I wouldn’t mind leveling new characters to open up things within the progeny. You say it as leveling another character could unlock dual specializations/progeny stuff for your main character? But from what I remember, progeny requires you to retire your main to receive certain benefits on your new. I don’t like the fact of retiring a toon, not even sure it’s still planned or not.
Yeah, I put the disclaimer in there that players would be able to toggle between the parent/child but this could only be done in a major city. Most people I know hate the idea of permanently retiring a character to utilize progeny. Brad mentioned awhile back that the retirement aspect wasn't set in stone so I'm holding out hope that a toggle will be considered. This is an area where VR should take a page from the FFXI book ... their sub-class system was incredible and delivered every incentive that has been associated with the purpose of progeny tenfold. A parent/child toggle will make a world of a difference with how I view this feature. It will either be my favorite feature in Pantheon or a tragic missed opportunity. That opinion could possibly change depending on whether or not VR has some awesome trick up their sleeve that nobody has figured out yet. Either way, I'm quite confident that a retirement component would ruin it for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use the feature ... it just means I'll be shaking my head for years to come.
oneADseven said:Yeah, I put the disclaimer in there that players would be able to toggle between the parent/child but this could only be done in a major city. Most people I know hate the idea of permanently retiring a character to utilize progeny. Brad mentioned awhile back that the retirement aspect wasn't set in stone so I'm holding out hope that a toggle will be considered. This is an area where VR should take a page from the FFXI book ... their sub-class system was incredible and delivered every incentive that has been associated with the purpose of progeny tenfold. A parent/child toggle will make a world of a difference with how I view this feature. It will either be my favorite feature in Pantheon or a tragic missed opportunity. That opinion could possibly change depending on whether or not VR has some awesome trick up their sleeve that nobody has figured out yet. Either way, I'm quite confident that a retirement component would ruin it for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use the feature ... it just means I'll be shaking my head for years to come.
This isn't FF. Nothing we've seen from the PA footage so far indicates that the game supports things like that. In an "EQ like" game, specialization just waters classes down and serves to counteract class interdependency. There's a reason games like wow and gw2 and nwn and ff turn into arcade games instead of 3d muds.
This definitely isn't any FF, thank all Gods. If I wanted to play FF I would be playing FF.
I agree totally that class interdependancy is critical.
This does not necessarily mean that there cannot be subclasses as in the original EQ2 as long as the subclasses are strictly limited to the basic role of the primary class.
Hopefully nothing in the Progeny system will allow ANY character to go beyond the strict borders of his or her class role. On the other hand, ancestral memories or family knowledge may allow a character to do things WITHIN such strict borders at a lower level or in a better way or in a different way. Indeed, if not there isn't much point to the system.
dorotea said:This definitely isn't any FF, thank all Gods. If I wanted to play FF I would be playing FF.
I agree totally that class interdependancy is critical.
This does not necessarily mean that there cannot be subclasses as in the original EQ2 as long as the subclasses are strictly limited to the basic role of the primary class.
Hopefully nothing in the Progeny system will allow ANY character to go beyond the strict borders of his or her class role. On the other hand, ancestral memories or family knowledge may allow a character to do things WITHIN such strict borders at a lower level or in a better way or in a different way. Indeed, if not there isn't much point to the system.
The game organically already has sub classes. SKs and Paladins are branches of their respective hybrid parents. Do you want to be a tank class yet specialize in healing and crowd control? Play a paladin. Do you want to be a DPS melee class but specialize in casting damage and utility? Play a ranger. Do you want to play a DPS class that leans towards being a little tankier? Play a monk. Do you want to play a DPS class that does the most damage but is squishier? Play a rogue. The priest classes are branches of each other, sharing many things but yet being distinctly different, etc, etc.
I just don't like the idea at all of splitting the already well defined classes. The idea of having 1 monk that is better at DPS and another monk better at tanking really turns me off. Do we really want to see "LFG for tanking monk only". Every time you chop them up like this it waters the classes down, making them weaker as a whole, not stronger. I would much much rather see them add new distinct classes, like EQ added the beastlord, and to a lesser extent the berserker, than do any kind of specialization mechanic.
