Sign in to follow this  
Caldtem

How to Improve Group-Tank Dynamic in Fantasy MMORPG

Recommended Posts

Caldtem    323
Since my first experiences with Everquest 1's class system, my first class based game played, I have come to experience the class archetype, the tank. It was as simple as the heaviest armored fellow, generally a member of the Warrior class, doing his best to keep the attention of mobs with his Taunt ability, among others, and receive the brunt of the damage. This is what one player does as the rest of the players in the group attack the monster and keep the tank healed.

What are the ways to improve upon this without overly complicating the system?

My thought of the moment: Using generic archetypes, look at the tank and the melee DPS. What if the tank wasn't the one best equipped to taunt the aggression of monsters, but the melee DPS was? Sure, a tank can have some taunts, but it would be more optimal for control to have the melee DPS taunt, and be protected by the tank, thus splitting the responsibility upon two separate players for maximum efficiency. Having a tank do all of the work still would function, but you could unload more damage consistently if you had a melee DPS outputting maximum taunt efficiency. This would promote the addition for a sometimes left out class to be more useful in group combat. You can't tank, but you make things safer, and in the end, easier; As long as the tank still tanks the damage!

Does that really change the system though? Better or worse? Thoughts on how to improve it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telgin    200
I've actually been wondering lately on how to improve the realism of this scenario. Having also played EQ, I'll say that it feels extremely artificial in this respect (as does every other MMO that uses a similar dynamic, such as WoW). Basically, I can't really imagine a reason why an NPC would continue to beat on the hardest to kill player when they could target the one healing or doing all the damage (especially in EQ, since in the end game anyone but tanks die extremely quickly if they get the attention of the enemy). Surely they would be able to recognize this would get them further. Mindless constructs aside, any half brained person would do exactly that.

The most realistic way to handle the situation in my opinion is to eliminate the roles altogether. Each player would then be expected to be able to survive on their own, and would have to balance their ability to take damage, deal damage and heal damage. Of course, in real life, no one could wave their hand and make someone all better from taking 13 axe strikes to the face, so it's arguable how things might have been different if that was possible in reality.

If you remove the combat healer altogether, I think that solves a lot of the problems. In EQ for example, the fact that a cleric could heal so well (especially at higher levels when they could chain complete heal) meant that they had to make NPCs much harder to kill and do much more damage. Otherwise there would be no challenge. On the other hand, when they did this, they made it almost impossible to tank as a wizard, since they would get killed in a couple of combat rounds (not enough time for the heal to even land).

By doing away with combat healing in the first place, you don't have to tune NPCs like this. You can make them about as tough as the players and do similar damage. This way, the game encourages you to use tactics or outnumber enemies to win, not just heal through the damage. Which is realistic, and probably speeds up gameplay to boot.

So, then what would you do about the DPS / survivability aspects of things? I'd say that in reality, anyone who expected to get into a melee fight wore as much armor as he could afford and carry (pending factors such as having to march for hours in it, or fight for protracted periods). Thus, I don't think it's unrealistic to encourage all players to maximize both offense and defense in this system. A player who opts for a shield over a great sword will be able to defend better and would deal less damage per hit, but the two can be tuned so as to not force some player to take a shield. You can parry with a two handed weapon, after all. Players who like to snipe with bows or sneak around might have benefits for not wearing heavy armor (such as making it harder to hide in it or get into position without getting seen). This wouldn't be unlike the solution you offer: all of the melee contribute to the goal of taking damage.

That's all based around a classless system in my mind. Adapting it to classes wouldn't be all that difficult really. I'd just segregate it into archers, melee, some sort of rogue like archetype and maybe wizards (if you want magic, which I presume you do). Melee is expected to survive fighting and deal as much damage as possible. Archers are expected to deal damage without getting in range to get hit: NPCs are likely to care more about who's pounding on them right in their face than trying to figure out where the arrows are coming from. Rogues would ambush enemies, maybe set up traps, poison them, but in general doing things other than standing behind an oblivious NPC stabbing it in the back. Wizards would be like archers except with magic, out of combat healing is optional, maybe everyone automatically heals outside of combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zouflain    548
Classes can be just as varied as a classless system, much more easily balanced, and actually increase versatility and variability between individuals. I used to be a major proponent of class free systems, for many of the same reasons you mentioned, but after a number of years doing research and experimenting in various environments, I find well designed classes to vastly outperform classless systems. Essentially, classless systems have an inevitable tendency to produce tank-mages (to steal some terminology from a post mortem for Ultima Online I can't seem to find at the moment...) or some other such hyper optimized mold that players either follow (and "win") or don't and always take second place in [i]everything[/i]. Well defined classes help establish roles which maximize the need for cooperation between players. Classless systems are ideal for single player games, but drastically reduce player interdependency.

But you may notice that I've been very careful to say "well defined classes" and not just classes. I'll say right now that in my personal opinion, most class systems suck terribly and kill any desire I might have otherwise had to participate in [i]any[/i] mmorpg with such classes. Compare the "standard" class systems that determine your stats based on class (almost any MMORPG in existence falls into this, with rare exception) to class systems like Ragnarok Online's, wherein stats are individually selected (with absolutely negligible impact from class) and have a large impact on the nature of the character. In that game, a Priest can focus on agility/luck/strength to become a hard-to-hit critical spewing machine, intelligence/dexterity to become a powerhouse of seemingly bottomless supportive capacity or choose a different skill path to become the bane of all undead/demons or a third path to become a massive holy magic dps dealer, vitality/intelligence to become an unkillable "soft-tank" and more. And that's just one class. The classes do not limit players to choosing cookie cutter formats because the class only determines available skills, and the skills vary in type rather than lending themselves to the standard "healers heal, fighters fight, ect." The players still fill distinct roles, but are able to do so with high variability.

What I mean by all this is for you to look at the whole picture. Don't define characters by class, but at the same time, don't generate "infinite" options, because "infinite" tends to yield exactly one. Or exactly four, if a mage-nuke, tank, phsyical dps, and healer are required in conjunction for success. Defining characters by stats+skills/spells (skills being the only thing influenced by class) with stats yielding the greatest influence (check out how Ragnarok Online's stat system works for a great example), while also generating classes that can serve in multiple functions (but not all at once) will yield a far more interesting and dynamic system. And one that you can more feasibly balance without massive player dissatisfaction, since tweaking the capacity of one class to match another in a role is much easier than nerfing every optimal tank-mage build that roles up after every patch and generally less frowned upon.

