Going to throw out some more ideas to build on what was in the OP
Mainly for a class I intend to play because selfish, also there's a bit of humour because this thread has had some sour posts for the last 2 pages. Anyways onwards and upwards!
Paladin
Crusader (it was a good name! It shouldn't go to waste): Enemies of [Insert Deity or order name here] beware! This paladin specializes in righteous indignation and giving a stern talking to nonbelievers.
When that stern talking to fails, he is pretty handy with a sword and spells, persecuting the enemies of his/her order with spell disruptions, knockbacks, pewpew nukes, and bindings (root). He's also got some rousing words for any comrades, mainly barked commands but can grant a buff or two to the worthy.
If that isn't enough to keep his comrades on their feet, he's been known to lay his hands on them, we aren't sure if it's just for the healing effect or just to shake away heretical thoughts.
Oathsworn (stealing your name 1ad7 sry it's good):
Sworn to guard the convents, temples, and like religious-y places of Terminus. As such afew less face punches have been thrown and alittle less swordslinging then the crusader. As such this cat has had time to learn different tricks then are available to the crusader.
specializing
in the more defensive aspects of combat, strengthening their allies armour, Lulling enemy combatants to sleep by regaling them with bureaucracy, binding with force (root), and warding off attacks on comrades (rescues like VG?). He can cast a mean heal, mend wounds, and such.
If a the shaman class has normal debuffs, they would not lose them if the took the heal or a pet path, it just means that the only debuffs they would have would be the normal ones. The path option would just give them superior debuffs to that of any other path shaman.
The same would hold true for the wizards also, the could still use other elemental nukes, but the ones they received from their path selection would be superior to their normal ones.
As for warriors and other classes and the types of weapons they would use, that is up to the player and would not make a difference, and it would be up to them to use them if the ones they are using does not do the job they need them to do.
With what I am proposing the paths choices could make you more beneficial or less benifical to each group depending on who or what classes are in it. I am not advocating for the removal of general tools that each class would have when they take whatever path they choose, the paths would just give them a better version of that ability.
For example i am not saying that a dps path warrior should have no taunts because they choose to take that path, their taunts would just be the normal run of the mill taunt that they get thru leveling, but the taunt path warriors taunt would have more aggro attached than the normal one.
An ice path wizard would have superior damage to their ice spells than a lightning, archane, or fire path wizard.
Assuming all mages have pets...The pet of a mage thats pet path does more damage than a pet or a nuke path mage.
If it would to be done like this, all classes would remain viable for all grouping content, and the need to be super picky would only arise if the group was farming a certain area or raid zone for items where you would have to have a specific path/class/group makeup. Even then it would not be 100% necessary to exclude others that aren't that particular path, because the players that are the other paths could still do their job, but the person would have to be on their A game.
As long as the fundamentals of each class remain intact then selecting a specialization should bear no concern. Specializations should add flavor to the way you play your class's role NOT change the role your class plays. If you choose a Dire Lord then no matter which specialization you choose you should always be able to tank efficiently, the specialization should simply alter the things you do WHILE you are tanking.
DLs obviously seem akin to both SKs from EQ1 and DKs from VG. Beyond tanking SKs and DKs are historically known for life taps, undead pets, dark magic, etc. So specializing should not have a player choosing between a 'tanky' DL or a 'DPSie' DL, they should be choosing between a life tapping DL or an undead pet summoning DL. Or maybe a physical damaging path vs a path of dark magic.
I guess the big question would be does selecting a specific path still allow a player to obtain all spells for that class? Or does selecting a path void out specific spells found in the other path? For example, and keeping this as simple as possible, would a DL who chooses the path of life taps over the path of undead pets still be able to have undead pets?
@ Noobie
What it am saying basically is that it would specialize your character, and going with your example this is my best attempt @ explaining ( i know warriors better so i am just guessing at DK or DL abilites.)
Say the paths for DL would be blood (increased/stronger) life taps, drain (would give increased armor by draining it from enemy), and damage (would give stronger attack..you can pick the type, for increased sustainable dps)
Choosing a path would not make it so you do not have life taps, drains, or dps abilites, they just would replace the base ones you currently have with a stronger version.
By doing this you still can do your job effectively in groups, but a DL thats blood path does more dps than a drain DL but less than a damage DL, and they can sort of spot heal themselves in an extreme emergency if they choose to use their taps for that.
Megaera said:With what I am proposing the paths choices could make you more beneficial or less benifical to each group depending on who or what classes are in it. I am not advocating for the removal of general tools that each class would have when they take whatever path they choose, the paths would just give them a better version of that ability.
For example i am not saying that a dps path warrior should have no taunts because they choose to take that path, their taunts would just be the normal run of the mill taunt that they get thru leveling, but the taunt path warriors taunt would have more aggro attached than the normal one.
If it would to be done like this, all classes would remain viable for all grouping content, and the need to be super picky would only arise if the group was farming a certain area or raid zone for items where you would have to have a specific path/class/group makeup. Even then it would not be 100% necessary to exclude others that aren't that particular path, because the players that are the other paths could still do their job, but the person would have to be on their A game.
Yes, but as I understand it this is supposed to be a difficult game. Group content is supposed to be the main focus even end game which would mean end game grouping is meant to be quite difficult. It would be entirely awful to reach end game and find you are mostly undesired as a spec. Yes you would still have all the base abilities but they would be noticeably less effective than if groups picked the "right" version of your class.