The last thing I want to see is "oh, you're a support cleric? Sorry, no room for you, we're only taking a pure healer cleric". Specialization doesn't open doors, it closes them. It doesn't make characters stronger, it takes that strength and splits it apart. Sometimes that's necessary. We shouldn't have an arcane caster that can lifetap, charm, summon powerful elementals, and cast ice comet. There's a logical process of balancing that I think they've already nailed. Warriors don't get fear and feign death and stun and lay on hands. Those powers are logically broken out into the warrior, SK and pally classes. etc, etc, etc.
At some point further breaking apart of classes ceases to be an improvement.
As a nerd, I think this is analagous to database normalization. Your data needs to be normalized/denormalized appropriately to meet your use cases/requirements. You don't just go all the way one way or the other just for the sake of it. You find the balance. And speaking of balance, the more classes/subclasses/specializations there are, the harder it becomes to balance. This leads to cookie cutter builds and min/maxing. There WILL end up being a "right" way to specialize, and if you don't do it, you're going to be "less than". That stinks.
Krixus said:Flossie said:
Absolutely love this idea of specialization for the Ranger. DEADEYE 4 LIFE!
Exactly. Nobody is going to play the Forester. Why not just give all those things to the ranger class itself?
The "ranger class" is the combined mastery of both Forester and Deadeye. It's up to each individual player to achieve that status.
Krixus I'm not sure we disagree. Then again, I'm not sure we don't.
None of my comments factored in how the classes in Pantheon will work, since until at least beta I don't think we will know enough. A lot can change.
If - to make up an example - we have a ranged archery class and a rogue class it makes no sense to give a rogue a specialization that turns it into a ranged archer. One might as well just play the archer. I agree there.
Having a DPS monk and a tank monk gives one class two roles - something I said I didn't want - so we agree there too.
But having a mage specialize in fire spells or cold spells neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Having an archer able to choose between a bow specialty or a crossbow specialty (perhaps the latter being slower, harder hitting, more or less able to be used while moving) neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Ignore the details - this is the *type* of specialization tree or subclass I thought would add value.
dorotea said:But having a mage specialize in fire spells or cold spells neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Having an archer able to choose between a bow specialty or a crossbow specialty (perhaps the latter being slower, harder hitting, more or less able to be used while moving) neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Ignore the details - this is the *type* of specialization tree or subclass I thought would add value.
I don't think things like that are healthy either though, narrowing a classes focus into a specific damage type. When the game is said to have players changing abilities somewhat often and different mobs/types having different resistances that will require different spell & physical damage types, limiting classes sounds like a bad idea and a balancing headache for content/dungeon/mob design.
That said I guess I don't understand the desire of many to feel special within their class by having their own specs or whatever. Be special by making a name for yourself on the server for playing your class with skill and by being friendly. No matter what splits and barriers a game adds within a class you won't be special/unique because of them and just about no one will care aside from occationally ostracising non-standard/meta choices or just players who haven't completed enough "extra" (required) AA/Dual Spec/Mastery.
Thankfully, there are ways to counter pretty much every painpoint that has been identified in this thread. The only "issue" that cannot be solved, as far as I am aware, is the idea that players would need to perform "extra" feats to unlock the full potential of their class. That issue is entirely subjective though. I embrace that as an improvement to the game. The deeper the progression, the better, IMO.
Iksar said:dorotea said:But having a mage specialize in fire spells or cold spells neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Having an archer able to choose between a bow specialty or a crossbow specialty (perhaps the latter being slower, harder hitting, more or less able to be used while moving) neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Ignore the details - this is the *type* of specialization tree or subclass I thought would add value.
I don't think things like that are healthy either though, narrowing a classes focus into a specific damage type. When the game is said to have players changing abilities somewhat often and different mobs/types having different resistances that will require different spell & physical damage types, limiting classes sounds like a bad idea and a balancing headache for content/dungeon/mob design.
That said I guess I don't understand the desire of many to feel special within their class by having their own specs or whatever. Be special by making a name for yourself on the server for playing your class with skill and by being friendly. No matter what splits and barriers a game adds within a class you won't be special/unique because of them and just about no one will care aside from occationally ostracising non-standard/meta choices or just players who haven't completed enough "extra" (required) AA/Dual Spec/Mastery.