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='Zouflain' timestamp='1313403608' post='4849318']
Classes can be just as varied as a classless system, much more easily balanced, and actually increase versatility and variability between individuals. I used to be a major proponent of class free systems, for many of the same reasons you mentioned, but after a number of years doing research and experimenting in various environments, I find well designed classes to vastly outperform classless systems. Essentially, classless systems have an inevitable tendency to produce tank-mages (to steal some terminology from a post mortem for Ultima Online I can't seem to find at the moment...) or some other such hyper optimized mold that players either follow (and "win") or don't and always take second place in [i]everything[/i]. Well defined classes help establish roles which maximize the need for cooperation between players. Classless systems are ideal for single player games, but drastically reduce player interdependency.

But you may notice that I've been very careful to say "well defined classes" and not just classes. I'll say right now that in my personal opinion, most class systems suck terribly and kill any desire I might have otherwise had to participate in [i]any[/i] mmorpg with such classes. Compare the "standard" class systems that determine your stats based on class (almost any MMORPG in existence falls into this, with rare exception) to class systems like Ragnarok Online's, wherein stats are individually selected (with absolutely negligible impact from class) and have a large impact on the nature of the character. In that game, a Priest can focus on agility/luck/strength to become a hard-to-hit critical spewing machine, intelligence/dexterity to become a powerhouse of seemingly bottomless supportive capacity or choose a different skill path to become the bane of all undead/demons or a third path to become a massive holy magic dps dealer, vitality/intelligence to become an unkillable "soft-tank" and more. And that's just one class. The classes do not limit players to choosing cookie cutter formats because the class only determines available skills, and the skills vary in type rather than lending themselves to the standard "healers heal, fighters fight, ect." The players still fill distinct roles, but are able to do so with high variability.

What I mean by all this is for you to look at the whole picture. Don't define characters by class, but at the same time, don't generate "infinite" options, because "infinite" tends to yield exactly one. Or exactly four, if a mage-nuke, tank, phsyical dps, and healer are required in conjunction for success. Defining characters by stats+skills/spells (skills being the only thing influenced by class) with stats yielding the greatest influence (check out how Ragnarok Online's stat system works for a great example), while also generating classes that can serve in multiple functions (but not all at once) will yield a far more interesting and dynamic system. And one that you can more feasibly balance without massive player dissatisfaction, since tweaking the capacity of one class to match another in a role is much easier than nerfing every optimal tank-mage build that roles up after every patch and generally less frowned upon.

Good luck!
[/quote]

But what about the combat itself? I, for the time being, agree that for a Fantasy MMORPG, specifically with RVR areas like DAoC, is best served by using a class system.

Currently I am working on how to make each class valuable to a group without making them a necessity. I don't want people to say "We don't have this, we can't go". I also want to provide multiple ways to play the same class, but it isn't overly easy with "melee dps" classes in the mix as it is hard to make several unique ways to play when you have one in each realm. I feel their true customization will come from weapon selection as the plan is to have weapons/class combo determine abilities available and thus providing options dependent on weapon type choice. This is for melee characters specifically, other classes that don't rely on melee will have several options to play with outside of weapon selection.

Now, would it be possible to make this melee DPS class just a specialization of another class? Sure, but I think it would end up cutting down on the options available/add more balance issues. I want to provide a few classes that don't rely on magic/fantastical abilities to compete. Also, I think the idea of a Jaguar Warrior that can transform into a Were-Jaguar is something I don't want to remove =0.

This thread is primarily about the mechanics of combat itself. It would certainly be more realistic to have monsters attack whomever they see fit, but to change a system so much from what people are used to may be a turn off. People don't necessarily want random attack patterns to be the "fix", at least not me. I feel that certain encounters a random attack monster wouldn't be totally impossible, but to remove the capability to maintain a mobs focus will be too big of a change and may lead to less than fun combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telgin    200
Fair enough points about classes being easier to balance. I agree there, it is quite difficult to balance a classless system because developers tend to not realize how certain combinations will work in game and they get abused. I still like the freedom, but I'll drop the point in favor of the discussion at hand. :)

I still contend that it isn't really necessary to have a tank role at all. You don't have to have monsters attacking randomly, that's not realistic either. What I would propose is that monsters follow a more reasonable attack pattern, weighing the following things, depending on the monster's intelligence:

Whether they can see the attacker
Distance to attacker
Damage done by the attacker
Positioning of the attacker

To sum it up, you can't just shout profanity at a monster and expect him to forget that your buddy just shot him in the eye with an arrow and start hitting you instead.

A non sapient monster (such as a predatory animal like a wolf or a bear) would probably just weigh things depending on who they can see, who is closest and if that person has attacked them yet. It's fairly simple to program this, and not unreasonable. These monsters probably won't even notice a ranger shooting at them if they're busy fighting in melee. A player might still try to be a tank by attacking a wolf and putting themself between it and who they are trying to save, but non sapient monsters probably don't care you're taunting them (they don't understand it anyway).

A sapient monster (such as people, demons or orcs) would instead care a lot more about strategy. You'll never be able to mimic human intelligence in game on any sort of scale, so a similar setup is probably still reasonable. They should recognize that they're being shot at by rangers for example, and might try to take cover. Tanks might be able to [i]distract[/i] an opponent by taunting them, but I never liked the idea that they could just force the enemy to attack them instead.

That setup strongly encourages tactical positioning and teamwork, and would distribute damage among all of the melee characters. Tanks would still be useful if you really want this archetype. Against non sapients, their armor would be very effective against their foe's claws and teeth (against mundane animals anyway). Against sapients they might be able to distract enemies by taunting them or having other abilities to annoy them into missing their foe more often, or things like that.

If you want a more traditional system where everybody forms up in a circle around the enemy and takes turns whacking away at it for a minute until it keels over, then the last few lines are probably all you really care about. If you want to make tanks optional for regular groups (and / or want people to be able to solo), then melee who aren't tanks are going to have to be able to survive being hit. Why not make the difference smallish between melee DPS and tanks? Tanks have 20% more defense, DPS do 20% more damage. That way a group of all tanks would survive just about anything but kill a little slower, where a group of all DPS can kill quickly but have to be careful not to get outnumbered.

