Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO

Lithose_sl said:

It was balanced like dog shit because some classes were simply better than others in their defined roles, by orders of magnitude in some cases, and often without any other utility to make up for it. As I said, the only reason "everyone participated in raids" is because there were no caps on raids. The only negative to bringing more people was loot dispersion but if it was a class you were underpopulated on, it didn't matter, because their loot would be rotting anyway (Until we get to All/All).

I'm actually shocked you think your damage was anywhere near a Monk or Rogues though as a Wizard. Am I the first to break it to you that Wizards sucked at DPS, man? They did.



You predicated your statement that EQ was balanced, that's "so what". It wasn't.

What EQ did was take the light OFF of balance and put it on the player by making the goals more about dedication, patience, efficiency, risk abatement and a whole host of factors that modern MMO's don't do because they changed a lot of dynamics in their game. So EQ wasn't balanced well, the thing is, it just wasn't a game about power balance at all. That was it's key strength.

EQ made classes feel pretty amazing WITHOUT having to make them the best, is what I'm getting at. Your Wizards DPS was dog shit man--you didn't "trade" your squishiness for it, if you did, the rogues stole it off you. But that didn't really matter--because what was really important wasn't so much the class, as it was having a competent player.

If you go in with the mindset that "my class has to be best in X"--then you have a false perception of what EQ was. Heck this whole community was built off the epic whines of one person who saw that warriors were butt fucked in EVERY way outside of groups because they were supposed to be "the best tanks" and yet were easily outclassed by Monks for an entire expansion of content in terms of tanking!

EQ was balanced like shit. But it had some features that really made balance a "background" concern--and I think, if you want to get some benefits of EQ's design, it's important to address what about it's design made it so easy to forget about balance--you shouldn't start from the thought that it was just balanced perfectly, which is why no one worried about balance (Because people DID worry about balance, again, I wish I could link Furors monk rants.)

Click to expand...

Ahh ok, I see where your going now. Much better explanation.

DarkAkuma_sl said:

WTF? Why the heck would I deserve a comment like that?

Anyway, since my Brad didn't respond to my main issues, I'll just assume those aren't nailed down yet, or will be covered in the KickStarter. Mainly I just wanted to know about the PvP stuff. But as I read earlier in the thread, PvP stuff will be tied in with a stretch goal. So that may be hard to respond to atm.

Either way. Can't wait for the KS to learn more!

/me keeps fingers crossed to be blow away in "days, not weeks"! =)

Click to expand...

Dear DarkAkuma,

My apologies for not explaining my position in more depth.

My annoyance was such:

I'm seeing people register just to post a somewhat long-winded letter directly addressed to Brad that doesn't really offer much of anything new that hasn't been covered in the thread, but often does include a history of their own gaming experience and a lot of generalized perspectives, or a thinly veiled attempt to campaign against a feature or mechanic they personally don't like that may or may not be good for a game. This leads me to believe a poster isn't reading the thread, isn't following the evolution of the thread or game, and instead is the type of poster who gets excited with many new MMOs, rushes to get their two cents in hoping it changes the course of the game development, writes a personalized 'Dear Developer' letter, and then ultimately leaves to get excited about the potential of some other game when every last demand in their ransom note isn't met or they don't get the attention they seek.

Then, these posters often assume someone who has been involved in the evolution of the thread, game, etc. was personally moved by their letter if they do anything related to the demands within, such as generally respond regarding a like feature, or link to information they were hoping for. The problem is everything so far has been me, me, me, so the poster continues that trend, often responding in such a way that you'd think it were them who moved the developers to suddenly release information, or that they were (thankfully!) the first person in the thread or in ever at all to suggest a feature or ask an idea. This is heightened when they take personal responsibility for something they didn't even do, mere minutes or hours after, what, posting their Dear Developer letter; such things as 'I'm glad they're finally listening to us' when details that line up to their general desires are revealed or "I see gogojira_ tweeted an inquiry based off my Oculus Rift question."

