((Specialization is already done by having CLASSES. This narrative is so bad. You want a tank who can heal? Play a pally. You want a tank who can mitigate? Play Dire Lord, etc, etc, etc. This ALREADY EXISTS and yet people refuse to recognize. There is no need for specialization within a single class.))
Do you really think that making up straw-man arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the point being discussed - and then attacking those arguments - is persuasive?
Few if any of us who want customization are trying to break the boundaries between roles and we have said so often enough that by now I am certain that you understand it. Yet you throw out this nonsense about tanks that can heal.
Having a variety of classes is certainly good but that doesn't mean a class cannot give choices in how to play it. A pet class can give abilities that enhance the pet and abilities that enhance the character directly and allow the player to pick and choose. Does this make it a healing class or a tank class? No.
An archery class can give abilities that enhance skills with the bow or enhance skills with melee weapons for when an enemy is up close and personal. Does this make it a tank or healing class? No.
A healing class can give abilities that improve the strength of heals or improve the ability to heal while being attacked. Does this make it a dps or tank class? No.
A mage class can give abilities that improve one type of damage or a different type. Does this make it a tank class or a healing class? No.
A tank class can be allowed to choose between abilities that make it harder to kill or abilities that make it easier to grab aggro. Does this make it a healing or dps class? No.
There are legitimate arguments against specialization. Concern that groups will only accept characters that have made certain choices. Desire to have a character that can do everything available to a class and not need to make choices and sacrifice some things to get others. Let us focus on the real points of disagreement and not "I don't wanna have tanks heal". This just in - neither do the rest of us.
From everything released so far there will be no form of actual character customization in Pantheon. As a player you will be able to change your gear or which abilities you have up on your bars but outside of that all characters of the same class will be exactly the same. So once your character is level 50 and has x/x epic abilities it will be the same naked as all other naked characters of the same class at level 50 and x/x epic.
The soft specialization will be things like tanks have a special ability or two that works well against magic damage and another that gets them out of movement impairments. The tank that will be handling the caster boss will have those abilities on their bar while the tank that is handling the physical damage boss will be all physical mitigation and avoidance.
This is exactly the state that EQ was in at launch and RoK. I do not see this changing before launch other then maybe they will do away with epic abilities.
Trasak said:This is exactly the state that EQ was in at launch and RoK. I do not see this changing before launch other then maybe they will do away with epic abilities.
This isnt a bad thing, as I said before, in eq you differentiated yourself by your abilities to play the game, not your character class. Even if all warriors are the same... not all warriors will be the same.
Would it not work to have say slots for 4 epic abilities but 6 or 8 to choose from to create a difference among the same class?? Perhaps having these non base class abilities work like cross class abilities from Pillars of Eternity? Need more information as what was said could be taken many ways.
Though if learning ability tier 5 is epic but the first 4 are trained in the city that would be kinda lame.
OakKnower said:Does anyone think there will be class specific gear that allows for soft specialization?
An example would be different Warrior greaves where one pair might increase the effect of War Formations and another pair that might extend the bonus of Banners. Etcetera.
Hope so, but so far, nothing from the devs indicate this is a launch day goal. The only public indication is that some stats might affect some spells, maybe. Might. Maybe.
Reference clip about Soft-Specialization with an illustration of my reaction upon hearing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBT6urlgeok
The idea is a sound one. One of the issues with Everquest was that melee classes had a variation in their damage, how it was done with certain weapons, weapon types and even some relying on procs. Casters and Pure-Casters specifically were locked. The damage or capability of your class wasn't in selection within that class. Your damage was based on level and was the same as every other of your class at that level. Most of them would push Intelligence to soft-cap then Mana and for what? It was for a larger mana pool. However, while you had a longer burst, you still regenerated mana the same meaning that in consistent fights, you were no different.
The Enchanter more directly had consistent arguments about the effect of Charisma. It was thought that Charisma was a teritary check against the initial hit of a Mez and of the initial and residual of a Charm (Initial hits were Level disparity and Magic Resistance). Later, when EMUs sprung up and the details emerged it only led to more confusion as to the value of Charisma. In the era as early as it was, it didn't feel as though your stats were all that vital but was accepted because we didn't have much to go on and it was what we were used to. If we were to go back to that today, even those like me who are staunch Everquest supporters would balk at the idea of it returning to Pantheon.
