I used TOR as an example of creating cosmetic differences to classes (Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior) that are clones of each other not about having classes fit multiple group roles. I am sorry if I was confusing in that point. If vanity is all people are looking for then by all means clone the classes give them a different outfit, spell descriptions, particle effects, etc.
Except that argument makes no sense. Rangers will obviously not be a clone of any other class in the game. Warlocks will not be a clone of any other class in the game. Paladins play differently from Fighters. Caster Clerics play differently from Battle Clerics. Warlords are different from Clerics. Control Druids are different from Control Wizards. GWFs are obviously different from GFs and TRs. The more you post the more you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
The only reason TOR had mirror classes was because it had two different factions with their own stories. It has literally nothing to do with adding new classes to this game, and it doesn't change the fact that it, and most other MMOs, manage to have multiple options for each role that compete with each other and offer differing playstyles that are in no way clones of eachother.
I can't help it I'm a mechanical minded person
…[jedi]…[sith]…
Both have near identical abilities with completely cosmetic differences, yet are two "different" classes? Do we just reskin classes to give people the illusion of choice?
Well, in a word, yes. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with your vision of the game. You are seeing ones and zeroes, others are seeing blonds and brunets.
But what you are seeing as oncoming deficiencies and predictable hazards in design are the necessary evils of a gaming culture founded in roleplaying and representations of the iconic self in an imagined setting. On some level even these devs understand that players are going to be less interested in a game wherein they are not allowed to really display their own sense of self through game avatars.
But it’s not a surgical blade. If the game went with the strictest definition of only the most iconic classes and allowed nothing else. Some people would still play it. Some people’s enjoyment is tied to other methods of expression and power. But the vanity factor would exact some price in player loss and the next game that did appeal on that level would net the difference. In fact it may yet.
Although it isn’t a calculable quality, vanity is a key factor in the perceived quality of a game and how it appeals to that value makes a lot of difference.
Well, in a word, yes. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with your vision of the game. You are seeing ones and zeroes, others are seeing blonds and brunets.
But what you are seeing as oncoming deficiencies and predictable hazards in design are the necessary evils of a gaming culture founded in roleplaying and representations of the iconic self in an imagined setting. On some level even these devs understand that players are going to be less interested in a game wherein they are not allowed to really display their own sense of self through game avatars.
But it’s not a surgical blade. If the game went with the strictest definition of only the most iconic classes and allowed nothing else. Some people would still play it. Some people’s enjoyment is tied to other methods of expression and power. But the vanity factor would exact some price in player loss and the next game that did appeal on that level would net the difference. In fact it may yet.
Although it isn’t a calculable quality, vanity is a key factor in the perceived quality of a game and how it appeals to that value makes a lot of difference.
Wow... I never realized vanity was so important to players... I wonder if Extra Credits should do a video on this topic as I would love to see what their take on it would be. The importance of vanity... For me a mount is a mount regardless of which skin you put on the object. The only differences are the speed, number of hits required to dismount, etc.
So are you saying that someone would CHOOSE to play a class that was obviously under-powered when compared to a clone of the class if it had a different skin, lore and cosmetic differences? Would they continue to play even after they are passed over time and again because a different class would do the job better? Would they continue to play Neverwinter longer because their spells had a green particle effect over a red one?
I'm wondering how much of this is fickle preferences verses real substance... I am willing to bet those who would SAY they wanted the inferior cosmetic differences choice would be raging on the same forum about how they are inferior...
0
kalizaarMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
Just because you don't like having lots of class options doesn't mean there aren't people that do. Many people would rather start a different character class, even if it performs a similar role as an existing one, rather than play the same character class that is given a few new abilities. If they added a new paragon path to Cleric, and added a new class that is a healer I would definitely start the new class first before I spent any time looking at the second paragon path for Cleric.
To me new classes are way more fun and exciting than old classes with new bells and whistles.
Well, in a word, yes. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with your vision of the game. You are seeing ones and zeroes, others are seeing blonds and brunets.
Except they aren't even seeing ones and zeroes, they're arguing toes and threes They're trying to argue that there would be no difference between new classes that fill the same other than cosmetics, which is completely ridiculous. They even tried to use another game as an example, not realizing that the game they're talking about has multiple classes that fill the same roles and remain competitive with each other while being mechanically distinct from each other. Heck, this game already does it. GWFs are clearly intended to be a hybrid tank/striker. Yet their damage abilities clearly aren't clones of what Rogues have and their tanking abilities aren't clones of what GFs have. Their sole argument is TOR having mirror classes among each faction (one faction gets Jedi Guardians, another faction gets Sith Juggernauts. Each class is mechanically the same with different visuals), which is done solely for story purposes since it wouldn't make sense for Sith and Jedi to be on the same side. It has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
Anyone who claims that a Divine Cleric and a Battle Cleric or a control Druid and a control Wizard or Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters are all just clones of each other with different particle effects has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. That's not "mechanics vs cosmetics," it's nonsense. I mean, for crying out loud, these classes already exist in the actual 4th edition D&D game so, this isn't even a hypothetical discussion.
Except that argument makes no sense. Rangers will obviously not be a clone of any other class in the game. Warlocks will not be a clone of any other class in the game. Paladins play differently from Fighters. Caster Clerics play differently from Battle Clerics. Warlords are different from Clerics. Control Druids are different from Control Wizards. GWFs are obviously different from GFs and TRs. The more you post the more you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
The only reason TOR had mirror classes was because it had two different factions with their own stories. It has literally nothing to do with adding new classes to this game, and it doesn't change the fact that it, and most other MMOs, manage to have multiple options for each role that compete with each other and offer differing playstyles that are in no way clones of eachother.
