Class Manifesto and Class Rebalancing [Archive]

View Full Version : Class Manifesto and Class Rebalancing

vexrm

07-05-2012, 05:44 PM

So, I remember way back when SJ first came on he talked about getting a new class guide/manifesto/this is what the class is supposed to be doing and why up. I've not seen anything about this at all.In the same vein I know we were promised class tweaks before this next GU. I understand when things don't happen but we've heard nothing of it and I know many classes beyond fighters need tweaks. Any one know what happened to these two items? If anything is coming (not holding my breath not even if a red name says soon)? If any discussion has been happening on this?

Andok

07-05-2012, 07:42 PM

I would love to see this! I think Smokejumper first mentioned it in this blog entry: <a href="http://stationblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/everquest-ii-update-july-2010/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://stationblog.wordpress.com/20...date-july-2010/</a> SmokeJumper wrote:<blockquote>And last, (but certainly not least), we intend to release a design overview for what the classes should be, how they should work together</blockquote>...and he stated it was still in the works here: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=492353" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=492353</a>SmokeJumper wrote:<blockquote>Still working on it. Velious is our main focus right now. Until that gets out, we have to stay on task. But our Lead Designer has been putting the "manifesto" together so that we can start hitting it hard in the new year. Still need patience for a while, but we're getting close to the time we can start on this now.</blockquote>That was a year and a half ago, so I think we ain't gonna get it... and as much as I would LOVE to see it, it's probably best to not publish something like that because it would just create more arguments and complaints (if that's possible).

Vinyard

07-05-2012, 08:07 PM

I think he said someting along the lines of this at Fan Faire"No. Never. Sorry. It's not going to happen. The guy who even mentioned the class manifesto isn't even on the team anymore".So don't expect one

vexrm

07-05-2012, 09:24 PM

Oh, I agree, it would probably cause drama no matter what.However, it would help greatly in giving them feedback. I can tell him up one side and down the other that what they are giving me doesn't fit my play style or what my groups expect. It falls on deaf ears because it matches some internal guide I don't know about. If we know in general what classes were "supposed" to be, it would help us give constructive feedback on the new abilities or how content was going. I can give more detail and examples if people want. I test for a living and can go indepth on blind testing vs exploritory testing vs intent testing vs requirements usage testing..... In short though, the community keeps being asked to give thoughts and feedback and then gets ignored or outright told that doesn't match with the current path. We don't know what that path is or is supposed to be. Without knowing we can only give feedback that doesn't help.

Novusod

07-05-2012, 10:11 PM

Class Manifesto's would have helped the game so much you guys don't even know.This would have been the smart thing to do:- Plan things out on paper what the class roles are.- Plan out specific specialities within the role.- Then after you have everything planned out on paper make changes to the game so the classes fit inside their manifestosThe SoE meathod:- React to problems after they happen- Only listen to the loudest complainers on the forum- Make changes willy nilly based on complaints- This will never work and why the game still goes though flavor of the month class ballance

Tekadeo

07-05-2012, 10:31 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Class Manifesto's would have helped the game so much you guys don't even know.This would have been the smart thing to do:- Plan things out on paper what the class roles are.- Plan out specific specialities within the role.- Then after you have everything planned out on paper make changes to the game so the classes fit inside their manifestosThe SoE meathod:- React to problems after they happen- Only listen to the loudest complainers on the forum- Make changes willy nilly based on complaints- This will never work and why the game still goes though flavor of the month class ballance</blockquote>In theory you are right. But at the end of the day, player skill and gear unbalance everything. A warlock with legendary gear is always going to whine when they get outparsed by a fighter in end-game gear. Or if a Brigand outparses a similarly geared ranger, oh dear gods Brigands must be OP! No, the ranger just isn't as good at pressing buttons.The problem with doing it is this game is eight years old. Do I want to be told my Brigand is purely meant to be a utility class? Nope. Although I do sacrifice a lot of personal DPS for raid DPS (Change of Engagement FTL).I think you think the real devs read these forums with a pen and paper in hand. They don't. They react to issues compunded by class changes. For instance they introduce Strikethrough---tank survivability becomes a roll of the dice, player skill no longer matters---give the two assumed weakest tanks strikethrough immunity---the weakest are now the strongest because skill matters for them now---balance what was doing the unbalancing.Things can look good on paper but at the end of the day they need to be tested out over the long haul. How much are any of you on the Test server? If you are, congrats. Find more.

