Not sure
- Thread starter grehyton
- Start date
balance
Personally I think this whole concept of 'class balancing' is a plague of many of the mmrpgs. I play a class because I like it, its disadvantages and advantages. If I want high damage I play a rogue or warrior...If I want to be able to move around, I play a druid or wizard (just examples).....If all the classes were 'balanced' to the entirety they would end up being exactly the same.....
But just the basic concept of paladins and clerics, I feel, and typically in rpgs is derived from worship and faith...I dont think advantages or disadvantages according to faith should be in the basic concept.
Personally I think this whole concept of 'class balancing' is a plague of many of the mmrpgs. I play a class because I like it, its disadvantages and advantages. If I want high damage I play a rogue or warrior...If I want to be able to move around, I play a druid or wizard (just examples).....If all the classes were 'balanced' to the entirety they would end up being exactly the same.....
But just the basic concept of paladins and clerics, I feel, and typically in rpgs is derived from worship and faith...I dont think advantages or disadvantages according to faith should be in the basic concept.
understand
I think perhaps you misunderstand my concept...
A class should be balanced in game mechanics but not against othe classes...Does this make sense?
I mean if every class were perfectly balanced, then
a level 50 warrior could hit for 0-50 with a sword
a level 50 wizzie could hit for 0-50 with a spell
a level 50 cleric could heal for 0-50 with a spell
seems a little boring to me...
I know you think my ideas are whacky, but I am just tired of everyone always complaining about how their class doesnt match up to so and so class....I come from playing muds like Carrion Fields and Armageddon, and of course pen and paper. Here you take your class and play it to its extent and enjoy it...You dont constantly gripe and wonder how equal your class is to the next...
But in the end, I still think the cleric/paladin should have to have a god before casting....Or perhaps at a certain level ( 10 or something ) have to go on a quest to win their gods favor before being able to continue advancement..... This would help tie the class into the lore you all worked hard to create and force a little RP on all these clerics and paladins running around...heheheh
I think perhaps you misunderstand my concept...
A class should be balanced in game mechanics but not against othe classes...Does this make sense?
I mean if every class were perfectly balanced, then
a level 50 warrior could hit for 0-50 with a sword
a level 50 wizzie could hit for 0-50 with a spell
a level 50 cleric could heal for 0-50 with a spell
seems a little boring to me...
I know you think my ideas are whacky, but I am just tired of everyone always complaining about how their class doesnt match up to so and so class....I come from playing muds like Carrion Fields and Armageddon, and of course pen and paper. Here you take your class and play it to its extent and enjoy it...You dont constantly gripe and wonder how equal your class is to the next...
But in the end, I still think the cleric/paladin should have to have a god before casting....Or perhaps at a certain level ( 10 or something ) have to go on a quest to win their gods favor before being able to continue advancement..... This would help tie the class into the lore you all worked hard to create and force a little RP on all these clerics and paladins running around...heheheh
The biggest problem with class balancing is that what may make one class balanced solo, does not make them balanced for a group.
Ultimately, this is a GROUP game. Hence the 2nd 'M' in MMORPG.
All things need to be balanced group/raid wise. What this does for solo ability, well, whatever. That's just the way it is.
Bitch about the ability to solo, and it has very little relavence to the game dynamics as the game is 'intended' to be played, namely, in groups.
Ultimately, this is a GROUP game. Hence the 2nd 'M' in MMORPG.
All things need to be balanced group/raid wise. What this does for solo ability, well, whatever. That's just the way it is.
Bitch about the ability to solo, and it has very little relavence to the game dynamics as the game is 'intended' to be played, namely, in groups.
I think clerics+paladins+monks should start with a diety. I never agreed with Sony making monks agnostic, look at the Shaolin monks or any monks in real life they are all about faith in their god, thats their principle, so are clerics and paladins. Perhaps the same could be said about shamans necros and shadowknights, but those will have a whole viriety of choices unlike the cleric+paladin+monk.
iaeolan
Dalayan Elder
Laksha said:
Maybe iksars were agnostic... but humans were quellious or something else...
And what does learning martial arts have to do with a god? Monks have NO abilities which would hint to a god...
