Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Class Balance

    • 781 posts
    December 3, 2015 1:59 PM PST

    Pyye said:

    I like to think of this as Class Specialty, not Class balancing.  Balancing usually applies when trying to be "fair" in PvP where any class can beat any other class based on skills used.

    So for PvE, which is the biggest focus for Pantheon, as stated in many spots above, each class should have it's own "specialty" that will allow them to shine throughout the game.

    Examples in the simplest sense, very similar to EQ:

    Cleric - Best single and group heals in game, best HP buffs

    Crusader - Best off tank magic resist, decent back up heals, special buff

    Warrior - Best overall tank, best melee mitigation in game, aggro control

    Dire Lord - Best off tank multiple mobs, best melee AoE damage in game

    Ranger - Best ranged DPS and tracking in game, good secondary utility skills

    Rogue - Best melee DPS in game, secondary poison DOT and effect skills, best lock pick

    Monk - Best avoidance in game, best feign death class, multiple self utilities

    Summoner - Best pet class / DPS in game, great summoning utilities (that are needed / desired in game)

    Enchanter - Best mezzing control, best mana regen utilities in game

    Wizard - Best magic DPS in game, best AoE damage DPS in game, best ports

    Bard - Quickest land travel, Second best messing, buff enhancement class, best overall utility in game

    Druid - Only class to dire charm animals, best DS in game, bunch of utility

    Shaman - Best slow in the game, best secondary HP buff (stackable), great utility class

     

    As you can see, most any group can get something done, however, certain group make up would make specific situations much easier.  So the PvE "balancing" would be, how any group make up should be able to pull off most situations, just some would be much tougher than others.  It would be bad if certain classes in a group continually "hurt" the group's situation to achieve their goals.  Don't want to always see them yelling "LFG" in specific zones...  That is so sad :(

     

    / Totally Agree :) 

    • 70 posts
    December 3, 2015 2:19 PM PST

     Imo EQ had the best character ability makeup of any game I've ever played. I loved the special flavor of each class. And the fact that you must practice both melee and spells and abilites to learn them. I do not like mixing the abilites. I've never liked tanks that can cast and casters that can tank, this dilutes the classes in my opinion.

    When people ask ,why play a social mmo to solo, all I can say is that we dont try to do everything in a group in RL, why have to do it in an MMO. Should be a mix, Imo. Maybe being able to solo our own Epic gear, based on our abilities would work? Just had to ask.

    So heres my wish list - with weapons and gear (this is basic gear, not epic or special crafted of course). It is just that EQ's system based -for example- the power of a caster in their spells. Any caster forced into a melee situation when oom, was dead quickly: they could not wear gear heavy enough to protect them. Their gear featured int, wis, sta etc. Whereas, melees/tank needed the heaviest armor they could get, and they could carry it (weight counted). So class abilities influenced class gear to a great extent. This isnt all the weopons or gear obviously, just outline.

    Cleric - Best single and group heals in game/ staff /up to chainmail

    Palladin/Crusader - Good 2nd melee (off tank), one major heal Life Tap full restore time limted/2hs and 1hs, 2 handed axe and 1 handed axe, club /Plate

    Warrior - Best tank/all weapons but staffs / plate

    Dire Lord/SK - Good 2nd melee(off tank), some effective posion based DoT's/2hs and 1hs, 2 handed axe and 1 handed axe. Club. Bow. / Plate

    Ranger - Best ranged non-caster DPS,tracking /Bow, knife / Chainmain

    Rogue - Good DPS, sneak ability, trap tripper, lock pick/daggers and knives/ Chainmail

    Monk - Good melee, does not need weapons. Feign Death /Leather

    Necromancer -  2nd best dps caster, best caster pet with abiltiy to cast also, best mana regen -" the battery", ability to summoning corpses, Feign Death./staff, knife / Cloth or silk

    Summoner - good overall utility caster, dependent on elemental pets/staff, knife / Cloth or silk

