Aradune and Joppa visit the Gamespace GameShow tonight at 7pm PDT to talk Pantheon, classes and more. Catch it live at any of the following:
https://gaming.youtube.com/c/MMORPGcomOfficial/live
And at Periscope @mmorpgcom
Continually impressed with Joppa. He's the MVP of this project for sure. Just an excellent speaker, articulates design decisions well and comes across passionate. Aradune is fast approaching crazy old uncle territory for me, his name has marketing value, but he's tough to listen to at times in these interviews, especially when he interjects with some random thought or tangent and everyone just kind of pauses and then gets back to the topic at hand.
Not much new information here other than the Summoner tease that the pets will be very powerful and the summoner will be focusing on summoning things throughout the encounters, not on DPS nukes like the EQ Magician. Thought that was a good tidbit.
Completely disappointed though that the team apparently is only paying lip service to the entire concept of a "Control" archetype and the quaternity concept. You guys need to get the Bard and Necromancer (as a control class) in this game for launch. People wanting to play the Control role in the supposed quaternity need some options other than the Enchanter. Every other archetype has at least three options. The Ranger and the Summoner were/are not nearly as important as the 5th and 6th DPS option as the Bard and Necro would be as the 2nd and 3rd option for the Control archetype. This is common sense, and as someone that wants to focus on the Control role (Haste, Slows, Buffs, DeBuffs, Pulling, Mezzing, Charming, etc...) but does NOT want to play as a freaking Enchanter, the seemingly obliviousness to potentially launching a "Quaternity" based game with only ONE class in the Control role is incredibly confusing to me. At a minimum, you should be benching the Ranger and Summoner to at least put the Bard as a priority. I'd personally bench them both for the Bard and Necro (once again, designed as a control archetype).
Regardless, I think you guys are doing a great job, but you're flubbing the decision not to make sure you have more than one Control class in game as early as possible for testing.
Mathir said:This is common sense, and as someone that wants to focus on the Control role (Haste, Slows, Buffs, DeBuffs, Pulling, Mezzing, Charming, etc...) but does NOT want to play as a freaking Enchanter, the seemingly obliviousness to potentially launching a "Quaternity" based game with only ONE class in the Control role is incredibly confusing to me.
Monk and Rogue both seem to have the ability to pull... (We still haven't seen everyone elses abilities)
Shaman's Druids, Clerics, (Pretty much all casters) Will have buffs...
Shaman's will also more than likely be able to debuff along with Druid's DoT's/Debuff...
If you want to mezz and charm, you can play an enchanter. Not sure why you would give multiple classes the same abilities (That's called a reskin)...
With what's been shown already lots of things seem very versitile in what they can do.
Keep in mind the game isn't even in alpha yet.
Mathir said:Continually impressed with Joppa. He's the MVP of this project for sure. Just an excellent speaker, articulates design decisions well and comes across passionate. Aradune is fast approaching crazy old uncle territory for me, his name has marketing value, but he's tough to listen to at times in these interviews, especially when he interjects with some random thought or tangent and everyone just kind of pauses and then gets back to the topic at hand.
Not much new information here other than the Summoner tease that the pets will be very powerful and the summoner will be focusing on summoning things throughout the encounters, not on DPS nukes like the EQ Magician. Thought that was a good tidbit.
Completely disappointed though that the team apparently is only paying lip service to the entire concept of a "Control" archetype and the quaternity concept. You guys need to get the Bard and Necromancer (as a control class) in this game for launch. People wanting to play the Control role in the supposed quaternity need some options other than the Enchanter. Every other archetype has at least three options. The Ranger and the Summoner were/are not nearly as important as the 5th and 6th DPS option as the Bard and Necro would be as the 2nd and 3rd option for the Control archetype. This is common sense, and as someone that wants to focus on the Control role (Haste, Slows, Buffs, DeBuffs, Pulling, Mezzing, Charming, etc...) but does NOT want to play as a freaking Enchanter, the seemingly obliviousness to potentially launching a "Quaternity" based game with only ONE class in the Control role is incredibly confusing to me. At a minimum, you should be benching the Ranger and Summoner to at least put the Bard as a priority. I'd personally bench them both for the Bard and Necro (once again, designed as a control archetype).