This will be different than Hard-Specialization like Talent Trees as those allow for hundreds of combinations within a class which tend to be reduced to between 6 to 10. With Soft-Specialization relying on statistics, considering that they look to use variations of 4-5 statistics at least with a value of 5-80, then factor in that each ability has a variation of use (40% Con, 25% Int within one ability for instance), you're looking at realistically, hundreds of thousands of variations with it being able to be reduced to a few thousand.
There's just far too much nuance within that system and it's more designed to be organic in nature. Where I as an Enchanter have 22+ different abilities on paper currently to select and build around, that will require a fine tuning to how I play. I may favor more of a choice in heavy Charm use (40%), with Mana regen (30%) and possibly Hastes or Slows (30% divided) or maybe Mezes, Illusions, Confuses, Silences, Runeskin etc. The point is, I will have fun fleshing out my class how I play most but with the capability to alter that if needed. Will there be armor sets? Yes, but only for a larger segment as they will group a portion of a thousand variations into one grouping and another thousand in another. Because of how nuanced it is, you can't realistically have thousands of armor sets. Then within that grou;ing will be how you value your groupings, where you want your groupings to be and how will each ability within that armor grouping be weighted. Even within those groupings you'll have players all uniquely built.
I know some will be upset at this direction as there will be those upset at the direction of not having any type of customization, but I ask that people trust in that the system can work very well, especially in a game where you have an variation on groups where the construct is less rigid forcing you into high performance, linear, redundant dungeons ad nauseum. When you have six people in a group, with a Quatrinity, and the content is organic, allowing you to duo, trio, or have four, five or six people in a group with different performance and efficiency, the reliance on the minutia of a class's ability to fine tune certain segments is less noticeable, nor important on the larger effort.
For those who argue about groups selecting people based on builds, let's use an analogy. If people honestly think a group can exist without an Enchanter, then they should have zero problem with an Enchanter who favors Mana regeneration and Hastes over the length or effectiveness of their Mezes.
My biggest concern with tying skill/spell adjustment to a stat-based system versus an explicit ability modification system is that you run into the necessary stat-cap as an arbitrary limiter, from a designer perspective. As in, the designer is then limited by the stat-cap, in what they can offer for effects, gear, and everything else. Diminishing returns, even, before the soft cap, or before the hard cap, will also have to be considered, and will again, limit options for designers, and as a result, players. I'm not saying there won't be options, there will be, there'll just be fewer or less when compared to not tying such a system to a stat-cap.
Ultimately, it also means the adjustments you can make must also be less in magnitude, due to the tie in to the stat-cap. Finally, it's also a more nebulous effect. It's not spelled out. The wording thus far doesn't give me the confidence it will be in any way as reliable as an explicit spell/skill modification system.
I'm all for dynamic systems, don't misunderstand, but guaranteed unpredictability in the reliability of spells & skills may not be the best way to do that. I'm fine with variation on damage. I'm not fine with "you might get an increased duration" or "you might get resisted less". I would rather "Your duration is now x% longer" and "You will be resisted 20% less".
"My biggest concern with tying skill/spell adjustment to a stat-based system versus an explicit ability modification system is that you run into the necessary stat-cap as an arbitrary limiter, from a designer perspective. As in, the designer is then limited by the stat-cap, in what they can offer for effects, gear, and everything else. Diminishing returns, even, before the soft cap, or before the hard cap, will also have to be considered, and will again, limit options for designers, and as a result, players. I'm not saying there won't be options, there will be, there'll just be fewer or less when compared to not tying such a system to a stat-cap."
What may play into this either for or against your argument is it was stated that you would only be able to realistically cap a single attribute/statistic.
"Ultimately, it also means the adjustments you can make must also be less in magnitude, due to the tie in to the stat-cap. Finally, it's also a more nebulous effect. It's not spelled out. The wording thus far doesn't give me the confidence it will be in any way as reliable as an explicit spell/skill modification system."
That's something we'll have to see down the road when the system is more in depth and finalized. Currently they barely have 15-20% of the abilities listed with modifiers and many of which have the modifiers and percentages all over the place. It's not a difficult system to lay out and less difficult to balance than it appears but I'll return to this area of discussion around it in late Alpha if not Beta.
"I'm all for dynamic systems, don't misunderstand, but guaranteed unpredictability in the reliability of spells & skills may not be the best way to do that. I'm fine with variation on damage. I'm not fine with "you might get an increased duration" or "you might get resisted less". I would rather "Your duration is now x% longer" and "You will be resisted 20% less"."