Andok

07-06-2012, 12:40 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote>In theory you are right. But at the end of the day, player skill and gear unbalance everything. A warlock with legendary gear is always going to whine when they get outparsed by a fighter in end-game gear. Or if a Brigand outparses a similarly geared ranger, oh dear gods Brigands must be OP! No, the ranger just isn't as good at pressing buttons.The problem with doing it is this game is eight years old. Do I want to be told my Brigand is purely meant to be a utility class? Nope. Although I do sacrifice a lot of personal DPS for raid DPS (Change of Engagement FTL).I think you think the real devs read these forums with a pen and paper in hand. They don't. They react to issues compunded by class changes. For instance they introduce Strikethrough---tank survivability becomes a roll of the dice, player skill no longer matters---give the two assumed weakest tanks strikethrough immunity---the weakest are now the strongest because skill matters for them now---balance what was doing the unbalancing.Things can look good on paper but at the end of the day they need to be tested out over the long haul. How much are any of you on the Test server? If you are, congrats. Find more.</blockquote> No one is suggesting that a player “skill” does not make a difference. We just want to know the design specs and/or role for each class, and as an extension how those designs/roles are balanced. For example, when I first started playing, brigands were officially proclaimed to be tier 2 DPS (there was even an official DPS tier list) with defensive debuffs and some light tanking abilities. Assassins were tier 1 DPS. Presumably, the brigand’s ability to debuff and minor tanking ability made up the difference (in terms of balance) between tier 1 and tier 2 DPS. I think the first thing to go was the official DPS tiers – a dev stated on the old forums that they no longer had an official list. As the years went by, many old skills/roles of classes became less useful (e.g. I have yet to see a tanking brigand). With so many changes to the game, many people have been asking for the latest “class manifesto” or design spec. Personally, I never thought we would see anything since it will almost certainly cause a ton of arguing and discontent; however, we were told at least twice that one would be published. Again, I would love to see it.

Souse

07-07-2012, 02:13 AM

I hope this helps the development of one. Maintain - Preserve and elongate the battle's duration through prevention of defeat. Specifically through healing and protection.Function - Decrease the battle's duration through accomplishing victory. Specifically through damage.Intuitive - Plays out with less to no conscious effort.No Modifier - Remains true to the archetype or subclass.Perceptive - Plays out with a more active and responsive play-style.Offensive - Puts a focus on accomplishing victoryPreserving - Puts a focus on preventing defeat.Priest (Maintain: Self + Others) Healing self and others elongates the battle's duration. Druid (Intuitive) The ability to heal and preserve is intuitive through HoTs and buffs. Warden (Preserving) More regenerative abilities. Fury (Offensive) More damage spells. Shaman (No Modifier) Mystic (Preserving) More nullifying abilities. Defiler (Offensive) More stat affecting abilities. Cleric (Perceptive) The ability to heal is based on active managing of abilities on enemies and allies. Inquisitor (Offensive) More damaging abilities. Templar (Preserving) More healing abilities.Fighter (Maintain + Function: Others) Supporting mitigation for the group, and a slight damage capability puts a focus on damage and preservation in a group setting. Brawler (Intuitive) The abilities are very click-and-forget. Bruiser (Offensive) More damaging and nullifying abilities. Monk (Preserving) More defensive and healing abilities for self and others. Warrior (No Modifier) Berserker (Offensive) More damaging abilities. Guardian (Preserving) Less damaging abilities. Crusader (Perceptive) The abilities are based off of the properties and timing of the group. Shadowknight (Offensive) Healing abilities for self. More focus on damage capabilities for self and others. Paladin (Preserving) Healing abilities for self and others. Mage (Function: Self + Others) Damage spells and damage increasing support decrease the duration of the battle. Enchanter (Perceptive) Reacts to the state of the enemy. Coercer (Offensive) More offensive abilities Illusionist (Preserving) More nullifying abilities. Sorcerer (No Modifier) Warlock (No General Modifier: Groups) Abilities focus on damaging multiple opponents. Wizard (No General Modifier: Singular) Abilities focus on damaging singular opponents. Summoner (Intuitive) Abilities are based around automatic-attacking pet systems; there is no modifier for their ability outline otherwise. Necromancer (Offensive/Preserving) Healing ability. Conjuror (Offensive/Preserving) More nullifying abilities.Scout A* (Function/Maintain: Others) Abilities focus on increasing the damage and defensive abilities of allies. Bard (No Modifier) Troubador (Preserving/Offensive) More nullifying abilities. Dirge (Preserving/Offensive) Healing ability.Scout B* (Function/Maintain: Self + Others) Abilities focus on decreasing the duration of the battle and maintaining allied units through manipulating the stats and state of the enemy. Rogue (No Modifier) Swashbuckler (Preserving) More abilities that decrease the offensive abilities of enemies. Brigand (Offensive) More abilities that increase the damage capabilities of allies indirectly; decreasing the defensive capabilities of enemies.Scout C* (Function: Self) Abilities focus on decreasing the duration of battle by the ability of self. Predator (No Modifier) Ranger (Preserving) Distance from harm. Assassin (Offensive) More damage capability.*Scouts are very interesting, as they do not fit into the flow of the class outline. Normally, scouts would fall under Function/Maintain for self only, but there are such diverse sub-classes and respective classes, that it's difficult to classify them all in this category. I blame the connotation that scouts are diverse. Scouts are a part of a ratio that all other archetypes do not fall into; this is the basis of splitting the classes into four different archetypes.Note: This is conceptualization, meaning it is based off of general ratios and flows of the class's concept. It has no reference to specific abilities, and allows an outline for the class's direction or development. The ratios allow a balance for each class, and puts them into a place that is not overshadowed or mimicked by another class. Just as the ratios in your face are appropriate, and your nose is not overlapped by your eyes.Sincerely,Tumultuous, your local conceptualist.

