Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling

Drtyrm said:

Ah, you didn"t play FFXI at all it appears. You want main/sub jobs with universal gear? Are we going to have like two stats, Stamina and Killypower? This design idea of yours has more holes than swiss cheese.

Click to expand...

Did you ever play WoW -- the gear comment was pretty obviously a direct reference to BOE WoW-style gear. Or didn"t you get that?

I would think that it would be an obvious assumption that some classes have gear that is interchangable -- e.g. both Tanks and Melee DPS classes can usually use swords. And that, as discussed in the rant above, if someone"s class was nerfed (say rogue) they would typically switch to a similiar (melee) class -- oh say ranger. So typically, in a non-BOE world, they would be able to hand off some but not all gear to an alt. Its worse in a BOE world because you lose all gear when you switch -- only gold transfers.

As to subjobbing, of course I played and loathed FFXI, but when I talk about it I talk about it in context of what it could be -- not what it was. I have no desire to play FFXI as made by Green Monster Games. I would like to play a fantasy game with a form of sub-jobbing that gets rid of the idea of alts and helps balance classes by improving soloability and class "purity" through subjobs (e.g. no healing for monks and etc). When I speak of subjobs I refer to the concept of subjobs, not the specific implementatoin of subjobs found in FFXI.

That"s about as clear as I can make it -- though I would have thought that would have been obvous from the getgo. If you can"t figure it out at this point well not much more that I could say to help you. This is where we would get the "Kids Stay in School" moment or something. Lack of reading comp ftl.

Isn"t making so many specific classes like you posted a few pages back pigeonhole everyone to some so specific that if they do nerf one skill of a class it basically nerfs the whole class not just one aspect of it?

Draegan said:

Any good multiplayer PVE RPG game will need classes or subsets of skills required to get jobs done, regardless of what those jobs are. Making everyone everything is just stupid. Then it becomes pointless.

Click to expand...

I agree. The problem isn"t class roles and the Holy Trinity of grouping or not enough classes in general, it"s in making the Healer/Tank classes fun and exciting to play. Most MMOs out there have the pure tanking classes and pure healing classes rather bland to play, past the fun inherent of being needed and rare. Even WoW falls into this trap with the Prot. Warriors and Holy Priests being relatively gimped outside of their designated roles in groups or instances.

From what I"ve seen the only upcoming MMO that looks to change this is WAR; so far it appears that they are making all classes and races desirable enough to play that there won"t be a drought of the tanking/healing classes and an over abundance of DPS classes, which seems to the problem of most MMOs.

Draegan said:

Any good multiplayer PVE RPG game will need classes or subsets of skills required to get jobs done, regardless of what those jobs are. Making everyone everything is just stupid. Then it becomes pointless.

Click to expand...

First, no one said anything about making everyone everything. It is this kind of reasoning that causes the whole class vs. skill discussion to become overwhelmed with hyperbole.

The simple fact of the matter is that if a particular segment of content is designed to require, or indirectly results in the need for, a specific subset of skills to complete/defeat then it is designed badly. On the other hand, granting someone an advantage if they chose a particular subset of skills when completing/defeating said content is completely acceptable, if not expected in a skill based mechanic. Otherwise people wouldn"t find it necessary to experiment with new ways to complete/defeat game content.

If content is sufficiently diverse, the FOTM phenomenon becomes lessened. As does the likelihood of everyone in the game choosing the same basic combination of skills.

In the end it boils down to choice.

edit: BTW... Such skill based mechanics also make it possible for a developer to implement content that would require the player base to experiment with their skill selections. helping avoid the FOTM even further.

WAR is easier to balance because each race basically gets 4 different classes and thats it. Tank, Melee DPS, Range DPS, Healer with different flavors.

Tigole did mention something about fixing WOW holy priests for example, buy converting +healing gear to +dmg gear as well.