The idea is that for difficult content, you need everyone on their A game to begin with where as with the wrong spec even your A game is still B game.
my oppinion:
specialization can be interesting, but
(1) it shouldn't just increase the number of classes, so class identity should be kept.
(2) it shouldn't be possible to just switch to whatever spec you currently need (like most modern MMOs with specs work). if everyone can just switch to whatever he needs, everyone is the same again.
that leaves us with 2 options:
(1) you can only learn one spec and that choice is permanent.
(2) you can learn multiple, or all specs, which means when you learned them all, you mastered them all. in that case, all members of the class are the same again once they've reached this point.
so, keeping true to the spirit of pantheon that would mean specs are permanent, and they are a small variation of your class, not a role changing one.
lets look at the monk as example, because it's the class that we know something about from the may newsletter.
"The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank. The class will feature two specializations - Body and Soul. Body will be the prototypical hand-to-hand DPS class while Soul is envisioned to be a stalwart off-tank with self-healing mechanics and high avoidance."
Group Role: Melee DPS, Off-Tank, Pulling Utility
Weaponry: (...)
in my oppinion, weapon specs lead to lower weapon choices (you will only use weapons of your spec), which makes balancing alot harder and item hunt less interesting (less choices -> less options). so i hope, specs won't influence weapons.
for me that means the monks primary role is puller, but he can also dps (well, who can't?), off-tank (like most melee classes) and some cc. so body spec would mean higher dps, and soul spec better tanking. in both these cases he keeps his primary role as puller, but is either better at dps or tanking depending on his spec. the difference should be weak, it's going hard enough to balance that anyways. in any case his dps/tanking is still inferior to classes who have this as their primary role. if the choice is permanent, that's a system that i'd like because it gives us more distinctive characters.
but in the long run, many people will regret their choice and we'll get some tool to respec anyways :-/ i see no way to prevent specs from going the way they always do. so in the end, even if i would like it, there's probably other things (like an extra dungeon) that i'd rather have instead.
edit: just look at how the classes always (in all MMOs that have classes) complain over how poor and weak and underpowered they are compared to everyone else. now we're going to have the same for different paths, doubling the issue and the balancing work.
I am home now, and I will look at each classes that are going to be available again, then I will give an example of a few paths for each, and how they could synergize in an group or raid enviroment, and if done correctly there would be no reason not to take atleast 3 of each class (assuming there are 3 paths for each class).
Using mages or wizards for a quick example..
You have a wiz of each path, and while your path might not do damage on a particular boss, it would boost the next wizards dps, and while your path nukes are on cd, you could still use the nukes that do the most damage until your path nuke is back up to buff the next round of damage.
Say the mages are pet path and you have a air pet..earth pet..and a fire pet, or water pet...make it so that they work in conjunction to help the mages all do more damage by each mage pet debuffing a particualr resist...thus it helps all mages/caster types do more damage..
Having DL there when a warrior is main tanking would still be beneficial because if the DL is drain path, they can drain the NPC armor allowing the raid to more physical damage while being the offtank..
With this setup the possibilities of raid and group combinations are endless for any content your group would want to conquer
Megaera said:You have a wiz of each path, and while your path might not do damage on a particular boss, it would boost the next wizards dps, and while your path nukes are on cd, you could still use the nukes that do the most damage until your path nuke is back up to buff the next round of damage.
Say the mages are pet path and you have a air pet..earth pet..and a fire pet, or water pet...make it so that they work in conjunction to help the mages all do more damage by each mage pet debuffing a particualr resist...thus it helps all mages/caster types do more damage..
Having DL there when a warrior is main tanking would still be beneficial because if the DL is drain path, they can drain the NPC armor allowing the raid to more physical damage while being the offtank..
OR you have that be innate for each class and work with your group to strategize who uses which pets to get the most, which wizards use x class of magic, which tanks load up which abilities.
Agree to disagree.
For specialization, if any, I'd rather it be more like picking a school of magic or class of abilities and getting slightly reduced mana costs or cooldowns or lower failure rates/higher hit rates with whichever you choose rather than splitting classes and offering more direct and vastly notable power changes.
After some more serious consideration and some thought while I am working on a path list for this debate, I think we should just wait a little longer and see how many holes we can poke into or problems we can find in their current structure before we spend too much time debating on something we can't change.
However once I finish up with my ideas list tom. or the next day..if you want to read it PM me and ill copy and paste it.
letsdance said:my oppinion:
specialization can be interesting, but
(1) it shouldn't just increase the number of classes, so class identity should be kept.
(2) it shouldn't be possible to just switch to whatever spec you currently need (like most modern MMOs with specs work). if everyone can just switch to whatever he needs, everyone is the same again.that leaves us with 2 options:
(1) you can only learn one spec and that choice is permanent.
(2) you can learn multiple, or all specs, which means when you learned them all, you mastered them all. in that case, all members of the class are the same again once they've reached this point.so, keeping true to the spirit of pantheon that would mean specs are permanent, and they are a small variation of your class, not a role changing one.
lets look at the monk as example, because it's the class that we know something about from the may newsletter.
"The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank. The class will feature two specializations - Body and Soul. Body will be the prototypical hand-to-hand DPS class while Soul is envisioned to be a stalwart off-tank with self-healing mechanics and high avoidance."
