Trustar said:Earlier on, Everquest I did a fine job with their suite of classes. I am actually still hoping to see Necros, Bards, and Beastlords added to Pantheon.
From my experience, classes do not need to be 'balanced', they only need to offer unqiue contributions to both group and raid encounters.
Examples of unique class contributions:
1) Enchanter -- Master of the mind (Mana Regen, Charm, Mez)
2) Summoner -- Master of summoned creatures and items
3) Wizard -- Master of spell damage, teleportation (Wizard Spires)
4) Paladin -- Master of slay undead, Lay Hands
5) Ranger -- Master of ranged dps, survival techniques (Camouflage, Foraging, Tracking)
6) Druid -- Master of nature, shapeshifting (Weather, Spirit of the Wolf/Eagle, Druid Rings)
7) Cleric -- Master of defensive spells, invisibility to the undead
8) Warrior -- Master of armor class, aggro retention
9) Monk -- Master of feign death, mending
10) Rogue -- Master of melee dps, sneak/hide
11) Dire Lord -- Master of Lifetap, Harm Touch
12) Shaman -- Master of Slows, Poisons
Might some similar abilties be shared between 2 classes. Sure. The Everquest Druid and Ranger had some overlap as they both were linked to nature and the outdoors. But both the Druid and Ranger still felt entirely unqiue.
Part of the fun of putting together a group is figuring out how to create a successful combination of classes. Different dungeons or quests may require a different group to be successful. So maybe you have a Dire Lord, Monk, Rogue, Ranger, and Druid with one spot left. Well a group like that is already slanted towards DpS without a lot of crowd control. So to keep things managable for the Druid, you might seek either another healing class, such as a Shaman to help with slows and heals, or perhaps an enchanter to keep adds mezzed and the druid with mana regen.
When you consider all the potential skills, spells, and abilities that might be part of Pantheon, it is not hard to see how they will make classes feel very unqiue, valuable, and fund to play.
Good write up.
As long as we get a unique feel fre each class, and enough mobs to kill (example lots of undead for pallys and clerics) then i think it will be amazing. Thanks for writing this.
CAVEAT: Since the class names are familiar to us, we all seem to fall into the trap of thinking we know the makup of each class and it's role. This is a mistake.
... While Pantheon owes heritage to EQ and Vanguard, it is not the same!
Without making assumptions, consider a DEV's POV:
1. 'Roles' within the group structure.
These I will put as : (1) Tank (2) Healing (3) DPS (4) CC [Quaternity]
Each Class should fall (mostly) into one of these roles, albeit with different ways to accomplish them.
2. 'Classes' contained within these 'Roles'
Multiple classes that fall into a role will be 'variants' on that role's theme.
Pantheons Suspected Classes listed by (speculative) Role:
Tanks : Warrior, Paladin, DireLord
Healing : Cleric, Shaman, Druid
DPS : Rogue, Ranger, Wizard
CC : Enchanter, ???, ???
With 12 Classes, this would fall neatly (if unlikely) into a potential 3 per role. (With Necro/Bard making it 14!)
I have underlined the class that is probably (in my personal opinion) the archetype for that Role, i.e. the class that focuses primarily on that task with their secondary and tertiary tier of abilities also within that role. Putting in Necromancer (DPS + Utility), Summoner (DPS + utility) and Bard (CC + utility) woud barely fill out the table.
So, to answer the OP's question:
10-12 Classes is likely the minimum needed for giving any real choice within a quaternity system. 13-15 Classes would be better.
Evoras, imagines creating 15 distinct classes to be tricky!
Demostorm said:I have been thinking a lot about games that start out with far to many classes and they begin to water down the other class abilities.
Thoughts on if Pantheon will address this, as of now it looks like we have to many to begin with and it may impact the abiltiy of the devs to really user test them before launch. It makes more sense to start out with less and add more over time.
Be interested to know what others think.
I don't think Pantheon has too many classes. If there were fewer classes that overlapped then I would agree. Though VR is taking a page from EQ and trying to make sure each class has it's own distinct role/purpose in Pantheon. Toward that end there needs to be a relatively large pool of classes to choose from.