Then, later, after getting a response they didn't like, they further beat the drum of the feature they personally like, even after getting a response. I mean, the community responded to their emotionally engaged Dear Developer letter once, right? And the developers themselves seemed to respond as well, because it surely wasn't just coincidence. Why wouldn't every get on board with a followup letter? Obviously the feature the poster wanted is very important to them, and everyone else probably just doesn't see it yet, so it will need explained further. All that's needed is more passion and more explanation to start a grass roots effort....

And that's where I stepped in. I fear the tone of my comments were misunderstood. I wasn't angrily saying you should shut up, like: shut up you ignorant piece of shit I'll cut you. I was saying it more as a friend, like: shut up before you embarrass yourself. Like, please chill, read, and slowly integrate yourself with the thread... instead of coming in, posting a Dear Developer letter outlining your personal experiences and expectations regarding any new project, personally attributing other poster and dev activity to that personalized letter, and then personally started to crusade for a feature we already got a response to, that has generally already been discussed and understood, and that I feared would become a personal axe to grind that would separate you from the community if it was continued to be brought up, especially in the personalized path that was already being taken. Basically, I saw the new kid at the party starting to socially hang themselves and was like, ummm, shutup man and just play it cool and you'll have a better time here.

Also, I wrongly clarified your face, when I should technically have clarified to shut up your fingers. Unless you're using Dragon software or something. But how would I know that?

In conclusion, I was partially annoyed, but mostly had that sinking feeling of seeing another brand new, impassioned new poster looking destined to be hoisted on their own petard... and I just... I just couldn't watch it happen again.... I was trying to deflect for you, man, to give you a chance at survival! I'm good deep down, if you just give me a chance!

Fondlest regards,

Danth

errr, I mean my username over to the left.

Lithose_sl said:

Because, for example, if EQ had a 25 man raid cap? I can ASSURE you, Merlin's view on balance would be incredibly different. (And I'm NOT advocating a raid cap..I'm illustrating how a mechanic can highlight balance issues.)

All in all though, yes, I agree that ideally each class should augment groups, raids and even how they interact with the environment in very unique ways. So there is less emphasis on just what they can do in terms of raw numbers. BUT if that happens, then you need to be careful that you balance their unique snowflakeness in terms of stacking in raids ect. Because if the druid is a very unique snow flake for example, but you only need one--that feeling of unique snow flake won't last long.

Click to expand...

I agree with this and zzeris' post just below yours - that yes all classes should be able to contribute something to the raid, the group and the environment (and of course there is solo play as well): but I don't know if that's possible. Maybe we have to take Meatloaf's advice that Two out of Three Aint Bad?

I think almost everyone agrees that 24-25 man raiding is a bad idea for all the reasons articulated previously in the discussion of such.

Back to the main point: I think we also all agree there are some things you just can't balance like DPS. Rogues and Wizards are using two different mechanics: (super simplifying) high damage nukes based on a limited and shrinking mana-pool v. essentially endless lower value weapon based damage. In the group environment where the mobs are killed before the mana pool is gone the Wizards will out-damage the Rogues, in the raid environment facing a raid boss with lots of HP, the Rogues are going to outdamage the Wizards because the Wiz will run out of mana.

Put it another way, Necros are going to be able to solo group bosses by their lonesome should they be needed or necessary for raids? I don't think so.

Not sure if there is a solution: people are going to whine no matter what the Dev's do (See Furor's lame ass hypocritical whining lovingly posted by Quaid) and developers seem to always end up listening to the biggest whiners and this the wasting disease that afflicts all MMO begins.

pharmakos_sl said:

disagree. soloing should be difficult for all classes at first. figure out a way in the economy for late-comers to the game to catch up via getting nice loot handed to them from older players. perhaps incentivize generosity somehow so that established players get rewards for twinking out newbies. balance it carefully so it doesn't get overly abused though.

Click to expand...

AAs help you solo old content that was not soloable at launch and i think that takes care of it, in addition to twinking etc. In my mind i would like to see at least 80% of the content group based underground dungeons or open world area dungeons.. etc.

Figure with this game AAs will come later not at launch which is fine in my mind, then when there is low pop at lower levels, AAs can make group stuff trio-able etc etc.