Group Role: Melee DPS, Off-Tank, Pulling Utility
Weaponry: (...)in my oppinion, weapon specs lead to lower weapon choices (you will only use weapons of your spec), which makes balancing alot harder and item hunt less interesting (less choices -> less options). so i hope, specs won't influence weapons.
for me that means the monks primary role is puller, but he can also dps (well, who can't?), off-tank (like most melee classes) and some cc. so body spec would mean higher dps, and soul spec better tanking. in both these cases he keeps his primary role as puller, but is either better at dps or tanking depending on his spec. the difference should be weak, it's going hard enough to balance that anyways. in any case his dps/tanking is still inferior to classes who have this as their primary role. if the choice is permanent, that's a system that i'd like because it gives us more distinctive characters.but in the long run, many people will regret their choice and we'll get some tool to respec anyways :-/ i see no way to prevent specs from going the way they always do. so in the end, even if i would like it, there's probably other things (like an extra dungeon) that i'd rather have instead.
edit: just look at how the classes always (in all MMOs that have classes) complain over how poor and weak and underpowered they are compared to everyone else. now we're going to have the same for different paths, doubling the issue and the balancing work.
I am sorry but your comment that I highlighted is inaccurate. Your suggestion implies that VR has confirmed that learning multiple specializations won't be possible whereas I have it on good authority that it is something that is at the very least being considered. Again, I don't want to get into an argument on whether or not learning multiple specializations could, would, or should be possible. This thread was started with the assumption that it will be possible, and the specializations I have shared are using that as a premise. The notion of one spec being over-powered and there being constant balance issues is null. By allowing a player to learn all specs, they don't need to be balanced. It's acceptable that some specs are more useful than others, and it's up to the player to determine which specialization they want to master first. By allowing players to freely swap their specializations while out of combat, the idea of someone getting stuck with a less than ideal spec is void. If they pick the wrong specialization as their first choice, it's on them to go and learn another one.
Allowing multiple specialization paths opens up a much deeper progression window while simultaneously providing more flexibility for each class across the board. Many of the issues or problems that people keep bringing up are non-existent if they would just go with the flow and stop changing the subject. Again, to be clear, it is possible that our characters will be able to learn multiple specializations in Pantheon. This was confirmed by Joppa, the creative director who is working on all of the class reveals and their associated specializations. Please stop writing this concept off as something that goes against VR's vision because that is absolutely untrue and establishes a set of false pretenses where people write something off before they even consider how it could work. I understand that some folks may not like the idea, and that's fine. If you have a better idea, please create your own thread and share it where it can be discussed in detail. This isn't the place for that. This thread doesen't need to be derailed with every other comment that suggests that this system would break the game or that it goes against VR's vision. As Amsai posted earlier, the spirit of this thread isn't whether or not this concept should come to life ... it's about how it could come to life. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, it is very much appreciated.
If they aren't balanced, then there will be one viable choice. I'm all for meaningful choices, but a choice between awesome and junk is not a choice.
Given peoples reaction to this topic, at this point I hope they're stances and not sub-classes. At least then I can switch between awesome and junk and won't be punished for all time for one ignorant decision.
vjek said:If they aren't balanced, then there will be one viable choice. I'm all for meaningful choices, but a choice between awesome and junk is not a choice.
Given peoples reaction to this topic, at this point I hope they're stances and not sub-classes. At least then I can switch between awesome and junk and won't be punished for all time for one ignorant decision.
Vjek, that isn't true. There may be a choice that makes the most sense to learn first, but that doesen't mean it's the only one that is viable. For example ... if rogues get a DPS spec and a utility spec, most rogues would probably go down the DPS spec first as it would be viable more often than not. There could be various scenarios where the utility spec would be ideal, though, and this would encourage rogues to also learn that specialization down the road. If someone wanted to learn utility first, that's up to them. Maybe it makes sense for them based on their style of gameplay or perhaps their guild has multiple rogues who already have the DPS spec but they really need someone with utility ... considering how long it should take to master the specialization, it would make more sense for this rogue to master utility now rather than waiting for the others to learn it later. By allowing people to master multiple specializations, they could, in essence, be very similar to stances. The only difference would be that they could only be swapped while out of combat, whereas stances traditionally allow you to do it whenever you want, including while in combat. With my idea, specializations would be very much similar to stances but with the caveat that they could only be swapped while out of combat. That would be the only difference ... that, and the idea that learning each specialization would be an undertaking of monumental proportion.
NoobieDoo said:As long as the fundamentals of each class remain intact then selecting a specialization should bear no concern. Specializations should add flavor to the way you play your class's role NOT change the role your class plays. If you choose a Dire Lord then no matter which specialization you choose you should always be able to tank efficiently, the specialization should simply alter the things you do WHILE you are tanking.
DLs obviously seem akin to both SKs from EQ1 and DKs from VG. Beyond tanking SKs and DKs are historically known for life taps, undead pets, dark magic, etc. So specializing should not have a player choosing between a 'tanky' DL or a 'DPSie' DL, they should be choosing between a life tapping DL or an undead pet summoning DL. Or maybe a physical damaging path vs a path of dark magic.
I guess the big question would be does selecting a specific path still allow a player to obtain all spells for that class? Or does selecting a path void out specific spells found in the other path? For example, and keeping this as simple as possible, would a DL who chooses the path of life taps over the path of undead pets still be able to have undead pets?