Evoras said:CAVEAT: Since the class names are familiar to us, we all seem to fall into the trap of thinking we know the makup of each class and it's role. This is a mistake.
... While Pantheon owes heritage to EQ and Vanguard, it is not the same!Without making assumptions, consider a DEV's POV:
1. 'Roles' within the group structure.
These I will put as : (1) Tank (2) Healing (3) DPS (4) CC [Quaternity]
Each Class should fall (mostly) into one of these roles, albeit with different ways to accomplish them.2. 'Classes' contained within these 'Roles'
Multiple classes that fall into a role will be 'variants' on that role's theme.
Pantheons Suspected Classes listed by (speculative) Role:
Tanks : Warrior, Paladin, DireLord
Healing : Cleric, Shaman, Druid
DPS : Rogue, Ranger, Wizard
CC : Enchanter, ???, ???With 12 Classes, this would fall neatly (if unlikely) into a potential 3 per role. (With Necro/Bard making it 14!)
I have underlined the class that is probably (in my personal opinion) the archetype for that Role, i.e. the class that focuses primarily on that task with their secondary and tertiary tier of abilities also within that role. Putting in Necromancer (DPS + Utility), Summoner (DPS + utility) and Bard (CC + utility) woud barely fill out the table.
So, to answer the OP's question:
10-12 Classes is likely the minimum needed for giving any real choice within a quaternity system. 13-15 Classes would be better.
Evoras, imagines creating 15 distinct classes to be tricky!
I agree with everything you said but dont forget DPS has 5 classes in it im sure which would be Rouge, Ranger, Wizard, Monk, Summoner, and more than likely Necro making it 6 and CC would be Enchanter, Bard, but if bard who really knows every game that has them makes them completely different than the other besides for the fact they play instruments, so who knows what we will get but im sure with Brad he will find a nice fit for them.
Edit okay i had to reread it and just realize you had them in another paragraph my bad lol, i guess i read it to fast.
I've always wondered why people are upset that abilities from different classes might do some of the same thing.
Ever hear Jack of all trades, master of none? Whats wrong with that? If you have a class that can moderatly do a lot of things there is nothing wrong with that. The issues arise, when that Jack of all trades class becomes the master of them all too. Thats where the line needs to be drawn. Developers cave to moans and groans of the player base and crumble to these demands. If a player wants to be the highest DPS'ing class they need to sacrifice their abilty to tank, or heal, or CC. Same with a player that wants to tank the best. They need to sacrifice their DPS...same with heals, same with utiilty etc...
Defind seperation of class abilty is key, but it's also ok to have a jack of all trades type of class or classes, as long as those jack of all trade classes aren't as good at doing any one thing as a class who's one thing is to do that.
Liav said:jpedrote said:Liav said:In fairness, some were worthless. Rangers come to mind.
RIP EQ Rangers, your many sacrifices will have not been in vain if the ranger class is more than a meme in Pantheon!
Rangers weren't a meme in Vanguard so hopefully they follow that trend. I loved the Ranger class in Vanguard. Would likely have been my main alt if they hadn't shut it down.
Rangers in EQ2 were DPS machines too. I loved the bouncing back and fork between ranged and mellee there hehe.
Kittik said:I've always wondered why people are upset that abilities from different classes might do some of the same thing.
Ever hear Jack of all trades, master of none? Whats wrong with that? If you have a class that can moderatly do a lot of things there is nothing wrong with that.
That's the problem, though. If it was a solo game, that's one thing. When 99% of the time you're in a setting where every role is filled, a class that can fill several roles serves no real purpose.
If the content is hard enough that you need an offtank, an actual tank will probably do a better job.
If the content is hard enough that you need an offhealer, an actual healer will probably do a better job.
If the content is hard enough that you need more dps, another DPS will definitely do a better job.
This is why classes like Rangers essentially just ate DTs in early EQ, because their existence didn't actually serve a purpose in a raid. They're too weak to actually tank, too weak to actually heal, and too weak to actually DPS. Only when Rangers were given an AA suite that made their DPS competent did the class actually become worthy of praise.