That's from what I understood will be how the system works. In Everquest, the system was very much "You might get [Insert function]". Pantheon with modifiers is looking to be as to your latter description of "Your duration is now x% longer" or "Your ability now does x% more damage" or "Your spell returns x% more mana per second" or "Your pacify spell has an x% decreased aggro range", etc..
Then the problem becomes, you need to allow gear creation (either procedurally, by static drops, or by crafting enhancements) that permits any class to have any stat added to any piece of gear, which, historically, will make hitting the stat cap that much easier, among other issues.
Which is fine, by me, but is in direct opposition to what EQ1 offered, and has other consequences.. It will also require enough bag space to carry around a full set of 22 slots worth of modified gear, per situation/scenario, on top of the gear required for Environment gating.
Then instead of permitting the stats to have generic effects, those effects are unique per class, leading to yet another factor in unending class balance issues, rather than letting players simply choose what they want to enhance, by individual skill/spell.
I'm not sure I like the idea of "everyone put on your 22 pieces STR gear for this encounter", repeated x 8 stats. I'd rather have my mez gear or my haste gear, to suit what I want my character to be good at, rather than a rather long process of collect all eight sets of stat gear.
And it's not more difficult to balance, as you've said. It's less difficult. That's where the lack of choice comes in. That's where designers are restricted. You -must- tie multiple effects per spell/skill to each stat, because there are always more spells/skills per class(9+), versus stats (8). That's where the player has less choice, and where it breaks down versus offering the player more choice, imo.
"I'm not sure I like the idea of "everyone put on your 22 pieces STR gear for this encounter", repeated x 8 stats."
The issue with that is it's an extreme simplification to how the system is laid out. If you put on your Str gear, you may only effect realistically one ability but may hurt seven others. There's far too much nuance within your variations to allow for a real defined set. The sets will also vary based on your role, not just your class or what you favor more in your role. The advantages would also have to be small, upwards of 5-15% with 15% being the maximum. If there was so much minutia planned out in a group composition, then you would expect every group to ONLY have Tank, Healer, Enchanter and three DPS as only the most optimal would be allowed to be formed.
"I'd rather have my mez gear or my haste gear, to suit what I want my character to be good at, rather than a rather long process of collect all eight sets of stat gear."
The thing is though, it's not designed to be a hard switch. This is in part why the Wizard was referenced by Chris. Intelligence and Consitution would effect the three damage dealing lines. But where Strength has the added effect to Fire, Dexterity to Ice and Wisdom to Magic. Just by the effect of being a tertiary stat and with it being based on a percentage of use per spell, it creates a difficult to select variable. Remember, that Wizard doesn't want to neglect Magic as it's vital in keeping mana up so you may use Fire. Ice is also vital as you want to be able to manage your aggro or snares as effectively as possible. Then you have to consider the range of statistical possibilities that exist in the Wizard for their shielding spells, low grade CC's such as Root, Transportation and other Utility spells, etc. This comes to how picky a group will be in their selection and if they are, you would expect there to be only one type of group composition. I see that composition being selected far before they pick a person because of a small nuance in their efficiency variance. To add, they will likely be unable to see what that player is capable of or how they're geared, at least not effectively.
"And it's not more difficult to balance, as you've said. It's less difficult."
I meant the stat based system is easy to lay out but only slightly more difficult to balance compared to laying it out in concept.
"That's where designers are restricted. You -must- tie multiple effects per spell/skill to each stat, because there are always more spells/skills per class(9+), versus stats (8). That's where the player has less choice, and where it breaks down versus offering the player more choice, imo."
I don't see that as you aren't only selecting one stat due to how the variance is shared throughout. It fits more organically and as I stated before, where you had Skill Trees such as WoW which allowed for hundreds of variations per class where they were reduced to 6-10, with this system, technically you have hundreds of thousands of variations which with enough work from people they could reduce the fine tuning of groupings within statistical allocation to a few thousand, maybe the upper hundreds.
That system alone may have me pick two play styles I favor and try my best to build around them where there would be about 120-130 to select from on the very basic of approaches. If I tried anymore or the number of variations within those armor groupings I select, I'd be wasting my time.
As far as armor goes I feel as tho players will choose which specialty they wish to pursue. If they wish to be STR focused they will pursue that. If they choose to be the AGI focused they will pursue that. If they want to be balanced in all things they can mix and match at will. Some people WILL gather different stat suit sets as an option. You honestly never know what you might need to test out on a certain encounter to overcome the odds. I personally prefer avoidance over AC so i like to focus on AGI, but thats my own personal playstyle.