Novusod

07-07-2012, 03:08 AM

Sorry that doesn't help at all. Looks like you just copy pasted the same thing over for every class and took exactly two seconds to think of Offensive vs defensive.Before you can begin to draw out a class manifesto you would define roles. Just look at the complexities of the tanking roles alone.Main Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking the main named)Off Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking the primary add(s) and must all be able to take the named if scripts call for tank switches)3rd Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking secondary adds and/or primary add depending on the script; must also be able to tank the named if the MT dies) * Sometimes this role requires two people to perform also called 4th tankThis is before anyone even begins to list off the classes what should be most apropriate for each role. Offensive vs Defensive did not even factor in here and would only serve to add more layers of complexity to an already role schema.

Souse

07-07-2012, 03:42 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry that doesn't help at all. Looks like you just copy pasted the same thing over for every class and took exactly two seconds to think of Offensive vs defensive.Before you can begin to draw out a class manifesto you would define roles. Just look at the complexities of the tanking roles alone.Main Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking the main named)Off Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking the primary add(s) and must all be able to take the named if scripts call for tank switches)3rd Tank role (Tank responsible for tanking secondary adds and/or primary add depending on the script; must also be able to tank the named if the MT dies) * Sometimes this role requires two people to perform also called 4th tankThis is before anyone even begins to list off the classes what should be most apropriate for each role. Offensive vs Defensive did not even factor in here and would only serve to add more layers of complexity to an already role schema.</blockquote>These are very general class descriptions, and a lot of thought goes into the respective ratios they have. Each one does not collide with another, and allows potential for solo, group, and raid mechanics. The very basis of this is not specific, and doesn't need to be. It's a very general tool; its use is for people who have little idea on what any of the classes represent. It's to even out the progression of development, through conceptualization, rather than mechanics. Pay attention to one or the other too much, and you'll lose track of what you're doing. (I know this from experience)The roles are very specific, and do not follow a non-raid scheme. If you were to have the general scheme to fit into these roles, you'd have to apply each class to a raid situation; define each ratio of action (timings, damage, mitigation, healing, in accordance to other sources of the same, etc), and then create an equilibrium for specific purposes and roles, separated by class (and nothing else), in order to be specific (# of fighters, # of priests, # of mages, # of scouts, their positions, and what they do). I can probably make an effort at this.. though it won't be based off of data. The ratios inbetween each representation will have to be more complex....For now, we can assume, the more priests we have, the longer the fight's duration will be. The more mages we have, the shorter the fight's duration will be; same with Predators. The mixture of fighters causes the two to even out; same with Bards and Rogues.Conceptually, a fighter is required for default raiding and grouping, and this mechanic falls out of the 4-part archetype split. This is the result of a three-part archetype split embedded into the four roles. In a three-part class split, non-progressive, there is a neutral position (one that keeps the fight at a stand-still), one who is perceptive/above and serves a role innovative to the normal mechanics, and one who is grounded and serves an obvious purpose within the mechanics. This is obvious as the healer being the former, and the damage classes the latter. (If you're wondering, a progressive split involves a middle ground, or developing point, a perceptive action role, allowing motion to the whole of the group, and a role that helps with personal application, and serves as an example for the rest of the two. This is mostly psychological, and isn't found in many games, unless they are very creative. We'd need the first class be required to use specific abilities (out of many) to create solutions to required quest updates in the raid zone; we'd also need another class that retains part of the solution to the updates that the other two have to figure out. There would also be a class taking in information from the other two classes, and collaborating it together to find solutions to these updates as well. The entirety of these classes weigh heavily on the third class, as equivalent in the non-progressive split.)