Quaid_sl said:

Last one. Furor was pretty funny:

I had to skip the majority of the posts in this thread. It seems to me as if a lot of you have basically lost sight on what it is you are supposed to do as a warrior in Everquest.

Several of you are chiming in with "get appropriate taunt items, blah blah blah..."

Hello? Is anybody home? With the dramatic increase in weaponry and abilities for the other classes, do you realize how difficult it would be to taunt and maintain taunt without the help of these taunt items?

BECAUSE these weapons exist should tell you our class is botched. BECAUSE a monk can tank better than us should tell you our class is botched. BECAUSE we mitigate damage on the same level as ... hold on... let me just stop right here...

Our class is now valued in effectiveness by the weapons we wield. We cannot mitigate damage better than any other melee class and as a matter of fact monks actually tank better than us - this should scare you... a lot.

My guilds top monk has over 4500 hps unbuffed. That is more than 95% of the warriors that play Everquest at level 60, if not more. As a matter of fact, our monks exclusively tank Rampage from Ssra to VT and everything and everywhere in between. We don't tell them to feign, we heal them - it's efficient, easy, and almost foolproof to keep them alive and on the page.

What do you do as a warrior in an experience group? If you want to know the truth, the answer is you bring the EXP/min down, whereas almost ANY other class in your spot would bring more exp to the group at a faster pace.



To add insult to injury, without any gear we are totally ineffective but on top of that, we need MASSIVE amounts of gear to be partially effective and at the level I play, it's become posturing.

Our top monks could tank any mob in this game better than I could with less healing and far greater damage output. The only way I can even be effective versus them is to have hate generating weapons, which were made as a result of my whining about our pathetic lack of taunt pre-Luclin release and then once I have hate, I tank worse than them (thanks @#%$ skill levels and no block skill) and rely on my cleric rotation to keep my 7700 hps flowing - woopedy do.

So to sum things up for you - you suck, you can't tank, you need prosthetics to help you taunt, and people in the know laugh at you for experience groups. On top of that you're an incredible pain in the ass to even bring up to a level of raid worthiness, you needy little bitch - and when you're at that level....

I've been asking to have /disc defensive removed and our class put on a separate defensive table for almost 2 years now. Still waiting on one playtester and one character developer that do not have their heads firmly up the monk and rogue communities asses to give us a @#%$ hand.

Seriously, wake the @#%$ up... I'm just waiting for PooP to be released - then the anger will come out daily until something is done about our @#%$ class. I am not very excited about Superior Bandage Wounds and Improved Warcry, are you?

Just give the monks dual SoDs and put a skirt on Sally...

Oh, and to those of you not worried about the damage output you do... start worrying. When it gets to the point that a Rogue is actually doing 500% more damage than you, you best CHECK yourself... I call you dead weight.

Click to expand...

This is the post that originally made me start reading FoH a lot, haha, it got copied to our realm forum. I was a warrior in a small guild and also had input on our raid comp. I was also what you would call an "explorer" type of player, so numbers and such were important to me. It annoyed me, that no matter how I looked at it, replacing me with a monk was almost always preferable except in cases where /disc was important. I thought "I can't be the only one who sees this, can I?" And then I found Furor and his bitching gave me solace....But on the same token, I didn't really care, because I was having fun and it frankly didn't matter--we were always just concerned with getting more people, class balance issues were a far, far distant second.

Seriously though, it did say a lot about EQ that so many poorly balanced classes could exist together, and still all have fun. Exploring the reason for that is some insight into creating "worlds" that I feel like was lost when everything became about making a better "game". In a world, the need to be balanced on a razors edge is greatly reduced. But on that token, we shouldn't forget these issues either--watching rangers get shit on was not fun for friends I had to played that class.