    Enchanter - Best CC, int. & wis. enhancing spells/staff and knife / cloth or silk

    Wizard - Best DPS caster and AoE damage, can port others/staff and knife /cloth or silk

    Bard - Best puller, group protector with musical based AoE spells and single spells, good melee/sword, knife. Musical instrument /leather

    Druid - Good melee, ability to charm animals, can port others/knife and staff/ chainmail

    Shaman - Good melee, best stackable HP buffs/staff, club /leather

     

     

     

     


    This post was edited by Graysilk at December 3, 2015 2:28 PM PST
    • 154 posts
    December 3, 2015 2:33 PM PST

    unbalanced=more fun/mystery

    • 999 posts
    December 3, 2015 3:10 PM PST

    Graysilk said:

     Imo EQ had the best character ability makeup of any game I've ever played. I loved the special flavor of each class. And the fact that you must practice both melee and spells and abilites to learn them. I do not like mixing the abilites. I've never liked tanks that can cast and casters that can tank, this dilutes the classes in my opinion.

    I understand your point about role uniqueness - that tanks should be tanks and healer, healers, and casters, casters.  I loved EQ and its classes also, but EQ had tanks that could cast - but the spells were more flavor than truly a dual class as they were still considered "tanks" - even if the term hybrid was used.  I think you're more in agreement with us who are asking for role balance vs. class balance than you realize.  I'd much rather have the role balanced - tanks are tanks not casters with unique specialities/flavor, than having say a Battlemage or a Warwizard (sorry Aradune), but, where we differ is I want a baseline "tank" skillset, with unique class flavor added.  If one class tanks better than another, if the "tank" role is needed, then that class would be more desirable.


    This post was edited by Raidan at December 3, 2015 3:12 PM PST
    • 122 posts
    December 3, 2015 3:50 PM PST

    I think Raidan brings up a good point. One big problem with EQ was that eventually the "best" group would have a warrior tank, a cleric healer, an enchanter for CC, a monk to pull/dps, then two rogues/two wizards or one of each for DPS. Basically every other class was less ideal when swapped in for the above group. Sure, rangers were great DPS (and OP around PoP era) but not ideal. Paladins/SKs were pretty good tanks, but no substitute for a warrior. Druids could heal, but not the way a cleric could. Shaman could CC, but no where near as good as enchanter. And what those other classes brought to the table was by no means essential to a group.

    Now, you NEEDED just about everyone during a raid, but I do see the merit in NEEDING everyon in a raid, but also making various class roles just as useful in a group setting, so a Crusader is actually worth the same as a Warrior when tanking a group, with each bringing slightly different but replaceable abilities to the table.

    • 116 posts
    December 3, 2015 4:16 PM PST

    Angrykiz said:

    I hope you don't just "do" a dungeon... I hope you say well we got a Crusader tank so lets go for the wing with the Froglock Wiz cause he can interupt its spells.

    And I hope dungeons are a bit more dynamic than that, but that's another discussion.

    Back to this thread... What I don't want to hear is "We can't invite you cause we're going for the Froglock Wiz and you're just a warrior".

    • 288 posts
    December 3, 2015 4:50 PM PST

    While you brought up PVP, I'd just like to note that I don't consider class balancing to be paramount for PVP either.  The PVE mechanics of class interdependance work just as well with PVP as they do with PVE, that was actually one thing EQ PVP had going for it, a warrior wasn't going to be solo killing a wizard..  You needed other players, you needed friends.  PVP is just as much a social effort as PVE is.

     

    As far as PVE balancing goes, EQ had a lot right in this avenue, but a few things wrong as well.  Gear scaling wasn't well taken into account early on and later it made melee much stronger than casters.  Warriors were the only tanks that had defensive discipline which created a problem making them the only viable main tanks.  And clerics were the only ones who got complete healing, which I think should never have existed, because it would have balanced all of the priests a lot better if it didn't.