Whether you want groups without tanks to take on "named" and tougher monsters is up to you. I don't see this as a problem really, as long as you give them an option to take them out by using strategy to get around the fact that they don't have anyone to take the beatings like a man.

Raids, if you have any should likely require tanks, but that's a whole new ballgame. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
The small difference between Tanks and DPS in damage and survivability is what D&D 4e did and it allows you to run without tanks if you wish. The combat system is built on secondary effects instead of matching incoming damage with incoming healing. What this means is the classes differentiate by their ability to alter the combat in their favor and not by their ability to deal tons of damage or absorb tons of it. They still have damage classes, but they require specific circumstances to deal their extra damage.

What tanks can do is they can place marks on enemies which will make it harder to hit their allies and potentially have a damaging effect if they hit. It's up to the enemies to figure out if they want to attack the armored guy with 2~3 more AC than the norm or the other guy and risk retribution. Whether the enemy hits the tank or the squishy, they both get hurt equally since armor does not mitigate damage. This means the survivability of the group does not depend on the enemies bashing on the tank, but it can help. Enemies could never target the tank and the tank would still be able to do his job because it is protecting allies, not soaking up tons of damage for others.

You can translate this into MMORPG by allowing the tank to place some debuffs on enemies which gives them penalties when they hit allies or buffs on allies. For example, DAoC had the protect system where a tank with a shield could block attacks directed at an ally. Also, I think a lot of defender-type classes in City of Heroes worked that way by making it hard to hit allies instead of providing healing. You could then get rid of the whole taunt mechanism and instead rely on players actively targeting key enemies to protect their allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Why not make the difference smallish between melee DPS and tanks? Tanks have 20% more defense, DPS do 20% more damage[/quote]

Because the aim isn't to make things easier for the different classes - it's to make it [b]different[/b]. Without different experiences why would anyone play numerous different alts and where would the longevity of the game be then? An MMO should IMO be the ultimate in replayability and many MMOs recognize this, adding new playable classes or power sets which require the player to start a new toon. Too many MMOs just keep trying to add more stuff to do once your toon has reached the maximum level and that can be problematic if your toon is not still significantly improving at that point because the motivation drops out of it. Even City of Heroes is taking a new approach to this, not just adding new top level content, but as a route to new powers. I say "Even" because I doubt there is any MMO which provides more motivation to make many different toons. SWTOR is going a step beyond, making a lot of the content different for the individual classes. The biggest failing in Rift is the ability to have just 4 toons and change their setup for different challenges. It's different gameplay style once you've changed, but you didn't earn it or experience leveling up with it. You probably leveled up with some setup that suits your playing style, rather than having to stretch yourself. This reminds me of when you find people asking to be PLed (power leveled). It's often because they want to be able to team with their higher level friends, which I understand, but shouldn't the game just support teaming with different levels rather than create an environment where players basically skip the entire development experience of their character? The irony is that they then often end up looking for more high level content - there's more content, but they skipped it. I know it seems like I've rambled a long way off topic, but the core point is still the same, we play these games for the experiences, so making any two characters too similar diminishes the game.

[quote]as long as you give them an option to take them out by using strategy to get around the fact that they don't have anyone to take the beatings like a man[/quote]

You don't need to give them an option. There's always one - someone switches to a tank. It's the nature of many games that some targets are going to need at least some thought about team structure before you start. If that wasn't the case the targets probably wouldn't be tough enough to be a real challenge. This is ameliorated to a certain degree if the tendency is to bring a full team to such targets where a full team is 8 or so. I've seldom seen a team of 8 without someone having brought something that can either tank or debuff the tough target sufficiently or buff the team enough to compensate (but then that's City where buffs and debuffs abound).

[quote]but I never liked the idea that they could just force the enemy to attack them instead[/quote]

In some MMOs the tank doesn't force aggro upon himself, instead the tank uses a power that reduces the damage against other targets. Don't ask me why that's meant to work.

However to defend the aggro model of tanking, even in real life it would be difficult to believe and thus compensate for the fact that the big intimidating guy in armor who's getting in your face can barely move, much less swing his sword fast enough to actually hit you, so the archer that's about to fire an arrow that could go right through that armor and yours and the armor of the guy behind you would probably [b]not[/b] get the attention he deserves. I'm not saying it's logical, but it is human nature. However, that's not to say that any game designer shouldn't include a few races that will understand the logic of the situation or maybe just hate the arrows/mages, making them more difficult to taunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='Tiblanc' timestamp='1313422320' post='4849417']
The small difference between Tanks and DPS in damage and survivability is what D&D 4e did and it allows you to run without tanks if you wish. The combat system is built on secondary effects instead of matching incoming damage with incoming healing. What this means is the classes differentiate by their ability to alter the combat in their favor and not by their ability to deal tons of damage or absorb tons of it. They still have damage classes, but they require specific circumstances to deal their extra damage.

What tanks can do is they can place marks on enemies which will make it harder to hit their allies and potentially have a damaging effect if they hit. It's up to the enemies to figure out if they want to attack the armored guy with 2~3 more AC than the norm or the other guy and risk retribution. Whether the enemy hits the tank or the squishy, they both get hurt equally since armor does not mitigate damage. This means the survivability of the group does not depend on the enemies bashing on the tank, but it can help. Enemies could never target the tank and the tank would still be able to do his job because it is protecting allies, not soaking up tons of damage for others.

[b]You can translate this into MMORPG by allowing the tank to place some debuffs on enemies which gives them penalties when they hit allies or buffs on allies. For example, DAoC had the protect system where a tank with a shield could block attacks directed at an ally. Also, I think a lot of defender-type classes in City of Heroes worked that way by making it hard to hit allies instead of providing healing. You could then get rid of the whole taunt mechanism and instead rely on players actively targeting key enemies to protect their allies.[/b]
[/quote]

This is pretty much what I was getting at, but I didn't thoroughly describe/delve into it enough. The "tank" is a class with heavier defenses that will protect the players as they draw aggro. The system I was feebly attempting to describe would be that the melee DPS archetype would be the highest threat generator, also the closest to the monster, thus the logical person to attack in most instances. Then the tank would "protect" the melee DPS to keep the melee DPS from being ground to a pulp. If a caster or healer draws to much attention, rather than the tank using a taunt ability, it would have to rush to protect the new friendly target.

