Fragile said:You can do that, even more so, without the LAS. Don't understand, let me break it down for you:
Roles: Druid_1 focuses on healing and buffs & Druid_2 focuses on DPS and Control (Root etc).
With the LAS, both Druid_1 and Druid_2 have different spells available to them, but cannot change their role or do anything in response to said role if something dynamic occurs in combat. Furthermore, Druid_01 will always heal and Druid_2 will always DPS. But lets say a roamer adds, or a Disposition mob spawns and it kills Druid_1. In the LAS system, the group just dies and wipes. Why? Because Druid_2 is stuck with his DPS spells and can't respond dynamically within combat to the environment (in this case, NPCs).
In this same situation, with an UAS - Druid_2 could save the day by swapping to healing or maybe a battle rez. He stops DPS'ing and uses skill and dynamic thinking to save the group (yay he saved the day, what a great memory).
Can you make the argument that in the LAS scenario that was the risk? Yes. Could you say that druid_2 could leave a heal on his bar? Yes. But does any of that feel fluid, and like you are bringing your entire class kit to its core as a druid if you are constantly holding back? This example shows why WoW talent trees are good and bad, you get a "specialization" but at a cost - even though it's just between combat phases. However, it has been Pantheon's goal to just be a Druid, not a Resto Druid or a Balance Druid....you are simply a druid - which means they contain the full breadth of spells and abilities at their disposal.
I think your example almost perfectly explains why not being able to swap abilities mid combat will frustrate players that could have done something. But I do not agree with someone that says unlimited spell toolbars (ability to have all of your spells ready) is the answer either. I also disagree with those that think EQ was an UAS.
EQ IMO was LAS because you had to make hard decisions about what spells to have ready. Depending on your class, the “unlimited” nature of being able to swap spells was drastically different. An Enchanter or Cleric vs say a Wizard or Druid (high agro vs low agro classes) meant that players had a different experience with having time to swap spells.
As someone that played high level Cleric and Enchanter, I never felt that being able to swap them at any time (by avoiding be wacked on) made the game feel less tense, that is if you were even lucky enough to sit during combat (good luck with that). I can also remember times where I dropped a spell from my spell bar only to end up getting attacked or not being able to re-mem an ability and running away trying to find enough time to sit and finish what I started. Being able to re-mem an ability doesn't have to be instant either, if anything, EQ made it trivial because they made memming spells go faster with higher meditation.
Pantheon could allow you to swap spells in combat and have a 5 second (or whatever amount) of refresh or "mem" duration to take away the trivialness that later EQ suffered. 1 action bar for spells (8 slots) and a second action bar with a roll menu (for multiple configurations) for everything else (macro’s, clickies, hotkeys, etc). Even original EQ with the stone UI had this configuration.
It blows me away that so many of you had issues with swapping spells in EQ, you guys must of either 1) not knew how aggro worked or 2) had extremely bad tanks at the time.
How sit aggro worked, is this:
The sit bonus is different depending on if you are inside or outside of melee range.
The inside melee range bonus is thus:
Up to around 13k hp, the sit bonus is equal to a non-damaging detrimental spell (hitpoints / 15) with a minimum of 15 instead of 25.
After ~13k hp, the NPC's sit bonus actually starts to decline down to 0 at 100,000 hitpoints with the function bonus = -hitpoints / 100 + 1000.
The outside of melee range sit bonus is also equal to a non-damaging detrimental spell (hitpoints / 15) but it caps at 1000 and stays there.
Personally, I never had any problems with sit aggro on TLP or P99, or EQ Reborn, or EQ Live 1999-2004. Played many casters, and with any half-decent tank, I could re-mem any spell I wanted to at any time in-combat. It's why I don't personally consider that EQ1 had any LAS of any kind. Regardless of class, I had complete access to any and all skills and abilities, 100% of the time, in combat or out-of-combat. The only thing that held me back was recast timers.