The idea behind it is that players could learn both specializations over time. As you put it, the specialization would simply offer flavor. To answer your question though, no, if you choose the life tap path, that would NOT prevent you from also going down the undead pet path. You could do both. Each one would require quite a bit of effort though, so the one you pick first is still a very important decision. It's important to note, though, that each spec has their own set of abilities. While you could technically "learn" all of the abilities from each spec, you wouldn't be able to use them all at the same time. On one fight, you may want to use your lifetap spec. On the very next fight, perhaps it makes more sense to go with the undead pet spec ... so while you are out of combat, in between fights, you could switch your spec and thus be better prepared for the next fight. VR has stated that they want to place a heavy emphasis on preparation. This includes having a lot of situational gear that you would rotate between fights. I believe that specialization could be an additional layer of "situational preparation."
I don't see the need for a system to determine your spec as in the traditional wow specs/talent trees. The "spec" you use could simply be determined by the spells or abilities you have at your disposal and were able to acquire during your adventures.
This ofcourse only works if VR makes certain spells and abilities hard to acquire and somewhat rare (as in you needing to farm them) , maybe some of them only drop in a certain area, other can drop anywhere, maybe some are crafted and expensive other are quest rewards or rep rewards, etc.
My point is, making a system that says you can be X or Y choose, as been done to death by every MMO, creating something that allows you to mix and match differents parts of your class to create something you fell fits your playstyle or the encounter you're figthing is infinitely more interesting than, you're a warrior do you want to be tank or dps choose.
oneADseven said:letsdance said:so, keeping true to the spirit of pantheon that would mean specs are permanent, and they are a small variation of your class, not a role changing one.I am sorry but your comment that I highlighted is inaccurate. Your suggestion implies that VR has confirmed that learning multiple specializations won't be possible
no i did not. i didn't say anything about details that VR has confirmed or not. and what you highlighted does in no way imply that. i just said they should not be role-changing. that's a basic premise, for example from the game tenets: "A requirement that classes have identities." classes. not specializations. if my class changes significantly depending on spec, i lose class identity.
I agree Jpedrote, and what you speak of in the last paragraph is exactly what I expect in Pantheon. There will be a lot of moving pieces and parts. You may have an item or spell that isn't used very often, but every now and then you'll stumble upon a certain encounter where that item/spell really has an opportunity to shine. Rather than having a small range of "Best in Slot" items, there will be a large assortment of "Situationally Best in Slot" items. Each item will feel more meaningful that way. It won't be a matter of finding a new necklace that invalidates every single one that came before it. We'll have collections of gear that all serve a purpose.
The way I look at specializations, it could be an extension of the emphasis placed on situational gear. Each spec could have various abilities that need to be learned and we could see a variety of ways in how that could be done. Some could be quested ... perhaps the master who trains you in a specific specialization is the one who gives you a quest on how to unlock one of it's powers. Other abilities could be rare drops, or a scroll that requires rare components and a specialized crafter to make it. All of those ideas could be captured with specialization. As I mentioned prior, specialization could, in essence, be an advanced form of a "stance." It wouldn't be something that you forget. Once you learn the specialization and the various abilities exclusive to it, they will always have a place in your toolkit.
Our hotbars will be limited, though. We will only be able to use so many abilities or spells at any given time. It's quite likely that we'll be able to save/load a series of hotbars. You may want a hotbar that you use for the majority of your grouping endeavors. You may have another one that you use while you are solo or traveling. You may have another one that you use while you are raiding. Then, of course, you'll be adding new hotbar saves along the way as you learn new encounters that require further hotbar customization for maximum efficiency. Learning a specialization would essentially add to the amount of abilities that you could draw from when you make these situational hotbars. The more advanced you are in your specialization, the more options you'll be able to choose from. If you happen to know multiple specializations, even better!
When it comes to specialization, a lot of people seem to be consumed by failed systems from games of the past. There is no need to dwell on WoW's talent trees as they have zero relevance in Pantheon. There is no direct correlation with either system so all of the issues or problems that people may have experienced with that system are things that don't need to be brought up here. If you are able to learn multiple specializations, why do they need to be balanced? I would argue that they shouldn't be balanced for the sake of flavor and situational power boosts. There may be a "path" that the majority of players take in regards to what they specialize in first, and that's okay. At the end of the day, though, the power progression for our characters wouldn't have to be linear.
The argument that all players will just end up being the same makes no sense to me. Using that logic, couldn't the same be said about gear? Even though there will be plenty of situational gear to choose from, since all pieces are accessible, does that mean we should assume that eventually everybody will obtain all of them? Even if 10 players do obtain every single piece of situational gear, that doesen't restrict them to "being the same." Having all that gear means they have choices. It means that one guy can wear his resist gear while the other wears gear for raw stats. The other guy can wear a set that yields some sort of set bonus, while yet another one wears a mismatched set with unique clicky effects. They may have the same stuff in their arsenel, but that does not mean they are the same. They could all equip themselves completely different from one another and provide different benefits to a group or raid.
The same could be said about specializations. If you have 3 master monks in the raid who are versed in both Body & Soul, that does not mean they are the same. They have the same "kit" to draw from when selecting their "situational" hotbar, yes, and that's what makes all of this so very interesting. Since hotbars are limited, no single monk can utilize 100% of the abilities in their kit. You will have to make a sacrifice at some point "I really want to use this buff but at the same time I absolutely need taunt." So that monk doesen't get to use the buff as his assumed role requires the taunt spell to consume one of his hotbar slots. If the next monk isn't required to take on a role that also needs taunt, he could then use that buff that the other monk wasn't able to use. Repeat this scenario times 100x and there are infinite possibilities in regards to how you could bring 3 monks on a single raid who all play very differently from each other. Even if they have access to all of the same abilities, there is no reason to assume that they will all ever be the same. Sometimes, maybe they will. It all depends on the situation. At the end of the day, though, giving players the choice to be different is what many of us crave. A monk is a monk is a monk is a monk? No ... no. A monk is not a monk is not a monk is not a monk.