I also have it in mind that certain classes, a tank in particular, would have an aura of defense by standing near them. This aura could stack, to a certain maximum cap, so that multiple tanks together, particularly in PVP combat, would be better defended and promote the use of "tank walls", that games struggle to successfully implement. These tanks could also then "protect" each other, resulting in even more sturdy defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zouflain    548
[quote name='Tiblanc' timestamp='1313422320' post='4849417']
The small difference between Tanks and DPS in damage and survivability is what D&D 4e did and it allows you to run without tanks if you wish. [/quote]4e... in my not so humble opinion on this particular topic, not the best example to follow. But that's coming from a die hard 3.5e fan, so perhaps you should take that with a grain of salt.

[quote]What tanks can do is they can place marks on enemies which will make it harder to hit their allies and potentially have a damaging effect if they hit. It's up to the enemies to figure out if they want to attack the armored guy with 2~3 more AC than the norm or the other guy and risk retribution. Whether the enemy hits the tank or the squishy, they both get hurt equally since armor does not mitigate damage. This means the survivability of the group does not depend on the enemies bashing on the tank, but it can help. Enemies could never target the tank and the tank would still be able to do his job because it is protecting allies, not soaking up tons of damage for others.[/quote]Certainly an interesting design philosophy, but does this eliminate the need for the tank at all, or merely change the role of the tank from direct damage absorber to damage mitigator?

[quote name='AceSteveC' timestamp='1313424094' post='4849435']
Because the aim isn't to make things easier for the different classes - it's to make it [b]different[/b]. Without different experiences why would anyone play numerous different alts and where would the longevity of the game be then?[/quote]Be very, very careful with this manner of thinking. [i]Different[/i] is not always and not often desirable. And it seems to me that people play alts because most games are designed to make alts better to have and play than otherwise. If you skip back to my post about needing 4 archetypes, what you get is each player having 2 or 3 of those as "alts" so that when a group of friends shows up with a mage-nuke and a healer, you can grab your tank alt and have a "full party." When the next quest rolls up with some element that makes mage-nukers undesirable, that player then swaps to his physical-DPSer. Players will almost always seek to optimize (and you really can't entice them not to), and the standard format for games actually encourages this type of role swapping tremendously. If that is what you as a designer desire, then that's great. Not so great if you desired otherwise. Personally, as a designer and a game player, I prefer a "stick to one character" mentality.
Attempting to eliminate roles or de-emphasize them will only result in your standard 4 man party being reduced to a 3 man. Less player cooperation would be required (since there's one less dedicated role), and less interaction would be required (you need less friends to make it work). Admittedly, I hated Dungeons and Dragons Online's need for certain archetypes, because I always had to walk up to strangers and invite them into a party if my friends weren't online. I hated it then, but in retrospect it's quite interesting that the need for roles actually forced a player into branching out and networking. I made many friends that way that I would never have considered doing if I hadn't needed to party and cooperate with them. If you as a designer want a multiplayer game, why are you reducing the need for interactivity between players? I personally feel that the standard 4 man should be expanded, not reduced. But that's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='Zouflain' timestamp='1313443044' post='4849571']
[quote name='Tiblanc' timestamp='1313422320' post='4849417']
The small difference between Tanks and DPS in damage and survivability is what D&D 4e did and it allows you to run without tanks if you wish. [/quote]4e... in my not so humble opinion on this particular topic, not the best example to follow. But that's coming from a die hard 3.5e fan, so perhaps you should take that with a grain of salt.

[quote]What tanks can do is they can place marks on enemies which will make it harder to hit their allies and potentially have a damaging effect if they hit. It's up to the enemies to figure out if they want to attack the armored guy with 2~3 more AC than the norm or the other guy and risk retribution. Whether the enemy hits the tank or the squishy, they both get hurt equally since armor does not mitigate damage. This means the survivability of the group does not depend on the enemies bashing on the tank, but it can help. Enemies could never target the tank and the tank would still be able to do his job because it is protecting allies, not soaking up tons of damage for others.[/quote]Certainly an interesting design philosophy, but does this eliminate the need for the tank at all, or merely change the role of the tank from direct damage absorber to damage mitigator?

[quote name='AceSteveC' timestamp='1313424094' post='4849435']
Because the aim isn't to make things easier for the different classes - it's to make it [b]different[/b]. Without different experiences why would anyone play numerous different alts and where would the longevity of the game be then?[/quote]Be very, very careful with this manner of thinking. [i]Different[/i] is not always and not often desirable. And it seems to me that people play alts because most games are designed to make alts better to have and play than otherwise. If you skip back to my post about needing 4 archetypes, what you get is each player having 2 or 3 of those as "alts" so that when a group of friends shows up with a mage-nuke and a healer, you can grab your tank alt and have a "full party." When the next quest rolls up with some element that makes mage-nukers undesirable, that player then swaps to his physical-DPSer. Players will almost always seek to optimize (and you really can't entice them not to), and the standard format for games actually encourages this type of role swapping tremendously. If that is what you as a designer desire, then that's great. Not so great if you desired otherwise. Personally, as a designer and a game player, I prefer a "stick to one character" mentality.
Attempting to eliminate roles or de-emphasize them will only result in your standard 4 man party being reduced to a 3 man. Less player cooperation would be required (since there's one less dedicated role), and less interaction would be required (you need less friends to make it work). Admittedly, I hated Dungeons and Dragons Online's need for certain archetypes, because I always had to walk up to strangers and invite them into a party if my friends weren't online. I hated it then, but in retrospect it's quite interesting that the need for roles actually forced a player into branching out and networking. I made many friends that way that I would never have considered doing if I hadn't needed to party and cooperate with them. If you as a designer want a multiplayer game, why are you reducing the need for interactivity between players? I personally feel that the standard 4 man should be expanded, not reduced. But that's my opinion.
[/quote]

I guess what I was attempting to do is to make it more teamwork oriented rather than just having a tank do all of the taunting/absorbing by themselves.