Regardless, I think you guys are doing a great job, but you're flubbing the decision not to make sure you have more than one Control class in game as early as possible for testing.
Bringing the same subject on every official topic...
I'll watch that interview once back at home !
eldrun said:Mathir said:This is common sense, and as someone that wants to focus on the Control role (Haste, Slows, Buffs, DeBuffs, Pulling, Mezzing, Charming, etc...) but does NOT want to play as a freaking Enchanter, the seemingly obliviousness to potentially launching a "Quaternity" based game with only ONE class in the Control role is incredibly confusing to me.
Monk and Rogue both seem to have the ability to pull... (We still haven't seen everyone elses abilities)
Shaman's Druids, Clerics, (Pretty much all casters) Will have buffs...
Shaman's will also more than likely be able to debuff along with Druid's DoT's/Debuff...
If you want to mezz and charm, you can play an enchanter. Not sure why you would give multiple classes the same abilities (That's called a reskin)...
With what's been shown already lots of things seem very versitile in what they can do.
Keep in mind the game isn't even in alpha yet.
Derr. Derr. Derr?
If you want to heal and buff, you can just play a Cleric. No need for a Shaman or Druid. Or tank, just play a Warrior, why ever make another class that for that archetype. Do you think before you type?
Some people don't want to play a squishy caster, but do want to play the Control role. It's called the "Control" Archetype. They've touted and advertised this game as a quaternity. Also, I want to be able to do the things I listed, which would all fall under the "Control" concept on one class. I understand that each of the classes can do at least one thing that I want to be able to do, but I want to do all of it on one character. The EQ2 Bard (Dirge) allowed me to do everything I ever wanted in a control type role plus battle rez. That was the best. I raided as an EQ1 Enchanter. I enjoy the control role, but that class and playstyle is not my thing. The Bard definitely is, and I think the Necro if done properly in a control role along with feign death and undead pets could be interesting. But an Enchanter, no.
If an entire archetype is going to be a pillar of your game, you need to launch with more than one option, and it should be at least three distinct playstyle options since every other archetype has that many choices. A plate wearing, off tank, kiting, music based class like the Bard is a distinct option. An undead master, feign death, DoTs and pet based class centered around fear and terror, like the Necro, would be another distinct option from what the Enchanter offers.
Thoroughly enjoyed it, it was a great show. There were way too many questions asked to be answered in one sitting, but the host picked some very good ones. It helps to build on the excitement when you listen to the Dev's talk about their experience and goals for the game. And the passion they have really comes through. Thanks for doing it, I’m looking forward to the next stream. :)
Mathir said:Derr. Derr. Derr?
If you want to heal and buff, you can just play a Cleric. No need for a Shaman or Druid. Or tank, just play a Warrior, why ever make another class that for that archetype. Do you think before you type?
Some people don't want to play a squishy caster, but do want to play the Control role. It's called the "Control" Archetype. They've touted and advertised this game as a quaternity. Also, I want to be able to do the things I listed, which would all fall under the "Control" concept on one class. I understand that each of the classes can do at least one thing that I want to be able to do, but I want to do all of it on one character. The EQ2 Bard (Dirge) allowed me to do everything I ever wanted in a control type role plus battle rez. That was the best. I raided as an EQ1 Enchanter. I enjoy the control role, but that class and playstyle is not my thing. The Bard definitely is, and I think the Necro if done properly in a control role along with feign death and undead pets could be interesting. But an Enchanter, no.
If an entire archetype is going to be a pillar of your game, you need to launch with more than one option, and it should be at least three distinct playstyle options since every other archetype has that many choices. A plate wearing, off tank, kiting, music based class like the Bard is a distinct option. An undead master, feign death, DoTs and pet based class centered around fear and terror, like the Necro, would be another distinct option from what the Enchanter offers.
The fact you're launching insults at me for having a differnt opinion than you is quiet hilarious, it really shows what kind of player/person you are. Anyways on to what actually matters.