If a NEW Rogue class can do the same damage at range as an existing melee Rogue why would players play one? You may prefer the lore, mechanics, appearance, cosmetics, etc of a Rogue but at the end of the day if there is a clear superior option most people will be disappointed with their inferior choice at the end.
This goes back to the concept of hybrids equality with pure classes. Why play a pure class if a hybrid can do just as well as you with WAY more options? Why play a hybrid class that a pure class will ALWAYS be superior?
So you end up with completely cosmetic, artifical differences between preceived different choices...
If a NEW Rogue class can do the same damage at range as an existing melee Rogue why would players play one?
Same reason people play melee classes over ranged classes in any other game in existence. Melee range usually does more damage and in exchange ranged is safer, has better uptime (don't have to run back into range to hit after avoiding an attack or at the start of the fight), and puts less pressure on the healer.
Except they aren't even seeing ones and zeroes, they're arguing toes and threes They're trying to argue that there would be no difference between new classes that fill the same other than cosmetics, which is completely ridiculous. They even tried to use another game as an example, not realizing that the game they're talking about has multiple classes that fill the same roles and remain competitive with each other while being mechanically distinct from each other. Heck, this game already does it. GWFs are clearly intended to be a hybrid tank/striker. Yet their damage abilities clearly aren't clones of what Rogues have and their tanking abilities aren't clones of what GFs have. Their sole argument is TOR having mirror classes among each faction (one faction gets Jedi Guardians, another faction gets Sith Juggernauts. Each class is mechanically the same with different visuals), which is done solely for story purposes since it wouldn't make sense for Sith and Jedi to be on the same side. It has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
Anyone who claims that a Divine Cleric and a Battle Cleric or a control Druid and a control Wizard or Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters are all just clones of each other with different particle effects has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. That's not "mechanics vs cosmetics," it's nonsense. I mean, for crying out loud, these classes already exist in the actual 4th edition D&D game so, this isn't even a hypothetical discussion.
If a Battle Cleric can heal as well as a Devoted Cleric plus have additional features why would you play a Devoted Cleric? If a hybrid class can do everything a pure class can do why would you play a pure class? If a pure class is obviously superior to a hybrid class why would anyone play a hybrid class?
The fact is there are five group spots in Neverwinter and everyone is in competition for those spots. Group's players must satisfy specific group requirements, i.e. tank, healer, etc. If Cryptic tries to balance the game's difficulty based on groups ideally suited to the group's roles then anyone who attempts to run a dungeon without the ideal group setup will fail. If Cryptic balances for groups that contain non-ideal group make-ups then it becomes trivial for those who are min/maxing their teams.
I don't see the value added by creating classes just for the heck of it without a real plan for WHY those classes are needed and why you can't fit that need with an existing class you already have available. If players want vanity choices then give them vanity options: different lore, cosmetic choices, etc.
0
sh4dowrunn3rMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 17Arc User
edited June 2013
I agree with OP.
If they add new controller and it's better then wizards at it... all wizards are useless no one wants them.
If they add new healer.............................................................................................................
If they add better dds..............................................................................................................
If they add better tank.............................................................................................................
... And I expect new class will be OP at least at first. It always is.
Add new class but don't make it steal current class role... define new role for it.
If a Battle Cleric can heal as well as a Devoted Cleric plus have additional features why would you play a Devoted Cleric?
Because the Devoted Cleric has features the Battle Cleric doesn't have, just like how the Battle Cleric has features the Devoted Cleric doesn't have.
If a hybrid class can do everything a pure class can do why would you play a pure class? If a pure class is obviously superior to a hybrid class why would anyone play a hybrid class?
Why does anyone play GWFs despite them being a tank/striker hybrid? Because they have their own niche. Because their playstyle is different from GFs and TRs. Because they have different abilities that let them do different things that you can't do as a GF or as a TR. And the exact same argument applies to why people play TRs and GFs. It's the same reason each class has three paths for paragon feats rather than just one, and why there are more feats available than you can take. It's why each class has more powers than you can use or have at any time. It's why there are multiple racial choices. It's why there there are different gear sets with different stat arrays, rather than just one set for damage, one set for healing, and one set for tanking.
Listen it's great that you want to talk about mechanics, but, seriously, go out and play some games and actually pay attention to their mechanics and look at how they make these things work. Heck, go play 4th edition D&D.
So are you saying that someone would CHOOSE to play a class that was obviously under-powered when compared to a clone of the class if it had a different skin, lore and cosmetic differences? Would they continue to play even after they are passed over time and again because a different class would do the job better? Would they continue to play Neverwinter longer because their spells had a green particle effect over a red one?
Well, if the classes are clones then they would both be underpowered, but that is a silly nit to pick and I understand exactly what you are asking here.
In answer I would say to just scroll up and observe how many dissenting posts simply refer to a class by name. No mechanics mentioned, no actual aspects of the class, no intimation of its affect on gameplay or relation to the mechanics. Just the name.
That’s because the name is an encapsulated concept for the class as they want to experience it. A paladin just has to be enough of a paladin for me to believe it is a paladin and then I will play it because I want to play a paladin.
If the class appeals to the player’s sense of expression, then they will be pleased with it longer than if it doesn’t. Its relation to other classes is trumped by its relation to the player.
Not in every case however. I don’t mean to generalize. But this lens may reveal more in the dissenting positions that have already been posted than may have been apparent at first.
Implicit censure of a class will just result in that class-base complaining and asking for more tuning to make them more useful. This has already happened with the GWF. There were both player-made build guides and ranting hate posts that addressed the state of the GWF from its initial nerf on closed beta. All that by people who played them despite their shortcomings, even though they had no place in a party and were often overlooked and passed by.