    • 999 posts
    December 3, 2015 5:04 PM PST

    Arksien said:

    I think Raidan brings up a good point. One big problem with EQ was that eventually the "best" group would have a warrior tank, a cleric healer, an enchanter for CC, a monk to pull/dps, then two rogues/two wizards or one of each for DPS. Basically every other class was less ideal when swapped in for the above group. Sure, rangers were great DPS (and OP around PoP era) but not ideal. Paladins/SKs were pretty good tanks, but no substitute for a warrior. Druids could heal, but not the way a cleric could. Shaman could CC, but no where near as good as enchanter. And what those other classes brought to the table was by no means essential to a group.

    Now, you NEEDED just about everyone during a raid, but I do see the merit in NEEDING everyon in a raid, but also making various class roles just as useful in a group setting, so a Crusader is actually worth the same as a Warrior when tanking a group, with each bringing slightly different but replaceable abilities to the table.

    Exactly.  I would design Pantheon around the Quarternity as Kilsin mentioned that Pantheon will use -> Tank/Healer/DPS/CC rather than 12 designing unique "base" classes - although, CC could be pretty much left off as Enchanter/Bard would be unique enough already without much effort.  After the base roles were created, I would add utility/flavor which would still add class uniqueness - you could also design unique ways on how each class holds agro, tanks, etc. to make the classes each feel unique, while still offering the same role.  Basically, if I was king for the day and designing my idea of the "Perfect Pantheon" - I'd want EQ community-focused gameplay/interdependence/difficulty/mechanics, VG class design, and the addition of new ideas unique to Pantheon.  VG nailed it on class design though - Bloodmage is by far the most fun "healing" class I've ever played - I just didn't nearly enjoy the "game" as much as EQ.   

    • 753 posts
    December 3, 2015 6:05 PM PST

    Rallyd said:

    While you brought up PVP, I'd just like to note that I don't consider class balancing to be paramount for PVP either.  The PVE mechanics of class interdependance work just as well with PVP as they do with PVE, that was actually one thing EQ PVP had going for it, a warrior wasn't going to be solo killing a wizard..  You needed other players, you needed friends.  PVP is just as much a social effort as PVE is.

     

    As far as PVE balancing goes, EQ had a lot right in this avenue, but a few things wrong as well.  Gear scaling wasn't well taken into account early on and later it made melee much stronger than casters.  Warriors were the only tanks that had defensive discipline which created a problem making them the only viable main tanks.  And clerics were the only ones who got complete healing, which I think should never have existed, because it would have balanced all of the priests a lot better if it didn't.

    Not to divert this thread into PvP balancing - but I actually prefer the "rock, paper, scissors" approach in PvP over "Balance" - such that class A (or class type A) has advantages against class / class type B, but has disadvantages against class / class type C.

    • 2419 posts
    December 3, 2015 6:15 PM PST

    Mekada said:

    Angrykiz said:

    I hope you don't just "do" a dungeon... I hope you say well we got a Crusader tank so lets go for the wing with the Froglock Wiz cause he can interupt its spells.

    And I hope dungeons are a bit more dynamic than that, but that's another discussion.

    Back to this thread... What I don't want to hear is "We can't invite you cause we're going for the Froglock Wiz and you're just a warrior".

    What I do not want to ever hear is "We won't take your class because the raid we're doing has mobs that resist all your spells."  EQ1 had this problem with casters when facing off against red-con mobs.  Caster DPS decreased far more substantially than a same level/geared melee.

