The definition of the quaternity is Tank, Heals, DPS, CC. Adding obscure niches to classes kind of runs contrary to that. Instead you get "quaternity plus a bunch of other roles so we might as well not call it a quaternity".
I don't really see why there's so much desire to tie non-combat related things into combat. We're already going to have things like harvesting professions (most likely) to find crafting resources, why should that have anything to do with a specific combat class in particular?
Liav said:The definition of the quaternity is Tank, Heals, DPS, CC. Adding obscure niches to classes kind of runs contrary to that. Instead you get "quaternity plus a bunch of other roles so we might as well not call it a quaternity".
I don't really see why there's so much desire to tie non-combat related things into combat. We're already going to have things like harvesting professions (most likely) to find crafting resources, why should that have anything to do with a specific combat class in particular?
I've already mentioned that instead of crafting components, the rogue could instead find item enhancements or consumables that are directly tied into the combat system. The crafting component was just used as an example, one that I have already proposed several alternatives for within moments of you griping about that particular idea. You make it seem like that was a focal point in my illustration. Let me reiterate my main point: AA's can be used as a form of Progression that can encourage players to master ALL variations of their given class. When confronted with a specific in-game dilemma where one of those variations can excel, the more seasoned and advanced players can tap into their advanced skillset and utilize some of the tools in their arsenel that other players of the same class might not have.
Core Game Features:
Play classes that have meaningful and defined roles such as Tank, Healer, DPS or Utility (crowd and encounter control). Class identity and group interdependence is key!
Immerse yourself in group-focused, intensely social game play using classes that complement each other, encouraging teamwork.
Core Game Tenets:
A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics.
After reading the above, my understanding of the quaternity is that there are 4 archetypes, each of which that has multiple classes that can fill that archetype-role while still offering a unique flavor of gameplay mechanics that are unique to their class. That doesen't contradict the quaternity at all ... it just makes it infinitely more interesting. Do you really think the idea of the quaternity is for classes of a given archetype to essentially fulfill the exact same role, such as "pure dps?" That sounds really bland and goes against everything I envision. Wizards, Rogues, and Ranger are all considered a part of the DPS archetype, yet they will have extremely differing playstyles and group functionality. My idea only expands upon that further by delving deeper into the spectrum of what makes each class inherently unique. There are several other tenets that reinforce this idealogy.
oneADseven said:I wasn't suggesting that one spec would be DOT based damaged and the other be DD damage, nor did I mention anything about single target or AE damage. I proposed a thief spec that would do lower damage than the brigand, but provide other meaningful incentives to the group, such as increased gold drops, or a % based chance of dropping a rare crafting material. It has nothing to do with their DPS. The idea that rogues are "a relatively pure DPS class" is what I am trying to stray away from. And to counter the logic I'd also like to point out there there are other ways you could spec the rogue even if you wanted to make multiple DPS specs. Why couldn't one spec focus on piercing/backstab attacks while the other utilizes poisons/toxins/debuffs? If there is a boss that has extremely high physical resistances, wouldn't the added versatility of the poison/debuff spec add some value to rogues? Or what if the mob just hits so damn hard that killing it isn't the problem, but surviving it is? Having a rogue that can specialize in lowering it's attack speed or other offensive mods could be useful.
I can get what you are saying but you need to be careful here. The idea of having a physical 'spec' and a poison based one is fine by me but you are talking about them being able to cross over into other classes specialties now. Slows, debuffs, etc fall more into chanter/shaman/bard area. The whole point to unique identities is that each class is needed for different reasons. If you make one that can cross over and do 2 at once then you begin to devalue the other roles. And if you meant as an addition to the ones we already have then just no. That would in turn make certain specs 'required' for optimal comps.
oneADseven said: Do you really think the idea of the quaternity is for classes of a given archetype to essentially fulfill the exact same role, such as "pure dps?" That sounds really bland and goes against everything I envision. Wizards, Rogues, and Ranger are all considered a part of the DPS archetype, yet they will have extremely differing playstyles.
Yes that's correct. Pure DPS is an actual role and an important one. Rogue, monk, wizard, mage, ranger area all pure DPS classes. Ranger is technically a hybrid and able to stray into other areas but it would be weak at best. That is their design and they do it well. Rogue and Wizard are 2 important pieces in every puzzle as they generally are your biggest damage dealers.
Wizards can root mobs and Monks could heal and feign death. The most one dimensional classes were Warrior and Rogue. Warriors could be DPS to an extent. They had all the offensive skills like dual wield and double attack. Most classes had something outside of just pure DPS, but there a few had a great deal of variety.
