Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling
- Thread starter Lord Thanos_foh
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
so than you agree the half that classes at least are basically 3 different classes based on spec?Draegan said:
so how again was tad wrong?
Because you have Mage, Warlock, Rogue and the Hunter. Thats 4 Classes. Then you have Warrior, Paladin, Druid, Shaman, that 4 class, each with different roles, so thats 8?
8 + 4 = 12 which is less than half of 27 or whatever number he was saying before.
8 + 4 = 12 which is less than half of 27 or whatever number he was saying before.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
D.Draegan said:
Does Blizz have to balance each of the talent trees a class has with the other 2 trees the class has as well as the 3 talent trees of all the other classes?
I"m not asking if the trees are correctly balanced (a whole nother question) -- but rather aren"t they supposed to be balanced intra-class as well as inter-class?
How is that different than balancing 27 individual classes where those indivudal classes only have one known set of abilities?
I"m really not sure how you can classify a mage as 3 classes. The only thing the talents change is the nature of the spells used most often. Fire, ice or arcane. Sure each come with a couple of tools but none of them change the class so drastically that it requires a new title. Warlocks, hunters, rogues are the same. The only classes that I can see being even halfway debatable are priest-shadowpreist, paladins and shamans. Even then it"s a stretch that makes Mr. Fantastic jealous.
arguing over semantics but in tads system you have classes that are very similar in his base setup that share some skills and have some variance, exactly the same as wow talent trees.
You are making wow out to be totally different than EQ2 or tads system but in reality they are the same damn thing. Templar compared to fury is basically a holy priest compared to a shadow priest and you can keep going with the comparisons.
Tad was prety mouch spot on with what he said, not that i agree with the premise but he was correct in his assessment IMO.
You are making wow out to be totally different than EQ2 or tads system but in reality they are the same damn thing. Templar compared to fury is basically a holy priest compared to a shadow priest and you can keep going with the comparisons.
Tad was prety mouch spot on with what he said, not that i agree with the premise but he was correct in his assessment IMO.
While I wouldn"t say wow has 27classes because of the 3 talents, it"s pretty clear you can consider it has more than the 9 classes because of some specs, mainly on hybrid chars. There"s pretty much 2 warriors(dps or tank), 2shamans/priests(heal or dps), 3druids(tank, dps and heal, even tho I guess tank and dps somewhat merge) and maybe 2paladins(tank and heal). Whispering people is annoying to know their template, it would have been easier if they designed it around a bigger number of classes, but then again it was fun being able to respec and change roles somewhat without having to do the barrens quests for the 16th time.
I think I"d like a game where you choose a major archetype first, like warrior priest mage etc, then have various paths, but at any moment you could change path, with various timesinks(storyline quests), and parallel leveling processes, something like as long as your current level is lower than your highest level, you gain 3x xp, so you could level "alts" on the same char, and switch easily. Maybe have some "neutral" skills that you could use whatever the class you"re playing in that archetype, such as self buffs or class defining skills(arcane magic for casters)
I wouldn"t mind a game where I choose healer but have access to various types of healing(and vanguard had some awesome ideas with bloodmages and disciples for healers imo) instead of having to choose between the raiding healer that sucks for anything but healing or the pvp healer that can solo but can"t keep up a tank thru a shitty boss.
I think I"d like a game where you choose a major archetype first, like warrior priest mage etc, then have various paths, but at any moment you could change path, with various timesinks(storyline quests), and parallel leveling processes, something like as long as your current level is lower than your highest level, you gain 3x xp, so you could level "alts" on the same char, and switch easily. Maybe have some "neutral" skills that you could use whatever the class you"re playing in that archetype, such as self buffs or class defining skills(arcane magic for casters)
I wouldn"t mind a game where I choose healer but have access to various types of healing(and vanguard had some awesome ideas with bloodmages and disciples for healers imo) instead of having to choose between the raiding healer that sucks for anything but healing or the pvp healer that can solo but can"t keep up a tank thru a shitty boss.