Novusod

07-07-2012, 06:54 AM

<cite>Tumultuous@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>These are very general class descriptions, and a lot of thought goes into the respective ratios they have. Each one does not collide with another, and allows potential for solo, group, and raid mechanics. The very basis of this is not specific, and doesn't need to be. It's a very general tool; its use is for people who have little idea on what any of the classes represent. It's to even out the progression of development, through conceptualization, rather than mechanics. Pay attention to one or the other too much, and you'll lose track of what you're doing. (I know this from experience)The roles are very specific, and do not follow a non-raid scheme. If you were to have the general scheme to fit into these roles, you'd have to apply each class to a raid situation; define each ratio of action (timings, damage, mitigation, healing, in accordance to other sources of the same, etc), and then create an equilibrium for specific purposes and roles, separated by class (and nothing else), in order to be specific (# of fighters, # of priests, # of mages, # of scouts, their positions, and what they do). I can probably make an effort at this.. though it won't be based off of data. The ratios inbetween each representation will have to be more complex....</blockquote>Nobody is asking YOU to make the class manifesto. Only the devs can do that because really only they have all the data to do it. The point of this thread is to get the devs to publish the class manifestos in writing and share it with the community. As stated in the original post this was promised a long time ago. Doing this will be good for all parties involved because it will help the devs design future class changes to fit within the manifesto and help the players give better feedback on the changes. In the long run we get a better more ballanced game out of it.

Caethre

07-07-2012, 08:01 AM

((The idea of "Offensive vs Defensive" roles is very difficult to make work, and it is in attempting to make this work that so many arguments about class balance are based.At EQII game launch (for those who were here back then), SOE did implement the classes in that way. They used a method of balancing by which classes had plusses in some areas and negative in others, and that included their primary roles. So, for example, at launch, Templars were actually considerably stronger all-round as healers than, say, Furies. The difference was very significant. However, Furies could do a lot more DPS, and that too was very significant.The problem was, however, that when groups wanted a healer, they wanted the best healer, and Templars were very popular, Furies were not popular at all. So the furies complained, and they complained a lot. With some justification.However, at Game Update 13 (for those who remember it), SOE made a decision about balancing of classes, and SOE completely changed their philosophy.They decided that the problem with class balance was, the most important factor in the relative strength of two classes which have the same primary role is how strong they are at that primary role. Their objective in GU13, whether players liked it or not, was to try to get to the situation where all the subclasses within an archetype which had the same primary role, were pretty much as strong as eachother at their primary role.However, typically for SOE, they did not also re-balance other abilities that had been granted at launch to (theoretically) make up for it. So after GU13, for example, the healing of druids was massively boosted, and that of clerics was somewhat nerfed, with the aim of making all six priest classes much closer in healing power. They largely succeeded in this regard. However, Furies still did a lot more DPS. This had two effects. Firstly, everyone started making Furies (I know I did). Secondly, outside the raiding guilds, templars were now the poor choice, as they were no longer worth a heroic group slot if you could get a fury, because furies could heal as well and were much better DPS to boot. So Templars started complaining a lot. With some justification. Many just retired or swapped classes.This is just one example of how taking a sledgehammer to class balance philosophy can have massive impact not just on game play, but on the choice of character class a player might make.======When I read the "manifestos" in this thread that some players would like, I shudder at the lack of class balance inherent in their thoughts. Usually they are just biased towards whatever classes the author plays themselves, or at least, the ones they like.Real class balance can only come from those who design the game, not from those who are playing one or a few classes in that game, to whom it is always to some extent subjective. Howevever, it is a thankless task, because there will always be at least SOME people whining. Whatever they do. Whatever anyone did.So I can understand why they do not write these manifestos. If I were SOE, at this point in the game history, I would not either. But for a future game I would try to do so ... but only on the idea that it was not going to keep changing fundamentally (tweaking yes, but big changes, no) during the course of the game's development.======The idea of trying to balance Defensive things against Offensive things for the same archetype of class is always going to be difficult, because the time taken to achieve things is also part of the balance that often gets ignored, but it shouldn't be ignored.For example, if you have an "offensive" class that can get something done in 30 minutes, and a "defensive" class that can get the same thing done, to the same extent and difficulty, but it will take them 45 minutes ... who on earth would ever choose the defensive option? If everything else is equal, noone would. Ergo, the classes are not balanced.There needs to be some real tangible benefit to choosing the "slower" class, such as, just being able to do a good number of things that the "faster" class cannot manage without having better gear. But then ... people will whine about that too ... and we go back to why class balance will always be contentious and can never be achieved from everyone's different perspectives.))