    • 9115 posts
    December 3, 2015 6:31 PM PST

    I agree with a lot of you in regards to classes in the same archetype having core base skillsets with slight differences/pros/cons to make them more appealing to different players but still allowing them to do their job within that archetype and not alienating them or leaving them unwanted for groups/raids, it is important to get that balance right without making every class in their specific archetypes to similar :)

    Great responses too, there are a lot of good points and examples in this thread! :)

    • 1778 posts
    December 3, 2015 6:37 PM PST
    I can get on board with the dont make useless classes argument. From FFXI we had 2 for YEARS. Beastmaster and Dragoon aka lolbst and loldrg. They finally fixed Drg after years but never really fixed Bst. Consequently they were heavily excluded from endgame in particular. So no worthless classes. Make them useful or dont make them at all.
    • 999 posts
    December 3, 2015 7:35 PM PST

    Kilsin said:

    I agree with a lot of you in regards to classes in the same archetype having core base skillsets with slight differences/pros/cons to make them more appealing to different players but still allowing them to do their job within that archetype and not alienating them or leaving them unwanted for groups/raids, it is important to get that balance right without making every class in their specific archetypes to similar :)

    Great responses too, there are a lot of good points and examples in this thread! :)

    Annnd - the bolded phrase is the winner and why I'm not a paid developer - Good luck! :).  

    Designing a core archetype and then having enough meaningful difference while avoiding the trap that Warriors have Skillset A that sounds different but performs the same as Dire Lords that Have Spell Set B, that sounds different but performs the same as Crusaders that have Spell Set C, but try to make the differences too drastic and you run into the endless class A does XYZ better and needs to be /nerfed.  

    Where I agree with Pyye's points is I think original EQ actually was accurate in class specializations/utility with few exceptions.  Warriors needed more utility at the expense of being the "best" tank.  They had "no" utility unless you played a large race with Slam, and that was a racial benefit, so they "had" to tank better or there was absolutely no reason to play one in Vanilla EQ.  Rogue was another example, unless there were locked doors in an area, they offered very little to a group unless they were extremely well geared.  And, even then many casters could offer extra utility for minimal DPS loss.


    This post was edited by Raidan at December 3, 2015 7:36 PM PST
    • 9115 posts
    December 3, 2015 8:35 PM PST

    Raidan said:

    Kilsin said:

    I agree with a lot of you in regards to classes in the same archetype having core base skillsets with slight differences/pros/cons to make them more appealing to different players but still allowing them to do their job within that archetype and not alienating them or leaving them unwanted for groups/raids, it is important to get that balance right without making every class in their specific archetypes to similar :)

    Great responses too, there are a lot of good points and examples in this thread! :)

    Annnd - the bolded phrase is the winner and why I'm not a paid developer - Good luck! :).  

    Designing a core archetype and then having enough meaningful difference while avoiding the trap that Warriors have Skillset A that sounds different but performs the same as Dire Lords that Have Spell Set B, that sounds different but performs the same as Crusaders that have Spell Set C, but try to make the differences too drastic and you run into the endless class A does XYZ better and needs to be /nerfed.  

    Where I agree with Pyye's points is I think original EQ actually was accurate in class specializations/utility with few exceptions.  Warriors needed more utility at the expense of being the "best" tank.  They had "no" utility unless you played a large race with Slam, and that was a racial benefit, so they "had" to tank better or there was absolutely no reason to play one in Vanilla EQ.  Rogue was another example, unless there were locked doors in an area, they offered very little to a group unless they were extremely well geared.  And, even then many casters could offer extra utility for minimal DPS loss.

    Exactly mate, spot on :)

    • 9 posts
    December 4, 2015 4:14 AM PST

    I'm sorry, I can't take examples from games like EQ, or even Vanguard (I was very interested by the game, I bought it, but my computer and connection at the time could not handle it)

    So I'll just take examples elsewhere :p And among the games I played, my all time favourite concerning classes is Lineage 2 (I don't know about PvP or high level balance, I never reached that point in my 2 years of play). I loved how it was handled. Before the Kamel extension, there was only fighter or mystic (except for Dwarves, you have only fighter). Then, after hitting a certain level you could take your first specialization, it varied for some races, but to summarize, the fighter tree lead to dps or tanks and the mystic tree to dps or support. Then after leveling some more, you reached your true specilization.