You just said it yourself, perhaps not /everyone/ wants to play a single class to do a single thing, and indeed would like to have alternatives. Hence, why I said Shaman, druids, Clerics (Hell there could be more with certain abilities) to buff classes to match any scenario. Maybe not everyone wants to play a pure tank such as a warrior and they would like an off tank or a hybrid. The point being is that versatitlity and differnces will make certain groups work better in some dungeons and they would need to adapt in others, which in the end would make things more enjoyable.
If your version of how you want things to go happens no need for more than four classes. Tank, Healer, DPS, Control.
eldrun said:Mathir said:Derr. Derr. Derr?
If you want to heal and buff, you can just play a Cleric. No need for a Shaman or Druid. Or tank, just play a Warrior, why ever make another class that for that archetype. Do you think before you type?
Some people don't want to play a squishy caster, but do want to play the Control role. It's called the "Control" Archetype. They've touted and advertised this game as a quaternity. Also, I want to be able to do the things I listed, which would all fall under the "Control" concept on one class. I understand that each of the classes can do at least one thing that I want to be able to do, but I want to do all of it on one character. The EQ2 Bard (Dirge) allowed me to do everything I ever wanted in a control type role plus battle rez. That was the best. I raided as an EQ1 Enchanter. I enjoy the control role, but that class and playstyle is not my thing. The Bard definitely is, and I think the Necro if done properly in a control role along with feign death and undead pets could be interesting. But an Enchanter, no.
If an entire archetype is going to be a pillar of your game, you need to launch with more than one option, and it should be at least three distinct playstyle options since every other archetype has that many choices. A plate wearing, off tank, kiting, music based class like the Bard is a distinct option. An undead master, feign death, DoTs and pet based class centered around fear and terror, like the Necro, would be another distinct option from what the Enchanter offers.
The fact you're launching insults at me for having a differnt opinion than you is quiet hilarious, it really shows what kind of player/person you are. Anyways on to what actually matters.
You just said it yourself, perhaps not /everyone/ wants to play a single class to do a single thing, and indeed would like to have alternatives. Hence, why I said Shaman, druids, Clerics (Hell there could be more with certain abilities) to buff classes to match any scenario. Maybe not everyone wants to play a pure tank such as a warrior and they would like an off tank or a hybrid. The point being is that versatitlity and differnces will make certain groups work better in some dungeons and they would need to adapt in others, which in the end would make things more enjoyable.
If your version of how you want things to go happens no need for more than four classes. Tank, Healer, DPS, Control.
Yeah, so my answer and sarcasm went completely over your head. Try again. You literally just supported my stance on this entire concept in that people need more options and not to be forced into a singular archetype class and playstyle.
They have already previously stated that the Bard is likely to make it for launch. Necro likely not - and as the necro will have next to nothing to do with CC as a core role that really isn't an issue.
It's not like CCing is lacking either - you may not like the options because you have a specific idea in mind (buffs/debuffs as well as cc) but the Rogue looks like he will have a number of tools to help with CC - both having the ability to split pull AND mez, making him a potentially very strong battlefield controller. The Ranger too has interesting tools to move mobs aroud the board and also take them out of combat.
So the CC aspect is not unrepresented, it simply doesn't have a 2nd buffer/debuffer CCer, a non squishy vrsion of the Enchanter, though it is very likely we will have that by release
Mathir said:Yeah, so my answer and sarcasm went completely over your head. Try again. You literally just supported my stance on this entire concept in that people need more options and not to be forced into a singular archetype class and playstyle.
Grats for being the first toxic member of these forums I've read.
I’m not sure youre understanding my stance on what I’m saying. I competely agree with you that multiple classes should be able to be in the control archetype.
What I am saying is that they should not be reskins but in fact have “similar” roles although each one being able to specialize and perform a different function. Such as a root is different than a mezz or a shaman had buffs that a Druid or enchanted did not.
if we gave your bard all the abilities that a shaman, Druid, enchanter had then it would make them obsolete.
Anyways I wanted to Get back on topic and thank the devs for all their hard work! Things are really coming together well it seems can’t wait for the next reveal.