Enitzu said:oneADseven said:I wasn't suggesting that one spec would be DOT based damaged and the other be DD damage, nor did I mention anything about single target or AE damage. I proposed a thief spec that would do lower damage than the brigand, but provide other meaningful incentives to the group, such as increased gold drops, or a % based chance of dropping a rare crafting material. It has nothing to do with their DPS. The idea that rogues are "a relatively pure DPS class" is what I am trying to stray away from. And to counter the logic I'd also like to point out there there are other ways you could spec the rogue even if you wanted to make multiple DPS specs. Why couldn't one spec focus on piercing/backstab attacks while the other utilizes poisons/toxins/debuffs? If there is a boss that has extremely high physical resistances, wouldn't the added versatility of the poison/debuff spec add some value to rogues? Or what if the mob just hits so damn hard that killing it isn't the problem, but surviving it is? Having a rogue that can specialize in lowering it's attack speed or other offensive mods could be useful.
I can get what you are saying but you need to be careful here. The idea of having a physical 'spec' and a poison based one is fine by me but you are talking about them being able to cross over into other classes specialties now. Slows, debuffs, etc fall more into chanter/shaman/bard area. The whole point to unique identities is that each class is needed for different reasons. If you make one that can cross over and do 2 at once then you begin to devalue the other roles. And if you meant as an addition to the ones we already have then just no. That would in turn make certain specs 'required' for optimal comps.
Okay? So just be careful? I was just providing multiple examples on the fly. My point is that there are tons of different ideas that can be implemented to offer extra versatility for each class. I would like to use EQ2 as an example. They had their own version of a "quaternity" going on (fighter/priest/scout/mage), but instead of having 12 classes, they had 24. There were 2 versions of rogue, 2 versions of shaman, 2 cleric, 2 enchanter, 2 warrior, 2 crusader, 2 bard, 2 sorcerer, 2 summoner, 2 of every "class" in the game, 1 evil aligned and 1 good aligned. That alone shows that it's quite possible to have 2 separate types of rogue or any other class that can function in their own unique way while still preserving the quaternity and without interfering with the other classes identities.
Defilers were known for having the best offensive mod debuffs in the game (attack speed slow, STR debuff, etc). Brigands were known for having the best defensive mod debuffs in the game (Massive resist debuffs, debuffs to parry/dodge/block). I don't see how a rogue debuffing a mob of a certain stat is interfering with the shaman/bard/enchanter group. It's not like there is a "Debuffer" role in the quaternity ... something as important as debuffs needs to be spread out amongst all classes, with some debuffing more effectively than others. I also never viewed enchanters as much of a debuffer ... sure they had some, but they were most memorable for the buffs and regen they provided to their group. Rogues/Shamans always had the best debuffs. To suggest that rogues won't have debuffs because they're in the "DPS" section of the quaternity would be the same as suggesting shamans won't have debuffs because they're in the "healer" section of the quaternity.
In response to the section I highlighted, what's wrong with having certain classes being "required" to be optimal in certain situations? That's exactly the purpose of each class having a unique identity! If a mob hits extremely hard, you might want a shaman to help with debuffing it. If it has massive resists or defense, you might want a rogue to help with debuffing. If it's single target encounters, maybe a rogue or monk is ideal, whereas a wizard or summoner might be better suited for encounters with lots of adds. Or best of all ... if it's a really hard boss that has ALL of these things, you're going to want to bring ALL classes to kill it! Just as it should be.
I remember getting stuck on Darathar in T5 EQ2 ... tried various different raid compositions and just couldn't kill it. He kept killing our tank. The first time we brought a fury with us (they had an important pierce/slash/crush debuff) we killed the damn thing. That's because when you fought him he was red con, and that basically meant that he would never miss on his auto attacks due to incredibly higher pierce/slash/crush relative to your defense/parry/block. I remember in T7 killing Chel'Drak. Adds would spawn for each archetype ... fighter adds could only be killed by fighters, scout adds by scouts, mage adds by mages, and healer adds by healers. The healer part was especially tricky because traditionally, healers aren't that great at DPS ... and it's kinda hard to heal when the healers have to focus on beating down this add that only focuses healers. We struggled with that fight until we brought 2 furies to the raid (arguably best DPS of any healer) and we finally killed it. One of the first few guilds in the world to kill it. Anyway, these are just a couple examples of how bringing the right class to the raid was basically required in order to beat it. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Do you know how awesome the fury felt back in T5 when they realized they were one of the biggest difference makers in our entire guild getting our epic weapons? That fury remained guilded with us for almost 4 years.
Enitzu said:oneADseven said: Do you really think the idea of the quaternity is for classes of a given archetype to essentially fulfill the exact same role, such as "pure dps?" That sounds really bland and goes against everything I envision. Wizards, Rogues, and Ranger are all considered a part of the DPS archetype, yet they will have extremely differing playstyles.Yes that's correct. Pure DPS is an actual role and an important one. Rogue, monk, wizard, mage, ranger area all pure DPS classes. Ranger is technically a hybrid and able to stray into other areas but it would be weak at best. That is their design and they do it well. Rogue and Wizard are 2 important pieces in every puzzle as they generally are your biggest damage dealers.