Hopefully these examples address the concern of "everybody being the same." It just isn't true. In fact, the more options we have to be different, the more often it will occur. If you make the specialization choice permanent, there could still be a variety of "Body" monks or "Soul" monks. But that will limit player flexibility, reduce the potential for specializations to be used as a form of progression, and also promote the idea of there being a "Flavor of the Month" spec. When you make the choice permanent, then yes, you can run into situations where you may not be able to join a group or raid or guild due to your spec selection. That sounds super lame. When you make the choice permanent, then yes, you may have to decide whether or not you want to enjoy top tier raiding (certain spec is required for it) as the cost of never being able to solo. (The spec that allows you to solo is not viable for raids thus they won't accept you.) That also sounds super lame.
When you open up the playbook, you can play the game how you want, when you want. You can provide useful situational specs to groups or raids that need them without locking yourself out of playing other useful situational specs that you yourself may enjoy. Have I mentioned how this could all be tied into progression, and how awesome progression is? I understand that some people don't like the idea of "A longer journey to become the complete version of your own class" because they think you should just be that, anyways. This is where I disagree. Make people work hard to become the complete version of their own class. It shouldn't be a handout. Make the journey as long as possible so that we can continue to earn and enjoy the sensations of meaningful progression well beyond achieving max level. There are many tenets that support this concept despite so many trying to make the argument that it goes against VR's vision. Again, liberate yourselves ... throw out the handcuffs and artificial barriers/restrictions. Embrace the idea of meaningful progression and class diversity. Embrace the idea of becoming a "Master Monk" and then enjoying the recognition and added fun/flavor that comes with it. Pantheon is a hardcore MMO ... long journeys should be the rule, not the exception.
letsdance said:oneADseven said:letsdance said:so, keeping true to the spirit of pantheon that would mean specs are permanent, and they are a small variation of your class, not a role changing one.I am sorry but your comment that I highlighted is inaccurate. Your suggestion implies that VR has confirmed that learning multiple specializations won't be possibleno i did not. i didn't say anything about details that VR has confirmed or not. and what you highlighted does in no way imply that. i just said they should not be role-changing. that's a basic premise, for example from the game tenets: "A requirement that classes have identities." classes. not specializations. if my class changes significantly depending on spec, i lose class identity.
"So, keeping true to the spirit of Pantheon that would mean specs are permanent, and they are a small variation of your class, not a role changing one."
Yes, that implies that "the true spirit of Pantheon would mean that specs are permanent" -- and this is where we disagree. As you can see in the monk example that has been provided, they have an off-tank specialization. Seeing as their primary role is DPS, it becomes quite clear that specialization can in fact allow certain classes to delve into new potential roles. This doesen't mean your class loses identity, it means the identity for that class is broadened some, if of course you are well versed in that specialization. At the end of the day, monks will be a DPS class and that will be their primary role. Some monks may be able to flex into a situational off-tank role. Does that mean their permanent role will now be that of an off-tank? If they are able to learn both specializations then no, that wouldn't be the case. If the spec choice is permanent, however, the monk specialized in the path of being able to flex as an off-tank probably wouldn't have as high a DPS ceiling as the monk who didn't. This is why I have argued that players should be able to learn both specializations. They can flex as an off-tank when needed without sacrificing their overall DPS potential in the situations where they aren't.
oneADseven said:Seeing as their primary role is DPSwhere are you seeing that? to quote the newsletter again:
The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS
"fantastic" sounds alot like there's no one better. while "capable" is not that special. as i wrote in my post above, that's why i assume the monks primary role is pulling.
letsdance said:oneADseven said:Seeing as their primary role is DPSwhere are you seeing that? to quote the newsletter again:The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS
"fantastic" sounds alot like there's no one better. while "capable" is not that special. as i wrote in my post above, that's why i assume the monks primary role is pulling.
I am talking about the quaternity of tank/heal/dps/control. My understanding is that their role in the quaternity will be that of DPS. I suppose one could argue that they also carve a role in the control sphere due to their pulling mechanics but I highly doubt that monks will be considered control over DPS.
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies.
Group Role: Melee DPS, Off-Tank, Pulling Utility "
Pulling utility is listed last. If you look at the reveals for cleric, shaman and rogue, Cleric/Shaman have healer listed first, support second. Rogue has melee DPS first, support second. I'm not sure if this is listed in the order of significance or not but I imagine that could very well be the case. Monk was definitely a very interesting class to start with in regards to opening up the can of worms that is specialization. It sets a very interesting precedent that I don't expect most other classes to follow. Of all the remaining classes, I can't really think of another one that will have "off-tank" as a role. I could see rangers having some "pulling utility." I suppose warriors may even have a spec that is more DPS oriented (think Berserker) ... it's really tough to try and predict any of it. I for one hope that warriors remain 100% true to tanking with both of their specs.
oneADseven said:The argument that all players will just end up being the same makes no sense to me. Using that logic, couldn't the same be said about gear? Even though there will be plenty of situational gear to choose from, since all pieces are accessible, does that mean we should assume that eventually everybody will obtain all of them? Even if 10 players do obtain every single piece of situational gear, that doesen't restrict them to "being the same." Having all that gear means they have choices. It means that one guy can wear his resist gear while the other wears gear for raw stats. The other guy can wear a set that yields some sort of set bonus, while yet another one wears a mismatched set with unique clicky effects. They may have the same stuff in their arsenel, but that does not mean they are the same. They could all equip themselves completely different from one another and provide different benefits to a group or raid.