This has been brought up multiple times. For the OP to just have noticed it makes me wonder how closely they have been following development?
There will be no differentiation between one character to another within a class/race combo once everything is acquired.
Especially because soft caps have been mentioned for stats so even starting stat allotment differences will be nullified after awhile.
I expect the reason is largely because it is simply easier to balance.
Your arguements regarding classic eq differantiation are only accurate when simulated by a computer. The reality is that you can easily determine a good necromancer from a bad necromancer. On the recent iteration of the TLP server I was in a very high end guild. And we had 9 necros. All of them with the same spells. And roughly the same gear. It was very easy to determine who was the better necro. This is class differentiation based upon skill level of the players.
Just because I give the same materials to 2 different people. Doesnt mean they will build me the exact same table.
Porygon said:Your arguements regarding classic eq differantiation are only accurate when simulated by a computer. The reality is that you can easily determine a good necromancer from a bad necromancer. On the recent iteration of the TLP server I was in a very high end guild. And we had 9 necros. All of them with the same spells. And roughly the same gear. It was very easy to determine who was the better necro. This is class differentiation based upon skill level of the players.
Just because I give the same materials to 2 different people. Doesnt mean they will build me the exact same table.
This pretty much.
I completely agree with Porygon. I have since his initial post on this thread. I want Pantheon to be this way. What i was referencing in my one post about liking class specialization was the fact that i like certain games that have hardlocked skill tree's because it works for those games. True, my response was not fully flushed out, but thats just because of my own failings.
My main concern is that the implementation of the skill based modifiers is done well. This concern has been mirrored by others previously and on other threads. The proposed system is one i can get behind. Softlocking incombat skills, switching to support roles as needed based on group dynamics. I prefer on-the-fly adaptability or situation awareness. This is what makes a good player great.
dorotea said:((Specialization is already done by having CLASSES. This narrative is so bad. You want a tank who can heal? Play a pally. You want a tank who can mitigate? Play Dire Lord, etc, etc, etc. This ALREADY EXISTS and yet people refuse to recognize. There is no need for specialization within a single class.))
Do you really think that making up straw-man arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the point being discussed - and then attacking those arguments - is persuasive?
Few if any of us who want customization are trying to break the boundaries between roles and we have said so often enough that by now I am certain that you understand it. Yet you throw out this nonsense about tanks that can heal.
Having a variety of classes is certainly good but that doesn't mean a class cannot give choices in how to play it. A pet class can give abilities that enhance the pet and abilities that enhance the character directly and allow the player to pick and choose. Does this make it a healing class or a tank class? No.
An archery class can give abilities that enhance skills with the bow or enhance skills with melee weapons for when an enemy is up close and personal. Does this make it a tank or healing class? No.
A healing class can give abilities that improve the strength of heals or improve the ability to heal while being attacked. Does this make it a dps or tank class? No.
A mage class can give abilities that improve one type of damage or a different type. Does this make it a tank class or a healing class? No.
A tank class can be allowed to choose between abilities that make it harder to kill or abilities that make it easier to grab aggro. Does this make it a healing or dps class? No.
There are legitimate arguments against specialization. Concern that groups will only accept characters that have made certain choices. Desire to have a character that can do everything available to a class and not need to make choices and sacrifice some things to get others. Let us focus on the real points of disagreement and not "I don't wanna have tanks heal". This just in - neither do the rest of us.
You're right, I didn't finish reading and jumped the gun. In a vacuum I stand behind my point, it shouldn't have been addressed at that poster however.
FierinaFuryfist said:Would it not work to have say slots for 4 epic abilities but 6 or 8 to choose from to create a difference among the same class?? Perhaps having these non base class abilities work like cross class abilities from Pillars of Eternity? Need more information as what was said could be taken many ways.
Didn't play Pillars of Eternity, so can't speak to that. I do think it would be possible, although more time consuming for the devs, to add slight differentiation within each class. Stats will certainly affect different abilities, but it could be taken further. Let's say you have a wizard who can cast a fireball that has a dd component and a dot component. While following the path toward your epic version, you find an option, either by a different spell or by a different way or place of combining or upgrading it, but you can only pick one. One way removes the dot part of your spell while doubling the dd part, another way doesn't change the damage on either part, but each tick of the dot restores mana and the third way doubles the dot damage. Hypothetical scenarios (so please don't blast me about balance, etc), but you get what I'm saying. These versions of the fireball spell are all upgraded epics, they just function differently and give you a way to modify and distinguish your individual character.