When you get down to it, you can"t decide or design a class system unless you know what kind of game you"re gonna have. If you"re gonna be heavy PVE with raids, you will need the holy trinity. If it"s mostly solo and very small group content (2-3 people) then you can generalize classes.

grimsark said:

The simple fact of the matter is that if a particular segment of content is designed to require, or indirectly results in the need for, a specific subset of skills to complete/defeat then it is designed badly.

Click to expand...

Thats not simple or a fact. I disagree completely. If you allow any combination of players complete content then that content would be extremely watered down.

Unless you can give me an example, there is now way I can agree with you.

Draegan said:

Thats not simple or a fact. I disagree completely. If you allow any combination of players complete content then that content would be extremely watered down.

Unless you can give me an example, there is now way I can agree with you.

Click to expand...

I think what he meant was that you shouldn"t require ONE specific choice, but a variety of choices. Say you have a basic spank and tank fight, you shouldn"t have the content REQUIRE a specific tanking class, but instead should be tankable by all tank oriented class, hybrids or not. However, unless you only have hybrids and no pure tanker(your basic warrior), that"d probably end up being what you described as watered down content, cause then it"d just mean if you do use the pure tanking class that is probably superior to hybrids at tanking(for balancing purposes), the content would be extremly easier, which in turns leads to most people using that tanking class to tank as it"s just easier to get the rewards.

Warhammer takes an interesting path(at least on paper) with their class choices tho, because instead of having hybrid tanks, you just have many different pure tanks. They don"t have heals and probably can"t dps much, but they"re different from each other. That way, you can have different gameplays while still filling the tanking role. Not sure how it"s going to end up tho.

As a side note, the last fights I did on my paladin/priests before I quit wow weren"t as easy as just spamming heals(well some were, but not all of them). You can design interesting content for healers, and while I doubt you"ll ever see equal numbers of tanks/healers/dps, it"s not that bad really, if you make healing a little bit tedious by making content not as healing spam oriented but position/reactivity based and the classes a little bit more involved between heals(HoTs, melee based group heal attacks, bosses not spamming freaking AEs that force everyone who"s not a pure dps to be up close) then you"ll end up with enough healers.

Also, it seems to be pretty basic for current games to design small groups around 1tank 1healer 2-3dps, which imo seems to be pretty close to the population balance. I think the biggest issue really with those classes is that they suck at lvling, and no one wants to lvl slow as shit when all the good content is at max lvl. And if you make them good at lvling, it"s hard to balance them.

Draegan said:

Thats not simple or a fact. I disagree completely. If you allow any combination of players complete content then that content would be extremely watered down.

Unless you can give me an example, there is now way I can agree with you.

Click to expand...

Its more along the lines of different groups can adequately defeat content with tradeoffs. One group makeup does it in average time, while another takes longer, while another goes faster. Its simply about options.

Options=gud

Gaereth said:

Its more along the lines of different groups can adequately defeat content with tradeoffs. One group makeup does it in average time, while another takes longer, while another goes faster. Its simply about options.

Options=gud

Click to expand...

When one goes significantly faster than another, then you really don"t have options. Everyone is going to want to do it faster. It"s better to LFG for an hour and clear it in an hour than it is to LFG for 1 second and spend 3 hours clearing. That"s the way many people operate.

So he is right. If you make it so the most ragtag group can complete something then optimal or even average groups will find it extrmeely easy and unchallenging. As much as people piss and moan about "WoW EZ-mode" I don"t think making it easier is going to go over too well.

Draegan said:

Thats not simple or a fact. I disagree completely. If you allow any combination of players complete content then that content would be extremely watered down.

Unless you can give me an example, there is now way I can agree with you.

Click to expand...

Players are smart and should be able to figure out multiple ways to beat an encounter.

The goal of the class designer should be to provide the players with a broad tool set spread over the classes.

The goal of the content designer should be to design content that is difficult.

The players will usually figure out how to crack the content using their class tools in more interesting ways than the content designer could ever think of.

Designing it so it can only be beaten one way with a particular group makeup is very, very meh.