Now, a casual player might be okay playing a class that is inferior to another class in every respect. However, I believe the reason that Vanguard's Ranger went more along the lines of pure DPS was because they learned from their mistake.
You can't really have a "jack of all trades, master of none" class in a game where you will be a part of a unit where all of your "trades" are already occupied, at least not if you want to be as much of an asset as literally any other DPS. I say DPS because that's traditionally the role Rangers were given, even though they were worse at it than most tanks.
Feyshtey said:Sunmistress said:I still think we desperately need 1 or even 2 more classes to full the support role.
If bards aren't in at launch we've got Enchanters and that's it.
Not a whole lot of choice for folks that like CC/support :/
Necro's !!!
Also not a launch class (? I thought) I guess.
Though I'd think the Summoner more inclined to be support (jjust my personal opinion)
Sunmistress said:Feyshtey said:Sunmistress said:I still think we desperately need 1 or even 2 more classes to full the support role.
If bards aren't in at launch we've got Enchanters and that's it.
Not a whole lot of choice for folks that like CC/support :/
Necro's !!!
Also not a launch class (? I thought) I guess.
Though I'd think the Summoner more inclined to be support (jjust my personal opinion)
Yeah, no necro's at launch. And I didnt mean to imply that they would be a CC role, although they could to a degree in EQ, especially in undead areas. I just meant to include them in the 1 to 2 more classes we should add now :)
Feyshtey said:Sunmistress said:Feyshtey said:Sunmistress said:I still think we desperately need 1 or even 2 more classes to full the support role.
If bards aren't in at launch we've got Enchanters and that's it.
Not a whole lot of choice for folks that like CC/support :/
Necro's !!!
Also not a launch class (? I thought) I guess.
Though I'd think the Summoner more inclined to be support (jjust my personal opinion)
Yeah, no necro's at launch. And I didnt mean to imply that they would be a CC role, although they could to a degree in EQ, especially in undead areas. I just meant to include them in the 1 to 2 more classes we should add now :)
I didn't play EQ until Kunak came out. If I remember right it was not til then that Necro's were available. Necro's rock, yes, they do. I should know because I played one. Though if they're not ready in time for launch, it's always possible Necro's can be released...or should I say...unleashed in a furture expansion. Who knows... what new classes the Devs are thinking about in their creative minds right now... It's also possible a future new class might make us think... Necro, what?... Naa.. doubt that lol. Still let's wait and see...
Risingmist said:I didn't play EQ until Kunak came out. If I remember right it was not til then that Necro's were available. Necro's rock, yes, they do. I should know because I played one. Though if they're not ready in time for launch, it's always possible Necro's can be released...or should I say...unleashed in a furture expansion. Who knows... what new classes the Devs are thinking about in their creative minds right now... It's also possible a future new class might make us think... Necro, what?... Naa.. doubt that lol. Still let's wait and see...
Pretty sure they have stated that Necro is on their list for future release. No info on how long after launch though. Disappointing.
Sunmistress said:I still think we desperately need 1 or even 2 more classes to full the support role.
If bards aren't in at launch we've got Enchanters and that's it.
Not a whole lot of choice for folks that like CC/support :/
Im with you on this. But I know that more classes will be coming down the pipeline (Including Bard). I looks like there will be some other support specific classes, but unfortunately for me they appear to be tied to healing (Druid, Shaman).
I can be patient though. But I do hope for Bard sooner than later.
And I do hope for more support specific classes in future expansions. Or Buff/DPS or Debuff/DPS at the very least. Because currently it doesnt appear to be VRs aim (or design?) to have a PURE suppot class. By pure I mean no a significant source of DPS, Tanking, CC or Healing. Oh sure they could have some moderate damage like a few DoTs and a CC skill or 2 and some minor HoTs. But what I really would like to see is a class that specializes in resource regeneration, buffs, debuffs, and out of combat utility. But the question is if there is any room for such a class in VRs design, and more importantly not undewhelming or OP. It seems VRs intent is to spread the support love around to many classes. Which might mean that a pure support class has the potential to be that class that either noone wants or everyone wants.