Dont forget druids and warriors. But in tads syetem they would share the msot common spells also i assume like EQ2 with other flavors built in. Really not as different as you two are making it out to be.Twobit Whore said:
The difference being, once you are a Fury you are always a Fury. You can"t change away from that. In WoW a holy priest can decide to go shadow and that is perfectly fine. Sorry, but WoW"s class system is far better than EQ2"s. Games should have fewer classes with individual choice-based variations instead of more classes with narrower focuses. Tad"s idea is terrible and I am just thankful he is a Unix admin-lawyer-astronaut or whatever it is this week instead of a game designer.Bongk said:
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
Man I wish I were an astronaut. If I had 30million to spend I"d blow it on a space station run w/ a little help form the Russians.Twobit Whore said:
In any event you forget that I believe in job-swapping and subjobbing. So my full system is ultimately more flexible than WoWs. Sick of being a shadowknight? Quest to have an entirely new class. If you choose another tank class you"ll probably be able to use most or even all of your SK gear (well unless you go monk or something).
Basically I think you should either have something like my system or skill/item-based. If you"re going to go classes you need to go all hybrids w/ jobswap/subjob. Otherwise just go skill/item-based.
Anyway I need to go back to working on my new career. So I"ll check back to read your latest objections in a couple of hours.
So you want to implement 27 different classes with 27 distinct roles and then everyone can just keep changing them? I don"t see what the point is then. Just switch with a stupid quest? Why not just get max level and automatically just be able to be any class in the game at max level.
Also another thought just occured to me, how do you itemize chain, leather, cloth, plate etc with stats that work for Tank/CC (plate) Tank/DPS (leather) CC/DPS (cloth) CC/Heal (leather) DPS/PET (plate) etc? Either every piece of gear is so generalized so that it sucks, or stats don"t mean much (see: LOTRO). Or you have a 1000 monkeys in your basement making sure there are 27 variations of gear to make everyone happy.
Why can"t you keep things simple and just have a few different classes to fill in a few different roles? You say you hate LFG forever trying to find a certain class. I think VG burned you out on the whole MMO thing.
Also another thought just occured to me, how do you itemize chain, leather, cloth, plate etc with stats that work for Tank/CC (plate) Tank/DPS (leather) CC/DPS (cloth) CC/Heal (leather) DPS/PET (plate) etc? Either every piece of gear is so generalized so that it sucks, or stats don"t mean much (see: LOTRO). Or you have a 1000 monkeys in your basement making sure there are 27 variations of gear to make everyone happy.
Why can"t you keep things simple and just have a few different classes to fill in a few different roles? You say you hate LFG forever trying to find a certain class. I think VG burned you out on the whole MMO thing.
"The best"? That is totally subjective concerning MMO"s. But the "most Popular by leaps and bounds" kind of tells you what the bulk of the market is looking for.Bongk said:
And as for the insane debate over 27 classes for game X is the same as 9 classes with 3 specs, guys comeon, math is the math. They are pretty much the same thing. A holy paladin is just not the same as a protec or ret one. You can go down the line for each class (and that does include mage). And you can mix it up more since some people may just spread their points out in different specs.
I am not saying Tad"s suggestion is great. But I am saying that I am tired of the pure"s being "needed" just to do dam game content.
Maybe I read through it too fast but I didn"t get the impression of 27 classes & 27 distinct roles. Rather 27 classes covering the 4-5 general roles just in varying ways. As he mentioned there will be times where Min/Max one class will be more optimal for certain content, but as long as that content is doable without that specific class then things should be fine.Draegan said:
As for the switching classes stuff, IMO that is more about wanting to be able to focus on a single character rather than having to roll alts continuously to try out the different classes. Some of us fucking hate rolling alts and wouldn"t mind being able to switch classes on my one & only character, forsaking all the gear I had acquired to that point is an acceptable loss.