If you mean that you can"t beat this instance because you don"t have ClassA"s class specific skill to do B-Affect then yea sure. I agree with that. But if you mean a group of cloth mages should be able to beat and encounter just the same as a group of DPS Heal Tank is just stupid. You"ll end up with the same feeling Tabula Rasa elicits

Twobit Whore said:

It"s better to LFG for an hour and clear it in an hour than it is to LFG for 1 second and spend 3 hours clearing. That"s the way many people operate.

Click to expand...

These "many people" are remarkably stupid.

Let me give you a RL example.

I LFG for an hour because I must have a_specific_class. During that time two members of my group become bored and leave for a group that forms immediately. So I spend another hour getting an actual group together that stays around. We get to the_typical_dungeon. One of the original members that stuck around has to go because his older brother needs the computer. We say fuck it and continue down one. We get to a boss encounter and beat it -- uber_loot drops. The a_specific_class and another_class guys can both use it. They both need the role and another_class gets it. A_specific_class calls everyone in our group a "fuckwad" and hearths out. Group disbands.

Or I get my group together with whatever classes we can--we go clear for 3 hours and disband after beating a_final_boss and distributing the loot.

Draegan said:

If you mean that you can"t beat this instance because you don"t have ClassA"s class specific skill to do B-Affect then yea sure. I agree with that. But if you mean a group of cloth mages should be able to beat and encounter just the same as a group of DPS Heal Tank is just stupid. You"ll end up with the same feeling Tabula Rasa elicits

Click to expand...

It should not be impossible for any group to beat a particular encounter. But it should be a fuckton harder for 6 Mages to beat an encounter than a better group distribution 1 Tank, 2 Healers, 2 DPS, 1 CC.

Said another way. It is fine to balance encounters for 1/2/2/1 with the assumption that other group makeups are still viable if less efficient.

tad10 said:

Or I get my group together with whatever classes we can--we go clear for 3 hours and disband after beating a_final_boss and distributing the loot.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that this:

One of the original members that stuck around has to go because his older brother needs the computer.We say fuck it and continue down one. We get to a boss encounter and beat it -- uber_loot drops. The a_specific_class and another_class guys can both use it. They both need the role and another_class gets it. A_specific_class calls everyone in our group a "fuckwad" and hearths out. Group disbands.

Click to expand...

Can only happen in the first scenario and not in the second?

That makes no sense. It doesn"t matter what class someone is if someone has to log. You are still down one. It also doesn"t matter what classes you are if someone throws a fit over loot and leaves. Those acts have zilch to do with class structure and everything to do with the people playing. They will do this regardless. I am astonished I even have to point this out to you.

Yeah, maybe you got started quicker but in the end you are still just as fucked.

Listen if people are going to log off they are going to log off. It does and will always happen regardless. That"s why I hate long instances. They should be designed for 1 hour to 90 minutes tops, and if you want more depth break it up like they did with scarlet monastery. But this is another issue ;p

People will always want to try to do it the easy way. They wait for that 1 perfect group and will spend hours bitching about what a pain it is while the alternate/slower/non-optimum or whatever group goes in and does it.

You can"t design for those that will min/max because it will lead you towards making content so difficult for average Joe that its not any fun to play. You just have to make it so that there are options to doing the content with different configurations.

You design for fun, entertainment, and an average difficulty. Some groups will kill it, others will struggle. Thats about all you can do towards balance.

And then average gamers will bitch that optimal groups can clear it at a 3:1 ratio, gearing up much quicker and destroying them in PvP. they will want it made easier for suboptimal groups because then they think it will enable them to compete, but what will happen is that even more people gear up faster than someone else and then those people bitch.

You have to set a baseline, and that baseline is going to be different for different games of course, but you want to set it high and then lower it as necessary because once you set it low any attempt to raise it will be met with much crying.

Gaereth said:

People will always want to try to do it the easy way. They wait for that 1 perfect group and will spend hours bitching about what a pain it is while the alternate/slower/non-optimum or whatever group goes in and does it.

You can"t design for those that will min/max because it will lead you towards making content so difficult for average Joe that its not any fun to play. You just have to make it so that there are options to doing the content with different configurations.