Convo_sl said:

In EQ maybe.. That doesn't mean it can't be used. There is a place for all types of utility. Just needs to be done smartly. Certain mobs can be completely resistant to it, it could be put on a long cool down, etc.. I think all classes need some Utility and also need to have some value within a group at any particular time outside their typical role of healing, tanking, dps.. So just scrapping shit because it doesn't make sense... doesn't work for me. I'd much rather keep it and make it a more workable/non game breaking ability. which can be done. IMO... I'd be shocked if Monks were in at launch tho

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is against a FD ability, only what it became with single-pull FD splitting. FD to help scout: cool. FD to shed aggro: cool. FD to save your ass from dying occasionally: cool. FD to trivialize content, make it such that the entire game is balanced around that one unintentional side effect and make it so any monk in any future game that can't single-mob FD split has people throwing tantrums that they're nerfed when they're not even classes from the same game: not as cool.

tad10_sl said:

Not sure if there is a solution: people are going to whine no matter what the Dev's do (See Furor's lame ass hypocritical whining lovingly posted by Quaid) and developers seem to always end up listening to the biggest whiners and this the wasting disease that afflicts all MMO begins.

Click to expand...

Well, I think there'sisa "balance" there that needs to be maintained. BUT, as you mentioned, it doesn't need to be focused on just the primary jobs. Also, An MMO can certainly do a lot to take the light off balance. And I think it's really important a developer, maybe not Brad but someone in the future, goes back and asks how to iterate on those two things even more--how to make balance less of a concern and use other elements outside of 'reducing HP to zero" to balance classes. But at the end of the day, balance will always be a concern.

But, it just doesn't have to be between such defined jobs. If you're going to do less DPS, Healing a Tanking, but you're the only class with The Mcguffin 001 skill? And that skill stacks? Well, that's still balance. We've just broadened the concept away from the archetypes. And I think that's a good thing. But it does have to be there. If druids are going to heal at 60% and DPS at 75%, then they need something to make up for it--even if what they get is subjective and maybe not everyone agrees it makes up for the loss of those primary numbers.

popsicledeath_sl said:

I don't think anyone is against a FD ability, only what it became with single-pull FD splitting. FD to help scout: cool. FD to shed aggro: cool. FD to save your ass from dying occasionally: cool. FD to trivialize content, make it such that the entire game is balanced around that one unintentional side effect and make it so any monk in any future game that can't single-mob FD split has people throwing tantrums that they're nerfed when they're not even classes from the same game: not as cool.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Had FD on my disciple in VG and liked it just fine for the above situations. It just couldn't be used to split pull.

zzeris_sl said:

Tad,

My real hope is that they remove raid restrictions. I wouldn't mind if you weren't quite as useful(make me useful some at least!) if they just needed to fill spots. Once you just need that req, there's a lot more leeway. I think a good designer may not perfectly balance anything(who does) but he should be able to make you useful at least. As Convo mentions, make the raid bosses have different weaknesses or an encounter have many variable solutions so these other guys can shine more often. No one wants to be the guy left out.

Click to expand...

Imbalance can be fun, actually. If your game is designed around it, as you said. It's really important the developers keep that in mind. In WoW, fights became so complex that it felt like you really couldn't do this anymore--because there were already so many variables, that if they added special snowflake weaknesses, it would lead to wildly different results (And raid stacking, which is a huge issue in games with small raid caps.).

But I think, if you were to have a different design philosophy behind your MMO and make the whole game account for imbalances and "unique" class properties, you could have a game thatrewards, rather than rejects, imbalance. And actually incorporates it into what players get out of the game. (Anyway, interesting video I saw a while ago on how certain games build around imbalance, and that "shift" between useless and useful is used to keep hooking players and giving everyone their own snowflake time.)

Lithose_sl said:

Well, I think there'sisa "balance" there that needs to be maintained. BUT, as you mentioned, it doesn't need to be focused on just the primary jobs. Also, An MMO can certainly do a lot to take the light off balance. And I think it's really important a developer, maybe not Brad but someone in the future, goes back and asks how to iterate on those two things even more--how to make balance less of a concern and use other elements outside of 'reducing HP to zero" to balance classes. But at the end of the day, balance will always be a concern.

But, it just doesn't have to be between such defined jobs. If you're going to do less DPS, Healing a Tanking, but you're the only class with The Mcguffin 001 skill? And that skill stacks? Well, that's still balance. We've just broadened the concept away from the archetypes. And I think that's a good thing. But it does have to be there. If druids are going to heal at 60% and DPS at 75%, then they need something to make up for it--even if what they get is subjective and maybe not everyone agrees it makes up for the loss of those primary numbers.