Or you could try a new approach to itemization. Base gear is designed towards a role and is enhanced for the player"s class through crafting or say drops from mobs. Like how sockets work in WoW, just expand on that so that the class/build/whatever specific stats/bonuses are added via these enhancements.
There are plenty of ideas out there to change the paradigm MMOs have been following but not many of the companies are willing to take those risks and instead follow "proven" design patterns.
On the contrary, it is simple. And it is a fact.Draegan said:
Be warned, this is a long post. But you asked, and I am bored. So enjoy.
.
The only reason that the current end game formula is so strict, is due entirely to the fact that if it wasn't then large parts of the customer base would be left out of that content in favor of a select few people who chose the right class.
BY DESIGN the class based hierarchy forces 'end game content' (for lack of a better definition) to require the use of X Tanks, X Controllers, X Healers, and X DPS. Because if it wasn't designed that way, the classes who are made unnecessary would likely be left out of that content in favor of classes that are necessary.
Put simply. Because the designers FORCED you to chose a class, they are FORCED to include that class's role, in SOME SIGNIFICANT WAY. Sucking up enormous amounts of time factoring class balance in all significant game content.
In contrast, a skill based system gives the freedom to the customer to chose the mixture of their skills to tackle the content they wish to experience. Freeing the developer to try new and innovative forms of encounters. (And likely many more of them without the need to balance them ad infinitum).
It is only natural that some mixtures of skill sets will make SOME (note, NOT ALL) content trivial,and that some mixtures of skill sets will be all but pointless. But that occurs with class based hierarchies as well, just without the customer being able to change their choices in response.
Why?
Because they are LOCKED into their classes role. And if they want to change it, they mustSTART OVER.
.
Now, in content designed for a skill based system the developer is freer to try much more extreme levels of content swing without fear of alienating the customer base. Why? Because it can be part of the challenge to make the players discover what skill sets work best within a particular game environment, and doing so doesn't potentially alienate (or completely piss off) a large segment of the customer base.
There is already a precedent for this within class based hierarchies. Learning that you need 5 tanks instead of 3, or only 2 DPS instead of 6.. Etc. Etc. However, in class based hierarchies you are saying that out of the 6 customers that chose a DPS class, only 2 of them can participate because for them to play the tank role, they need to START OVER and level up a tank class character to participate. Or wait until their guild redoes the content. Which seems simple enough right?
Well, it seems that way until you take into account the big picture of server balance.
What if 50% of the server's population is DPS? Say, because they are easy to level up.. And what if around 15% of the server's population play Healers? Say, because they are too slow to level up? And the rest of the 35% split relatively equally 17.5% Tanks and 17.5% Controllers.
How likely is it that the AVERAGE GUILD will be able to field 25% of their raid force as healers when only 15% of the ENTIRE SERVERS POPULATION are healers? Let alone COMPETENT healers.
Better yet, the question should be,what is the likelihood that a developer, armed with the knowledge that around 15% of the average server's population are healers, let alone competent healers, is going to develop any significant amount of NEW CONTENT that requires 25% healers?We are still talking about a FOUR class game (Tank, Controller, Healer, DPS). 25% should not be asking too much.
I'll tell you what is likely.
Many thousands of added developer hours will be spent on BALANCING the necessity of classes with the average customer demand. Which will likely result in the BUFF of under utilized classes and the NERFAGE of the over utilized class in order to make them more and less appealing to new players who only hear how much they rock or suck now. respectively.
Which is ironic, considering that the only reason the customer base chooses to play DPS 50%, or more, of the time is because the developers FORCED THEM to chose one class in which to invest 80 hours of their time into, to begin with. And as a result they chose theMOST FUN(Not the most needed) class at the time.
Go figure!!
And now that they have invested 80+ hours (often 160+ hours) of their time playing that character they are ENRAGED that they are nerfed and that they are not as necessary as the Healer, or the Controller, or the Tank.And if they don"t like it their only alternative is to QUIT, or START OVER!!!
Do not see the sheer ridiculousness in this?