Even solo'ing, as a wizard or druid, I would mem, clear, re-mem various spells as desired while targets were rooted, and I wasn't even slightly concerned.
@Fragile You're correct you can do it without the LAS, but as we have seen all too often people won't. The druid or the chanter will say nah I'm good man don't need a 2nd chanter. Once people get good at their class with UAS the 2nd will really be of minimal benefit compared to with LAS this has to be near factual. Another awesome thing I see with this system is man Necromancer (and maybe others) will have even more utility being able to feign death to get out of combat, swap some spells and get back in. Perhaps even they can cast feign death on someone else and allow them to do this.
You're right, TLogan, those class that can? Huge, massive advantage. Being able to do it for others? Huge massive desirability.
But it does sort of lead to the question... if classes can bypass the LAS, and all content is designed around the LAS? Where does the line get draw between emergent behavior, class envy, and exploit?
TLogan said:@Fragile You're correct you can do it without the LAS, but as we have seen all too often people won't. The druid or the chanter will say nah I'm good man don't need a 2nd chanter.
Make some friends, or use the "in-game" Tinder to find a group with similar tastes as you. Assuming that is still going into the game, I know Brad wanted it really bad.
That's one thing I've said many times already. Your ability to find a group is going to based more on your reputation than what class you choose. Make some friends, show them that you know what you're doing and that you're willing to work hard for the group, etc. If someone is leading a group that will ONLY accept a certain class to fill a role he/she is probably not going to be someone I'd be willing to spend much time grouping with anyway. Reputation matters.
Mathir said:TLogan said: Really not understanding the hate on LAS? I think this all but solves one very important and common issue in MMOs : being a class that is already present in a group therefore being turned away and left to rot. At least with a LAS although it may not be ideal, you can come in being the 2nd druid and make yourself useful. I see this as a huge plus in so many ways.
This is a very insightful post, mainly because you are 100% correct. The LAS does create reasons for a party to have multiple classes of the same type. If this is a goal, and I believe Joppa stated it was, there's no disputing this fact. An UAS would allow one class all the ablities, so there would be few reasons to have more than one member of the same class, perhaps even the same archetype in some regards. A hybrid system might still function in this regard as well as long as its suitably annoying to have to swap out abilities frequently or just not feasible due to non-stop fighting. A UAS would seem to negate the need for two classes of the same type to work together as one player can do everything that class can do.
We see, yet again, an argument for the LAS that actually has nothing to do with it. The exact same thing can be achieved, even better, without the LAS.
vjek said:Personally, I never had any problems with sit aggro on TLP or P99, or EQ Reborn, or EQ Live 1999-2004. Played many casters, and with any half-decent tank, I could re-mem any spell I wanted to at any time in-combat. It's why I don't personally consider that EQ1 had any LAS of any kind. Regardless of class, I had complete access to any and all skills and abilities, 100% of the time, in combat or out-of-combat. The only thing that held me back was recast timers.
Even solo'ing, as a wizard or druid, I would mem, clear, re-mem various spells as desired while targets were rooted, and I wasn't even slightly concerned.
That's all definitely true for experienced players (which i know we are all experience mmo players these days) but at the same time, with all the precautions taken there is still a system built in place to catch out those who relax their attention / defences too much. Kind of like a chanter soloing with charm, the process of charmed soloing CAN be extremely dangerous, but if you root the mob your fighting then it is signifigantly less dangerous when the charm breaks. However the danger still lurks to those who put all the precautions down when re-meming spells. You have your mob rooted to re mem a spell, but there are still possible adds, or maybe even a friendly passerby who thinks they are going to help you by nuking the mob once... even though it can be effectively bypassed by a experienced player, the danger is still there, and that is where the tension grows from and why the system worked so well to (for most players for at least 20 levels) make them nervous as hell to control, sit and mem a new one.