Souse

07-07-2012, 04:31 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>((The idea of "Offensive vs Defensive" roles is very difficult to make work, and it is in attempting to make this work that so many arguments about class balance are based.At EQII game launch (for those who were here back then), SOE did implement the classes in that way. They used a method of balancing by which classes had plusses in some areas and negative in others, and that included their primary roles. So, for example, at launch, Templars were actually considerably stronger all-round as healers than, say, Furies. The difference was very significant. However, Furies could do a lot more DPS, and that too was very significant.The problem was, however, that when groups wanted a healer, they wanted the best healer, and Templars were very popular, Furies were not popular at all. So the furies complained, and they complained a lot. With some justification.However, at Game Update 13 (for those who remember it), SOE made a decision about balancing of classes, and SOE completely changed their philosophy.They decided that the problem with class balance was, the most important factor in the relative strength of two classes which have the same primary role is how strong they are at that primary role. Their objective in GU13, whether players liked it or not, was to try to get to the situation where all the subclasses within an archetype which had the same primary role, were pretty much as strong as eachother at their primary role.However, typically for SOE, they did not also re-balance other abilities that had been granted at launch to (theoretically) make up for it. So after GU13, for example, the healing of druids was massively boosted, and that of clerics was somewhat nerfed, with the aim of making all six priest classes much closer in healing power. They largely succeeded in this regard. However, Furies still did a lot more DPS. This had two effects. Firstly, everyone started making Furies (I know I did). Secondly, outside the raiding guilds, templars were now the poor choice, as they were no longer worth a heroic group slot if you could get a fury, because furies could heal as well and were much better DPS to boot. So Templars started complaining a lot. With some justification. Many just retired or swapped classes.This is just one example of how taking a sledgehammer to class balance philosophy can have massive impact not just on game play, but on the choice of character class a player might make.That's all very well, but I'm not talking about offensive and defensive (that's a different system in a different context; like a non-progressive game or MMORPG), but offensive (function), and preserving (maintaining), that offer a slight modifier, based on the archetype and subclass. These modifiers either increase the duration of the battle through accomplishing the goal faster, or retain/preserve/maintain self or others, in conjunction to the goal of the battle. Generally, the goal is to kill the enemy, while you maintain yourself through healing or nullifying the enemy's ability to attack. The interesting about about EQ2, is that, instead of being two balance points, like offensive, and receptive, as all martial arts base their philosophy on, it's two things that are like two points on a triangle. If it were all parts of the triangle, it would be offensive, maintaining/preserving, and receptive. What EQ2 did to suffice for this missing balance is the AA system. Most AA abilities have to deal with being receptive to the situation, much like Templar's Divine Recovery, or the Paladin's Divine Aura.======When I read the "manifestos" in this thread that some players would like, I shudder at the lack of class balance inherent in their thoughts. Usually they are just biased towards whatever classes the author plays themselves, or at least, the ones they like.Real class balance can only come from those who design the game, not from those who are playing one or a few classes in that game, to whom it is always to some extent subjective. Howevever, it is a thankless task, because there will always be at least SOME people whining. Whatever they do. Whatever anyone did.So I can understand why they do not write these manifestos. If I were SOE, at this point in the game history, I would not either. But for a future game I would try to do so ... but only on the idea that it was not going to keep changing fundamentally (tweaking yes, but big changes, no) during the course of the game's development.That's always true, but it's not necesarrily biased if you're refering to a system that's found all throughout society, and systems throughout the world. Ratios that fit into any situation, and can be defined and elaborated on to find and achieve balance. A very general example is the mathematical torus. You can define another concept through a butterfly's wings, and find that the wings are not exactly the same, yet the wings of a dragonfly are; a dragonfly's flight pattern serves to balance movement through obstacles very easily at a miniscule level, while a butterfly's wing's flight pattern serve to self regulate (a butterfly must keep futtering to keep warm so it won't die), and get from place to place, and care much less about obstacles. This is the equivalent difference between the four element's ratios and the ratios of the four arche-types; they are not the same ratios, else we'd have 4 (fighter/priest/mage/scout) elemental "warriors," based off of perception of self (fire), perception of others (air), intuitive movement considering others (water), and intuitive movement considering self (earth). Of course, with this, the only bias is in interpretation. There are too many ways to interpret these ratios, and you could already have a definition for yourself, but without the same words, or even without words.======The idea of trying to balance Defensive things against Offensive things for the same archetype of class is always going to be difficult, because the time taken to achieve things is also part of the balance that often gets ignored, but it shouldn't be ignored.For example, if you have an "offensive" class that can get something done in 30 minutes, and a "defensive" class that can get the same thing done, to the same extent and difficulty, but it will take them 45 minutes ... who on earth would ever choose the defensive option? If everything else is equal, noone would. Ergo, the classes are not balanced.There needs to be some real tangible benefit to choosing the "slower" class, such as, just being able to do a good number of things that the "faster" class cannot manage without having better gear. But then ... people will whine about that too ... and we go back to why class balance will always be contentious and can never be achieved from everyone's different perspectives.Fighters and some scouts have a balanced function/maintaining ability. Priests have full preserving abilities, but they cannot function (to the goal of the fight) very well. Mages have full functioning abilities, but they cannot maintain themselves or others. The classes work together in perfect synergy. Balance deals with ratios when it is with more than one thing, else it is balanced within itself. If there is two or more representations within a system, there is going to be a lack and a gain somewhere. People who do not see this, and whine, are simply not seeing it, and if they do see it, they are simply being immature. If one sees a benefit, and how it works with the lacks of others classes, they will, perhaps, learn how class synergy in this game is achieved, and will whine less as a result. </blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tumultuous@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>These are very general class descriptions, and a lot of thought goes into the respective ratios they have. Each one does not collide with another, and allows potential for solo, group, and raid mechanics. The very basis of this is not specific, and doesn't need to be. It's a very general tool; its use is for people who have little idea on what any of the classes represent. It's to even out the progression of development, through conceptualization, rather than mechanics. Pay attention to one or the other too much, and you'll lose track of what you're doing. (I know this from experience)The roles are very specific, and do not follow a non-raid scheme. If you were to have the general scheme to fit into these roles, you'd have to apply each class to a raid situation; define each ratio of action (timings, damage, mitigation, healing, in accordance to other sources of the same, etc), and then create an equilibrium for specific purposes and roles, separated by class (and nothing else), in order to be specific (# of fighters, # of priests, # of mages, # of scouts, their positions, and what they do). I can probably make an effort at this.. though it won't be based off of data. The ratios inbetween each representation will have to be more complex....</blockquote>Nobody is asking YOU to make the class manifesto. Only the devs can do that because really only they have all the data to do it. The point of this thread is to get the devs to publish the class manifestos in writing and share it with the community. As stated in the original post this was promised a long time ago. Doing this will be good for all parties involved because it will help the devs design future class changes to fit within the manifesto and help the players give better feedback on the changes. In the long run we get a better more ballanced game out of it.</blockquote>I'm willing to help with conceptualizing one. I deal with conceptualization, and, if I had data, I would be willing to help balance with numbers, though I'm not a mathematician as much. I was willing to apply the concepts of class roles and raid roles together. The result was under the ellipsis.