It has been so long since I played Dark Age of Camelot that I was misusing some lingo. What I meant by "protect" would be more akin to the Guard ability tanks received, or even Intercept. They may be able to have some threat reducing abilities to help their threat generating buddies out, but I was going for the jumping in and absorbing/blocking the damage intended for another target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
[quote name='Zouflain' timestamp='1313443044' post='4849571']
[quote]What tanks can do is they can place marks on enemies which will make it harder to hit their allies and potentially have a damaging effect if they hit. It's up to the enemies to figure out if they want to attack the armored guy with 2~3 more AC than the norm or the other guy and risk retribution. Whether the enemy hits the tank or the squishy, they both get hurt equally since armor does not mitigate damage. This means the survivability of the group does not depend on the enemies bashing on the tank, but it can help. Enemies could never target the tank and the tank would still be able to do his job because it is protecting allies, not soaking up tons of damage for others.[/quote]Certainly an interesting design philosophy, but does this eliminate the need for the tank at all, or merely change the role of the tank from direct damage absorber to damage mitigator?
[/quote]

That's one way to see it. However, it ends up changing the battle dynamics away from the holy trinity. You no longer need to tune your encounters to the durability of the tank and healing power of the healer, which means the damage/durability ratio remains manageable for other classes. The optimal strategy of getting the enemy focused on the tank because it minimizes incoming DPS is less effective since he's not that much better at soaking damage. Also, all the other strategies which would have a risk of him losing some agro grow in power because the tank can still do his job even if the enemies attack his group members. Other classes must now balance their defensive and offensive capabilities and can no longer get away with investing everything in damage. This opens up a lot of possibilities that were impossible because the holy trinity used to beat them all.

The hardest part would be to teach players the new dynamics. In the early days of City of Heroes, if you were a Defender and did not pick the healing power set, you were a second class citizen even though your powers were usually more effective than a healer. The holy trinity is part of the MMO culture and trying to do different is a uphill battle. People are uncomfortable when you tell them their learned skills are now useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n00b0dy    103
Another idea to counter the holy trinity (dps, healer, tank), is to balance the healer class, as well the tank class.

Currently in most rpgs the healer can heal from 0% to 100% hp the tank, this is because the tanks are weak because they follow linear hp formulas, and a healer can easily outheal the boss. The only threat in this model is the mana pool of the healer.

Now imagine using exponential hp formulas :
1) tank with 50.000 hp.
2) boss that deals 1000 dmg every 3 sec.
3) healer that heals 300 hp every 3 sec.
4) clothies have 3000 - 5.000 hp.
Battle lasts 3 min : tank survives with 8000 / 50.000 hp.

Now increasing the total hp of the boss, you can adjust the type of battle, you can require additional melee/tank characters that will take turns tanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1313460967' post='4849666']
Another idea to counter the holy trinity (dps, healer, tank), is to balance the healer class, as well the tank class.

Currently in most rpgs the healer can heal from 0% to 100% hp the tank, this is because the tanks are weak because they follow linear hp formulas, and a healer can easily outheal the boss. The only threat in this model is the mana pool of the healer.

Now imagine using exponential hp formulas :
1) tank with 50.000 hp.
2) boss that deals 1000 dmg every 3 sec.
3) healer that heals 300 hp every 3 sec.
4) clothies have 3000 - 5.000 hp.
Battle lasts 3 min : tank survives with 8000 / 50.000 hp.

Now increasing the total hp of the boss, you can adjust the type of battle, you can require additional melee/tank characters that will take turns tanking.
[/quote]

Hard to teach people because they will feel like they are losing until "retrained". That the game will require more than one tank, it will make people scared, especially if the class is less played than others. Just a couple of things that came to mind.

I fully agree that Healers are too potent, require more "off-healers" and give healing availability to four-five classes(12-14 classes per side). Balance it so that a healer can keep someone healed, but not so that they can heal more than 1/2-2/3 health on their biggest heals. Promoting a variety of specializations between the classes is a good thing if done right. Make it so that healers themselves may not even be specialized to be primary healers. Give options. Easier said than done though. It does away with the clawing to get even just one healer in your group because they were so sought after. Spread the responsibility out. If one person has a slip up in the real world they won't mess over their entire group for one small mistake. Don't eliminate something that everyone knows so well, try to make it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
[quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1313460967' post='4849666']
Another idea to counter the holy trinity (dps, healer, tank), is to balance the healer class, as well the tank class.

Currently in most rpgs the healer can heal from 0% to 100% hp the tank, this is because the tanks are weak because they follow linear hp formulas, and a healer can easily outheal the boss. The only threat in this model is the mana pool of the healer.

Now imagine using exponential hp formulas :
1) tank with 50.000 hp.
2) boss that deals 1000 dmg every 3 sec.
3) healer that heals 300 hp every 3 sec.
4) clothies have 3000 - 5.000 hp.
Battle lasts 3 min : tank survives with 8000 / 50.000 hp.

Now increasing the total hp of the boss, you can adjust the type of battle, you can require additional melee/tank characters that will take turns tanking.
[/quote]

That makes healers useless. A healer can provide a tank's worth of HP every 8 minutes. Drop the healer from the group and grab a secondary tank and spread the tanking. All that does is take the complete heal chain concept and apply it to tanks. Now, the difficulty is in how many tanks you can line up instead of how many healers you can line up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TechnoGoth    2937
Perhaps you could add more status effects and chaining of effects to boost their effectiveness. Then give tanks passive buff and debuff abilities. If every attack has a percentage chance of inflicted a set of stackable debuffs then it would change the flow of combat a lot more. For instance every hit with a edge weapons might have a 2% chance of causing the stackable bleeding effect that that cause .5% of health damage per second.



The tank could have a load of effects that remove and cause buffs and debuffs. So rather just soaking damage the tanks could help alter the flow of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='TechnoGoth' timestamp='1313498006' post='4849820']
Perhaps you could add more status effects and chaining of effects to boost their effectiveness. Then give tanks passive buff and debuff abilities. If every attack has a percentage chance of inflicted a set of stackable debuffs then it would change the flow of combat a lot more. For instance every hit with a edge weapons might have a 2% chance of causing the stackable bleeding effect that that cause .5% of health damage per second.



The tank could have a load of effects that remove and cause buffs and debuffs. So rather just soaking damage the tanks could help alter the flow of battle.


[/quote]

With the group make-up that I have in mind, Crowd Control is going to be a task, and random percent chance of bleeds may not work well with it as it would break the CC if not managed properly. I am going to try and avoid some of the newer incarnations of abilities that have taken less control out of the players hands and give it back to them. You want to make this guy bleed? Bleed ability coming right up. Only in certain weapon categories though, I mean, I guess Blunt could cause internal bleeding =0.