I like Bigdogchris concept of a x second wait while meming a new spell in to be active, it says to the player, you can be flexible but you also may find yourself paying the ultimate price if you are not super careful and dont time your self well, maybe its a global CD to really make the choice a risky one.
I think it is better to at least try to increase danger when were talking about a feature that adds a higher chance of sucess (ie: higher chance of sucess by having all your abilities ready) I think the re mem on a LAS bar is really a very VERY good compromise, it has the Guise of being LAS and the Guise of being UAS without committing to the extremes of either system. BUT there MUST be increased danger, that is for me the foundations of this game... "you want that, well were going to make you work for it, and its going to get hairy on the way" :)
Keno Monster said:Mathir said:TLogan said: Really not understanding the hate on LAS? I think this all but solves one very important and common issue in MMOs : being a class that is already present in a group therefore being turned away and left to rot. At least with a LAS although it may not be ideal, you can come in being the 2nd druid and make yourself useful. I see this as a huge plus in so many ways.
This is a very insightful post, mainly because you are 100% correct. The LAS does create reasons for a party to have multiple classes of the same type. If this is a goal, and I believe Joppa stated it was, there's no disputing this fact. An UAS would allow one class all the ablities, so there would be few reasons to have more than one member of the same class, perhaps even the same archetype in some regards. A hybrid system might still function in this regard as well as long as its suitably annoying to have to swap out abilities frequently or just not feasible due to non-stop fighting. A UAS would seem to negate the need for two classes of the same type to work together as one player can do everything that class can do.
We see, yet again, an argument for the LAS that actually has nothing to do with it. The exact same thing can be achieved, even better, without the LAS.
I think the thing to remember is that we can effectively achieve all of these arguments with either system to an extent, but I think the Devs are approaching it from the perspective of what will deliver the most challenge and also push players to be as closely aware as possible of each others strengths and weaknesses so we can fill the void in tough fights with our own strengths and weaknesses. In their opinion the LAS provides that now, hopefully we will get to LAS with a dangerous swap out. If we end up with raw UAS then we'll roll with those punches too.
I know the strength and weaknesses can also be achieved by UAS Keno, but i think they believe the need is further exaggerated by LAS, i agree with that.
Beefcake said:I am all for a limited set of active abilities in combat. Although not identical as MMOs, but it's their basis anyways: D&D.
In D&D, casters much choose all their spells, from a potentially large list, before they even find out what combat they might encounter. If they know ahead of time what kind of fight they will get into, they can prep, but still plenty of surprises. Outside of combat, with rests, they can switch spells out. But, in combat, they are stuck with their prepared soells.
They have survived that way for decades. It adds to the challenge and well prepared groups thrive.Forget access to everything. Think ahead, win. Learn an area, better preparation. But, there will always be surprises you can't plan for. That's the excitement and challenge!
There has always been a lot of talk about trial and error. You encounter a new set of mobs/dungeon/etc. You try your standard layout. You fail. You make some changes, still fail. You finally figure it out with the right load out and Win! This is the challenge that I look forward to. For me, this is much better than just buzzing through combat because I always have my cool stuff available for every situation.
Using a D&D campaign where you're never doing the same thing twice, as a comparison for what will be healthy for an MMO like this, is highly illogical. You might never know what's around the corner in your campaign, or what your DM is going to throw at you, but you are 100% going to know within a very short period of time what every single encounter in Pantheon is going to throw at you. Wizards in this zone cast ice nukes so buff resist cold, mages have a fire damage shield, so dispel them, shamans run faster so snare them, etc, etc, etc. The first time a mob gates and trains back and wipes the group, we will come back and stun the crap out of it or nuke it down before it can cast. Once you know, that's it, you know.
The argument that "preparing" for an encounter that you already know is more fun or requires a better player than reacting to SHTF situations when you're already in combat is total bunk. I think people are being tremendously dishonest with themselves when it comes to the value and meaning of preparation compared to the execution of your class in an actually dangerous situation. One of the #1 reasons people didn't like a game like EQ was that they felt nobody would do anything unless they knew they were guaranteed victory. That is exactly what an LAS promotes.