The same could be said about specializations. If you have 3 master monks in the raid who are versed in both Body & Soul, that does not mean they are the same. They have the same "kit" to draw from when selecting their "situational" hotbar, yes, and that's what makes all of this so very interesting. Since hotbars are limited, no single monk can utilize 100% of the abilities in their kit. You will have to make a sacrifice at some point "I really want to use this buff but at the same time I absolutely need taunt." So that monk doesen't get to use the buff as his assumed role requires the taunt spell to consume one of his hotbar slots. If the next monk isn't required to take on a role that also needs taunt, he could then use that buff that the other monk wasn't able to use. Repeat this scenario times 100x and there are infinite possibilities in regards to how you could bring 3 monks on a single raid who all play very differently from each other. Even if they have access to all of the same abilities, there is no reason to assume that they will all ever be the same. Sometimes, maybe they will. It all depends on the situation. At the end of the day, though, giving players the choice to be different is what many of us crave. A monk is a monk is a monk is a monk? No ... no. A monk is not a monk is not a monk is not a monk.
When you open up the playbook, you can play the game how you want, when you want. You can provide useful situational specs to groups or raids that need them without locking yourself out of playing other useful situational specs that you yourself may enjoy. Have I mentioned how this could all be tied into progression, and how awesome progression is? I understand that some people don't like the idea of "A longer journey to become the complete version of your own class" because they think you should just be that, anyways. This is where I disagree. Make people work hard to become the complete version of their own class. It shouldn't be a handout. Make the journey as long as possible so that we can continue to earn and enjoy the sensations of meaningful progression well beyond achieving max level. There are many tenets that support this concept despite so many trying to make the argument that it goes against VR's vision. Again, liberate yourselves ... throw out the handcuffs and artificial barriers/restrictions. Embrace the idea of meaningful progression and class diversity. Embrace the idea of becoming a "Master Monk" and then enjoying the recognition and added fun/flavor that comes with it. Pantheon is a hardcore MMO ... long journeys should be the rule, not the exception.
This is the exact argument against specializations to begin with. Adding specializations is making things more limited for more players for a longer period of time. Much longer if this progression you speak of would in fact take a very long time and tons of effort. How exactly do you envision it working out? You level to 30, pick a spec, level to 50 and are now a master of spec A but then you can swap specs and level from 30 to 50 again? Or do you intend to put it behind progeny? I'd argue that almost no matter how you slice that one you are either taking players out of using progeny or doing what they have said they wont do which is add combat power gains behind progeny. It makes it much harder for players to have alts as well because sure enough, the long challenging journey to 50 it turns out was only half the battle. You are now the highest level of monk....buuuut not really, you still have a long way to go. Let's not pretend guilds won't in time expect members to learn both paths to be as flexible as possible, which again takes players out of the earlier levels/progeny or punishes players who enjoy maxing alts.
So:
"If you have 3 master monks in the raid who are versed in both Body & Soul, that does not mean they are the same...Repeat this scenario times 100x and there are infinite possibilities in regards to how you could bring 3 monks on a single raid who all play very differently from each other. Even if they have access to all of the same abilities, there is no reason to assume that they will all ever be the same. Sometimes, maybe they will. It all depends on the situation."
Leave it to the players to work out how they use their own spells differently, if you don't want mixing the abilities that would be behind "specs" then limit them behind stances. If I am a level 50 Monk, I want to be a master monk that can focus on gearing myself with all these different sets and learning complex boss battles. I don't want to have to then realize that I need to keep leveling monk. Alternatively I want to be able to say "I did it! Whew" and after gearing for a while put my progression toward leveling another class.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:The argument that all players will just end up being the same makes no sense to me. Using that logic, couldn't the same be said about gear? Even though there will be plenty of situational gear to choose from, since all pieces are accessible, does that mean we should assume that eventually everybody will obtain all of them? Even if 10 players do obtain every single piece of situational gear, that doesen't restrict them to "being the same." Having all that gear means they have choices. It means that one guy can wear his resist gear while the other wears gear for raw stats. The other guy can wear a set that yields some sort of set bonus, while yet another one wears a mismatched set with unique clicky effects. They may have the same stuff in their arsenel, but that does not mean they are the same. They could all equip themselves completely different from one another and provide different benefits to a group or raid.
The same could be said about specializations. If you have 3 master monks in the raid who are versed in both Body & Soul, that does not mean they are the same. They have the same "kit" to draw from when selecting their "situational" hotbar, yes, and that's what makes all of this so very interesting. Since hotbars are limited, no single monk can utilize 100% of the abilities in their kit. You will have to make a sacrifice at some point "I really want to use this buff but at the same time I absolutely need taunt." So that monk doesen't get to use the buff as his assumed role requires the taunt spell to consume one of his hotbar slots. If the next monk isn't required to take on a role that also needs taunt, he could then use that buff that the other monk wasn't able to use. Repeat this scenario times 100x and there are infinite possibilities in regards to how you could bring 3 monks on a single raid who all play very differently from each other. Even if they have access to all of the same abilities, there is no reason to assume that they will all ever be the same. Sometimes, maybe they will. It all depends on the situation. At the end of the day, though, giving players the choice to be different is what many of us crave. A monk is a monk is a monk is a monk? No ... no. A monk is not a monk is not a monk is not a monk.