Empirically I can say that many people (including myself) will demand a change before they will change anything themselves.
0
starkaosMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
Neverwinter really needs to change its class limitations for items and make them passive skills. In order to wear leather armour, you need the leather armour skill. Otherwise, years down the road, we will either have too many leather armours that a Trickster Rogue can't wear because one is for Bard, another is for Brawny Rogue, Dual Wielding Ranger, Bow Ranger, etc or else each item will have half the item description be about which classes can use it.
Neverwinter will come out with more Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies when the level cap is increased to 90 in a few years, and classes.
In answer I would say to just scroll up and observe how many dissenting posts simply refer to a class by name. No mechanics mentioned, no actual aspects of the class, no intimation of its affect on gameplay or relation to the mechanics. Just the name.
That’s because the name is an encapsulated concept for the class as they want to experience it.
Or it's because these classes already exist in the pen and paper game that Neverwinter is modeled after, and it's assumed that anyone partaking in a discussion about whether these classes are clones of each other or are mechanically distinct would already be familiar with the existing mechanics of the classes they're attempting to discuss.
I dont see what would be wrong with new classes.
The only one required atm is a cleric.
It doesnt even matter if you have 5 healers and they arent perfectly balanced.
Aslong as they keep the group alive no one will prefer one over the other.
The only problem would be if one off the healer classes was underpowered and not being able to heal everything.
But then they buff that class and its fixed.
I like class diversity, your tactics change when you group with different classes.
This makes thesame dungeon you did last time with a different group feel fresh again.
I tried to make a new character as I'm new to the game, what is the class called "Coming Soon" is it any good? i cant seem to get that button to work and actually select the class....strange.
Sorry for my English.
0
kalizaarMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
If a NEW Rogue class can do the same damage at range as an existing melee Rogue why would players play one? You may prefer the lore, mechanics, appearance, cosmetics, etc of a Rogue but at the end of the day if there is a clear superior option most people will be disappointed with their inferior choice at the end.
This goes back to the concept of hybrids equality with pure classes. Why play a pure class if a hybrid can do just as well as you with WAY more options? Why play a hybrid class that a pure class will ALWAYS be superior?
So you end up with completely cosmetic, artifical differences between preceived different choices...
aha, I think I see what the issue here is. You're obviously a min/maxer. Nothing wrong with that, btw. You see games as a set of minimum and maximum numbers being applied to certain scenarios. In order to complete an objective what is the most efficient way to complete it in the minimum amount of time possible. Yes, with that thinking what is the point of having multiple healer classes, multiple tank classes, etc.
Another portion of the gamer population could give a rats behind about min/maxing and enjoy games for the more imaginative side of things whether it's aesthetics, roleplaying, or whatever. To them playing Healer Class 1 is completely a different experience than playing Healer Class 2. In some situations maybe Healer Class 1 is superior to Healer Class 2 but these gamers really don't care because to them playing Healer Class 2 is more fun than playing Healer Class 1.
In that situation you would play Healer Class 1 and believe Healer Class 2 was completely pointless and a waste of development time. The other non-min/maxer gamer doesn't think that way at all. You don't care about the experience of playing, you care about the results. Non-min/maxer gamers care about the experience of the adventure first and the results second.
Or it's because these classes already exist in the pen and paper game that Neverwinter is modeled after, and it's assumed that anyone partaking in a discussion about whether these classes are clones of each other or are mechanically distinct would already be familiar with the existing mechanics of the classes they're attempting to discuss.
That’s fair to say. But I am trying to bridge what I see as a gap between lltsnwn’s very technical view of the system and my own less specific view.
However I don’t think anyone is really campaigning for classes on principle alone. Certainly there is some appeal there for the presenter; some reason for which they would say that rangers need to be included (apart from the fact that they are being included), or that Monks need to be included.
Does it have any connection to a person’s desire to play those classes in this setting, mechanics be durned?
0
kalizaarMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
That’s fair to say. But I am trying to bridge what I see as a gap between lltsnwn’s very technical view of the system and my own less specific view.
However I don’t think anyone is really campaigning for classes on principle alone. Certainly there is some appeal there for the presenter; some reason for which they would say that rangers need to be included (apart from the fact that they are being included), or that Monks need to be included.
Does it have any connection to a person’s desire to play those classes in this setting, mechanics be durned?
Yes. People like me have enjoyed playing certain classes in other games, reading about characters in books that certain classes mimic, role played certain classes in the past, watched movies with characters we enjoy that certain classes mimic, etc. We don't care about the specifics all that much. We just want to dive into the nostalgia in a way and be a part of it. We want to experience something that our brains attach the idea of a character to.
Does it have any connection to a person’s desire to play those classes in this setting, mechanics be durned?
Obviously this is true for some players. I'm also not sure what this has to do with this topic. As I said earlier, this isn't a "mechanics vs flavor/cosmetics/RP" discussion, this someone trying to argue that new classes would just be clones of each other with different looking abilities, which is false.
And as for the OP's tangent over "but if we add new classes then others will become obsolete," this applies just as well to their statement that we should have new paragon paths. Obviously there will be one path that min/maxers decide is the best for each class, and there would be no reason to take others. If we shouldn't have new classes because it will obsolete others, then we should also not have any new paragon paths that could obsolete the existing ones. OP isn't arguing this from some kind of mechanical or min/maxing principal, they're doing it because they don't want to lose their monopoly on easy groups. Whether this is because they're bad at the game or because they're worried balance issues will cause people to not want DCs anymore I don't know, but it's not a compelling reason to prevent new classes. Especially when they say we should have new paragon paths in the same breath.