We seriously think it's more fun and more rewarding to sit down on your butt in a safe spot and mem the right spells, that again, you already know you're going to need, vs actually being required to react to situations with your life on the line? Once you've done an encounter at most a couple of times you are going to know everything you need to do beforehand. Memming the right loadout, at that point, is not tactical gameplay. It does not reward a more intelligent player, and being more experienced is simply a matter of having done the encounter once or twice, or being told what to do beforehand by someone who has, or by googling it. That's rewarding?
The "surprises people can't plan for" are called dispositions, and are completely antithetical to a limited action set system. Dissatisfaction does not even begin to describe a wipe caused by a random disposition that your group wasn't prepared for because they straight up got RNG unlucky with their loadout. They didn't die because they were worse players than someone else, they didn't die because they didn't execute or weren't paying attention, they died because they weren't allowed to execute.
And again, the more limited the players are in combat, the more limited those combat encounters themselves, practically by definition, have to be. The LAS makes combat more challenging only by making the players themselves artificially capped, and not by actually making the encounters themselves more difficult. It does not promote challenge, it does not promote communication, it does not prevent ability bloat/spam, it does not increase meaningful decision making, it does not reward "better" players, any more, and frequently much less, than not having an LAS.
Ok, Keno, but what is more challenging and fun....Having all your abilities on your bar at all times to handle any issue, or being able to "pull off" some type of meditation or trance effect mid-battle to switch to the spell you just figured out you needed on the fly? This game has a ton of abilities for both casters and melee, make it so you go into a rooted trance like effect, maybe you take double damage while doing so, and it lasts X amount of seconds while you get up your new ability. Maybe have a timed cooldown on how often you can swap out abilities mid-combat as well. That seems a lot more engaging, strategic, and challenging, especially if AoEs and weather effects are going off around you potentially causing big damage. Now it's a cost/benefit scenaro mixed with individual player strategy and you are gambling that whatever you are replacing is not going to be needed any time soon. VR could make switching out your abilities mid-fight a key concept that could be improved with certain attributes or skills like intelligence or meditation. It's another mini-game within a game. To me, that makes more sense than a LAS or UAS and adds extra depth to the combat.
Also, you said some people didn't like EQ1. Blasphemer!
Mathir said:Having all your abilities on your bar at all times to handle any issue
If classes aren't homogenized, then you won't be able to handle any issue. Also it takes skill to know what to use and when to use it. People always think (or at least it comes off that way) having more options/decisions make it easier...when in fact, if balanced correctly with cooldowns and class resources (and design) it adds a much higher level of complexity on what to do in any given scenario, because those choices will have a cost. When you remove those decisions/choices altogether - it is then in turn, much easier. For example, a wizard doesn't have evac loaded because he has Root up instead. Now instead of choosing to try and CC mobs or Evac (or die), the decision (root only) will be made for you from 10 mins ago when you last re-did your "spell set".
vjek said:Personally, I never had any problems with sit aggro on TLP or P99, or EQ Reborn, or EQ Live 1999-2004. Played many casters, and with any half-decent tank, I could re-mem any spell I wanted to at any time in-combat. It's why I don't personally consider that EQ1 had any LAS of any kind. Regardless of class, I had complete access to any and all skills and abilities, 100% of the time, in combat or out-of-combat. The only thing that held me back was recast timers.
Even solo'ing, as a wizard or druid, I would mem, clear, re-mem various spells as desired while targets were rooted, and I wasn't even slightly concerned.
You're right that EQ didn't really have LAS because of this, but for me it wasn't the fact that you could or couldn't re-mem, it was the process being so clicky-UI-annoying and painful and just not a fun practice. Why didn't they just allow casting from the spellbook with an additional cost?