I agree with everything you said Kaen. The painpoints you mentioned are obviously a major consideration and that's why I feel it's important that the game is designed with the ideology that there is no such thing as a "king spec." If you design each spec to provide it's own sort of situational flavor, and then also allow players to learn both specs, everybody wins, right? Looking at the example of fire/ice mages ... if players can't learn both specs and rotate between them, it becomes a major burden for the development team that they are balanced as closely as possible. If players can choose when they want to specialize in fire, and when they want to specialize in ice, the specializations don't necessarily have to be balanced. Instead, this is used as a progression opportunity for players to unlock the full power of their overall kit. It's basically shifting the "balance burden" from the development team toward the "progression burden" of the players. Sign me up! We aren't talking about a paladin/druid/monk that can fill-in as a main tank, main healer, and main DPS like what we saw in WoW. If it weren't' for those role-changing characteristics of WoW specialization, they may have considered allowing mages to rotate specs while out of combat. But if one class can do it, they should all be able to. That definitely sounds light a balance nightmare ... one that we won't have to deal with in Pantheon.
Wig said:I wouldn’t mind leveling new characters to open up things within the progeny. You say it as leveling another character could unlock dual specializations/progeny stuff for your main character? But from what I remember, progeny requires you to retire your main to receive certain benefits on your new. I don’t like the fact of retiring a toon, not even sure it’s still planned or not.
This seems to be the standard confusion we have seen repeatedly from those who haven't played games with a system similar to progeny. A lot of the misunderstanding stems from the way progeny is being explained here.
Don't think of it as retiring your main character and leveling up a new character (even though that is the given explanation). It is the same, main, character continuing to progress by restarting to gain some added benefits.
Isn't the only hint at specialization so far in Pantheon only tied to Iconic Abilities?
To that end, it seems each mastery (specialization) would offer one Iconic Ability, and since you can only be specced for one mastery at a time, you'd only be able to use that mastery's Iconic Ability
So far, it looks like the version of specialization they are workign with is just a method of offering a choice between two different very powerful but class respecting abilities while limiting the ability to switch between them in combat, which is fine as far as I am concerned
As for cookie cutter classes, I think the answer to that lies in good encounter design and well thought out enemy AI systems, which I believe they are working on
A well designed class should allow plenty of skills to choose from without specialization, and since the number of skills available to be used is limited, the choice of which skills to take into battle is where a player can customize how their character feels in order to personalize their gameplay
Games with boring encounters and bad AI and skill-tree type build systems lead, with or without even more complex specialization schemes, inevitably lead to single style meta builds for each class and certain classes being undesirable
Oh, and also rote rotations that everyone has to use for every encounter... BORING
Specialization in MMOs provides a feeling of complexity where generally none actually exists, so its a solution to a problem Pantheon does not have (hopefully)
Re-reading The Pantheon Difference leads me to believe that The Living Codex is intended to provide a version of specialization beyond whatever the mastery system turns out to be, and it may well be a much cooler way to "specialize" your characters than the old D&D style sub-class/elite-class systems that many of the ideas here seem to stem from
Iconic abilities haven't been tied into specialization at all. The monk is the only class to have had their specializations revealed and they have a single iconic ability in Feign Death. I'm not saying that two iconic abilities isn't going to happen (there were models from a few years ago that would suggest each class would get two) but that is not the current plan as far as I am aware.
Kaen said:I would have to disagree with this to a degree. For me, any sort of specialization within a class has always been much appreciated because it allows me to choose a certain path within that class that more closely fits my playstyle. It also adds a bit more uniqueness to my character so that I'm not an exact cookie-cutter of every other person of the same class. I never thought of it as making my character "special" in other people's eyes but more MY character in my own eyes.
But the success or failure depends on how it is done. If it isn't done well, one spec becomes the king spec, and the others become jokes. In such cases, there really isn't even a point in having different specs available. Although somewhat affected by what I just mentioned, I really enjoyed DAoC's spec system, especially in the early days.
Just my opinion.
I don't think I have ever seen a game with specializations where one path isn't more favored/viable for a class than another. The past history of it doesn't look good so while I'd understand if VR think they can somehow break the mold there, I'd say the outlook is bleak. But this thread is about being able to master both specializations...which seems to me doesn't satisfy your conditions. If everyone can eventually learn each path then in the end most everyone are going to be cookie cutter , and during the process of getting there each class will more than likely have clear route for which to spec first before finishing off the second. You can buck the norm and go "backwards" but in the end you are the same flavor cookie as anyone else.