When you open up the playbook, you can play the game how you want, when you want. You can provide useful situational specs to groups or raids that need them without locking yourself out of playing other useful situational specs that you yourself may enjoy. Have I mentioned how this could all be tied into progression, and how awesome progression is? I understand that some people don't like the idea of "A longer journey to become the complete version of your own class" because they think you should just be that, anyways. This is where I disagree. Make people work hard to become the complete version of their own class. It shouldn't be a handout. Make the journey as long as possible so that we can continue to earn and enjoy the sensations of meaningful progression well beyond achieving max level. There are many tenets that support this concept despite so many trying to make the argument that it goes against VR's vision. Again, liberate yourselves ... throw out the handcuffs and artificial barriers/restrictions. Embrace the idea of meaningful progression and class diversity. Embrace the idea of becoming a "Master Monk" and then enjoying the recognition and added fun/flavor that comes with it. Pantheon is a hardcore MMO ... long journeys should be the rule, not the exception.
This is the exact argument against specializations to begin with. Adding specializations is making things more limited for more players for a longer period of time. Much longer if this progression you speak of would in fact take a very long time and tons of effort. How exactly do you envision it working out? You level to 30, pick a spec, level to 50 and are now a master of spec A but then you can swap specs and level from 30 to 50 again? Or do you intend to put it behind progeny? I'd argue that almost no matter how you slice that one you are either taking players out of using progeny or doing what they have said they wont do which is add combat power gains behind progeny. It makes it much harder for players to have alts as well because sure enough, the long challenging journey to 50 it turns out was only half the battle. You are now the highest level of monk....buuuut not really, you still have a long way to go. Let's not pretend guilds won't in time expect members to learn both paths to be as flexible as possible, which again takes players out of the earlier levels/progeny or punishes players who enjoy maxing alts.
So:
"If you have 3 master monks in the raid who are versed in both Body & Soul, that does not mean they are the same...Repeat this scenario times 100x and there are infinite possibilities in regards to how you could bring 3 monks on a single raid who all play very differently from each other. Even if they have access to all of the same abilities, there is no reason to assume that they will all ever be the same. Sometimes, maybe they will. It all depends on the situation."
Leave it to the players to work out how they use their own spells differently, if you don't want mixing the abilities that would be behind "specs" then limit them behind stances. If I am a level 50 Monk, I want to be a master monk that can focus on gearing myself with all these different sets and learning complex boss battles. I don't want to have to then realize that I need to keep leveling monk. Alternatively I want to be able to say "I did it! Whew" and after gearing for a while put my progression toward leveling another class.
It appears that specializations are already a part of the game as "Body" & "Soul" are labeled as a specialization, not a stance. This is only my personal opinion, but yes, if it were up to me I would require a re-level through progeny to unlock additional specializations. As far as progeny is concerned, we were told to look up "Remort" from MUD's. Here is the authority link on Remort: http://mud.co.uk/dvw/whatisremort.html
Here are some observations that would suggest that learning a second specialization through progeny could make sense, according to that link:
Remort can offer certain advantages:
There are many reasons for having remort, from an admin perspective. Most importantly (in my opinion) is that it gives your higher level players something to continue to work towards or for. It's frustrating having a bunch of really bored players who loved the game when they started (weeks or months ago) but now have nothing else to do. Obviously there are other things you can have them doing besides remort (special high-level quests, special areas just for those of that level, access to being guild leaders if they have made a certain level only and so forth), but it is another option you can offer them.
You can reward your long-term players with some nifty new classes or special skills and spells. Those that are willing to play your game long enough to earn the right of a remort will often continue playing longer and have more loyalty to your game. After all, they've worked hard to get where they are! These classes may be considered more powerful and hence more desired than the initial starting classes that everyone chooses from. They may have new spells or skills that are unique amongst the different classes. Finally, on games that use class-based equipment, adding equipment that only the remort classes can use is also a draw for players.
Finally, on some games the only way to have multiple classes is through the remort system. That is, you have to start over again if you want to have access to more than one class and one set of skills. On games that start out with multi-classing from the beginning this is probably no nearly as novel, but it can add some spice to those games that do not have multi-classing available any other way.
This link doesen't provide any factual information regarding what we should expect from progeny, but unfortunately, this is the most information we can go off of. We were told that progeny won't be so powerful that it would be required for end-game raiding. We were also told to look up "Remort from MUD's" and the link I provided is the #1 link on Google for this topic. That page seems to suggest that remort is much more powerful than what we have come to expect regarding progeny, so it's probably not the best example. Personally, I would like to refer to something specifically from VR rather than looking up 3'rd party websites as a reference point. All it has done is lead to more questions and more speculation as it contradicts what we have come to expect regarding progeny. Personally, I really like how Remort is explained on that page. I think using remort as a way to learn additional specializations would be amazing for Pantheon as it would essentially offer the same value that sub-classes did to FFXI.