I disagree that "Pure DPS" is an actual role. Otherwise every ability/utility/spell that isn't "Pure DPS" is going to make them less effective at their role. Wizards are most likely going to have teleport right? That's a spell in their kit that has nothing to do with DPS ... should they become more balanced for their "Pure DPS" role and give up teleport for an extra nuke? Summoners are going to summon various types of consumables ... some of which can have an impact on DPS, some that will not. These classes may fall into the "DPS" archetype within the quaternity but there is no way that they will all share a universal "Pure DPS" role. That goes against everything related to each class having their own identity. I agree that some classes will probably do more DPS than others, but it will generally come at the expense of less utility. Considering that wizards will most likely have teleport, one of the most USEFUL spells in the game, how can you draw the conclusion that they will also be one of the best DPS?
oneADseven said:To suggest that rogues won't have debuffs because they're in the "DPS" section of the quaternity would be the same as suggesting shamans won't have debuffs because they're in the "healer" section of the quaternity.
In response to the section I highlighted, what's wrong with having certain classes being "required" to be optimal in certain situations? That's exactly the purpose of each class having a unique identity! If a mob hits extremely hard, you might want a shaman to help with debuffing it. If it has massive resists or defense, you might want a rogue to help with debuffing. If it's single target encounters, maybe a rogue or monk is ideal, whereas a wizard or summoner might be better suited for encounters with lots of adds.
I imagine that rogues will have some debuffs, likely through use of poisons (EQ had this) and maybe some physical DoTs/bleed. But as for having more than limited debuffs, or even the strongest in any category? I wouldn't bet money on it, personally.
There is nothing wrong with certain classes excelling over others in certain areas, so long as they are never required and simply make things a bit easier. While classes should/will have unique identities, the nature of the quaternity is that all classes within each role are interchangable. Such that you never NEED a shaman over a druid or cleric but it could make things easier in some cases.
Hopefully Rogues will have more thief like abilities. I find it kind of sad that thief has become Rogue over time even back to the days of Everquest. At least Everquest Rogue had some thief abilities like pick pockets, open locks, and stealth. Since there is climbining in this game perhaps they could have some sort of advantage in that area. I could evision Rogues with more useful out of combat abilities, but it's always difficult to impliment without forcing people to take a Rogue with them all the time.
I don't think teleport is that powerful. It didn't keep Druids as most wanted in groups. They did make some money out of it by selling teleports. Versatility doesn't always mean you will be more wanted for a group unfortunately. Utility is always nice to have though. I would always give up a fairly one dimensional class for the ability to have utility.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:To suggest that rogues won't have debuffs because they're in the "DPS" section of the quaternity would be the same as suggesting shamans won't have debuffs because they're in the "healer" section of the quaternity.
In response to the section I highlighted, what's wrong with having certain classes being "required" to be optimal in certain situations? That's exactly the purpose of each class having a unique identity! If a mob hits extremely hard, you might want a shaman to help with debuffing it. If it has massive resists or defense, you might want a rogue to help with debuffing. If it's single target encounters, maybe a rogue or monk is ideal, whereas a wizard or summoner might be better suited for encounters with lots of adds.
I imagine that rogues will have some debuffs, likely through use of poisons (EQ had this) and maybe some physical DoTs/bleed. But as for having more than limited debuffs, or even the strongest in any category? I wouldn't bet money on it, personally.
There is nothing wrong with certain classes excelling over others in certain areas, so long as they are never required and simply make things a bit easier. While classes should/will have unique identities, the nature of the quaternity is that all classes within each role are interchangable. Such that you never NEED a shaman over a druid or cleric but it could make things easier in some cases.
In my opinion, there should be plenty of fights where a shaman is NEEDED, particularly any raid fight that should be deemed challenging. The nature of the quaternity has nothing to do with interchanging the classes freely amongst eachother ... it has to do with predefining their roles. While their roles may remain the same, different classes will have different methods of going about and executing their roles and each bring their own unique strengths to the group or raid. Maybe in group content this stuff can be interchanged freely but there definitely shouldn't be raid content where it's okay to bring 3 warriors and 3 druids as opposed to one of each tank/healer class.
oneADseven said:
In my opinion, there should be plenty of fights where a shaman is NEEDED, particularly any raid fight that should be deemed challenging. The nature of the quaternity has nothing to do with interchanging the classes freely amongst eachother ... it has to do with predefining their roles. While their roles may remain the same, different classes will have different methods of going about and executing their roles and each bring their own unique strengths to the group or raid. Maybe in group content this stuff can be interchanged freely but there definitely shouldn't be raid content where it's okay to bring 3 warriors and 3 druids as opposed to one of each tank/healer class.
I'd imagine in a raid setting you will want most, if not every class present. But any one class NEEDED? No thanks. Notably beneficial? Sure. But we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not saying that every raid should need every class ... but for the initial phase of raiding where people are learning the encounters and still gearing up ... I feel that certain classes will be needed, particuarly the strongest buffers/debuffers because they play a big role in leveling the playing field on the harder content.