They already said that bards will most likely make it in. I mean it's as close to being confirmed as it could be if you look at his words. I'm sure bards will offer great utility and some control
Rogues have the ability to mezz.
Shamans can slow.
And we know there are roots.
And we havent really seen alot of the other classes.
I understand your concern, but I really do think you will be covered. Also. I dont really think the game is being pegged as a quartern-ity. If you consider the objective of pulling, to steadily bring single mobs into camp that offers the same benefit as a control type being able to mezz adds. I assume if you consider the different pulling classes and control classes you will find many options.
asteldian said:They have already previously stated that the Bard is likely to make it for launch. Necro likely not - and as the necro will have next to nothing to do with CC as a core role that really isn't an issue.
It's not like CCing is lacking either - you may not like the options because you have a specific idea in mind (buffs/debuffs as well as cc) but the Rogue looks like he will have a number of tools to help with CC - both having the ability to split pull AND mez, making him a potentially very strong battlefield controller. The Ranger too has interesting tools to move mobs aroud the board and also take them out of combat.
So the CC aspect is not unrepresented, it simply doesn't have a 2nd buffer/debuffer CCer, a non squishy vrsion of the Enchanter, though it is very likely we will have that by release
I understand the Bard is likely to be in the game, and the odds are high that will be the class I focus on. However, I don't know what their vision for the bard is. EQ1 Bard was great, but was very lackluster during raids and often was just used as a song-bot alt and parked afk. I definitely don't want them to make a class that can be just parked in the back of a raid as an alt. So, I'm hoping for greater dynamic than the EQ1 Bard. Vanguard's Bard was ok leveling up, but after individualizing your songs, you just let them play, and you mostly became a melee DPS. I quit Vanguard long before APW came out, so not sure how they played in raids. EQ2's Bard (specifically the Dirge) was flawless and the best iteration of a Bard I've seen. I'm hoping Pantheon goes in that direction. During raids, I had a million things to do and I rarely damaged a mob directly, and EQ2's massive overload with abilities and hotbars actually played well with the Dirge. That version of the Bard is what I consider a true "Control" class. Not Crowd Control (CC) but CONTROL. I think there is a huge difference. CC is just a part of the control archetype. Control should mean "controlling the encounter". To me, that means the control archetype determines the speed of the fight (haste/slows), when the fight starts (Pulls/Lull), they determine how many mobs you fight at a time (Mez/Stuns), they literally take control over an enemy's faculties (Charm/Fear), and they help control how strong/weak the mobs/group is with excellent buffs/debuffs. That definition fits the EQ1 Enchanter and the EQ2 Bard. It also fits the EQ1 Necro, though with an undead focus. I hope they make the Necro the 3rd Control class because it fits easily with the class kit and lore, but really I just want a 3rd option for those that want to play the control role. Maybe the Enchanter and Bard are not the flavor they want, the Necro could be. Plus, every other archetype of their stated quaternity has at least three class options. If Control is an equal partner in that dynamic like they claim, it needs three options as well.
I do agree they are putting a lot of CC options in with the DPS classes, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing, but it is a little worrisome to someone that wants to play a dedicated Control archetype. But, like I said, CC is just an aspect of the Control archetype. They just need to make sure they give Control classes the ability to do solid DPS (which should be easy enough with Charm) to offset the DPS classes getting control abilities. I also agree the Rogue looks pretty interesting from a Control point of view.
Anyway, my main point is that if they are going to sell the game as a quaternity, which they have been doing, they need to make the Control archetype equally represented with options as the other three archetypes (Healer, Tank, DPS), which would require three class options at launch, hopefully with distinct flavors. I believe the Enchanter, Bard, and Necromancer would accomplish that goal. And the Necro with his fears, mana twitch abilities, mez undead, charm undead, and feign death would easily fit the definition of what a Control archetype class should be. I think they should prioritize getting at least three control classes in the game before they round out the 4th and 5th version of DPS classes. Ideally, they get all the classes in before launch.
Akilae said:Mathir said:Yeah, so my answer and sarcasm went completely over your head. Try again. You literally just supported my stance on this entire concept in that people need more options and not to be forced into a singular archetype class and playstyle.