I also want to bring back Hand to Hand combat as an option for players. It would have to be similar to how an Everquest Monk was handled, but turn it into a skill on it's own, rather than a class. Who wouldn't want to flying jump kick another player in the head? It would have it's shortcomings, but it would add options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n00b0dy    103
[code]That makes healers useless. A healer can provide a tank's worth of HP every 8 minutes. Drop the healer from the group and grab a secondary tank and spread the tanking. [/code]
Working as intented : the healer is equal now to other classes (After 5-8 min fights).
1) I can drop a healer to the trash can, and get a crowd controler instead. Maybe mage, they can crowd control the boss, negating all his damage (while he is killed). So lets say my mage can Freeze the boss for 3 seconds every 12 seconds, congrats the mage is a healer now because he can "negate 1200 damage every 12 sec"=100hps.
2) i can drop the healer for a secondary tank that does the same thing.
3) i can fight the boss with 0 tanks, 0 healers if my clothie mages chain crowd control the boss. Working as intented now every class is equal.
4) i can get a warrior who is both dps and tank. He can finish the fight faster so he is equal to a tank.

Various party compositions :
1) 5 tanks, or 5 tanky dps (warriors,deathknights,paladins that dont press heal).
2) 5 crowd control classes.
3) 3 healers (total immunity to boss dmg) and 2 random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1313644001' post='4850612']
[code]That makes healers useless. A healer can provide a tank's worth of HP every 8 minutes. Drop the healer from the group and grab a secondary tank and spread the tanking. [/code]
Working as intented : the healer is equal now to other classes (After 5-8 min fights).
1) I can drop a healer to the trash can, and get a crowd controler instead. Maybe mage, they can crowd control the boss, negating all his damage (while he is killed). So lets say my mage can Freeze the boss for 3 seconds every 12 seconds, congrats the mage is a healer now because he can "negate 1200 damage every 12 sec"=100hps.
2) i can drop the healer for a secondary tank that does the same thing.
3) i can fight the boss with 0 tanks, 0 healers if my clothie mages chain crowd control the boss. Working as intented now every class is equal.
4) i can get a warrior who is both dps and tank. He can finish the fight faster so he is equal to a tank.

Various party compositions :
1) 5 tanks, or 5 tanky dps (warriors,deathknights,paladins that dont press heal).
2) 5 crowd control classes.
3) 3 healers (total immunity to boss dmg) and 2 random.
[/quote]

I just, um, don't really seeing it translate into an MMORPG at the very least. Why would you ever want to make classes obsolete? Everyone should have their place and from the sounds of it Crowd Control in your case WOULD be replacing the healers on class necessity list. I suppose the real concern I have is how often are you going to have fights that last more than eight minutes at a time? Would the downtime due to this design change be extreme between fights? What about non-tank, non-healer, non-mage classes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
It's balanced for this boss only. With the 5 mages group, the boss could deal infinite damage and only them would be able to beat him. The others would fail. This means the mages would be as effective against a low level boss than a high level boss without going through a power growth. All other classes would have to get better gear to improve their HP, DPS or healing to move up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n00b0dy    103
[code] With the 5 mages group, the boss could deal infinite damage and only them would be able to beat him. The others would fail. This means the mages would be as effective against a low level boss than a high level boss without going through a power growth. All other classes would have to get better gear to improve their HP, DPS or healing to move up[/code]
like all rpg the effectiveness of what you do is defined by a stat. its "cc vs anti-cc"
Lets say that a player can have up to 1000 stat points. And a boss has 450 anti-cc. Here is my scilab code:
[code]
//Every 100 cc points you increase base cc duration by 10%(additive)
//against an 100 points guy.
//Crowd Coefficient = how much you force players to put points in pvp.
//E.g 0.3 crowd Coefficient = you must have 300 stats in crowd defense out of your 1000 you have in order to pvp well.

crowd = 1000 ;
crowdDefense = 450 ;
crowdDuration = 6 ; //hammer of justice - paladin.
CrowdCoefficient = 0.3;

crowdFraction = ( crowd / crowdDefense )
totalDuration = crowdDuration * crowdFraction * CrowdCoefficient
TotalReduction = 1 - (totalDuration / crowdDuration)
[/code]
Lets see some use case examples :
a) 1000 cc vs 450 anti-cc = 4 sec stun.
combo : 3 pure crowd controllers (total immunity to boss dmg) and 2 random.
b) 600 cc vs 450 anti-cc= 2.4 sec stun.
combo : 5 mages.

Lv 1 mage vs lv 50 dragon. 20 cc vs 450 anti-cc : 0.08 stun. Mage dies.
Lv 50 mage vs lv 1 dragon. 1000 cc vs 9 anti-cc : 200 sec stun. Mage has fully reloaded his stun in 12 sec and can thus perma stun the boss. crowd control spells are stacking e.g after 12 sec the boss will be stunned for 200 sec = 200+200 - 12 = for 400-12 sec. etc. Perma stun in this game is a valid strategy.

forgot to mention combo 5 glass cannons :
Yes i can have a 100% dmg glasscannon mage, that deals 5.000 dmg in 0.1sec but then stays afk for 12 seconds ( simulates league of legends glasscannon mages). However tanks arent scared of glass cannons because they have 50.000 hp (exponential hp formulas) and can easily win in 1vs5. Glasscannon mages are op against glass cannons because they also have 2000-5000 hp so they can instant kill them in 0.1 sec. (choosing glasscannon = fast fights but tanks beat you)
You may find glasscannons op as 5 glascannons can deal 25000 dmg in 0.1sec against the 50.000 hp boss, then the boss kills 2 people in 12 sec (boss has 330 dps), 3 people left deal 15000 dmg, boss kills 2 people in 12 sec, 1 last mage deals 5.000 dmg and its a wipe. the boss survived with 5% hp what a luck [ but that was to be expected because the boss was tanky and we said tanks win 1vs5 fights]. They would have won if they drinked a single potion or had some more tankiness.

Conclusion:
1) Yes i can have a 0 dmg, 100% crowd control class, and perma stun someone for 10 seconds every 12 seconds in pvp (however i have 1/1 hp now).
2) Yes i can have a tank mage, with 100% stamina = 50.000 hp and be tank. But i will be an immobile tree that cant affect the world.