This is really getting off topic but its my understanding that the 4 archetypes are going to be important roles to the game. But that doesnt make them classes. And it also seems part of the design philosophy to create classes that can fulfil at least 2 roles (maybe one better than the other). Aside from the 4 archetypes it seems that utility and support roles will be spread around to most (all?) classes.
All that said, in any given situation I wouldnt be suprised if classes representing the 4 archetypes are needed, but never specific roles. They might be more or less helpful but not needed according to what devs have said in the past. A healer is a healer is a healer etc. etc.
I hate to pull a Woody Harrelson AMA here, but we really need to keep the focus on endgame and away from arbitrary personalized class discussions. To that end, I'd like to suggest another type of mid/endgame from FFXI: Burning Circle Notorious Monsters or "BCNMs". In short:
Typically people did these whenever they happened to have stocked up a lot of them. Friends would buy a couple of orbs and group up together to travel around the world and clear them out. Sometimes somebody got rich, sometimes everybody just died a bunch and failed. Was still a pretty fun way to sometimes get gear and ingredients/spell scrolls. The 18-man max level versions even had a chance of dropping items that could force pop world bosses, so raid teams (if they needed the bosses) would have players hold onto the higher level (rarer) currency.
I liked this system because it was pretty a-typical. It wasn't a dungeon, it was more of a battlefield out wherever. I'd like to see that type of group content form part of endgame, even if it wasn't the highest form.
Jimmayus said:I hate to pull a Woody Harrelson AMA here, but we really need to keep the focus on endgame and away from arbitrary personalized class discussions. To that end, I'd like to suggest another type of mid/endgame from FFXI: Burning Circle Notorious Monsters or "BCNMs". In short:
- While levelling (high level relative to player = higher drop chance, e.g. minor additional incentive to group), players could occasionally pick up a form of currency; higher level encounters yielded a different form that functioned identically.
- This currency could be traded in various amounts for different Orbs.
- You took these orbs to various places in the world that spawned encounters suitable for solo-, 3-man, 6-man (full group), or 18 (full raid) - man fights.
- Typically the lower-man fights were lower level and thus had lower level fights, but many items that were available on named monsters in the overworld had a chance to drop here. Not a high one, so camping was still the most efficient way to get an item, but still a chance. Some spell scrolls also dropped from these.
Typically people did these whenever they happened to have stocked up a lot of them. Friends would buy a couple of orbs and group up together to travel around the world and clear them out. Sometimes somebody got rich, sometimes everybody just died a bunch and failed. Was still a pretty fun way to sometimes get gear and ingredients/spell scrolls. The 18-man max level versions even had a chance of dropping items that could force pop world bosses, so raid teams (if they needed the bosses) would have players hold onto the higher level (rarer) currency.
I liked this system because it was pretty a-typical. It wasn't a dungeon, it was more of a battlefield out wherever. I'd like to see that type of group content form part of endgame, even if it wasn't the highest form.
This sounds pretty neat to me. Reminds me of that quest in Nagrand from The Burning Crusade where you fought all the different 'gladiators'. Could have a setup like that in several different spots in the world. Turn in the item, the boss spawns, and you kill it. Sounds like a nice supplement.
Jimmayus said:I hate to pull a Woody Harrelson AMA here, but we really need to keep the focus on endgame and away from arbitrary personalized class discussions. To that end, I'd like to suggest another type of mid/endgame from FFXI: Burning Circle Notorious Monsters or "BCNMs". In short:
- While levelling (high level relative to player = higher drop chance, e.g. minor additional incentive to group), players could occasionally pick up a form of currency; higher level encounters yielded a different form that functioned identically.
- This currency could be traded in various amounts for different Orbs.
- You took these orbs to various places in the world that spawned encounters suitable for solo-, 3-man, 6-man (full group), or 18 (full raid) - man fights.
- Typically the lower-man fights were lower level and thus had lower level fights, but many items that were available on named monsters in the overworld had a chance to drop here. Not a high one, so camping was still the most efficient way to get an item, but still a chance. Some spell scrolls also dropped from these.
Typically people did these whenever they happened to have stocked up a lot of them. Friends would buy a couple of orbs and group up together to travel around the world and clear them out. Sometimes somebody got rich, sometimes everybody just died a bunch and failed. Was still a pretty fun way to sometimes get gear and ingredients/spell scrolls. The 18-man max level versions even had a chance of dropping items that could force pop world bosses, so raid teams (if they needed the bosses) would have players hold onto the higher level (rarer) currency.
I liked this system because it was pretty a-typical. It wasn't a dungeon, it was more of a battlefield out wherever. I'd like to see that type of group content form part of endgame, even if it wasn't the highest form.
I have +1'd this idea a couple times. BCNM's were a great deal of fun and could also help address the concerns of groups not being able to experience certain types of content. I've always been a fan of force-pops ... guilds/groups can come together and collectively pitch in their resources for the greater good of their raid/party. It's also a great way to incorporate planned events.