    For examples the rogue could chose between archer or assassin, the mage between the healer, the summoner or the nuker, the shaman between the clan or the alliance buffer. But that's not all, each races had more or less an equivalent for each classes. Let's take the archer, the elven archer had the longest reach, the dark elven had the fastest fire speed and the human was the slowest and shortest but, let's just say it hurts (for example he had a stance that prevented him from moving but he gained a lot of power from that stance)

    For the support mage, the human, if I remember correctly had the best rez and solo heal of the game, fighters loved him, I don't know for the elven :p But the dark elven could restore mana, so he was mages best friend !

    As for tanks, there was a tank with a pet (that helped him tank and doing damages), a tank speciliazed in dodging, a tank with buffs, a tank with so much armor and health he didn't need anything else, etc.

    There was a human warrior that specialized in AoE, coupled with an AoE nuker and a human healer it was an xp festival, but for bosses, a solo target was a better choice. Well I'm not saying making some classes near useless comparing to others depending to the situation is a good thing. But I like having true differences and having advantages from certain circumstances, it's just that it's cool if you can manage when those circumstance aren't met :p I had a hard time finding people to play in Lineage 2 with my Warlord when it wasn't for pex or farming materials.

    I loved this way of evolving, choosing a specialization when you meet some requirements (like prestige classes in D&D :p) It's cool when in a game, before showing your stuff, you can already impress them with your class/specialization/special ultra rare skill (I'm not saying it must be op, just hard to obtain)

    • 83 posts
    December 4, 2015 4:51 AM PST

    Angrykiz said:

    Every class needs to be unique and good at what they do with a fun hook in their gameplay...

     

    These class interactions are at the core of the fun of the entire game so you have to get it right from the start.

     

     

    Kiz~

     

    I 2nd this, well said Kiz.

    • 72 posts
    December 4, 2015 6:25 AM PST

    In my opinion "good" class balance is built around a rock, paper, scissors system.

    Except obviously it's a 12 way game of rock paper scissors ;D


    This post was edited by Furor at December 4, 2015 6:26 AM PST
    • 75 posts
    December 5, 2015 2:38 AM PST

    what i want to see is no direct class balancing as i love the idea of conquering content with 'what i have available'.  Example (and sorry the i will base one on WoW).

    TBC - Karazhan - Maiden of Virtue

     

    • Holy Ground: permanent 240–360 holy damage every 3 sec AoE 12 yards around her. Also silences for 1 second
    • Repentance: Deals 1750–2250 holy damage and incapacitates the whole raid for 12 seconds. Thirty second cooldown. Dispellable only by Divine Shield and Ice Block, but broken by any damage taken. Does not hit the Maiden's target.

    The above abilities in conjunction caused raid groups issues (at release) - they were best managed by having paladins use an ability called Hand of Sacrifice -  http://www.wowhead.com/spell=6940/hand-of-sacrifice - basically transfers some dmg from a target to the paladin and it would wake them up. so they could keep healing.  Groups/guilds 'required' a pally tank for kara according to all encounter vids / guides.

    My raid group didn't have one - solution - i as a healing priest stood in melee range in side the aoe so that repentance would not interfere with my healing.  my druid tank was more than capable of tanking the fight and tanking everything in Kara (even without the faceroll consecration that paladins used to hold undead threat while they got a cup of coffee).  Should they have missed out due to one fight? no.

    the tldr version - every encounter should be manageable by every group made up of the four core roles.  They should not be completed the same way, groups should be able to 'work it out' utilise talents/skills that may not be normally used, do things differently, adapt to the encounters - not just say 'oh we a warrior tank no way we can kill 'Xmob' due to too many adds'.  The whole grop should realise and think how can i play differently to get it done!

    ok now the real tldr - make things different and let us have fun !    