But you aren't the same cookie because you'll have access to abilities or spells that other players of the same class (but different spec) would not. The outlook is far from bleak in my eyes. It's also been mentioned that the "base" for each class is completely viable, regardless of how a player specializes. A base monk should be able to DPS and off-tank. Specialization can allow them to accentuate either role.
Iksar said:Kaen said:I would have to disagree with this to a degree. For me, any sort of specialization within a class has always been much appreciated because it allows me to choose a certain path within that class that more closely fits my playstyle. It also adds a bit more uniqueness to my character so that I'm not an exact cookie-cutter of every other person of the same class. I never thought of it as making my character "special" in other people's eyes but more MY character in my own eyes.
But the success or failure depends on how it is done. If it isn't done well, one spec becomes the king spec, and the others become jokes. In such cases, there really isn't even a point in having different specs available. Although somewhat affected by what I just mentioned, I really enjoyed DAoC's spec system, especially in the early days.
Just my opinion.I don't think I have ever seen a game with specializations where one path isn't more favored/viable for a class than another. The past history of it doesn't look good so while I'd understand if VR think they can somehow break the mold there, I'd say the outlook is bleak. But this thread is about being able to master both specializations...which seems to me doesn't satisfy your conditions. If everyone can eventually learn each path then in the end most everyone are going to be cookie cutter , and during the process of getting there each class will more than likely have clear route for which to spec first before finishing off the second. You can buck the norm and go "backwards" but in the end you are the same flavor cookie as anyone else.
oneADseven said:But you aren't the same cookie because you'll have access to abilities or spells that other players of the same class (but different spec) would not. The outlook is far from bleak in my eyes. It's also been mentioned that the "base" for each class is completely viable, regardless of how a player specializes. A base monk should be able to DPS and off-tank. Specialization can allow them to accentuate either role.
I have not jumped into this thread at all mostly because the specifics of class balance and abilities are the very last thing locked down when designing an MMO. Its part of the reason you see buffs and nerfs with patches for virtually the entire life cycle of a game. To argue for or against specializations within a class assumes that there will be a game benefit to do so, which should also equate to a game enjoyment reason to do so. I also should admit I have not read all 13 pages though I have read this page so I think I know roughly where you are at.
All that being said I’m bored, as we have lost a fair number of our more active posters to the PA boards, so I’ll throw my 2 cents in for what its worth.
Pros of Specializations:
1) The ability to personalize your character and play style usually increases attachment to the character which also usually equates to increased enjoyment.
2) Specialization can also be used as a balancing tool to trade versatility for a specific character strength which may make the character more desirable for one subset of content and less for another.
3) Specializations also introduce opportunities for horizontal progression by having multiple sets of gear to collect in order to maximize a specific specialization which increases productive game play time for a given character.
4) Specializations can be used to balance server wide party role demands.
Cons of Specializations:
1) One classes specialization can result in the perceived reduction of value of another classes primary function. While it does not actually reduce the value of said primary function it will increase the portion of the population that can fulfil that role in a party setting which in turn decreases the demand for x primary class which also increases the wait time to find a group.
2) Balancing Specializations VS Primary Classes Vs encounter design is a brutal juggling act which can increase development time and end up with gimmick fights that need x specialization to defeat.
3) Players can be bullied into taking a specialization they do not actually like because it is the needed group role.
The Effect of Dual/Multi/All Specialization:
1) Assuming that the game functions in a way that values specialization a character being easily able to switch specializations with a few buttons and changing gear opens real time flexibility.
2) Multi Specialization also opens the possibility of changing the effective group composition mid dungeon. This could create some pretty interesting encounter design.
3) Classes that have a Primary role will have kittens about the number of classes that can do most of what they do best.
Alternatives to Specializations:
1) If casters have a spellbook with 50 spells but can only prepare 10 before a specific combat then why should melee not also have a similar number of options and limitations.
2) Of the 10 options to prepare before a battle not all need to be or should be active abilities. If you add your stances and passive boosts to the options you need to select before an encounter then you can tailor your prepared abilities to the needs of the party and the next encounter. Adding passive effects to caster choices would also be good.
3) Some of the options of powers to select can be gear dependent as well. A buckler shield, a kite shield and a tower shield all had different functions in battle. Depending on which combo of weapon and shield you were picking you could stylize your defensive and offensive technics.
4) A more fluid role system will help with assembling groups in areas of low population. Each class would still have a center point that they can flex from and a unique flavor with at least one unique power that is tied to their center point.