OP mentioned earlier that they would be interested in seeing what Extra Credits has to say on this topic. Well, they've actually already done an episode on it.
aha, I think I see what the issue here is. You're obviously a min/maxer. Nothing wrong with that, btw. You see games as a set of minimum and maximum numbers being applied to certain scenarios. In order to complete an objective what is the most efficient way to complete it in the minimum amount of time possible. Yes, with that thinking what is the point of having multiple healer classes, multiple tank classes, etc.
Another portion of the gamer population could give a rats behind about min/maxing and enjoy games for the more imaginative side of things whether it's aesthetics, roleplaying, or whatever. To them playing Healer Class 1 is completely a different experience than playing Healer Class 2. In some situations maybe Healer Class 1 is superior to Healer Class 2 but these gamers really don't care because to them playing Healer Class 2 is more fun than playing Healer Class 1.
In that situation you would play Healer Class 1 and believe Healer Class 2 was completely pointless and a waste of development time. The other non-min/maxer gamer doesn't think that way at all. You don't care about the experience of playing, you care about the results. Non-min/maxer gamers care about the experience of the adventure first and the results second.
I am perfectly fine adding a hundred different versions of Healer classes to the game as long as:
A) The original "prime" healer class 1 is the best healer in the game period. The original "prime" healer class 1 isn't butchered up into tiny pieces and divided up among all the other hybrid healers 2, 3, 4...
C) The original "prime" healer isn't balanced against healer class 2, 3, 4...
If you want to make a ton of inferior healer classes who hug trees, wear plate armor and can't tank worth a dang, poke totems into the ground, wear funny costumes, etc be my guest... However what always ends up happening in the end is everyone wants THEIR healer class X to be equal to all of the other healer classes and you end up over complicating the whole balancing experience.
And as for the OP's tangent over "but if we add new classes then others will become obsolete," this applies just as well to their statement that we should have new paragon paths. Obviously there will be one path that min/maxers decide is the best for each class, and there would be no reason to take others. If we shouldn't have new classes because it will obsolete others, then we should also not have any new paragon paths that could obsolete the existing ones. [/url]
You can add new paragon paths because they are a personal preference more than a new class and easily adjusted to changing environment with a simple respec verses rerolling, regearing and chasing the flavor of the week. You are correct that if your group needs the absolute max healing you would use X paragon path, however since there is only ONE healer and ONE tank class it will still always be a DC or GF.
Cryptic would never have to balance holy priest, discipline priest, shadow priest against restoration druid, restoration shaman, holy paladin, etc. You have ONE healing class and you modify the mechanics of how the heals are applied through paragon paths. Paragon is an personal option/preference verses a completely new character.
You can change the WAY the heals are going to be applied without having to create a whole new healing character using a new Paragon Path. I seriously doubt anyone would be too thrilled about logging in one night to find your class just got outsourced to a new class after you invest so much of your time and effort into it...
/sigh
0
kalizaarMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I am perfectly fine adding a hundred different versions of Healer classes to the game as long as:
A) The original "prime" healer class 1 is the best healer in the game period. The original "prime" healer class 1 isn't butchered up into tiny pieces and divided up among all the other hybrid healers 2, 3, 4...
C) The original "prime" healer isn't balanced against healer class 2, 3, 4...
If you want to make a ton of inferior healer classes who hug trees, wear plate armor and can't tank worth a dang, poke totems into the ground, wear funny costumes, etc be my guest... However what always ends up happening in the end is everyone wants THEIR healer class X to be equal to all of the other healer classes and you end up over complicating the whole balancing experience.
See now what you're describing sounds incredibly boring to me. I don't want an obvious "prime" healer and a bunch of inferior healers. I want a healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by calling down beams of light to heal. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by planting flowers in the ground that have restorative pollen sprays and poisonous barbs. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by causing beneficial mutations. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by drawing their wishes in a journal that causes wounds to suddenly disappear and giant chains to disable the opponent. I want another healer that...
Complex and difficult to balance? Sure, but I also don't care if the flower planting healer does a bit less healing but also prevents some damage because of poisons. That's what makes having multiple class types fun. They play different. It takes a skilled player to figure out the intricacies of how to play each character to accomplish the same goals as another class in a similar role.
Your description of having 3 "prime" classes and a bunch of obviously inferior alternate classes just sounds boring to me. But see, that's to me. Not to you, and maybe some other people would like having only 3 real classes. D&D isn't about that though. I can't think of any game system or MMO at the moment that DOES completely limit a player from having many different playing experiences. There's probably a reason for that.
OP mentioned earlier that they would be interested in seeing what Extra Credits has to say on this topic. Well, they've actually already done an episode on it.
Part of what makes MMORPG "sticky" as said in the video is the more time you play your character, the more you are invested in that character. If a new class is added that is obviously better at your job (group role) then your class, your character is suddenly rendered worthless and many players will say, "maybe now is a good time to quit" instead of starting over with scratch re-rolling a new character.
The fact that people are asking for new classes less than 24 hours after Neverwinter is made live is a huge red flag for this power creep issue...
See now what you're describing sounds incredibly boring to me. I don't want an obvious "prime" healer and a bunch of inferior healers. I want a healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by calling down beams of light to heal. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by planting flowers in the ground that have restorative pollen sprays and poisonous barbs. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by causing beneficial mutations. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by drawing their wishes in a journal that causes wounds to suddenly disappear and giant chains to disable the opponent. I want another healer that...
Complex and difficult to balance? Sure, but I also don't care if the flower planting healer does a bit less healing but also prevents some damage because of poisons. That's what makes having multiple class types fun. They play different. It takes a skilled player to figure out the intricacies of how to play each character to accomplish the same goals as another class in a similar role.