Effectively it meant a caster had a 7 slot choice because they *had* to have root on their bar to enable the process. Why not just have a mechanic available to all with some intrinsic risk/cost *like* the rooting, but without all the unwieldy UI clicking (like just casting from your spellbook or from a second toolbar).
Fragile said:Mathir said:Having all your abilities on your bar at all times to handle any issue
If classes aren't homogenized, then you won't be able to handle any issue. Also it takes skill to know what to use and when to use it. People always think (or at least it comes off that way) having more options/decisions make it easier...when in fact, if balanced correctly with cooldowns and class resources (and design) it adds a much higher level of complexity on what to do in any given scenario, because those choices will have a cost. When you remove those decisions/choices altogether - it is then in turn, much easier. For example, a wizard doesn't have evac loaded because he has Root up instead. Now instead of choosing to try and CC mobs or Evac (or die), the decision (root only) will be made for you from 10 mins ago when you last re-did your "spell set".
Then I got caught with my pants down :) ride it out the best I can, but in the perfect situation where there is a spell swap out LAS then root the mob and do a quick re mem, watching the time to mem bar fill up and nervously glancing at the mob glaring at back at me waiting for root to break under it's potentially random duration? Or break with every Tick from that DoT I put on it earlier when I was feeling confident :)
disposalist said:vjek said:Personally, I never had any problems with sit aggro on TLP or P99, or EQ Reborn, or EQ Live 1999-2004. Played many casters, and with any half-decent tank, I could re-mem any spell I wanted to at any time in-combat. It's why I don't personally consider that EQ1 had any LAS of any kind. Regardless of class, I had complete access to any and all skills and abilities, 100% of the time, in combat or out-of-combat. The only thing that held me back was recast timers.
Even solo'ing, as a wizard or druid, I would mem, clear, re-mem various spells as desired while targets were rooted, and I wasn't even slightly concerned.
You're right that EQ didn't really have LAS because of this, but for me it wasn't the fact that you could or couldn't re-mem, it was the process being so clicky-UI-annoying and painful and just not a fun practice. Why didn't they just allow casting from the spellbook with an additional cost?
Effectively it meant a caster had a 7 slot choice because they *had* to have root on their bar to enable the process. Why not just have a mechanic available to all with some intrinsic risk/cost *like* the rooting, but without all the unwieldy UI clicking (like just casting from your spellbook or from a second toolbar).
To be fair, only need root on the bar if solo right? Otherwise it's just doing it when the agro is sorted out in the group, maybe not I didn't do much wizzing. But yeah it was clunky with all the clicking, I enjoyed the tension of the tedium though in those more intense moments, the whole "come on, COME ON!" as the process slowly unfolds and another add can be seen wandering in from the side
Riahuf22 said: Simply saying LAS is worst than UAS and that blah blah blah, isn't easily saying anything, it's telling the devs that they think they know better and it should be changed, because of there past experiences with a certain feature. That's all it is, and also they are stating there opinions as facts, so therefore I look at it as that they are and than give my reply, it is simply that simple.
Some people tend to state their opinions as fact, sure, and that can be frustrating, but most are simply giving their opinion about a feature. One thing the devs certainly want to know is how people feel about the game and it's features.
It's certainly unhelpful and destructive to the game and community when people are overly negative and insist their subjective opinion is 'right', others are 'wrong' and that the game will fail if the devs don't do what they say. I've been guilty of reacting (and over-reacting) to some of those kind of posts.
But I try and remember, it is also destructive to the community to argue with, critice and attack the people rather than debate their opinions. It's not easy, but there is a line to walk unless you want to become just like them.
"Simply saying LAS is worst than UAS and that blah blah blah..." I'm not seeing people here giving unreasoned arguments. Some are perhaps presenting their opinions as objective truths, but no one is just dissing LAS (or UAS) without their reasons. It's really best to read and debate their reasons than insult and dismiss when you don't agree.
disposalist said:I'm not seeing people here giving unreasoned arguments. Some are perhaps presenting their opinions as objective truths, but no one is just dissing LAS (or UAS) without their reasons. It's really best to read and debate their reasons than insult and dismiss when you don't agree.