Click to expand...

Merlin_sl said:

Ahh ok, I see where your going now. Much better explanation.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear at first. But yeah, it's not that I totally disagree with you--EQ was "balanced", just not balanced between classes. The whole game was balanced (Probably mistakenly lol) to allow for imbalances--which made the game feel more balanced!

To use an obtuse RL scenario. It's like soldiers in an army. Navy Seals are imbalanced vs grunts, but a lot of factors make that inconsequential, because in most wars, you just want more of both anyway. So there are scenarios where some person can have an advantage but the thrust of that advantage is blunted by the setting.

And if a game is really designed well, you can actually exploit the above. I hope, like you, Brad's game is designed like that--where they embrace the unique properties of the class, and rather homogenize/diminish them, instead exploit and extol them.

tad10_sl said:

Quaid is just trolling this thread at this point. Why? Well apparently he got his panties into a bunch because in NTOV his shitty guild with shitty pullers made him wait 20 minutes so his beer went stale or maybe they made him spill his beer when they shouted "incoming" in chat - not clear on which: could you clarify that for us Quaid? So ever since then he cries like a bitch about monk pulling when he thinks of that stale and/or spilled beer so when it came up in this thread he made incoherent arguments that no one gave a shit about but now he just sits and trolls people by asking for microtransactions and classs/raceswitching.

So yeah, I could see why someone would put him on ignore after 200 pages.

Anyway as for FD, its easy enough to come up with stronger lore for it (Jedi Monks), it gives the monk a unique flavor and it works. It is not particularly OP as you still need mez, good tanks and healers if the monk screws up and pulls a pack of 5 ravenous giant cockroaches to the group. Bards tend to do most of the pulling on raids these days anyway. And modern raids/dungeons tend to be less camp/pull dungeons and more run through dungeons - and I don't see that changing much for Pantheon. So everyone bitching about monk pulling is either (a) lost in the past, (b) blind to the present state of dungeons/bards or (c) a whiny bitch crying over stale and/or spilled beer.

/aside
Speaking of unique flavors for the monk - I did love the VG monk's might leap and would like to see that back as a monk ability.

Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense. If he had 20 minutes, why wouldn't he have been drinking his beer instead of letting it get stale. Stale beer is the reason people hate zero-downtime mechanics, not mechanics that make you sit around waiting to play the game with nothing else to do but drink beer and not let it get stale.

Good point, though, that bards tend to do pulling on raids these days. Pantheon probably shouldn't allow bards to single-pull shit all day long either. It's not about you and your monk, tad. It's a bout bad mechanics, and bad mechanics are bad.

popsicledeath_sl said:

FD to trivialize content

Click to expand...

You keep repeating this over and over and over again. WTF are you talking about? Unless your a top end, Fires of Heaven.ROI, AL type member with the best gear in the game, those single pulls were tough as fuck. When we didn't have a chanty in group it was either snare/rot the mob, or have someone kite it around. Very few mid/low level groups were able to handle multiple mobs in say, KC, Seb, etc...those guys hit like trucks! And I remember Kael raids. Without a monk to FD pull, splitting the Protectors of Zek etc...was nearly impossible. All FD pulling did was able the groups/raids to pull content the group/raid could handle. I have no idea in what instances this "trivialized the content". What game were you playing? I guess if you were a member of Afterlife or some shit then yea, that shit came easy, but in lower/mid level guilds, FD pulling/splitting was critical and in no way unbalanced.

Lithose_sl said:

Imbalance can be fun, actually. If your game is designed around it,

Click to expand...