Your description of having 3 "prime" classes and a bunch of obviously inferior alternate classes just sounds boring to me. But see, that's to me. Not to you, and maybe some other people would like having only 3 real classes. D&D isn't about that though. I can't think of any game system or MMO at the moment that DOES completely limit a player from having many different playing experiences. There's probably a reason for that.
Having 100% balance with different classes doing the same role is impossible. The most you can hope for is healer A is superior on stationary healing, healer B is superior on the move healing, healer C is superior healer if the fight lasts X minutes, healer D is best in PvP healing, etc. In the end one of these healers A, B, C, D, etc is going to be preferred over the rest because game content favors that style of healing.
But in the real world things never even close to work out even that good. You will have a classic example where DC are very good healers and are welcome in groups then get a huge nerf to one key ability which suddenly makes them obviously inferior to another healer class X. If you have ONE healer class then the nerf is accepted and everyone learns to adapt to the change. If you have five healers then another class will take your job and you are sitting on the sidelines until you quit, re-roll or spend more time in guild chat then playing the game.
0
kalizaarMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Part of what makes MMORPG "sticky" as said in the video is the more time you play your character, the more you are invested in that character. If a new class is added that is obviously better at your job (group role) then your class, your character is suddenly rendered worthless and many players will say, "maybe now is a good time to quit" instead of starting over with scratch re-rolling a new character.
The fact that people are asking for new classes less than 24 hours after Neverwinter is made live is a huge red flag for this power creep issue...
New classes don't have to be an obviously better replacement of an old class. In that same video they talk about League of Legends having 92 classes or whatever and yet some of the original ones are still just as popular. In any MMO I've been in where they add new classes the entire population doesn't just stop playing old characters to only play the new ones. Plenty of people stick with the old characters, and plenty of people that create new characters still choose the old classes as well.
The point isn't to replace a character, it's to add more options for the those people that like having options. They don't force you to make the new character. If you don't want to lose your investment in your old character then keep playing it.
Part of what makes MMORPG "sticky" as said in the video is the more time you play your character, the more you are invested in that character. If a new class is added that is obviously better at your job (group role) then your class, your character is suddenly rendered worthless and many players will say, "maybe now is a good time to quit" instead of starting over with scratch re-rolling a new character.
For one thing, it doesn't take anywhere near a long time to level a new character in this game.
You'll notice how they used WoW as an example of a game that works in this way, and they've managed to add new classes and have multiple classes that can fill the same role. Huh. It's almost like every outside example you try using goes against the point you're trying to make.
The fact that people are asking for new classes less than 24 hours after Neverwinter is made live is a huge red flag for this power creep issue...
Or maybe it's a result of the fact that the character select screen has had an empty "Coming Soon" spot for as long as many people have been playing. I really like how you're trying to twist people wanting more variety into some kind of evidence that there's a balance issue. You really do have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry you're so scared that you won't be able to get any groups anymore once a new healer is added, but it's going to happen at some point. Get better or get left behind will be your only choices.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
You're honestly wrong. I have one friend who refuses to play until a paladin is added in. He refuses to play anything D&D based without paladins. My wife has also stopped playing because she always plays an archer type class. Until some kind of archer/ranger is implemented she refuses to play. I'm sure they're not alone. You act like adding new classes is pointless. Every game at some point releases new classes. From action rpgs, mmorpgs, and more. Even WoW does it. Adding new classes also gives things for people to do. People who are burnt out of their class may come back to try the new class, new classes with slightly different animations/mechanics/themes can interest people who don't care about the current existing ones. Some people might find a cleric boring but a different type of healer refreshing and interesting.
It's incorrect to state that adding classes won't do much for the game and that it doesn't help anything. It's also incorrect to state it won't bring new people to the game. Your whole "People wanted a new class at release is a red flag." is also flawed as well. You realize when wow releases an expansion (such as the burning crusade) people immediately ask within a day or two of release "When's the next expansion?" This is common.
You go on and on about this "History repeats." nonsense but you seem to be out of touch when it comes to modern mmos. I think you need to understand more about mmo history before you lecture people on "keeping in touch with history."
People are asking for new classes because this game has so few.
Also, I'm sure the developers will try to create a balance where they can perform as well as, but do so differently. For example, the archer ranger in 4e is a striker but a striker that harries it's foes. So it does debuffs and effects more than pure raw damage that something like a Trickster rogue does. Both can do lots of damage, but the trickster rogue is the single target huge burst damage, where the ranger is area/group with moderate consistant damage.
Like what the GF and GWF are shaping up to be. The GFs I normally play with are great tanks but really shine 1vs1, where as I've seen a GWF hold off a fleet of mobs but are a bit meh 1v1.
As far as what will make me take a devote cleric over a warpriest if say the fights I was going into a warpriest is a advantage? Skill.
I'd rather have a good DC than a meh warpriest. I think people weigh too much on gearscores and optimum builds that they forget that no skill will get you killed faster than 1000pt GS difference. I'd rather have a person who's great to play with and knows what to do and how to do it than someone who doesn't know how to play and makes everyone miserable.
Comments
Except that argument makes no sense. Rangers will obviously not be a clone of any other class in the game. Warlocks will not be a clone of any other class in the game. Paladins play differently from Fighters. Caster Clerics play differently from Battle Clerics. Warlords are different from Clerics. Control Druids are different from Control Wizards. GWFs are obviously different from GFs and TRs. The more you post the more you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
The only reason TOR had mirror classes was because it had two different factions with their own stories. It has literally nothing to do with adding new classes to this game, and it doesn't change the fact that it, and most other MMOs, manage to have multiple options for each role that compete with each other and offer differing playstyles that are in no way clones of eachother.