Kasar

07-07-2012, 09:29 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Real class balance can only come from those who design the game, not from those who are playing one or a few classes in that game, to whom it is always to some extent subjective. Howevever, it is a thankless task, because there will always be at least SOME people whining. Whatever they do. Whatever anyone did.</blockquote>The game's never had a strong vision, which may be why it had so many classes to begin with. If you have the original manual, you can look up the two classes that could wear vanguard plate and which can use tower shields. I remember it being significant to get a fabled scimitar drop for a druid.It would have only taken a central guide those in the office took as canon to work from to have avoided a lot of the FOTM class changes over the years. It seems far too late to do that now though.

Novusod

07-08-2012, 01:28 AM

<cite>Kasar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Real class balance can only come from those who design the game, not from those who are playing one or a few classes in that game, to whom it is always to some extent subjective. Howevever, it is a thankless task, because there will always be at least SOME people whining. Whatever they do. Whatever anyone did.</blockquote>The game's never had a strong vision, which may be why it had so many classes to begin with. If you have the original manual, you can look up the two classes that could wear vanguard plate and which can use tower shields. I remember it being significant to get a fabled scimitar drop for a druid.It would have only taken a central guide those in the office took as canon to work from to have avoided a lot of the FOTM class changes over the years. It seems far too late to do that now though.</blockquote>That is not true either. Eq2 as a game has always had a strong vision. There has always been a right and wrong way to play Eq2 and if you tried to go against the winds that were blowing at the time you were not going to get very far. Just ask furies, templars, and brawlers at various points when they were out of favor. The problem is that vision has constantly been in a state of change. Just look at how many executive producers have been in charge and have tried to change the vision of the game. When the vision changed many of the classes got shuffled around. This is reason the FOTM drama that pops up every time they do one of these revamps. It jerks the players arround and drives them away from the game.That is why I keep pushing this point. We NEED solid class manifestos in writting to stop this nonsense.

NG23985_01

07-08-2012, 02:08 AM

It seems to me that we had written desriptions of what each class was supposed to do shortly after LU13 and the massive game changes that took place back then. Lately it sure feels like they've abandoned those original visions and just buff up a couple of choice classes to the point of overpoweredness without a single thought about the larger implications of who else is affected. In fact I'm not sure they really think much about the real effects of any changes anymore, look at the physical mitigation mess, look at all the class focus effects we're getting in GU64 that have already been useless for 2+ years, look at some of the incredibly useless stuff some classes have had for AAs/Prestige, meanwhile other classes get awesome stuff, look at the instances where some classes get broken AAs and spells fixed but others get nothing. I don't think they plan at all anymore and I don't think they even try to look at the big picture anymore.