    • 170 posts
    December 5, 2015 6:35 AM PST

    I Like these discussions because I see Visionary is reading them and involoved meaning I think they are on the same page as the gamers. These games where I'm a rogue I dps but the group needs a tank so I have to hit my alt apec button and swap gear and now I'm the tank is lame. Thats why theres character slots. It's called replayability. I make a Bard or Shaman and learn Utility roles and play as utility in a raid when needed. I make a Ranger or Assassin when I want to DPS and I learn upclose melee and positioning and with the ranger I learn distancing and kiting. With my Dire Lord I learn to off tank and hold agro and step in griefly as maint tank should the tank die to a missed heal. All these things are what made Everquest so good for so long. Playing the game as a shaman I was a buffer, slower and spot healer but as an SK i was an off tank or puller while as a bard i was utility or puller and as a beatlord I was dps and buffs. Flavor, replay and a sense of uniqness is what I think will be awesome here. I don't want to be Enchanter #4612 that has the same dps and as the other 4000 people I want my gear and spells memorized to matter I want did I quest or travel to get that unique spell to make a difference. Did I take the time to raid until I won the roll on this cloak that has clickable KEI to make me valuable. Just some thoughts.

    • 2130 posts
    December 6, 2015 4:10 AM PST

    Class balance is essential, especially if Pantheon ever has PvP in any form.

    Utility at the cost of DPS is something, but I don't want to see it being too drastic. I don't want to see Monks pulling half or less of a Rogue's DPS because of their limited utility, like how it is in EQ right now.

    Rangers are a good example. They're usually considered hybrids, but their DPS is garbage. A compromise should be made, but it should be +/- 15-25% at best. Nobody wants to play a class that gets out DPS'd by healers because they can cast SoW.

    • 6 posts
    December 6, 2015 9:43 PM PST

    I kind of disagree with some, I think all tanks should be able to tank, all healers be able to heal. I think all tanks should be able to tank any group content at the least and all healers be able to solo heal any group content at least. I play live eq still, and to this day in eq warrior's, the tanks with the best "tankinest," the tank that doesn't need a puller because he can tank'em all. When I'm on my warrior, and I'm not raid geared or anything my motto is pull'em all, kill'em all and let their various gods sort them out. Another motto I've made is singles are for mercs and knights, yeah a sk can snare, fd pull or a paladin can lull root etc. But as a warrior, pull'em all I'll deal with them. Another thing I've realized a warrior, proactive is better than reactive, better to never take the damage than have to heal it. The best raid tank will be the best group tank too. A warrior has no need for singles, where a knight would. As a warrior I can tank multiple mobs where a knight, no matter how strong their self healing will die. Like I said proactive versus reactive. The best type of damage is the type you never take.



    Also in eq, to this day in eq clerics are not just the "best" healer 99 times out of 100 they are "the" healer. As in if I put together a group there's a cleric who heals and a druid/shaman who does things I guess. In all honestly I sometimes I ask when I have a cleric in group and a shaman/druid why is this person in my group and what is he doing? What value does he bring over another dps class? And I have not found that answer yet. So a druid/shaman can debuff mobs? Buffs? Piff so what a cleric has such raw not just healing power but survivability that I as a warrior can equip my 2hander and still tank and I do not even notice nor care if the mob is debuffed or what buffs I have, I tank'em just fine with slow or atk debuffs or something I don't even notice nor care about are on the mobs.



    I find when I put together/get groups that people want the tank to tank, the healer to heal, the dps to dps. I can honestly say that I like being a warrior, with me a warrior in group, the group moves faster, does things faster and I can accomplish more with less gear. As a warrior I am less a strain on my healer because I do not take the damage a knight would, I downright just mitigate/avoid it. That damage never happens to me, ever.



    As a cleric I can tell the tank, yeah pull whatever I got you covered, where a shaman/druid would be I don't have the healing power to heal you when you want to pull 3 or 4 mobs or half a dozen, they just don't. The buffs/debuffs/utility they bring are not worth to me the raw healing power a cleric brings. When groups are looking for more people in their group what do they ask for? Looking for a tank, a healer. People want tanks to tank and healers to heal, buffs/debuffs/utility don't matter when I can pull multiple mobs, tank them all, hold agro on them all and everyone's xp bar is moving. I've tried playing a paladin or sk in todays eq. When I play a warrior it's this is awesome/great, we don't have to pull, you don't take time to split, xp is moving, lets go kill that boss cause you're a big bad beefy warrior who's gonna laugh with your superior mitigation/avoidance and hp when that mob starts hitting you.