Well, in a word, yes. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with your vision of the game. You are seeing ones and zeroes, others are seeing blonds and brunets.
But what you are seeing as oncoming deficiencies and predictable hazards in design are the necessary evils of a gaming culture founded in roleplaying and representations of the iconic self in an imagined setting. On some level even these devs understand that players are going to be less interested in a game wherein they are not allowed to really display their own sense of self through game avatars.
But it’s not a surgical blade. If the game went with the strictest definition of only the most iconic classes and allowed nothing else. Some people would still play it. Some people’s enjoyment is tied to other methods of expression and power. But the vanity factor would exact some price in player loss and the next game that did appeal on that level would net the difference. In fact it may yet.
Although it isn’t a calculable quality, vanity is a key factor in the perceived quality of a game and how it appeals to that value makes a lot of difference.
Wow... I never realized vanity was so important to players... I wonder if Extra Credits should do a video on this topic as I would love to see what their take on it would be. The importance of vanity... For me a mount is a mount regardless of which skin you put on the object. The only differences are the speed, number of hits required to dismount, etc.
So are you saying that someone would CHOOSE to play a class that was obviously under-powered when compared to a clone of the class if it had a different skin, lore and cosmetic differences? Would they continue to play even after they are passed over time and again because a different class would do the job better? Would they continue to play Neverwinter longer because their spells had a green particle effect over a red one?
I'm wondering how much of this is fickle preferences verses real substance... I am willing to bet those who would SAY they wanted the inferior cosmetic differences choice would be raging on the same forum about how they are inferior...
To me new classes are way more fun and exciting than old classes with new bells and whistles.
Except they aren't even seeing ones and zeroes, they're arguing toes and threes They're trying to argue that there would be no difference between new classes that fill the same other than cosmetics, which is completely ridiculous. They even tried to use another game as an example, not realizing that the game they're talking about has multiple classes that fill the same roles and remain competitive with each other while being mechanically distinct from each other. Heck, this game already does it. GWFs are clearly intended to be a hybrid tank/striker. Yet their damage abilities clearly aren't clones of what Rogues have and their tanking abilities aren't clones of what GFs have. Their sole argument is TOR having mirror classes among each faction (one faction gets Jedi Guardians, another faction gets Sith Juggernauts. Each class is mechanically the same with different visuals), which is done solely for story purposes since it wouldn't make sense for Sith and Jedi to be on the same side. It has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
Anyone who claims that a Divine Cleric and a Battle Cleric or a control Druid and a control Wizard or Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters are all just clones of each other with different particle effects has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. That's not "mechanics vs cosmetics," it's nonsense. I mean, for crying out loud, these classes already exist in the actual 4th edition D&D game so, this isn't even a hypothetical discussion.
If a NEW Rogue class can do the same damage at range as an existing melee Rogue why would players play one? You may prefer the lore, mechanics, appearance, cosmetics, etc of a Rogue but at the end of the day if there is a clear superior option most people will be disappointed with their inferior choice at the end.
This goes back to the concept of hybrids equality with pure classes. Why play a pure class if a hybrid can do just as well as you with WAY more options? Why play a hybrid class that a pure class will ALWAYS be superior?
So you end up with completely cosmetic, artifical differences between preceived different choices...
Same reason people play melee classes over ranged classes in any other game in existence. Melee range usually does more damage and in exchange ranged is safer, has better uptime (don't have to run back into range to hit after avoiding an attack or at the start of the fight), and puts less pressure on the healer.
Like, I can't believe this is even a discussion.
If a Battle Cleric can heal as well as a Devoted Cleric plus have additional features why would you play a Devoted Cleric? If a hybrid class can do everything a pure class can do why would you play a pure class? If a pure class is obviously superior to a hybrid class why would anyone play a hybrid class?
The fact is there are five group spots in Neverwinter and everyone is in competition for those spots. Group's players must satisfy specific group requirements, i.e. tank, healer, etc. If Cryptic tries to balance the game's difficulty based on groups ideally suited to the group's roles then anyone who attempts to run a dungeon without the ideal group setup will fail. If Cryptic balances for groups that contain non-ideal group make-ups then it becomes trivial for those who are min/maxing their teams.
I don't see the value added by creating classes just for the heck of it without a real plan for WHY those classes are needed and why you can't fit that need with an existing class you already have available. If players want vanity choices then give them vanity options: different lore, cosmetic choices, etc.
If they add new controller and it's better then wizards at it... all wizards are useless no one wants them.
If they add new healer.............................................................................................................
If they add better dds..............................................................................................................
If they add better tank.............................................................................................................
... And I expect new class will be OP at least at first. It always is.
Add new class but don't make it steal current class role... define new role for it.
Because the Devoted Cleric has features the Battle Cleric doesn't have, just like how the Battle Cleric has features the Devoted Cleric doesn't have.
Why does anyone play GWFs despite them being a tank/striker hybrid? Because they have their own niche. Because their playstyle is different from GFs and TRs. Because they have different abilities that let them do different things that you can't do as a GF or as a TR. And the exact same argument applies to why people play TRs and GFs. It's the same reason each class has three paths for paragon feats rather than just one, and why there are more feats available than you can take. It's why each class has more powers than you can use or have at any time. It's why there are multiple racial choices. It's why there there are different gear sets with different stat arrays, rather than just one set for damage, one set for healing, and one set for tanking.
Listen it's great that you want to talk about mechanics, but, seriously, go out and play some games and actually pay attention to their mechanics and look at how they make these things work. Heck, go play 4th edition D&D.
Well, if the classes are clones then they would both be underpowered, but that is a silly nit to pick and I understand exactly what you are asking here.