100% Disposalist!
Hokanu said:disposalist said:vjek said:Personally, I never had any problems with sit aggro on TLP or P99, or EQ Reborn, or EQ Live 1999-2004. Played many casters, and with any half-decent tank, I could re-mem any spell I wanted to at any time in-combat. It's why I don't personally consider that EQ1 had any LAS of any kind. Regardless of class, I had complete access to any and all skills and abilities, 100% of the time, in combat or out-of-combat. The only thing that held me back was recast timers.
Even solo'ing, as a wizard or druid, I would mem, clear, re-mem various spells as desired while targets were rooted, and I wasn't even slightly concerned.
You're right that EQ didn't really have LAS because of this, but for me it wasn't the fact that you could or couldn't re-mem, it was the process being so clicky-UI-annoying and painful and just not a fun practice. Why didn't they just allow casting from the spellbook with an additional cost?
Effectively it meant a caster had a 7 slot choice because they *had* to have root on their bar to enable the process. Why not just have a mechanic available to all with some intrinsic risk/cost *like* the rooting, but without all the unwieldy UI clicking (like just casting from your spellbook or from a second toolbar).
To be fair, only need root on the bar if solo right? Otherwise it's just doing it when the agro is sorted out in the group, maybe not I didn't do much wizzing. But yeah it was clunky with all the clicking, I enjoyed the tension of the tedium though in those more intense moments, the whole "come on, COME ON!" as the process slowly unfolds and another add can be seen wandering in from the side
If not solo the whole thing expands into re-memming effort *and* a discussion with the party every time.
If LAS is suppose to support the concept of class-interdependency, it can only do that if, before every combat, players discuss and agree their complimentary spell loadouts relative to the monster(s) they are about to engage and then, during combat, if anyone wants to re-mem, have a quick discussion about how that effects what everyone else needs to re-mem to compensate.
I exaggerate, but that would be necessary if people wanted to stay in any way 'optimal' or just 'safe'. In practice people would just grind their teeth in frustration when they need a spell they don't have memmed because they know if they drop a spell to meet a current need, they are making a 'hole' in their party ability someone else will expect them to be covering and they will have to warn everyone and maybe re-mem back afterward etc etc pain-in-the-arse.
Solo LAS with re-memming would be (was in EQ) painful enough. To have a party with interdependent, shared reliances doesn't make it *less* painful, it multiplies the pain and, as I say, in my experience, people just didn't do it, they just assumed what the others classes could do, were wrong-footed when that player chose an odd loud-out, endured the consenquences and had an agument of recriminations afterward.
But that is *definitely* subjective. I don't know. I'd certainly rather have re-memming available than not, but I'd much rather cast from spellbook or, really, just have less restriction in the first place. There's got to be a better way.
disposalist said:If LAS is suppose to support the concept of class-interdependency, it can only do that if, before every combat, players discuss and agree their complimentary spell loadouts relative to the monster(s) they are about to engage and then, during combat, if anyone wants to re-mem, have a quick discussion about how that effects what everyone else needs to re-mem to compensate..
Your scenario,That's kind of exactly what I am excited about with this game, that to me that is a fantastic scenario! (Without the everyone needs to compensate bit)
I don't think it triggers a mass re mem, it's more of an organic conversation during fights about what would be some nice tools to bring to the fight, what can we do without and what are the absolute must have, and bringing them in and out on the fly. Always making risky choice by removing one thing for another
I know that organic discussion happens with UAS too, but with LAS I think it's more important to understand each other's bar, and try to create a synergy between each other's preferred skill set for the role there filling / supporting
Vandraad said:Joppa said:Totally, which is why I'm loud about the caveat: things may change as we test.