We may, or may not, have several different concepts here. Since the thread has been rezzed (hopefully by a healing class player - tank class players shouldn't have rezzes) I will give my take on that.
1. Most extreme - subclasses as in original EQ2. A permanent choice just as the choice of the basic class is. Highly unlikely in Pantheon and even its most ardent supporters will admit that there are enough different classes to play that we do not really need this.
2. Middle ground. A system for specializing a character. Maybe like the AA system maybe not. Maybe available while the character is leveling - maybe only available at maximum level as a means of keeping earned experience relevant. Definitively not permanent. Probably not easily changable with little or no cost.
3. Least restrictive - Having significantly more abilities than quickbar slots, and not being able to swap out in combat. At least not quickly and easily. I think this is what Percipiens is addressing. Not a means of making characters in the same class different from eachother since any character can have all the abilities. But a means of requiring thought and planning before a fight, with negative consequences if you go into a fight and it turns out your best abilities against that particular enemy are grayed out because you didn't slot them.
dorotea said:
3. Least restrictive - Having significantly more abilities than quickbar slots, and not being able to swap out in combat. At least not quickly and easily. I think this is what Percipiens is addressing. Not a means of making characters in the same class different from eachother since any character can have all the abilities. But a means of requiring thought and planning before a fight, with negative consequences if you go into a fight and it turns out your best abilities against that particular enemy are grayed out because you didn't slot them.
Based on what we know from newsletters, the website, and streams, this appears to be the direction that Pantheon is headed in.
What we don't really know yet is how that will tie into progression of the abilities themselves. For example, it's been hinted that there might be rare and special abilities out there in the world, and that you'll have to seek those abilities out - they won't just be there for purchase on your friendly neighborhood skill change. But what will that entail? No one knows. In the distant past we've talked about "Rites of Passage" for characters and how those might work, but VR hasn't really said one way or the other.
My personal preference would be to have multiple "sets" of these advanced abilities that act as quasi-specializations. Using a simple example, let's say you're a warrior. You might devote your time to learning more of the abilities in the Blademaster set (which involves a series of related rites of passage), or you might choose instead to pick up abilities in the Defender set (which is a different series of related rites of passage). Ideally, there would be 3 or more of these "sets" for each class, meaning that there's a lot of opportunity for players within the same class to differentiate themselves from each other. But that's just one possible way they could go. They could also do something else entirely. We'll have to see.
dorotea said:We may, or may not, have several different concepts here. Since the thread has been rezzed (hopefully by a healing class player - tank class players shouldn't have rezzes) I will give my take on that.
1. Most extreme - subclasses as in original EQ2. A permanent choice just as the choice of the basic class is. Highly unlikely in Pantheon and even its most ardent supporters will admit that there are enough different classes to play that we do not really need this.
2. Middle ground. A system for specializing a character. Maybe like the AA system maybe not. Maybe available while the character is leveling - maybe only available at maximum level as a means of keeping earned experience relevant. Definitively not permanent. Probably not easily changable with little or no cost.
3. Least restrictive - Having significantly more abilities than quickbar slots, and not being able to swap out in combat. At least not quickly and easily. I think this is what Percipiens is addressing. Not a means of making characters in the same class different from eachother since any character can have all the abilities. But a means of requiring thought and planning before a fight, with negative consequences if you go into a fight and it turns out your best abilities against that particular enemy are grayed out because you didn't slot them.
Actually I was talking about the abilities themselves. I'll go back to the fireball example. Starting out, fireball does 100 damage to a single target, then another 100 damage over 10 seconds. So, once you had all the components to make that spell epic (I think it's 3?), your fireball now does 200 direct damage and 150 damage over 10 seconds, costs no mana and is instant cast. Awesome, we're uber now! Well, what if there was an option to make the same spell, only different? Let's say I love the way my new epic spell is, but you're more of an AoE fan. Ok, sweet, you can get the same components I did, but you can combine them in the frozen tundra (instead of the rim of the volcano, like I did) and now, instead of just added damage and reduced mana cost, your fireball now explodes on impact, doing 200 direct damage to your target and 50 damage to any target within X meters of that target (up to Y additional targets). That's the kind of thing I (and I think the OP) was suggesting. Something to add flavor and maybe a different playstyle, but within the bounds and context of the class.
Again, please don't blast me about balance, being op, etc, just numbers for discussion :)