Grats for being the first toxic member of these forums I've read.
Do you need a binky and a safe space? I know what toxic looks like, I'm still participating at the G rated level. I make a post, someone doesn't like it, I felt like they didn't make sense and posted as much. That's called discussion and debate.
eldrun said:I’m not sure youre understanding my stance on what I’m saying. I competely agree with you that multiple classes should be able to be in the control archetype.
What I am saying is that they should not be reskins but in fact have “similar” roles although each one being able to specialize and perform a different function. Such as a root is different than a mezz or a shaman had buffs that a Druid or enchanted did not.
if we gave your bard all the abilities that a shaman, Druid, enchanter had then it would make them obsolete.
Anyways I wanted to Get back on topic and thank the devs for all their hard work! Things are really coming together well it seems can’t wait for the next reveal.
What I'm advocating for is just the version of the Bard they had in EQ1 and EQ2, and they had pretty much everything I'm listing. (Great Buffs, Great Debuffs, Charm, Mez, Lull for Pulling, Slows, Hastes). They had all those core aspects of a Control class, but it didn't make the other classes obsolete, so in that sense, I'm just not following what your concern is. I mean, the Enchanter had all of that as well. And the Necro, though in limited fashion.
The entire point of my first post, which you didn't like for whatever reason, is that they've talked a lot about this game being a quaternity as its core, with the control role as important as healing, tanking, and DPS. When you only have one class option, while every other archetype has at least three options, that doesn't jive with what they are saying the importance of the Control archetype will be. If it's literally 25% of the cornerstone of your game's grouping, but you have only one class option available (Enchanter), that's going to require a ton of Enchanters running around. Either that, or they are lying when they say the Control archetype is as needed as the holy trinity.
I'm hoping they live up to the importance of the Control archetype because it's a lot of fun to play that style of non-DPS class in raids (or at least it was in EQ2, EQ1 not so much). It seems to me that in order to live up to the billing, they need to have at least three Control archetype classes to choose from (because every other archetype has at least three options). Three options also gives you some flexibility if they design the Bard in a way that isn't appealing to the player, then they can still look at the Enchanter or Necro. Right now, it's the Enchanter or bust. And they seem to be more focused on getting the 5th and 6th DPS class options in the game than the 2nd Control option. That is concerning to me, and I hope they re-think that priority order. That's generally the point I'm making in this thread. I really don't see how people can argue with it as it's fairly straight forward and logic based.
Porygon said:They already said that bards will most likely make it in. I mean it's as close to being confirmed as it could be if you look at his words. I'm sure bards will offer great utility and some control
Rogues have the ability to mezz.
Shamans can slow.
And we know there are roots.
And we havent really seen alot of the other classes.
I understand your concern, but I really do think you will be covered. Also. I dont really think the game is being pegged as a quartern-ity. If you consider the objective of pulling, to steadily bring single mobs into camp that offers the same benefit as a control type being able to mezz adds. I assume if you consider the different pulling classes and control classes you will find many options.
They said Bards looked good to make it in, but they've walked that back a bit lately. It seems to me like they should make getting the second option for the Control archetype in before launch a bigger priority than the Ranger and Summoner (the 4th and 5th DPS class options).
I understand that they have sprinkled limited control abilities throughout the classes, which is fine. Non-DPS classes will get DPS abilities. The Monk has limited tank abiltiies. That's all good. The Control playstyle though requires a full on Control class and kit. I'm not looking for a Control ability here and there, I'm looking for the entire package on one character because I want to play the control archetype. EQ1's Bard and Enchanter, and again even the Necro against Undead, had all the things I'm listing for the Control role. So, I'm pretty confident they'll get it all in the game eventually, and I'll be happy with my options. I just don't understand at all why they aren't making getting at least three control classes in ASAP a significant priority. They are the ones touting this game as a quaternity and selling the importance of having the Control archetype as a cornerstone of any group (along with heals, tank, and DPS). Unless they want a million Enchanters at launch, or unless they lied about the importance of the Control archetype, they need to prioritize getting the other Control options in the game over extra DPS classes.