So get on with the actual testing then. Because every day that goes by, more and more content is developed with this 8+6 LAS setup and if, through testing, the players can demonstrably show that the 8+6 is a terrible idea, all previous developed content may very well need adjusted in significant ways. That will take time. The further along you are, the less likely you will be open to adjust all that content.
This whole argument about the LAS is pointless until actual testers get their hands on it.
Also, decide whether or not coins will have weight.
I am against LAS. I see it as administration. If there is Las, then I am one of the players that makes an optimal set and rarely switch between them.
But if you are not like me, you still will have a select set of skills that never leave the action bar, they class defining, and only a few will be nominated for switching. Leaving alot of other spells and skills that are less important. Those skills will rarely see the light of day. I see those skills as wasted/ useless skills, just fancy looking rubble filling your 'book' getting dustier and dustier. I rather see those spells and skills more often used.
So with Las you have to prepare, but someone mentioned before, people will know where they go and how to prepare, there won't be any suprises. So prepareing only adds some administration. Often making a whole group wait. If there really is an unprepared newbe in your group, casting the wrong spells etc., LAS or UAS does not matter. Your group is dead.
TLogan said: Really not understanding the hate on LAS? I think this all but solves one very important and common issue in MMOs : being a class that is already present in a group therefore being turned away and left to rot. At least with a LAS although it may not be ideal, you can come in being the 2nd druid and make yourself useful. I see this as a huge plus in so many ways.
That would also mean, healers and tanks have a dual role. They can heal/fight, but also can do damage. Whereas specialised damaging classes can only damage. Tanks and healers would thus be more preferred in a group as if one leaves a group, another one can fill the gap. This way you can leave the damaging classes left to rot as heales and tanks can do the same and more. I do not think that is the way for pantheon to go.
To get the topic back on track i want to say thank you Pantheon Plus and everyone involved for doing a great idea, and also want to apologize to everyone in this thread. I hope Pantheon Plus and other content creators get more chances to do more interviews in the future, it would be a great thing to see, from both parties. I'll be watching.
Caveat, I do not like having dozens of options of combat abilities and versions 1-10 of the same spell is also redundant to me. Would much rather see a fewer number of primary abilities that are modified by the stance you are in with the ability to downcast from your highest rank for efficiency reasons. For this reason LAS doesn’t phase me much as I doubt I will ever need more than 8 different action unless there are a lot of long cooldown burst abilities.
As far as LAS allowing for duplicate classes I think it is important to understand the relative scale of classes within a role and the relative scale between the roles. Also classes already have primary and secondary roles.
If we set a baseline tank class in its least defensive mode as 100 DPS what should the other roles be? Going full defensive does the tank drop to 80, 75, 50, 25, 10?
Should the rogue with all his CC abilities do 100, 110, 150, 500?
Should a wizard in her most burny-Mc-Burn phase should do 500, 1000, 10,000 dps over a short burn and 125, 150, 200 over the course of the fight?
It really becomes a mater of how different the roles should be and how much the classes can take on different roles. DPS classes obviously have damage as their primary role but they can also have some forms of crowd control, some form of synergistic support of other characters and possibly even a form of anti damage. If how we gear and how we load our bars will dictate which role we are enhancing is that really a bad thing?
How classes will differentiate themselves is not as much the role they fill but rather the magnitude of how they fill the roles and the secondary characteristics such as physical damage/mitigation vs spell damage/mitigation and the sub flavors of those. Different mob types will respond differently based on their own strengths and weaknesses.
To me the tanks are a combination of (5) CC control and (5) anti damage with a certain (5)base line of damage.
Healers are (8) Anti-damage with either (5)damage, (5)synergistic multipliers or (5)CC as a secondary ability and their own (2)base line damage.
DPS have a high base line damage(10) but also can have a double down on damage(+5), synergistic multipliers(5) or CC(5)
Typical Non tank CC has CC(8) as a focus but usually (5) synergistic multipliers or (5)damage as a secondary and a base line damage (2).