In answer I would say to just scroll up and observe how many dissenting posts simply refer to a class by name. No mechanics mentioned, no actual aspects of the class, no intimation of its affect on gameplay or relation to the mechanics. Just the name.
That’s because the name is an encapsulated concept for the class as they want to experience it. A paladin just has to be enough of a paladin for me to believe it is a paladin and then I will play it because I want to play a paladin.
If the class appeals to the player’s sense of expression, then they will be pleased with it longer than if it doesn’t. Its relation to other classes is trumped by its relation to the player.
Not in every case however. I don’t mean to generalize. But this lens may reveal more in the dissenting positions that have already been posted than may have been apparent at first.
Implicit censure of a class will just result in that class-base complaining and asking for more tuning to make them more useful. This has already happened with the GWF. There were both player-made build guides and ranting hate posts that addressed the state of the GWF from its initial nerf on closed beta. All that by people who played them despite their shortcomings, even though they had no place in a party and were often overlooked and passed by.
Empirically I can say that many people (including myself) will demand a change before they will change anything themselves.
Neverwinter will come out with more Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies when the level cap is increased to 90 in a few years, and classes.
Or it's because these classes already exist in the pen and paper game that Neverwinter is modeled after, and it's assumed that anyone partaking in a discussion about whether these classes are clones of each other or are mechanically distinct would already be familiar with the existing mechanics of the classes they're attempting to discuss.
The only one required atm is a cleric.
It doesnt even matter if you have 5 healers and they arent perfectly balanced.
Aslong as they keep the group alive no one will prefer one over the other.
The only problem would be if one off the healer classes was underpowered and not being able to heal everything.
But then they buff that class and its fixed.
I like class diversity, your tactics change when you group with different classes.
This makes thesame dungeon you did last time with a different group feel fresh again.
I tried to make a new character as I'm new to the game, what is the class called "Coming Soon" is it any good? i cant seem to get that button to work and actually select the class....strange.
Sorry for my English.
aha, I think I see what the issue here is. You're obviously a min/maxer. Nothing wrong with that, btw. You see games as a set of minimum and maximum numbers being applied to certain scenarios. In order to complete an objective what is the most efficient way to complete it in the minimum amount of time possible. Yes, with that thinking what is the point of having multiple healer classes, multiple tank classes, etc.
Another portion of the gamer population could give a rats behind about min/maxing and enjoy games for the more imaginative side of things whether it's aesthetics, roleplaying, or whatever. To them playing Healer Class 1 is completely a different experience than playing Healer Class 2. In some situations maybe Healer Class 1 is superior to Healer Class 2 but these gamers really don't care because to them playing Healer Class 2 is more fun than playing Healer Class 1.
In that situation you would play Healer Class 1 and believe Healer Class 2 was completely pointless and a waste of development time. The other non-min/maxer gamer doesn't think that way at all. You don't care about the experience of playing, you care about the results. Non-min/maxer gamers care about the experience of the adventure first and the results second.
That’s fair to say. But I am trying to bridge what I see as a gap between lltsnwn’s very technical view of the system and my own less specific view.
However I don’t think anyone is really campaigning for classes on principle alone. Certainly there is some appeal there for the presenter; some reason for which they would say that rangers need to be included (apart from the fact that they are being included), or that Monks need to be included.
Does it have any connection to a person’s desire to play those classes in this setting, mechanics be durned?
Yes. People like me have enjoyed playing certain classes in other games, reading about characters in books that certain classes mimic, role played certain classes in the past, watched movies with characters we enjoy that certain classes mimic, etc. We don't care about the specifics all that much. We just want to dive into the nostalgia in a way and be a part of it. We want to experience something that our brains attach the idea of a character to.
Obviously this is true for some players. I'm also not sure what this has to do with this topic. As I said earlier, this isn't a "mechanics vs flavor/cosmetics/RP" discussion, this someone trying to argue that new classes would just be clones of each other with different looking abilities, which is false.
And as for the OP's tangent over "but if we add new classes then others will become obsolete," this applies just as well to their statement that we should have new paragon paths. Obviously there will be one path that min/maxers decide is the best for each class, and there would be no reason to take others. If we shouldn't have new classes because it will obsolete others, then we should also not have any new paragon paths that could obsolete the existing ones. OP isn't arguing this from some kind of mechanical or min/maxing principal, they're doing it because they don't want to lose their monopoly on easy groups. Whether this is because they're bad at the game or because they're worried balance issues will cause people to not want DCs anymore I don't know, but it's not a compelling reason to prevent new classes. Especially when they say we should have new paragon paths in the same breath.
OP mentioned earlier that they would be interested in seeing what Extra Credits has to say on this topic. Well, they've actually already done an episode on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ibi8iHMqjFs#at=50
I am perfectly fine adding a hundred different versions of Healer classes to the game as long as:
A) The original "prime" healer class 1 is the best healer in the game period.
C) The original "prime" healer isn't balanced against healer class 2, 3, 4...
If you want to make a ton of inferior healer classes who hug trees, wear plate armor and can't tank worth a dang, poke totems into the ground, wear funny costumes, etc be my guest... However what always ends up happening in the end is everyone wants THEIR healer class X to be equal to all of the other healer classes and you end up over complicating the whole balancing experience.
You can add new paragon paths because they are a personal preference more than a new class and easily adjusted to changing environment with a simple respec verses rerolling, regearing and chasing the flavor of the week. You are correct that if your group needs the absolute max healing you would use X paragon path, however since there is only ONE healer and ONE tank class it will still always be a DC or GF.
Cryptic would never have to balance holy priest, discipline priest, shadow priest against restoration druid, restoration shaman, holy paladin, etc. You have ONE healing class and you modify the mechanics of how the heals are applied through paragon paths. Paragon is an personal option/preference verses a completely new character.