Here is how boss stat affect the fight : + this class has an advantage. - this class has a disadvantage.
Heavy hitting boss : +crowd control, -healer, -tank, -dmg
Enrage timer : +crowd control, +dmg, -healer, -tank.
Dispel cc, anti-cc : - crowd control.
big hp : +crowd control, -dmg, -tank, +healer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1313677067' post='4850777']
[code] With the 5 mages group, the boss could deal infinite damage and only them would be able to beat him. The others would fail. This means the mages would be as effective against a low level boss than a high level boss without going through a power growth. All other classes would have to get better gear to improve their HP, DPS or healing to move up[/code]
like all rpg the effectiveness of what you do is defined by a stat. its "cc vs anti-cc"
Lets say that a player can have up to 1000 stat points. And a boss has 450 anti-cc. Here is my scilab code:
[code]
//Every 100 cc points you increase base cc duration by 10%(additive)
//against an 100 points guy.
//Crowd Coefficient = how much you force players to put points in pvp.
//E.g 0.3 crowd Coefficient = you must have 300 stats in crowd defense out of your 1000 you have in order to pvp well.

crowd = 1000 ;
crowdDefense = 450 ;
crowdDuration = 6 ; //hammer of justice - paladin.
CrowdCoefficient = 0.3;

crowdFraction = ( crowd / crowdDefense )
totalDuration = crowdDuration * crowdFraction * CrowdCoefficient
TotalReduction = 1 - (totalDuration / crowdDuration)
[/code]
Lets see some use case examples :
a) 1000 cc vs 450 anti-cc = 4 sec stun.
combo : 3 pure crowd controllers (total immunity to boss dmg) and 2 random.
b) 600 cc vs 450 anti-cc= 2.4 sec stun.
combo : 5 mages.

Lv 1 mage vs lv 50 dragon. 20 cc vs 450 anti-cc : 0.08 stun. Mage dies.
Lv 50 mage vs lv 1 dragon. 1000 cc vs 9 anti-cc : 200 sec stun. Mage has fully reloaded his stun in 12 sec and can thus perma stun the boss. crowd control spells are stacking e.g after 12 sec the boss will be stunned for 200 sec = 200+200 - 12 = for 400-12 sec. etc. Perma stun in this game is a valid strategy.

forgot to mention combo 5 glass cannons :
Yes i can have a 100% dmg glasscannon mage, that deals 5.000 dmg in 0.1sec but then stays afk for 12 seconds ( simulates league of legends glasscannon mages). However tanks arent scared of glass cannons because they have 50.000 hp (exponential hp formulas) and can easily win in 1vs5. Glasscannon mages are op against glass cannons because they also have 2000-5000 hp so they can instant kill them in 0.1 sec. (choosing glasscannon = fast fights but tanks beat you)
You may find glasscannons op as 5 glascannons can deal 25000 dmg in 0.1sec against the 50.000 hp boss, then the boss kills 2 people in 12 sec (boss has 330 dps), 3 people left deal 15000 dmg, boss kills 2 people in 12 sec, 1 last mage deals 5.000 dmg and its a wipe. the boss survived with 5% hp what a luck [ but that was to be expected because the boss was tanky and we said tanks win 1vs5 fights]. They would have won if they drinked a single potion or had some more tankiness.

Conclusion:
1) Yes i can have a 0 dmg, 100% crowd control class, and perma stun someone for 10 seconds every 12 seconds in pvp (however i have 1/1 hp now).
2) Yes i can have a tank mage, with 100% stamina = 50.000 hp and be tank. But i will be an immobile tree that cant affect the world.


Here is how boss stat affect the fight : + this class has an advantage. - this class has a disadvantage.
Heavy hitting boss : +crowd control, -healer, -tank, -dmg
Enrage timer : +crowd control, +dmg, -healer, -tank.
Dispel cc, anti-cc : - crowd control.
big hp : +crowd control, -dmg, -tank, +healer
[/quote]

I believe I understand what you are saying, but I just don't understand how it is going to make for enjoyable MMORPG combat, especially if PVP is a very real playstyle within the game.

In my mind every MMORPG will have some sort of magical/physical resist system of which can be used to determine the effectiveness of various abilities, specifically crowd control. It should be as close to healer = tank = dps = crowd control as possible rather than crowd control > tank > healer > dps. I want players to feel like they serve a purpose. That just being what they chose to be is of value.

Current system I am debating on is having a class system with the ability to change your class through play. There would be no instant respecialization capabilities. If you had played for a full year as a Knight, but decided that you didn't want to reroll on a new character, you could go through the initial process of training and selecting a class over again which would take points away from being a Knight. Say you were tired of being a melee, you wouldn't be stuck in a Fighter subcategory like some games as you make no class selection at all until after you enter the game. You could set your Knight abilities to go down and start working on the initial skills towards becoming a Sorcerer. The two options for design that come to mind would be 1) When you become a Sorcerer you lose access to your Knight abilities or 2) Your Knight skills will go down as your Sorcerer skills go up, but you do not lose access to the Knight abilities until their skill level removes the abilities from your available abilities. The first would be like starting from scratch, but you maintain your character level/attributes giving you a step up on rerolling entirely. The second could lead to a Dual Class system. I feel the Dual Class system may bring forth balance issues in PVP so avoiding it may be the best way to go for a first time designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
Final Fantasy 11 did something like this with the subclass system. You could choose a secondary class and you would gain stats and abilities up to half your current class level. It worked decently, but suffered from optimal class combination where your choice of subclass was limited to the 1 or 2 optimal choice for your main class. You could be White Mage/Fighter, but that was silly and less effective than White Mage/Other Mage class.

If you bring the classes close to each other in term of damage output and durability, you should be able to balance it decently with multiclassing. Instead of the power coming from skills, have it come from equipment. Skills would add secondary effects to further define the class role. For example, for a basic attack skill, a paladin might have an attack that puts a shield on nearby allies while a Death Knight would drain health and a rogue would deal some extra damage if behind the target. A player could multiclass as Paladin/Rogue and have 2 basic attack skills at their disposal for more versatility. However, they get this by losing deeper skills in their main class which have more potent secondary effects. Some players will choose versatility while others will choose power. You can then let the players distribute their points in whichever class they desire. You could have retraining levels which are points used to refund spent points in a class. That way, they can grind it out and change class when they have enough point.