Any FFXI veteran here can attest that sub-classes are one of the major features that made FFXI great and had a massive impact on keeping the entire game relevant and all zones and level ranges bustling with player activity. Personally speaking, I would like to see Progeny be a major feature of the game. I would want the bonus to be as powerful as unlocking a new specialization because that would actually justify the time/effort spent doing it. If the benefit is very small, there are plenty who won't participate. That would be a shame. I assure you ... having active players in all level ranges and zones is one of the main reasons why so many people loved FFXI. At the end of the day, all of that player activity was a simple by-product of allowing people to have sub-classes. If you dangle a juicy enough carrot, it's impossible to resist. That impossible to resist carrot could very well end up being a major source of player lifeblood circulation on every single server.
Again, I realize some folks wouldn't like this. Some people wouldn't want to re-level because it's hard enough to level through the first time. That's really unfortunate. FFXI was a hardcore game. FFXI encouraged people to want to re-level and virtually everybody did it. People didn't complain about having to relevel, they embraced it. They embraced it because it provided a meaningful sense of power progression on their main character. Having a sub-class was essential for high end content. Some folks would level up a dragoon to 37 only because of a level 35 dragoon ability that they wanted to use on their samurai or monk. Every time someone leveled up a sub-class, that created an opportunity where a new player could interact with a veteran player. The new player would be leveling up their first toon while the veteran was leveling up a sub-class as an extension of their main. Either way, it provided amazing potential for player interaction. It made the entire game relevant. There were no "dead lonely zones." For me ... there is some truly amazing potential with progeny, but it all starts with making it a major feature of the game rather than a "eh, some people may care to use it, not really a big deal" back-burner feature. If you want all zones to be relevant and all level ranges full of activity, one only needs to add some extra juice and crunch to the carrot known as progeny. Learning additional specializations and becoming a "Master" of your class would serve as the ultimate juice/crunch factor, for sure.
*Edit -- Just to be clear, though ... learning an additional specialization wouldn't have to be done through progeny. There are other ways to make it work. The main point, though, is that it should be very difficult. It should be very time consuming. It should be on the scale of an epic quest. All of that would require a significant amount of work, though. Progeny seems to be the easiest way to accomplish this as you wouldn't have to create crazy long quests or anything else. You let people play through progeny and it's as simple as that.
@Iksar
I think you're looking at "specs" from a very narrow point of view, you're thinking of them as a single proggression path from the moment you choose them to the moment you max them.
I don't see it that way, i see 2 different "specs" as 2 different tool kits that bellong to the same class, for example the Shaman, it has the detrimental buffing spells and the benefficial buffing spells, those would be the 2 "specs".
But the way I see it progressing is not by choosing one of the 2 at level 30 and needing to level it up/spend point/watherver until it's at it's full potential. I see it more as you have all these spells and abilities and little parts of the tool kit, they're all spread around the world, in different activities (quests, reps, drops, raids, dungeons, etc), and you can choose what parts you want and what parts you don't want and "hunt" them down, integrating them in your toolkit and giving more options of how you want to play.
jpedrote said:@Iksar
I think you're looking at "specs" from a very narrow point of view, you're thinking of them as a single proggression path from the moment you choose them to the moment you max them.
I don't see it that way, i see 2 different "specs" as 2 different tool kits that bellong to the same class, for example the Shaman, it has the detrimental buffing spells and the benefficial buffing spells, those would be the 2 "specs".
But the way I see it progressing is not by choosing one of the 2 at level 30 and needing to level it up/spend point/watherver until it's at it's full potential. I see it more as you have all these spells and abilities and little parts of the tool kit, they're all spread around the world, in different activities (quests, reps, drops, raids, dungeons, etc), and you can choose what parts you want and what parts you don't want and "hunt" them down, integrating them in your toolkit and giving more options of how you want to play.
Well that seems to be what everyone in this thread is talking about. Even if the Monk reveal is very vague and actually makes it seem like monks will be using both forms and not picking just one, almost like stances. Or that them saying specialization is more to point out where they stand in terms of the "Quaternity" and saying they are primarily DPS, secondary Off-Tank, and tertiary a utility class and not that each monk specializes in one of the two "arts".
oneADseven said:letsdance said:oneADseven said:Seeing as their primary role is DPSwhere are you seeing that? to quote the newsletter again:The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS
"fantastic" sounds alot like there's no one better. while "capable" is not that special. as i wrote in my post above, that's why i assume the monks primary role is pulling.
I am talking about the quaternity of tank/heal/dps/control. My understanding is that their role in the quaternity will be that of DPS. I suppose one could argue that they also carve a role in the control sphere due to their pulling mechanics but I highly doubt that monks will be considered control over DPS.
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies.
Group Role: Melee DPS, Off-Tank, Pulling Utility "
Pulling utility is listed last. If you look at the reveals for cleric, shaman and rogue, Cleric/Shaman have healer listed first, support second. Rogue has melee DPS first, support second. I'm not sure if this is listed in the order of significance or not but I imagine that could very well be the case. Monk was definitely a very interesting class to start with in regards to opening up the can of worms that is specialization. It sets a very interesting precedent that I don't expect most other classes to follow. Of all the remaining classes, I can't really think of another one that will have "off-tank" as a role. I could see rangers having some "pulling utility." I suppose warriors may even have a spec that is more DPS oriented (think Berserker) ... it's really tough to try and predict any of it. I for one hope that warriors remain 100% true to tanking with both of their specs.
I could see rangers having exactly the same group role type.
In EQ they were decent enough offtank and we're stellar pullers if the mobs were root able or outside. Later in levels they got a memory blur root and an AE root that was slick for pulling as well.