You can change the WAY the heals are going to be applied without having to create a whole new healing character using a new Paragon Path. I seriously doubt anyone would be too thrilled about logging in one night to find your class just got outsourced to a new class after you invest so much of your time and effort into it...
/sigh
See now what you're describing sounds incredibly boring to me. I don't want an obvious "prime" healer and a bunch of inferior healers. I want a healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by calling down beams of light to heal. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by planting flowers in the ground that have restorative pollen sprays and poisonous barbs. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by causing beneficial mutations. I want another healer that can do all content at 100% efficiency by drawing their wishes in a journal that causes wounds to suddenly disappear and giant chains to disable the opponent. I want another healer that...
Complex and difficult to balance? Sure, but I also don't care if the flower planting healer does a bit less healing but also prevents some damage because of poisons. That's what makes having multiple class types fun. They play different. It takes a skilled player to figure out the intricacies of how to play each character to accomplish the same goals as another class in a similar role.
Your description of having 3 "prime" classes and a bunch of obviously inferior alternate classes just sounds boring to me. But see, that's to me. Not to you, and maybe some other people would like having only 3 real classes. D&D isn't about that though. I can't think of any game system or MMO at the moment that DOES completely limit a player from having many different playing experiences. There's probably a reason for that.
Part of what makes MMORPG "sticky" as said in the video is the more time you play your character, the more you are invested in that character. If a new class is added that is obviously better at your job (group role) then your class, your character is suddenly rendered worthless and many players will say, "maybe now is a good time to quit" instead of starting over with scratch re-rolling a new character.
The fact that people are asking for new classes less than 24 hours after Neverwinter is made live is a huge red flag for this power creep issue...
Having 100% balance with different classes doing the same role is impossible. The most you can hope for is healer A is superior on stationary healing, healer B is superior on the move healing, healer C is superior healer if the fight lasts X minutes, healer D is best in PvP healing, etc. In the end one of these healers A, B, C, D, etc is going to be preferred over the rest because game content favors that style of healing.
But in the real world things never even close to work out even that good. You will have a classic example where DC are very good healers and are welcome in groups then get a huge nerf to one key ability which suddenly makes them obviously inferior to another healer class X. If you have ONE healer class then the nerf is accepted and everyone learns to adapt to the change. If you have five healers then another class will take your job and you are sitting on the sidelines until you quit, re-roll or spend more time in guild chat then playing the game.
New classes don't have to be an obviously better replacement of an old class. In that same video they talk about League of Legends having 92 classes or whatever and yet some of the original ones are still just as popular. In any MMO I've been in where they add new classes the entire population doesn't just stop playing old characters to only play the new ones. Plenty of people stick with the old characters, and plenty of people that create new characters still choose the old classes as well.
The point isn't to replace a character, it's to add more options for the those people that like having options. They don't force you to make the new character. If you don't want to lose your investment in your old character then keep playing it.
For one thing, it doesn't take anywhere near a long time to level a new character in this game.
You'll notice how they used WoW as an example of a game that works in this way, and they've managed to add new classes and have multiple classes that can fill the same role. Huh. It's almost like every outside example you try using goes against the point you're trying to make.
Or maybe it's a result of the fact that the character select screen has had an empty "Coming Soon" spot for as long as many people have been playing. I really like how you're trying to twist people wanting more variety into some kind of evidence that there's a balance issue. You really do have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry you're so scared that you won't be able to get any groups anymore once a new healer is added, but it's going to happen at some point. Get better or get left behind will be your only choices.
The DC is about as good as it gets in 4th edition so it's only downhill from there.
You're honestly wrong. I have one friend who refuses to play until a paladin is added in. He refuses to play anything D&D based without paladins. My wife has also stopped playing because she always plays an archer type class. Until some kind of archer/ranger is implemented she refuses to play. I'm sure they're not alone. You act like adding new classes is pointless. Every game at some point releases new classes. From action rpgs, mmorpgs, and more. Even WoW does it. Adding new classes also gives things for people to do. People who are burnt out of their class may come back to try the new class, new classes with slightly different animations/mechanics/themes can interest people who don't care about the current existing ones. Some people might find a cleric boring but a different type of healer refreshing and interesting.
It's incorrect to state that adding classes won't do much for the game and that it doesn't help anything. It's also incorrect to state it won't bring new people to the game. Your whole "People wanted a new class at release is a red flag." is also flawed as well. You realize when wow releases an expansion (such as the burning crusade) people immediately ask within a day or two of release "When's the next expansion?" This is common.
You go on and on about this "History repeats." nonsense but you seem to be out of touch when it comes to modern mmos. I think you need to understand more about mmo history before you lecture people on "keeping in touch with history."
Also, I'm sure the developers will try to create a balance where they can perform as well as, but do so differently. For example, the archer ranger in 4e is a striker but a striker that harries it's foes. So it does debuffs and effects more than pure raw damage that something like a Trickster rogue does. Both can do lots of damage, but the trickster rogue is the single target huge burst damage, where the ranger is area/group with moderate consistant damage.
Like what the GF and GWF are shaping up to be. The GFs I normally play with are great tanks but really shine 1vs1, where as I've seen a GWF hold off a fleet of mobs but are a bit meh 1v1.
As far as what will make me take a devote cleric over a warpriest if say the fights I was going into a warpriest is a advantage? Skill.
I'd rather have a good DC than a meh warpriest. I think people weigh too much on gearscores and optimum builds that they forget that no skill will get you killed faster than 1000pt GS difference. I'd rather have a person who's great to play with and knows what to do and how to do it than someone who doesn't know how to play and makes everyone miserable.
This is, after all, about having fun.