For a system like this to work, you might have to do away with equipment restriction since the player class is ambiguous. If you provide tradeoffs on equipment, like Cloth being great against magic and weak against physical and Plate the opposite, players will sort it out and figure out what they think is best for them instead of what is the best imposed by their class restriction. If mages start dominating, you might see cloth wearing warriors as an anti-mage measure. As long as counters can be found, PVP will eventually self-balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caldtem    323
[quote name='Tiblanc' timestamp='1313688384' post='4850840']
Final Fantasy 11 did something like this with the subclass system. You could choose a secondary class and you would gain stats and abilities up to half your current class level. It worked decently, but suffered from optimal class combination where your choice of subclass was limited to the 1 or 2 optimal choice for your main class. You could be White Mage/Fighter, but that was silly and less effective than White Mage/Other Mage class.

If you bring the classes close to each other in term of damage output and durability, you should be able to balance it decently with multiclassing. Instead of the power coming from skills, have it come from equipment. Skills would add secondary effects to further define the class role. For example, for a basic attack skill, a paladin might have an attack that puts a shield on nearby allies while a Death Knight would drain health and a rogue would deal some extra damage if behind the target. A player could multiclass as Paladin/Rogue and have 2 basic attack skills at their disposal for more versatility. However, they get this by losing deeper skills in their main class which have more potent secondary effects. Some players will choose versatility while others will choose power. You can then let the players distribute their points in whichever class they desire. You could have retraining levels which are points used to refund spent points in a class. That way, they can grind it out and change class when they have enough point.

For a system like this to work, you might have to do away with equipment restriction since the player class is ambiguous. If you provide tradeoffs on equipment, like Cloth being great against magic and weak against physical and Plate the opposite, players will sort it out and figure out what they think is best for them instead of what is the best imposed by their class restriction. If mages start dominating, you might see cloth wearing warriors as an anti-mage measure. As long as counters can be found, PVP will eventually self-balance.
[/quote]

The goal within my design would certainly be one of allowing more player freedoms, but freedom can only be given to a certain extent for balance sake. PVP will not be required, but it will be an extremely important form of play for the game, so balance is key. I planned to have gear degrade and eventually break through use, gear cannot be repaired forever. Also, the game is to be less gear dependent. You can compete with the most basic of gear, but taking the extra time to acquire upgrades will still be of value, depending how you plan to use the gear. Materials used, type of gear being created, and skill of the creator will help determine the qualities of the pieces of gear. As you alluded to, some gear will be more physical oriented while some more magical oriented in it's defensive properties.

The PVP gameplay would be an evolution to that of Dark Age of Camelot, three sides in a 1v1v1 war for dominance, with 14 classes per side currently conceptualized. The aim is to provide a more casual game experience where less time is required "grinding" before you feel you can actually play the game and have fun. There will be character levels, attribute points, and skill levels for basic customization/advancement of a character, outside of gear acquisition. Other forms of advancement will be available as well, but advancement will not rely on gear to be attained.

I just wanted to provide a means for players to change to a different class through gameplay rather than forcing them to have alts/start over from scratch. The system is also intended to prevent the switching of classes on a day to day basis to avoid providing free reign of FOTM classes. The process of changing classes, though possible to do, would not be something that can be done in a short amount of time. Character levels will be one of the easier forms of progression which allows the raising of skill levels and acquisition of attribute points, but skills themselves would take some time to raise through use which is where the real development of a character capabilities come into play. Characters are useful, even if not maxed out, so people shouldn't feel forced into grinding it out before being able to actually play the game.

I don't want a level 1 character to hit a level 50 for 3 damage only to be hit by said level 50 for 300 damage and die in one hit. I would like a level 50 to be afraid of running into 10 enemy players, even if they are all level 1, but still provide the level 50 a chance to succeed. Make it accomplishment, not an assured victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiblanc    560
14 classes per side seems very restrictive unless you have a lot of overlap. Classes in DAoC were very narrow, providing you 4 or 5 usable skill. Players were essentially one trick ponies. It's when players can't adapt that balance issues come up. As counter intuitive than it might sound, removing player freedom causes real balance issues and not players whining. If players cannot win because of lack of options, then it's a real balance issue since it resides in the formulas and stats of the game. If they have options to counter whatever they are facing, it's the player being too lazy and not a design balance issue. A side effect of lots of available options is some players will come up with powerful combinations. However, if you wait a while, players will naturally come up with something to counter it. Only when something is severely broken will you need to adjust the balance.

FOTM classes are this phenomenon in action. Someone figures out a particular build beats the majority of the players and starts dominating. Then others follow his footstep. Then someone else makes a new build to beat the FOTM and the cycle continues.

As for the 10xLevel 1 vs 1xLevel 50, this is a matter of adjusting power curves. Character Power is given by Power = Durability * Damage. A level 50 killing 10 level 1 in the same time than 10 level 1 kills a level 50. The combined power of the levels 10 accounting them them dieing in the process is 10+9+8+etc = 55. The level 50 thus needs about 8 times the Durability and Damage than a level 1. If a level 1 has 100HP and does 15 damage, the level 50 will have 800 HP and deal 120 damage. He will kill one level 1 per hit and in the process, they will land 55 hits on him for 825 damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n00b0dy    103
here is my gameplay :

1) enemies downlevel to become the same level as you when they attack you. This acts before the attack is applied. So a lv 999999 mage will lose against a lv1 char fight (same win ratio). However you can do "friendly pvp" if both sides agree that disables this mechanic. Same thing happens to dungeons, a lv 1 mage can solo the lv 999999 final boss the game.

2) A lv 999999 mage will die to a lv1 rat, because of the above. Battles will be always challenging.

3) players can miss / dodge/ parry/ deflect all attacks as long as they have good reaction times (press dodge button or simple move away to avoid collision detection). of course this would depend on their stamina / debuffs / dexterity.

4) multiclassing : a player can change his class anytime, like in final fantasy tactics. My lv 99 warrior can become a lv 99 priest when he wants (level stays same, but you have to buy the spells (only once - after that you have permantly learned them). Some spells are cross class e.g lesser stealth so my warrior can use lesser stealth to gank people from behind.

5) class combining : you can use talent trees from other classes. e.g you may have a paladin tank that has "warrior charge" to avoid getting perma-kitted to death.
or a warrior with priest "autorez" spell. Sure it will be hard to balance but who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this