Rainmare

07-08-2012, 06:20 PM

except it's impossible to do. you can't write class manifestos, make each class unique, and have them all equal. SOMEONE is going to become top dog. and in an MMO, once someone becomes 'top dog' no other class in his archtype is worth having around anymore for that role. with monks, it only became apparent in raids...against mobs with huge amounts of strikethrough. But I do recall the time when a group was 'Guardian/Templar/Dirge/Illusionist/Wizard/Ranger' and if that wasn't your setup you were gimping yourself. like it or not, people do NOT like to challenge themselves if they don't have to. they'll numbercrunch until they find out who's the best, and then that becomes the be all end all choice.so there will always be a FoTM. there's always goign to be someone who becomes top dog, it's population explodes, the devs notice, they look at the data, and 'adjust' the class. they aren't stupid. they know when a class doubles or triples it's population overnight that someone, somewhere, has found it's the optimal choice in nearly everything that archtype is. yes, an instance geared monk right now can decimate my equally geared paladin in tanking situations. he simply takes less damage less often...and his damage is better. his temps are better. his deathsave is better, his snaps are better.Can I do the job? yes, yes I can. do I do it as easily as he does? no, no I don't.so they are getting a 'nerf'. and after this, someone else is going to become the new FoTM...and they'll get adjusted too.

Souse

07-09-2012, 12:45 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is not true either. Eq2 as a game has always had a strong vision. There has always been a right and wrong way to play Eq2 and if you tried to go against the winds that were blowing at the time you were not going to get very far. Just ask furies, templars, and brawlers at various points when they were out of favor. The problem is that vision has constantly been in a state of change. Just look at how many executive producers have been in charge and have tried to change the vision of the game. When the vision changed many of the classes got shuffled around. This is reason the FOTM drama that pops up every time they do one of these revamps. It jerks the players arround and drives them away from the game.That is why I keep pushing this point. We NEED solid class manifestos in writting to stop this nonsense.</blockquote>Figuring out how the classes work isn't as hard as you think. It can be as simple as looking at everything from a general perspective, then aligning specific perspectives with that, and creating a unified idea. It isn't easier said than done, however, and the difficulty is only in the amount of fear and/or doubt that comes with this process.Many do not link specific to general, and as a result, there are pockets of conceptualization that remain off-topic with the game's real flow. It isn't uncommon; it's very common in this game since there is obviously no grounded concept of what the game's flow is, linked generally, and specifically (general being the purpose of killing a monster, while a more specific focus would be the abilities of a class and how they flow; linking them together would be figuring out the roles of each class, and their synergy in killing that monster, with an optional focus on specifics like abilities and mechanics.).<cite>NG23985_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems to me that we had written desriptions of what each class was supposed to do shortly after LU13 and the massive game changes that took place back then. Lately it sure feels like they've abandoned those original visions and just buff up a couple of choice classes to the point of overpoweredness without a single thought about the larger implications of who else is affected. In fact I'm not sure they really think much about the real effects of any changes anymore, look at the physical mitigation mess, look at all the class focus effects we're getting in GU64 that have already been useless for 2+ years, look at some of the incredibly useless stuff some classes have had for AAs/Prestige, meanwhile other classes get awesome stuff, look at the instances where some classes get broken AAs and spells fixed but others get nothing. I don't think they plan at all anymore and I don't think they even try to look at the big picture anymore.</blockquote>QFE<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>except it's impossible to do. you can't write class manifestos, make each class unique, and have them all equal. SOMEONE is going to become top dog. and in an MMO, once someone becomes 'top dog' no other class in his archtype is worth having around anymore for that role. with monks, it only became apparent in raids...against mobs with huge amounts of strikethrough. But I do recall the time when a group was 'Guardian/Templar/Dirge/Illusionist/Wizard/Ranger' and if that wasn't your setup you were gimping yourself.It's very possible, and with exact numbercrunching to achieve perfect balance, as well as little bias in the class development/little change or motion, you can achieve this with a simple method of maintaining (every little flaw, fixed at its appearance, without allowing build-up of more flaws).like it or not, people do NOT like to challenge themselves if they don't have to. they'll numbercrunch until they find out who's the best, and then that becomes the be all end all choice.This is false, as many do like challenging themselves, and many do not. It's not safe to assume anything about human nature, as, despite everyone having the same wisdoms and uniting insights, everyone has a different path to achieve them. Not everyone is going to follow the same road, let alone ONE road from the thousands+ to choose from! If we didn't speak of how the game is to be played, how much variety do you think we'll find in gamestyle? We won't find out unless we record everyone's playstyle. It's not going to be the same, and there will be major to miniscule differences.so there will always be a FoTM. there's always goign to be someone who becomes top dog, it's population explodes, the devs notice, they look at the data, and 'adjust' the class. they aren't stupid. they know when a class doubles or triples it's population overnight that someone, somewhere, has found it's the optimal choice in nearly everything that archtype is. yes, an instance geared monk right now can decimate my equally geared paladin in tanking situations. he simply takes less damage less often...and his damage is better. his temps are better. his deathsave is better, his snaps are better.Can I do the job? yes, yes I can. do I do it as easily as he does? no, no I don't.so they are getting a 'nerf'. and after this, someone else is going to become the new FoTM...and they'll get adjusted too.Many people do pick the optimal choice within their archetype, but not everyone. Is this an obvious issue? Certainly, for a class that is more proficient than other classes of the same archetype's role shouldn't even exist.If by nerfing, you mean balancing the classes to do their archetype roles the same, but individual class roles within the archetype differently, then that is very well. Many people are victim of nerfing without consideration of all classes in the archetype; this is when you get FoTM classes, and it's quite unfortunate. I'm sure if the developers had more of a long-term and established plan, they would be more inclined to create a balance between the classes, within and around each archetype. A manifesto would help with this.</blockquote>Overall, it's possible to achieve balance through steady maintenance and a long-term plan. If someone plays the entirety of the game one way, there are many who will play it a different way. FoTM classes are the result of misaimed plans, and will be diagnosed and fixed by a class manifesto.