Isn't it more fun to have sporadic and chaotic events? Planned events are something you do in everyday life. You go to school or go to work and follow your schedule. It's far more fun to have spontaneous chaos in game IMO. It's a lot more exciting. I'm not a big fan of the way current games are so structured to the point of people just playing through like it's all been planned from start to finish. Spontaneity is the spice of life. Especially when you can't really get hurt by it like in a video game. It is also the cusp of an adventure IMO. Things are out of your control. Hopefully there will be a lot of sporadic events that send zones into chaos at end game.
oneADseven said:
I disagree that "Pure DPS" is an actual role. Otherwise every ability/utility/spell that isn't "Pure DPS" is going to make them less effective at their role. Wizards are most likely going to have teleport right? That's a spell in their kit that has nothing to do with DPS ... should they become more balanced for their "Pure DPS" role and give up teleport for an extra nuke? Summoners are going to summon various types of consumables ... some of which can have an impact on DPS, some that will not. These classes may fall into the "DPS" archetype within the quaternity but there is no way that they will all share a universal "Pure DPS" role. That goes against everything related to each class having their own identity. I agree that some classes will probably do more DPS than others, but it will generally come at the expense of less utility. Considering that wizards will most likely have teleport, one of the most USEFUL spells in the game, how can you draw the conclusion that they will also be one of the best DPS?
Going to try and touch on all your posts if I can about this.
You cite EQ2 using a lot of these examples but what you need to remember is that EQ2 is not a game done by Brad. That was all SoE. Brad's vision is more of a unique outline for each class forcing interdependancy. While rogues had some poisons that provided small debuffs they were by no means a debuffer type in any way. That fell mostly on shaman. Enchanters had the best slows while shaman had a close one with different resist mods (more easily landed). Every class had its pro and con.
Continuing with the EQ2 example, having 24 actual classes meant that some were much more relevant than others. Defilers were usually more saught after than mystics, at least from what I saw but I didn't play a whole lot. It becomes yet another game of making sure you had enough of each 'spec' to cover what the raid needed without having too many that you had to sit most of the group for raids. The more 'specs' you bring into the game the limitations you put on it at the same time. This is of course speaking end game and raiding view points since that is the main topic of the thread.
Pure DPS is still a needed role. Now even though I say they are Pure DPS that doesn't mean they don't have utility. It simply means that their main role in a fight is just that, pure dps. You won't have a wizard using teleports in a fight. Possibly root/snare if the main cc goes down but even that is unlikely. These pure dps classes generally tend to be the best at it. With wizards and rogues generally being the top end of the dps pyramid. Now it is totally possibly that this game changes everything. I wouldn't claim to know otherwise, but the past experiences with Brad's gaming visions leads me to believe that the same ideals will exist here.
UnknownQuantity said:Isn't it more fun to have sporadic and chaotic events? Planned events are something you do in everyday life. You go to school or go to work and follow your schedule. It's far more fun to have spontaneous chaos in game IMO. It's a lot more exciting. I'm not a big fan of the way current games are so structured to the point of people just playing through like it's all been planned from start to finish. Spontaneity is the spice of life. Especially when you can't really get hurt by it like in a video game. It is also the cusp of an adventure IMO. Things are out of your control. Hopefully there will be a lot of sporadic events that send zones into chaos at end game.
Sporatic and chaotic are good to have, but planned events are just as good. I've advocated a number of times for farmable items that could force spawn a world boss. Not everyone has the time to raid at the drop of a dime. They want to be able to plan their raid nights and still be able to accomplish things. Taking that away from them doesn't help the game at all. It demoralizes the more casual playerbase. This is why I've suggested numerous times for raid lock outs per mob and farmable items to force spawn them. Doesn't matter if it's collect 500 scrolls that only drop at a 2% drop rate from mobs in X dungeon. Could have an entire guild work on it for a few days and when their raid night comes up they all turn them in and spawn the mob. It's an alternate idea that helps the casual playerbase still have the opportunity to raid without poop socking targets and racing against big name guilds. It also doesn't take anything away from those big named guilds or their competitive racing nature.
I am in agreement with what others in this thread have said. I don't agree that 6 man content can't be every bit as challenging as a raid (difficulty wise, organizational challenges aside). Take the trials in Gates of Discord for example. Using gear from prior expansions, that content was brutal and require timing, forsight and strict resource management just to make it to the final fights.
Anyway, aside from that I see a wealth of options for 'end game content' aside from just raiding.
1) Epic quests for individuals. Such as EQ1's famous weapon epic's. Those were hard, required solo activities, group activities, and raid activities to accomplish.
2) Lesser Epic quests for individuals. Such as some of the epic quests in Wow, that didn't require raiding, or necessarily groups, but were long and time consuming.