But the game is definitely being pegged as a quaternity, they've used that as a major selling point over and over and over. And it's generally a good thing. The Control archetype, when done right, is awesome to play. They just need to focus on getting more Control classes in the game. They can't launch with just one while the other archetypes have at least three. That's my argument in a nutshell. I think it's pretty valid. And outside of that major concern, I think the team has largely been doing a great job.
I suppose I read your first post wrong and was somewhat vague in what I was trying to convey.
I do indeed, agree with what you are saying there needs to be more than one control class. Although maybe they don’t have all of the abilities having a good handful for different objectives would be nice.
i beleive time will tell though.
Mathir said:Anyway, my main point is that if they are going to sell the game as a quaternity, which they have been doing, they need to make the Control archetype equally represented with options as the other three archetypes (Healer, Tank, DPS)
Could you cite any source or post where they said they are designing or marketing the game that way? Because I have never seen that. And the first time I ever heard that word was when you posted it.
Also. What are the roles in this quaternity? Because I assume you are just adding control to the trinity. Which in your own words includes pulling which most likely included monks.
My tone is sometimes not received well in text form. But I dont mean any disrespect when i say. It honestly feels and looks like you're just fighting hard for a melee enchanter, or a bard that resembles what your fav character has been (dirge).
Alot of what you're saying doesn't make sense because it seems you're excluding pulling classes (monk) from your "control archetype" when by your own accord pulling is a part of control.
The term quaternity has been used pretty extensively, and the 4 roles are "tank/healer/DPS/control." I think a big reason why Joppa decided to put a little more emphasis on having bards prepared for launch is to ensure that there are multiple control classes represented in the quaternity. It's also a matter of balance. Bards fill a very important role and you can't really balance a game around expecting them to be there if they aren't. If you introduce them later, it's possible you would have to revisit a bunch of content and make tweaks to compensate. I feel there is a 90% chance that bards make it on launch, and maybe 40-50% for necromancers.
As oneADseven said, the phrase/concept of the quaternity has been mentioned several times, both in threads and the streams.
I definitely hope that bards make it into the game. They should have a majority of the Control abilities that an enchanter does, if perhaps limited in the total number of targets, which can be done with cast times/durations. This will offset their other general utility and relative survivability boost over the enchanter.
The enchanter, I believe, should have most, if not all, of the Control abilities of other classes...but they are a Control Archetype with limited survivability.
I'm not opposed to spreading the Control abilities out to other archetypes, as this can make viable groups without requiring an enchanter in the group. The group will just have to adapt, perhaps having 2 classes work together to provide all of the Control that a single enchanter might bring to the group. The tradeoff would be higher dps overall, or perhaps more survivability.
Heck, the last I heard was that Enchanters need to nuke to provide group mana regen, so they are blending in a bit of DPS into the enchanter's role. Not enough to replace, say a Ranger or a Rogue...both of which are DPS classes that have a smattering of Control abilities, but hopefully enough that, combined with all of the Control they can do, will keep them being a desired group member.
It's fine, imo, that classes have a 'minor' in another archetype. This leads to improvisation and atypical grouping synergies that could be very effective in some situations. I can see a ranger being an effective Enc replacement in certain outdoor scenarios, and we have all seen how a rogue can keep an add locked down at the expense of some dps. Monk tankiness is another example.
Porygon said:Mathir said:Anyway, my main point is that if they are going to sell the game as a quaternity, which they have been doing, they need to make the Control archetype equally represented with options as the other three archetypes (Healer, Tank, DPS)
Could you cite any source or post where they said they are designing or marketing the game that way? Because I have never seen that. And the first time I ever heard that word was when you posted it.
Also. What are the roles in this quaternity? Because I assume you are just adding control to the trinity. Which in your own words includes pulling which most likely included monks.
Section 5.2 "Pantheon does indeed use a class based system and those classes do fulfill roles especially in group and raid contexts. ... Pantheon will use a quaternity system consisting of tank, healer, DPS, and crowd-control."