Rainmare

07-09-2012, 02:14 AM

I disagree that it can be done with 'numbercrunching'. How would you makeit so 6 different class can all tank equally, and each one have a unique playstyle.if we all have the mitigation and tanking of a guard, and that's what a guard is supposed to specilize in...how is a guard better? Temps? going to give him a whole hotbar of them to cycle through so one is always up to give him the 'defensive' edge he's supposed to have? can't do that, cause then he becomes SUPER tank, master of all others.if I'm supposed to have less mitigation but heals...how are you going to make my heals match the guards mit without making me crunch the toes of actual healers?you can't write a manifesto of this is what I want this class to be. without figuring out EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY that those abilities can be used not only in the archtype, but against the other archtypes.if I get heals to match a guards defense. those heals HAVE to be able to work in ALL situations. which means if I'm raid tanking, my self heals have to be powerful enough to let me withstand raid mob damage...if you do that, there's no doubt that say...a Druid is going to cry foul becuase my heals WILL be just as good if not better then thier HoTs. they'd have to be to make them viable to use in a raid situation.in EQ1, there were 3 tanks. and they divided them up by playstyle. Warriors were THE choice for raid tanking. no one came close. but thier damage was crap. Paladins were the Group tank. not as defensive as a warrior, but killed faster. being ideal for group content. and then there was the SK. little more squishy then a pally, but more damage. so he was also a good group tank...but only chosen if a paladin or warrior wasn't available.Monks were dps/utility for thier ability to 'flop' and seperate mobs and pull.EQ2 has six. divided by offense/defense. Guard/Pally/monk are defense, Zerker/SK/Bruiser offense. but they all have to tank equally. A guard can't be better then a paladin for everything. and can't be stronger then a zerker on dps.what they need to do frankly is do away with this good/evil crap for classes that have no business for 'good and evil' versions and consolidate them back to thier EQ1 roots. then we'd have 15 classes at best. Bard, Chanter, Warrior, Cleric, Druid, Shaman. Conjurer, Necro, Wizard, Ranger, Assassin, Rogue, Beastlord, Paladin, Shadowknight. and you could prolly just merge assassin and ranger into Rangers. so that's 14. 15 if you keep assassins and rangers seperate.you also didn't run into alot of this screaming and balancing crap in eq1 either because raids had unlimited slots...even the 'smaller' raid sizes they allow is still 54 people. over double what we have, and a LOT more slots then there are classes.which meant letting people play what they want, and not having to fight tooth and nail over a raid slot against a half dozen other classes.But that's not going to happen.we're always going to get FoTM, becuase you can't make everyone equal, AND give them MEANINGFUL flavor without someone finding a way to turn that flavor into a huge advantage.just like in KoS when guard tanked in robes because they found out the 'avoidance' tanking mechanic worked just as well for them if they wore cloth. people find every advantage they can, even in things a dev might never guess. it's literally like a team of 200 people trying to come up with and counter every possible situation/back door/ side effect/ random situation. random combination of factors/group makeup/gear/aa a group of 2 million people can think of. it ain't gunna happen.