    The best raid tank is the best group tank is the best tank period, no if ands and buts about it. The best raid healer is the best group healer and the best healer period.



    You know what my dream group is, a warrior, a cleric and 4 wizards. in todays eq that group can do anything in the game and do it faster/easier. There is no mechanic in the game that I can not deal with as a warrior with a cleric healing me that I can not overpower/survive/push through or plain old burn down. I know a lot of people like the slower pace of original eq, but when I get in groups and I'm not the tank, some sk is fd/snare splitting or some paladin is lulling/rooting or the group is LF a puller, need a puller and I think if I was on my warrior, we'd be half way done with whatever this group wants to do, because I am the puller/the tank, there is no need for a puller, for cc, for debuffs, any of that because I'll tank it. I am the tank.

    I don't mean to offend anyone with what I said but I just wanted to say how i felt, if you go where a warrior has superior mitigation/avoidance/hp, regardless if the paladin can heal, the sk can life-tap the warrior is still the best tank because he can take more.



    There is absolutely no reason in todays MMO's where a paladin can not buff/debuff, where a sk can not buff/debuff and a warrior can not buff/debuff in their own way. There is absolutely no reason all healers can not heal, in different ways but still all as powerful and all three have some type of buffs/debuffs. In vanguard, every healer could solo heal 90% of the content. Every healer had buffs, debuffs etc. Sure where there some bosses/encounters that had silence where a disciple was better? Some where you couldn't use arcane where it was harder for a bloodmage? Sure, but 90% of the time any healer could solo heal, 90% of the time any tank could tank 90% of the content.


    Please think long and hard if you go with the warrior being the "tank" and clerics being the "healer."



    In any case, just my thoughts and feelings and my two copper.



    • 1714 posts
    December 6, 2015 10:29 PM PST

    Kilsin said:

    How important do you think it is that classes are balanced? Should some classes be better than others in different areas or should all classes be equal in your opinion? :)
     
    Edit for clarification: "PvP has no impact on PvE, separate servers, different rulesets, classes will be balanced accordingly for each side without affecting each other, so it is not even an issue." This is just your thoughts on class balancing overall.

     

    I think class balance is greatly overrated. If everyone is effectively the same, nobody matters. I understand that nobody wants to be that pre mana increase Paladin/SK or the pre class armor warrior or the pre kunarktherearenoweaponsforourclass Rogue, but I believe most people will play what they want to play if it's fun and "power" isn't the primary factor. There are also elements like porting and buffing and pulling that can't be exactly evaluated when it comes to balance. EQ did a great job with the give and take. Monks got some of the most amazing abilities in the game, but they were severely limited by a number of other factors. Many monks were flat broke because they could never carry loot. They had no utility beyond pulling. Large prices were paid for FD and mend that didn't necessarily manifest themselves until you were out of combat. But because EQ was a game about the world, you felt every strength and weakness of your character. 

     

    Also, balanced at what? You wanted/needed that main ogre warrior to tank the raid encounter and the clerics to go with him. But if you were in a small group you might want to go in a completely different direction. Are you duoing? An SK/Druid is way better in tons of situations than a warrior/cleric. Raiding shouldn't be the end all be all of what makes a class powerful or balanced. 


    This post was edited by Keno Monster at December 6, 2015 10:36 PM PST
    • 126 posts
    December 6, 2015 11:27 PM PST

    I really do hope that it won't boil down to this: clerics being "the" healer. Warriors being "the" tank, making other healer or tank classes inferior to the mentioned (if there are other dedicated healer in Pantheon, that is. So far we just don't know. I still have a spark of hope that there will be more dedicated healer classes).