As much as I loved playing my monk on live, and P99 now, feign death as a group splitting method trivializes too many encounters. It is a great power to use as an exploration tool and a wipe recovery tool but it breaks combined unit encounter design. Keeping combined unit encounter design relevant is key for keeping player interdependence and group tactics. For that reason I would also remove any other true splitting mechanic. If you engage or agro one member of a linked unit then you engage them all and those pulling tools are only used when you accidentally engage 2 or more units to drop agro on them all.
As I am not a VIP member I have no real idea what state the game is in or how much flexibility remains in the game design without massively pushing back the release which could also run VR out of capital which none of us want. I believe VR has stated they want each battle to include choices whether its spells, gear or colored mana so its possible that also includes active and passive melee powers already.
Anyway thanks for reading,
Trasak
@oneADseven
I have tried to get confirmation that the colored mana system is still "in the game," but https://soundcloud.com/pantheon-rotf/developer-round-table-22815-part-2 is still on the official website, so I'm gonna say this is where whatever they end up doing started out at least, which is why I'm saying masteries and Iconic Abilities are meant to be Pantheon's version of specialization, because it is explicitly stated to be so in this podcast and they even go through and example of how it should work using the Cleric
The 3 classes that are detailed on the website all have an Iconic Ability listed for them, not just the Monk, btw
Only one, however, so it may be that this whole system has been scrapped even though its all still on the official website
Iksar said:dorotea said:But having a mage specialize in fire spells or cold spells neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Having an archer able to choose between a bow specialty or a crossbow specialty (perhaps the latter being slower, harder hitting, more or less able to be used while moving) neither gives the class two roles nor infringes on the design of any other class. Ignore the details - this is the *type* of specialization tree or subclass I thought would add value.
I don't think things like that are healthy either though, narrowing a classes focus into a specific damage type. When the game is said to have players changing abilities somewhat often and different mobs/types having different resistances that will require different spell & physical damage types, limiting classes sounds like a bad idea and a balancing headache for content/dungeon/mob design.
That said I guess I don't understand the desire of many to feel special within their class by having their own specs or whatever. Be special by making a name for yourself on the server for playing your class with skill and by being friendly. No matter what splits and barriers a game adds within a class you won't be special/unique because of them and just about no one will care aside from occationally ostracising non-standard/meta choices or just players who haven't completed enough "extra" (required) AA/Dual Spec/Mastery.
Hear hear!
Preechr said:@oneADseven
I have tried to get confirmation that the colored mana system is still "in the game," but https://soundcloud.com/pantheon-rotf/developer-round-table-22815-part-2 is still on the official website, so I'm gonna say this is where whatever they end up doing started out at least, which is why I'm saying masteries and Iconic Abilities are meant to be Pantheon's version of specialization, because it is explicitly stated to be so in this podcast and they even go through and example of how it should work using the Cleric
The 3 classes that are detailed on the website all have an Iconic Ability listed for them, not just the Monk, btw
Only one, however, so it may be that this whole system has been scrapped even though its all still on the official website
Correct. I was just saying that the monk is the only class to have their specializations revealed and is still limited to a single iconic ability. I believe colored mana is still planned for the game as it was touched on briefly in Bazgrim's interview with Ceythos.
Trasak said:As much as I loved playing my monk on live, and P99 now, feign death as a group splitting method trivializes too many encounters. It is a great power to use as an exploration tool and a wipe recovery tool but it breaks combined unit encounter design. Keeping combined unit encounter design relevant is key for keeping player interdependence and group tactics. For that reason I would also remove any other true splitting mechanic. If you engage or agro one member of a linked unit then you engage them all and those pulling tools are only used when you accidentally engage 2 or more units to drop agro on them all.
Off topic: I think it's more a design thing. IIRC in EQ they never imagined FD being used to split mobs up so it ended up trivializing things as regular mobs were mostly harmless in singles, but if they design mobs/encounters with the intention that players should only be fighting one at a time (in most cases) and make single mobs dangerous enough then splitting doesn't make things easy. This would fall in line with them pushing the "Quaternity" by making CC a very important on it's own as a double pull or adds/patrols/repops without CC could easily spell death for a group when a single mob is railing on the tank like a truck already.
See here from the May stream of last year: https://youtu.be/uia9jADhav8?t=43m42s