Failure to mention RPS in that video is fail. -_-

Merlin_sl said:

Could you be more specific? What was wrong with the balance? Then you specifically use raiding as an example. Well every single class in the game participated in raids. But yes, tanks tanked, healers healed, and wizzys ROGUE'S, etc did DPS. Everyone had a defined role. What is wrong with having defined roles? And when I played we did not print out spreadsheets to analyze total DPS, so if rogues did more dps, fine? So what? I've tried a few of the newer games and the "everyone can do everything" class roles are not what I would define as "an improvement on EQ". I suppose its all a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with having a defined role. What's wrong is when one class has a monopoly on that role. Or when one race has a monopoly on the one class that has a monopoly on that one role. For instance, you HAD to have a cleric to raid heal. In two different raiding guilds on two different servers at two different eras of EQ we could never con enough people into being healers. We finally ended up where I think our entire healing rotation, save for one chick, were two-boxed. Why? Because we HAD to have cleric, and clerics weren't fun enough that we could fill roster slots. There was nothing wrong with having 'healing' be a 'role' in the game, what was wrong was the only way that role was filled ended up a pain in the ass that nobody wanted to be. Not because they didn't want to be that role, or that having roles is bad, but that the ONE option to be that role wasn't something many players wanted to play.

Grouping and raiding in Vanguard, though, never had an issue finding healers, and all the healing classes were viable to different strengths at different times and in different ways, but all viable. Why? Because people wanted to be healers and fill the role of healer for more reasons than they knew they'd be needed if they were willing to endure a class they didn't really enjoy. And definitely for more reasons than the guild pretty much had to con or bribe them into it.

Of course, I see a lot of people that want to go back to the days where they can be willing to endure the one class that fills the most vital role that most others don't find at all interesting. Basically, instead of being picked for the team first because they're the best available healer, they get picked and their ass kissed because they're the only available healer. No thanks. I'd rather have diversity, several classes that can fill any given role, and then hopefully not a constant struggle trying to find people to fill that role.

popsicledeath_sl said:

There's nothing wrong with having a defined role. What's wrong is when one class has a monopoly on that role. Or when one race has a monopoly on the one class that has a monopoly on that one role. For instance, you HAD to have a cleric to raid heal. In two different raiding guilds on two different servers at two different eras of EQ we could never con enough people into being healers. We finally ended up where I think our entire healing rotation, save for one chick, were two-boxed. Why? Because we HAD to have cleric, and clerics weren't fun enough that we could fill roster slots. There was nothing wrong with having 'healing' be a 'role' in the game, what was wrong was the only way that role was filled ended up a pain in the ass that nobody wanted to be. Not because they didn't want to be that role, or that having roles is bad, but that the ONE option to be that role wasn't something many players wanted to play.

Grouping and raiding in Vanguard, though, never had an issue finding healers, and all the healing classes were viable to different strengths at different times and in different ways, but all viable. Why? Because people wanted to be healers and fill the role of healer for more reasons than they knew they'd be needed if they were willing to endure a class they didn't really enjoy. And definitely for more reasons than the guild pretty much had to con or bribe them into it.

Of course, I see a lot of people that want to go back to the days where they can be willing to endure the one class that fills the most vital role that most others don't find at all interesting. Basically, instead of being picked for the team first because they're the best available healer, they get picked and their ass kissed because they're the only available healer. No thanks. I'd rather have diversity, several classes that can fill any given role, and then hopefully not a constant struggle trying to find people to fill that role.

Click to expand...

Ok you nailed it with that post. That was spot on. When I did join a top end guild we had the same issues. Our raid leaders/officers all had to two-box clerics because, 1. People were starting to leave the game and, 2. No one wanted to play a cleric just to be number 7 in a cheal rotation. I think Brad is addressing this because the VG classes were pretty fucking good and avoided the "one class required" syndrome.

popsicledeath_sl said:

Of course, I see a lot of people that want to go back to the days where they can be willing to endure the one class that fills the most vital role that most others don't find at all interesting. Basically, instead of being picked for the team first because they're the best available healer, they get picked and their ass kissed because they're the only available healer. No thanks. I'd rather have diversity, several classes that can fill any given role, and then hopefully not a constant struggle trying to find people to fill that role.

Click to expand...

Who is asking to go back to those bad old days? Asking Devs to set up a couple of camping areas in leveling/endgame dungeons and or a couple of encounters as part of a raid zone that are best dealt with by pulling (by monks, bards, or whatever) is not asking for bringing back the bad old days.