3) Group based quests. You can create quests of varying difficulties here, but I think group based quests that require groups but not raiding, and are long and detailed would be a lot of fun. Especially ones that might be so involved as to require multiple nights to complete.
4) Flagging. Sorry, I know some people hated it, but I think flagging activities to even be allowed to enter certain zones are fun. I also think they add to the mystique and flair of being in an 'elite' group of people that has access. It felt special. Making flag activities that are more group centric and not necessarily raid centric for access to some end game zones, would be fun and interesting. AKA big keying / flagging quests.
5) Special events, that are not just instances or dungeon crawls, but trials kind of like the plane of justic trial. In other words, you are in one spot for the whole event, having to kill waves of mobs, etc. Almost like a single group raid type of thing.
6) Special instances or dungeons, just for max level.
7) 2 group raids. Something you can do without having to get the whole guild together, but something more rewarding than most group content. I liked in SWTOR and in WOW how you coulld do some raids with a smaller group of people without burning your raid lockouts. It gave you something to do on nights you weren't raiding.
8) Adding AA (alternate advancement) type systems also increases replayability, which makes redoing end game group content more fun because you are still getting something out of it. I think this is a big key to stretching out end game content. Otherwise inevitably players will run out of 'end game content' and get bored and move on to the next game. It's a simple fact. You can't make content faster than people can consume it UNLESS you get creative at slowing them down and improving replayability.
9) GM events and seasonal events.
10) Class based storyline quests. Always fun. SWTOR did these awesomely.
Mornroc said: Take the trials in Gates of Discord for example. Using gear from prior expansions, that content was brutal and require timing, forsight and strict resource management just to make it to the final fights.
I can agree with you on this one. The problem is how do you do that without the use of instancing? LDoN and GoD was all comprimised of individual instances in order to tune the content for a specific number of people. That's why it was difficult. If you can bring in double the number they tuned it for then it's no longer hard.
Enitzu said:oneADseven said:
I disagree that "Pure DPS" is an actual role. Otherwise every ability/utility/spell that isn't "Pure DPS" is going to make them less effective at their role. Wizards are most likely going to have teleport right? That's a spell in their kit that has nothing to do with DPS ... should they become more balanced for their "Pure DPS" role and give up teleport for an extra nuke? Summoners are going to summon various types of consumables ... some of which can have an impact on DPS, some that will not. These classes may fall into the "DPS" archetype within the quaternity but there is no way that they will all share a universal "Pure DPS" role. That goes against everything related to each class having their own identity. I agree that some classes will probably do more DPS than others, but it will generally come at the expense of less utility. Considering that wizards will most likely have teleport, one of the most USEFUL spells in the game, how can you draw the conclusion that they will also be one of the best DPS?
Going to try and touch on all your posts if I can about this.
You cite EQ2 using a lot of these examples but what you need to remember is that EQ2 is not a game done by Brad. That was all SoE. Brad's vision is more of a unique outline for each class forcing interdependancy. While rogues had some poisons that provided small debuffs they were by no means a debuffer type in any way. That fell mostly on shaman. Enchanters had the best slows while shaman had a close one with different resist mods (more easily landed). Every class had its pro and con.
Continuing with the EQ2 example, having 24 actual classes meant that some were much more relevant than others. Defilers were usually more saught after than mystics, at least from what I saw but I didn't play a whole lot. It becomes yet another game of making sure you had enough of each 'spec' to cover what the raid needed without having too many that you had to sit most of the group for raids. The more 'specs' you bring into the game the limitations you put on it at the same time. This is of course speaking end game and raiding view points since that is the main topic of the thread.
Pure DPS is still a needed role. Now even though I say they are Pure DPS that doesn't mean they don't have utility. It simply means that their main role in a fight is just that, pure dps. You won't have a wizard using teleports in a fight. Possibly root/snare if the main cc goes down but even that is unlikely. These pure dps classes generally tend to be the best at it. With wizards and rogues generally being the top end of the dps pyramid. Now it is totally possibly that this game changes everything. I wouldn't claim to know otherwise, but the past experiences with Brad's gaming visions leads me to believe that the same ideals will exist here.
UnknownQuantity said:Isn't it more fun to have sporadic and chaotic events? Planned events are something you do in everyday life. You go to school or go to work and follow your schedule. It's far more fun to have spontaneous chaos in game IMO. It's a lot more exciting. I'm not a big fan of the way current games are so structured to the point of people just playing through like it's all been planned from start to finish. Spontaneity is the spice of life. Especially when you can't really get hurt by it like in a video game. It is also the cusp of an adventure IMO. Things are out of your control. Hopefully there will be a lot of sporadic events that send zones into chaos at end game.