You design for fun, entertainment, and an average difficulty. Some groups will kill it, others will struggle. Thats about all you can do towards balance.

Click to expand...

Or you can create different levels of encounters and offer content like 2 or 3-man dungeons or even solo dungeons to allow some gamers a chance to see some story behind your game and while giving them some level of content. WoW could do some nice 2 or 3-man dungeons or even solo dungeons for leveling progression.

I"m for skill and against class base, but it hasn"t been done to my satisfaction, so I don"t have any proof it works.

Unless you"ve had an epiphany and can lay out how to make it rock, its wise to stick with the class base. Either the developers will hybridize the class system and interject choices or the players will bastardize the skill system and remove choices.

I hate classes having contradictory specs though. I think each spec should be a take on the same interdependent role. For example a paladin doesn"t tank, dps, OR heal. He does one, with different flavors. The healers of WoW present this "problem" with the most extremity, but it applies to other classes as well. Warriors, for example, should always represent a role of tanking. One particular spec might be mitigation-light and counterattack-strong, but its still a spin on the same topic. That warrior wouldn"t be a large benefit to a group that posessed a tank already because mobs have to hit him for his counterattacks to work.

When I get a certain class I expect a certain set of tools that are expanded in different ways to provide a few extremes. Not that the spec itself defines their usefulness to me. A good example is giving all rogues improved sap in the different environment of TBC. They didn"t have to spec for it anymore. I could then rely on all rogues to effectively and safely sap humanoids in my instance runs.

I just want to get a cleric, know that the cleric has heal buttons and, furthermore, enjoys using them.


I do like one-server though. It would be far more difficult to create one-server in a fantasy landscape, but EVE, a space game, hosts the entire community on one-server and it"s awesome. They had 250k+ subs when I stopped playing and over 25k+ players online at the same time. Unfortunately they use zones aggressively to spread the load, and I hate zones.

i r contradictions?


I"d like seamless to go beyond the landscape. Why must there be such an abrupt change from content designed for 1-2 to 5 to 10 to 25 to 40 to whatever? There should be solo/duo content in overland zones with the occasional trio encounter that can be easily avoided if you"re not interested or incapable. Then as you get to a dungeon you can perform 3-4, 4-5, 5 man content.

As you go down into the dungeon the content evolves further as you approach raid size difficulty. The mobs don"t have to gain more HP. Mobs that took 4 people might come in pairs now. Mobs that were CCable might stop being CCable and need additional tanking/kiting.

As with soloing, your GROUP might decide to work with another nearby group to test the more difficult content. This fluid transition continues to a certain ceiling of your particular design.

For raiding groups that intend, from the very beginning, to reach the pinnacle of this progression there might be a slightly more expeditious route down that doesn"t interfere with groups and only presents encounters designed for 10+ players. For example, you might enter through an alternate entrance that may or may not require previous achievements in the grouping area.

I not only dislike the abrupt changes, but I think more fluid scaling would present opportunities. You could run a dungeon, and when a 6th or 7th wants to join, you can just bring them along and perform additional content. I"m paraphrasing VG developers. I thought it was a good idea when they said it. Obviously a lot of things went wrong but it"s still a solid idea that could work in an otherwise balanced MMO. The counter to just 7 manning all 5 man content was xp penalties, loot penalties, etc. Perhaps a 5 man encounter would only drop 1 of 2 superior quality items if you fought it with 7 and only had a 50% chance to drop the 2nd item when fighting with 6 players. Every penalty and bonus is approached with a similar gradient, with very few steep differences.

It"s a cosmetic change to me, an elegant one, not some fanatical interest. I thought it was relevant to VG when that game was interesting to me. I really appreciate WoW having different environments, but I take the contrasting difficulties harshly. It isn"t much of a problem for such a heavily instanced game, but for an environment that has both seamless overland and dungeon areas it would become more obvious.

One server works for EVE, but I think different servers (especially with different rule-sets) is definitely the way to go.