that this is neither necessary nor desirable. But part of the game is exploration and adventure not just grouping at camps and dungeons. While some classes should be weaker than others ANY class should be able to handle a routine encounter. Even if it takes more time and they aren't good enough at it to make it an efficient way to gain experience or loot.
3. Where balance is critical it is at handling the classes role in a group. Balance is absolutely necessary so that a group can take, for example, any of the healing classes without feeling that it is at an enormous disadvantage if it does't insist on having the one or two best healing classes.
Disposalist is absolutely right - extreme imbalance is a very bad thing I have played those classes where if a mice squeaks from the bushes you drop your gear and run frantically for shelter.
Yes and No.
In terms of standardization NO. Classes should have areas where they are strong and areas where they are weak. Class niches arise from this imbalance and are crucial to the success of group-oriented combat.
In terms of generally speaking YES. No class should ever be so overpowered that other classes within their role are less desirable. The player community should never be put in a spot where a group stacks like 4 rogues because they just do the most damage, while also providing the most utility (or some similar situation with a different class). Conversely the same applies to the healer and tank "meta". No tank or healer should ever be left out in the cold because they fall less than the "best" in most situations.
To a certain degree, yes.
Should all classes have the TOOLS necessary to solo and kill a mob in their own way?: Yes.
Should all classes be able to kill the same arbitrarily determined "soloable" mob with the same speed and efficacy?: No, or at least not necessarily.
I am in the opinion that groups should be promoted because you kill faster, can take on tougher mobs, and perhaps get some sort of group bonus to subsidize/reward grouping. FFXI's system, as many have said before, is a great example with the XP chains. I'm also a fan of their skill chain->magic burst system, but that is a different topic.
All classes need to be able to fend for themselves to some degree. The only reason I can think that people would disagree with that is if they wanted to cause grief directly or indirectly. Also, what is wrong with a bit of soloable content? If 95% of the game is group oriented and 5% is soloable, what harm does that do to anyone? All it does is allow people to have something they can do for xp if they cannot find a group for whatever reason. Offer incentives for people to group and people *WILL* group. XP incentives are probably the best and it should probably be incremnetal so getting that 6th person for a full group is better than the bonus you might have for a trio, but a trio would still enjoy more XP bonus than solo. I mean, it's why people cram themselves into Unrest, Upper Guk and SolA on p99 right now instead of go to CT. Mistmoore or Paw. The xp bonuses there are far better. Change that xp from a ZEM to a GEM and you will have people grouping up everywhere they can.
Keep in mind that many people who are looking for a group aren't soloing because they don't want to group, it's because no one is inviting them to a group and/or there aren't enough players their level to group with. If you are one of those people who are advocating for long travel times, dangerous zones to traverse, etc. then you are ASKING for there to be barriers between people of the same level range preventing (or at least hindering) them to meet each other to form a group as well, and yet, some people here also want to deny them the ability to solo and get some xp while waiting or defend themselves while traveling. That seems rather crazy to me.
Trasak said:Ugg no. In the group focused Pantheon the classic EQ wizard would be a good example of crappy class design and balance. All classes that are intended to fill a group role should be able to fulfill that group role to the same magnitude but with different gameplay styles as other classes of the same archetype.
They can have abilities that make them stronger or weaker verses specific mob types and dispositions but under the average of all group content they should be interchangeable. Bring the player not the class.
Liav said:The way people get mega triggered by certain words is both hilarious, and sad.
Yes, Pantheon will be balanced. Will it be balanced well? Who knows. If you believe that balance is synonymous with homogenization, you don't understand the question being asked.
The devs certainly aren't just going to throw a bunch of random numbers into a spell database and call it a day.
Ohhhhh snap, a Liav sighting.
Kittik said:Should VR focus on balancing all classes to be just as competant at killing a single mob,
Since only 1 of the 4 class roles has killing as their main 'job', I think that's a terrible criterion to balance classes around.
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?
Since many players' definition of "the hardest of battles" would likely be RAID or end-game content and many -including me- don't focus on that, I don't like that standard a whole lot either.
The most important balance I'd like them to focus on is in having every class be equally FUN to play!
I know of no single metric that can be used to measure that, so all I can do is advocate for qualities that I consider essential to a fun class. Two important qualities to me of 'balancing' for fun would include each class having at least a few unique aspects to gameplay that no other class has, and each class having at least ONE important function in the overall game that they do better than any other class.