Sporatic and chaotic are good to have, but planned events are just as good. I've advocated a number of times for farmable items that could force spawn a world boss. Not everyone has the time to raid at the drop of a dime. They want to be able to plan their raid nights and still be able to accomplish things. Taking that away from them doesn't help the game at all. It demoralizes the more casual playerbase. This is why I've suggested numerous times for raid lock outs per mob and farmable items to force spawn them. Doesn't matter if it's collect 500 scrolls that only drop at a 2% drop rate from mobs in X dungeon. Could have an entire guild work on it for a few days and when their raid night comes up they all turn them in and spawn the mob. It's an alternate idea that helps the casual playerbase still have the opportunity to raid without poop socking targets and racing against big name guilds. It also doesn't take anything away from those big named guilds or their competitive racing nature.
Thanks for following up. I understand that Brad didn't play a role in the development of EQ2, and that's not really where I was going with my point. I was just providing a pretty hearty example of how there can be multiple versions of pretty much any class. Rather than having diversity spread out over 24 classes, I'd like to see that same diversity spread amongst the existing classes in Pantheon. I saw Brad mention in another post that players will have a limited amount of abilities that they can use for any given fight, and knowing which abilities that are most beneficial for a specific encounter will play a critical role in how a group of players can navigate through content. I think it would be nice to see 2 styles of rogue for example, where 1 is more efficient with dealing damage, and the other is better at debuffing the mob. 2 styles for wizard where 1 can dish out more channeled damage (better for fights where they don't have to move much or not likely to be interupted by adds that focus caster) and the other is better when more in-combat movement is required. If you are using the "channeling spec", and you're fighting a mob where you have to move around a bunch or an encounter where adds are going to be interupting you ... you're not going to be nearly as effective.
I understand that "DPS" as a role is very important. In EQ2, our assassins/rangers/swashbucklers/brigands were the top DPS for single target fights, whereas the wizards/warlocks/conjurors/necromancers usually edged them out on AoE encounters. I enjoyed playing enchanters myself. When it comes to parsing DPS output, a lot of people tend to forget just how important a class like bard or enchanter really is. They might not show up near the top of the parse, but in essence, they're generally providing a bigger DPS boost to the raid than even the "Pure" DPS classes. The DPS modifiers and Regens from these support classes won't show up on the parse, but I always knew as the raid leader that adding an enchanter or bard to a group that didn't have one would result in a higher net gain in DPS for that group as a whole compared to just adding another Pure DPS. The support classes never really got the credit they deserved just because their name was rarely at the top of the parse.
I still feel that EQ2 is a great example on how to provide multiple "paths" for classes like rogue, monk, cleric, warrior, summoner, etc. Instead of having so many classes to choose from when forming a group or raid, I think it would be better to tone down the amount of classes, but still provide that robust sense of variable gameplay within the classes themselves. Instead of a rogue always being "Pure" DPS, I would like to see them used in other ways. I would like to see certain encounter designs where having the highest possible Pure DPS is ideal, but maybe on the next fight some of those classes need to spec a little bit differently to help the raid survive. When everything just becomes a DPS race, raid leaders are basically forced to use raid compositions that reflect that mentality. Bruisers did considerably more DPS than Monks in EQ2, and because of that, our Bruiser almost always had a spot in the raid whereas our Monk very rarely got one. The same can be said for Shadowknights and Paladins.
Even though there were 24 possible slots for a raid, we very rarely ever used more than 3 tanks. It was always better to just add another support class (bard=dirge/troubador or enchanter=coercer/illusionist) than to add a 4'th tank. Usually 2 off tanks was more than enough to handle any type of adds thrown our way, but when it came to judging between the added utility of an extra tank or support class, the support classes won out every single time. Combine this with the fact that not many people really enjoyed playing "support" classes because of all the emphasis placed on who could do the most Pure DPS in a game that incentivizes the "DPS Race" mentality, and you're left with a pretty daunting task as the raid leader or guild recruiter.
It was very uncomfortable having to scrounge up enchanters/bards all the time to fill our raids out, knowing that their skill or knowledge of the game was subpar compared to some of our other players. That was a real problem. Take the medicore enchanter with decent gear over the very skilled/geared monk. This also created problems with loot distribution. When you need that many support classes, it's much harder for them to gear up due to competition on the loot. On the other side of the equation, our brawlers (Monk/Bruiser) almost always had the best gear because there was virtually no competition for non-healer leather gear. This lack of competition on leather gear also allowed the brawlers to have a massive edge on tanks or DPS when it came to jewelery. They had all the DKP in the world for jewelery because the majority of their leather gear was obtained for next to nothing. So now we have this decked out monk taking jewelry from other classes that are actually more beneficial to 95% of the raid content, yet they continue to sit on the sideline when the "perfect" raid setup is required for the raid to progress.
I'm sure not every guild dealt with this exact same problem but I'd like to see VR take a preemptive approach with determing the viability of all classes in a raid setting. Support classes shouldn't provide buffs that are so strong that you're basically going to want 2 of them in every group to generate the maximum damage output. Likewise, the "Pure" DPS classes should all have their time to shine rather than just wizards or rogues consistently being at the top of the charts. I'd like to see more diversity than "these classes are best against single target, these are best for AoE." One concept that emerged at different points was the advantage that ranged DPS classes had over melee. This was because there would be extremely punishing AE attacks from raid bosses and the melee classes lost significant chunks of damage output from constantly having to joust the AE's whereas the ranged classes were able to dish it out consistently.