Section 5.3 " When mobs flee and run into another pack of mobs, a simple root is sometimes enough to keep things under control. During a more challenging battle controlling the mobs through mesmerize, root, or stuns so they are rendered inactive will be key to surviving the encounter....Controlling mobs and rendering them inactive to keep control of the numbers of hostile NPCs in a fight or preventing additional mobs from joining the fight will be a critical component of Pantheon’s combat mechanics."
Nothing of the quarternity sugggests the crowd control classes must be dedicated classes - everyone assumes as such thanks to previous experience, expectations and the fact the Enchanter is is what people expected (though even then in EQ1 days the Enchanter was much more than just CC)
Crowd Control is a key part of the game, but clearly it is one that exists within the core roles and not limited to specific dedicated classes, so there is no need to make '3 classes as CC'. Heck even the Enchanter you can argue is a party support class which has some CC (as opposed to Rogue who is DPS with CC). Bard will similarly be party support with CC....a 3rd party support class seems unneccesarry and other classes can fulfill the CC role.
Add in the fact there will be limited skill bar slots and you could well have a Rogue who has his whole set up primed for various Crowd Control and minimum damage. Crowd control is not underrepresented, it simply isn't in the straight forward form of 'these 3 classes are your CC' and it makes sense because the CC factor is only ever a part of a class as a whole because otherwise they would be near worthless in a controlled situation where it is not required.
The Necro will be DPS, no doubt his CC factor will be related to undead, but he won't be a 'CC class' it will simply be a part of his bigger function - as a CC class he would be a weak link given his limitation of targets to effect so rather than put him in such a box he will be a fully performing class who has a function of CC.
So the Crowd Control portion of the quarternity comes in a variety of flavours - did you want to DPS with your side of CC (Rogue, Ranger in a limited capacity, likely Necro vs Undead) or did you want party support with your CC (Enchanter, Bard). There could even be a tank or Healer with a side of CC (in Vanguard the Dread Knight had a Mez function albeit limited)
Irriaden said:As oneADseven said, the phrase/concept of the quaternity has been mentioned several times, both in threads and the streams.
I definitely hope that bards make it into the game. They should have a majority of the Control abilities that an enchanter does, if perhaps limited in the total number of targets, which can be done with cast times/durations. This will offset their other general utility and relative survivability boost over the enchanter.
The enchanter, I believe, should have most, if not all, of the Control abilities of other classes...but they are a Control Archetype with limited survivability.
I'm not opposed to spreading the Control abilities out to other archetypes, as this can make viable groups without requiring an enchanter in the group. The group will just have to adapt, perhaps having 2 classes work together to provide all of the Control that a single enchanter might bring to the group. The tradeoff would be higher dps overall, or perhaps more survivability.
Heck, the last I heard was that Enchanters need to nuke to provide group mana regen, so they are blending in a bit of DPS into the enchanter's role. Not enough to replace, say a Ranger or a Rogue...both of which are DPS classes that have a smattering of Control abilities, but hopefully enough that, combined with all of the Control they can do, will keep them being a desired group member.
It's fine, imo, that classes have a 'minor' in another archetype. This leads to improvisation and atypical grouping synergies that could be very effective in some situations. I can see a ranger being an effective Enc replacement in certain outdoor scenarios, and we have all seen how a rogue can keep an add locked down at the expense of some dps. Monk tankiness is another example.
I'll co-sign this post. We share the exact same thoughts and hopes. The Control archetypes will have to have a "minor" as you put it, and I think it would be interesting if it's not just DPS. Maybe the Necromancer can get some heals through damage like the Blood Mage. Not enough to be a real healer, but maybe enough to off heal while providing the control role, especially against undead. I'm hopeful the bard can get some tanking abilities to at least be a viable off tank, if they are in plate armor, you'd have to think they could go in that direction. Enchanter probably makes sense minoring in DPS. I would expect all Control classes to get various forms of Charm, with the Enchanter largely having the best form, maybe the Necro with undead rivals it. So, that should provide some situational DPS as well.
Also, just throwing this in as well, the Enchanters do have the Clarity type line of mana regen static buffs, saw that from a screencap somewhere, but I also heard the nuke to mana thing on one of the streams. The SK had that in EQ1, Zefeer's Bite or whatever, so that's probably just another additional way to splash mana regen around.