...
In contrast, a skill based system will free up the customer to choose to change into a more healer centered character when they want, or need, too. This change will not be an instant on the fly change, but a gradual, deliberate change that costs the player a nice chunk of in game wealth, and some time. But this cost is mostly to discourage changing ones skill focuses to often, and a way of training the player to take on their new role.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
Whats the real difference between that and having 27 alts? You have to level the class or the alts. Instead of saying leveling a Druid to 70 and then an alt Shaman to 70 and then telling your party (when they need a Shaman) give me a second let me log off and log on my Druid. You just level your main to Druid 70 then go to the class trainer run a quick quest and switch to Shaman. Level your Shaman class to 70. Then when they need the Shaman (and you"re playing a Druid) You just switch to Shaman (via a class trainer maybe for free) and hit up the bank for your shaman gear (ideally you"d have class specific gear loadouts).Draegan said:
I suppose in a BOE world my system permits some twinking if the new class your leveling can use some of the gear you"ve acquired. Though in a non-BOE you can twink either way (alt-char or alt-class)
Of course if someone prefers alts they can just do alts. I"ve got no skin in the game. If you"re like me and just want one toon that you can level multiple times in different classes that"s cool. If you"re an altaholic and prefer leveling 27 distinct toons that"s cool too.
Edit: Campa is correct (as Bongk also pointed out) "Rather 27 classes covering the 4-5 general roles just in varying ways" is a nice way of putting it.
It"s just one step removed from letting everyone be everything at once.. and that"s fucking retarded.
Once again... No one is saying everyone should be everything. Defining your arguments this way leads to nothing more then pointless hyperbole.Twobit Whore said:
A purely skill based system, DONE RIGHT, will encourage specialization for group oriented play, and generalization for solo play, while providing plenty of opportunity to transition between the two and LEARN how to play.
I didn"t get the 27 unique snowflake impression either....its like 9 different ways of approaching 3 situations. You still have your main archetype - tank, dps, healer, but the way they do their main job is handled differently.
In some ways that would probably be easier to balance than the WOW talent trees because you would have to worry about combinations from trees. What a class gets is what it gets....no mixing and matching.
WOW"s is essentially an archetype with skills on top of it. The system Tad is talking about is more of a class system than WOW is.
In some ways that would probably be easier to balance than the WOW talent trees because you would have to worry about combinations from trees. What a class gets is what it gets....no mixing and matching.
WOW"s is essentially an archetype with skills on top of it. The system Tad is talking about is more of a class system than WOW is.
This is a retarded derail, but here are the net total variants that play significantly differently in a 5-man group scenario. They"ve built actively synergistic effects into the talent trees that cause further differentiation on the very high end.
Rogue, Mage, Warlock, Hunter : no significant differences
Shaman: Healer(restoration), Physical DPS(Enhancement), Magical DPS(Elemental)
Priest: Healer(Holy or Disc), Magical DPS(Shadow)
Warrior: Tank(Prot/Arms/Fury), Physical DPS(Arms/Fury)
Paladin: Healer(Holy), Tank(Prot), "DPS"(Ret)
Druid: Tank(Feral), Healer(Resto), Magical DPS(Balance)
17 total roles to balance around. 5 of the classes can do the job you"d expect them to be able to do regardless of spec. The other four are more pigeonholed by their talents.
Rogue, Mage, Warlock, Hunter : no significant differences
Shaman: Healer(restoration), Physical DPS(Enhancement), Magical DPS(Elemental)
Priest: Healer(Holy or Disc), Magical DPS(Shadow)
Warrior: Tank(Prot/Arms/Fury), Physical DPS(Arms/Fury)
Paladin: Healer(Holy), Tank(Prot), "DPS"(Ret)
Druid: Tank(Feral), Healer(Resto), Magical DPS(Balance)
17 total roles to balance around. 5 of the classes can do the job you"d expect them to be able to do regardless of spec. The other four are more pigeonholed by their talents.