Brigands at one point got an ability that made them invulnerable to AE unless it was cast directly on them. As long as the tanks kept aggro, the brigand was free to burst mobs down. So now brigands/rangers are the best "scout" class for an entire expansion that has tons of AE. Rangers avoided it altogether from ranged, and brigands were just flat out immune. I like the idea where certain classes are more ideal than others on specific encounters, but it needs to be broader. Instead of a couple classes being OP for an entire expansion, spread out all of these mechanics so that each class brings something to the table on a regular basis. If you want to give a melee class AE immunity, fine ... but don't give every raid boss multiple lethal AE attacks. Make it so the monk class would have a potentially higher DPS output than the rogue if they were both able to maintain the same uptime on a fight. Now the brigands have the advantage when AE is a major element of the fight, but monks can excel when AE isn't. These are just a few ideas and I understand that there would need to be a whole lot more in order to make every class consistently desirable.
It's difficult to balance things like this because at the same time, I don't want certain classes to feel ostracized from specific zones or dungeons because they are less ideal than another class for that given area. The key to making it work, in my opinion, is to maintain a consistent fluctuation of these encounter types throughout the entire dungeon or zone. It could be a major issue if "the perfect setup for this dungeon is ABCDEF" ... because now every group will try to use that setup whenever they go to that dungeon. If you fluctuate the encounter designs throughout the entire dungeon, this can help prevent the idea that groups will always try to use an exact cookie cutter composition every time they go there. That setup might be best for a specific fight or 2, but not the entire dungeon. The more dungeons/zones that all classes can be viable for, the better. They might not be the "best" for a certain boss fight, but they can make up for it by being the "best" on another fight in the area.
Enitzu said:Mornroc said: Take the trials in Gates of Discord for example. Using gear from prior expansions, that content was brutal and require timing, forsight and strict resource management just to make it to the final fights.
I can agree with you on this one. The problem is how do you do that without the use of instancing? LDoN and GoD was all comprimised of individual instances in order to tune the content for a specific number of people. That's why it was difficult. If you can bring in double the number they tuned it for then it's no longer hard.
I have seen this issue come up many times as to how certain ideas or concepts could be implemented without instancing. Why couldn't it be as simple as locking an encounter to the group that engages it? It seems like a relatively simple solution to prevent people from trivializing content with multiple groups or raids. If someone tried to kill a "group" mob with a raid, it's greyed out and doesen't drop loot. EQ2 and FFXI both used a system like this and I thought it worked fine.
oneADseven said:Enitzu said:Mornroc said: Take the trials in Gates of Discord for example. Using gear from prior expansions, that content was brutal and require timing, forsight and strict resource management just to make it to the final fights.
I can agree with you on this one. The problem is how do you do that without the use of instancing? LDoN and GoD was all comprimised of individual instances in order to tune the content for a specific number of people. That's why it was difficult. If you can bring in double the number they tuned it for then it's no longer hard.
I have seen this issue come up many times as to how certain ideas or concepts could be implemented without instancing. Why couldn't it be as simple as locking an encounter to the group that engages it? It seems like a relatively simple solution to prevent people from trivializing content with multiple groups or raids. If someone tried to kill a "group" mob with a raid, it's greyed out and doesen't drop loot. EQ2 and FFXI both used a system like this and I thought it worked fine.
Good points both. Personally I think LIMITED use of instancing is ok and LIMITED use of encounter locking is OK. I DON'T want to see that become the norm for the whole game, but for very specific encounters, dungeons or events, the odd one-off I think would be fine. I personally never had an issue in EQ2 with encounter locking, but I think it was overused. Again I never had an issue with instancing in LDoN, but I think it was overused since it funneled 90% of the player base into instances. All that said, I don't want to derail this thread into a PRO/CON of instancing & raid locking or we'll feel the wrath of Kilsin. but I do think they solve the immediate issues you mention.
My main point was simply that I think there are ALOT of different ways to create fun and engaging end game content, to 'stretch out and reuse' end game content in an effort to 'win the war of content'.
UnknownQuantity said:Isn't it more fun to have sporadic and chaotic events? Planned events are something you do in everyday life. You go to school or go to work and follow your schedule. It's far more fun to have spontaneous chaos in game IMO. It's a lot more exciting. I'm not a big fan of the way current games are so structured to the point of people just playing through like it's all been planned from start to finish. Spontaneity is the spice of life. Especially when you can't really get hurt by it like in a video game. It is also the cusp of an adventure IMO. Things are out of your control. Hopefully there will be a lot of sporadic events that send zones into chaos at end game.
+1
I already have a job. I don't need another. I want an adventure.