    I hope that Pantheon will follow Vanguards approach in that matter. I don't think that more healing classes will make "everyone is effectively the same". See Vanguard's healer. Would you say, the disciple was basically the same as say, a bloodmage? Vanguard healers were so incredibly awesome, while still being unique in their regard. Balancing dedicated healer is important - they need to be able to heal the same content, period. HOW they do it, is an entirely different matter. 

    The same goes for tanks. Balancing the tanks so both can tank the same content is also important. Do you really want to hear, "oh no, sorry dear Direlord, I must kindly ask you to leave our group because we just found a Warrior. Who would ever chose a Direlord over a Warrior for content like this, you understand that?! Gbye! Have a nice day!"

    Some classes might have an unique selling proposition (like chanters or bards perhaps) where balancing might be pointless. But when there is more than one dedicated class for one purpose (tanking/healing/even dpsing) than they need to be balanced for sure.

    • 578 posts
    December 7, 2015 12:09 AM PST

    Balancing is important because if you play as a specific role and somebody can do your job not only better but can bring more to the table then you will be spending most of your time looking for a group rather then being in one. If you play a ranger and the monk does more damage in melee range AND from a distance then there is an unbalance to those two classes. Balancing goes beyond just numbers though when considering PvE because there is support and utility mechanics involved.

    When balancing a wizard, a druid, and an enchanter dps is only one aspect. The traditional wizard normally lacks utility and support so to balance these well the druid and enchanter will have lower dps than the wizard but the wizard will not have the healing that the druid may have nor will the wizard have the CC that the enchanter might have. This is where the give and take is found when balancing PvE.

    When balancing tanks there is a couple different ways to go about it. Does the tank handle single target better than multi. Does the tank have quick snap aggro or does it take time to build up. Does the tank trade off some aggro ability for utility. Does the tank provide more defense and protection for their group or are they more on the offensive side. Either way I believe tanks are more unique when it comes to balancing and just goes to show you that balancing in PvE is a very broad topic and is not only important but is handled in many different ways.

    • 1714 posts
    December 7, 2015 10:52 PM PST

    Pyye said:

    I like to think of this as Class Specialty, not Class balancing.  Balancing usually applies when trying to be "fair" in PvP where any class can beat any other class based on skills used.

    So for PvE, which is the biggest focus for Pantheon, as stated in many spots above, each class should have it's own "specialty" that will allow them to shine throughout the game.

    Examples in the simplest sense, very similar to EQ:

    Cleric - Best single and group heals in game, best HP buffs

    Crusader - Best off tank magic resist, decent back up heals, special buff

    Warrior - Best overall tank, best melee mitigation in game, aggro control

    Dire Lord - Best off tank multiple mobs, best melee AoE damage in game

    Ranger - Best ranged DPS and tracking in game, good secondary utility skills

    Rogue - Best melee DPS in game, secondary poison DOT and effect skills, best lock pick

    Monk - Best avoidance in game, best feign death class, multiple self utilities

    Summoner - Best pet class / DPS in game, great summoning utilities (that are needed / desired in game)

    Enchanter - Best mezzing control, best mana regen utilities in game

    Wizard - Best magic DPS in game, best AoE damage DPS in game, best ports

    Bard - Quickest land travel, Second best messing, buff enhancement class, best overall utility in game

    Druid - Only class to dire charm animals, best DS in game, bunch of utility

    Shaman - Best slow in the game, best secondary HP buff (stackable), great utility class

     

    As you can see, most any group can get something done, however, certain group make up would make specific situations much easier.  So the PvE "balancing" would be, how any group make up should be able to pull off most situations, just some would be much tougher than others.  It would be bad if certain classes in a group continually "hurt" the group's situation to achieve their goals.  Don't want to always see them yelling "LFG" in specific zones...  That is so sad :(

     

    This is it exactly.