IIRC shaolin monks incorperated martial arts into their studies to ward of attacks for a practical use, since they couldnt just go out and buy a gun like today. They would take in wandering healers and martial arts masters and learn new techniques from them. After awhile it became part of their being to learn 'shaolin fist' form of fighting, and the became a non-use over time when bandits and villagers would stop attacking.
Thinkmeats
War Is Good For Business
Re: balance
I've encountered that type before, more than once. They tend to show up in D&D games the most, but there was one fellow who worked on a NWN PW project with me before the project was dumped that insisted class balance was a farce.
Then we had a discussion wherein I typed the words "Group of six clerics", then there was another discussion around "You know you can have balance and also have story and flavor and other stuff, right?", then I think I ended up typing
syduck:
Basically, people who don't like balance incorrectly believe that balance will end with all classes being the same and with no fun value. This is probably due to bad experiences with powergamers in 2nd edition D&D games, being molested as a child, or drinking water with too much lead content.
Really it all ends withsyduck:
rab said:
I ... just ... nevermind.
I've encountered that type before, more than once. They tend to show up in D&D games the most, but there was one fellow who worked on a NWN PW project with me before the project was dumped that insisted class balance was a farce.
Then we had a discussion wherein I typed the words "Group of six clerics", then there was another discussion around "You know you can have balance and also have story and flavor and other stuff, right?", then I think I ended up typing
syduck: Basically, people who don't like balance incorrectly believe that balance will end with all classes being the same and with no fun value. This is probably due to bad experiences with powergamers in 2nd edition D&D games, being molested as a child, or drinking water with too much lead content.
Really it all ends with
syduck:I think people just enjoy being stupid.
If someone were to think about it a little bit, he would likely realize that class balance is an attempt to make it so that one class is not far supperior to all others, making it so that players choose to foresake other classes in favor of the better one. The point of class balance is to give each class an area in which it is superior to others, or a combination of abilities that make it appealing, so that each class is attractive to the players who are interested in its job.
If, for instance, necromancers were given the changes requested by a certain someone here (*cough*), their pets would tank like warriors of the same level and would get crits, block, parry, dodge, riposte, and a good taunt. In other words, necro pets could replace warriors without a hitch. Why would anyone then want to play a warrior, and what function would they serve, when necros could do all that while dotting, nuking, tapping, liching, and FDing? Classes would, amazing as it sounds, be out of balance. And that's bad.
Class balance = good. Stupidity = bad.
If someone were to think about it a little bit, he would likely realize that class balance is an attempt to make it so that one class is not far supperior to all others, making it so that players choose to foresake other classes in favor of the better one. The point of class balance is to give each class an area in which it is superior to others, or a combination of abilities that make it appealing, so that each class is attractive to the players who are interested in its job.
If, for instance, necromancers were given the changes requested by a certain someone here (*cough*), their pets would tank like warriors of the same level and would get crits, block, parry, dodge, riposte, and a good taunt. In other words, necro pets could replace warriors without a hitch. Why would anyone then want to play a warrior, and what function would they serve, when necros could do all that while dotting, nuking, tapping, liching, and FDing? Classes would, amazing as it sounds, be out of balance. And that's bad.
Class balance = good. Stupidity = bad.
Only thing is, you would still need warriors because I don't think the Necro pet will care if the rest of the group wipes as long as his Master is ok, therefore, his taunt would be random or only when his Master got hit. Not that I want a Necro pet that equals a warrior, just that as it is, Necros are for the most part forced to solo, not really wanted on high end raids (refer to Legacy's list for raids in the guild section, not even a BoT Necro listed). There really isn't much a Necro has to offer the group, most mobs are killed too quickly for long duration DoTs, yeah we have taps, but they fail in comparison to other classes' DDs, about all they offer is mana to the cleric, and a target FD if need be, some CC if the mobs are undead (not likely), most don't bother to want them around just for this, so for those necros that don't wanna kite or can't in a dungeon, a better pet that can withstand the hits while the DoTs do their work is a necessity. Flame me if you want to, but I stopped playing my Necro because at 63, having a level 59 pet when I don't or can't kite just sux and it's just easier to get a group for my cleric than for my necro :roll: