This is also tied to faction balance to a degree. If you look the modern MMORPG's, it is the side of "good" that is usually the most populated. Why is that? Simple, a lot of people wants to be the hero instead of possible villain. But it in the end harms the faction balance more, so what is the solution?
There isn't simple solution for that problem I'm afraid, since story telling wise the "good vs evil" is powerful tool that isn't easy not to use it. Last nights example of the "faction balancing" was example of that, easier to use. I've talked about my "factions" in here, but after last nights talks and generally being thinking it more clearly, that is another "good vs evil" set up I have there. And it also got me thinking how easy it would change them...
Revisited factions v. 1
Freelancers:
- The "neutral mercenary" faction, no ruler, but each person/guild are on their own to decide their fate.
Empire:
- Ruled by the emperor, trying to ensure the survival of his people by doing what it takes.
Federation:
- Ruled by the council, trying to give equal rights and chances of survival to everyone by any necessary means it takes.
{sigh} I guess I really should get the setting posted in more specific details then just glance here and there. But now, it mixes things up a bit unlike my original where "Federation" was the good guys and the "Pirates" were the bad guys. This now has changed, neither of them is clearly the good or the bad. Yes, some actions from the empire could be seen as evil, but same goes to the federation as well.
Now it is more "ideological"-choice for people instead of the normal "hero vs villain"-choice. But does this change anything in the end? Yes, in fact it changes quite lot of things, it majorly changes the story. It changes the faction relationships (to minor factions). It changes how people see the factions over all. If you wish to be the hero for the people of empire or for the federation you can do that. Or if you chose to do their dirty work and be the "villain" to empire (or federation) you can do that. Or you just can say fuck both of them and fill your pockets with money.
But my last nights point still stands, neutrals are the "balancing tool" that can be used, or let it be 3 factions against each other if the players wishes for it.
Good vs Evil, story wise
Now, the if you can't portray the factions as good or evil (over all) how are you going to give the players the feeling of being the hero (or villain)? This depends on your point of view, for example. Player of the empire is given task to sabotage federation facility. Now if the player succeeds in it, he is the hero for the empire. But the federation sees the player nothing more then a terrorist. And same goes the other way around.
Neither of the sides are good or evil, in the sense we understand the words, so keep in mind that each of the factions portrays the others differently. Empire portrays the federation as threatening the peace and prosperity of the empire and federation portrays the empire to be run by insane dictator that wants to enslave everyone. Neutral? They see the things differently then those two, they see what empire is doing by having only one leader for the people, they see the "freedom" that choice of the leadership gives to the federation and the arguments that comes with it.
But what about external threats? Those are always there, and it isn't like the three "player factions" are the only ones that are in there, so non player "faction" can easily come out and play with the rest of them, trying to do something that none of the player factions agree to, there is your villain and it don't even need "alliance" to be formed between the factions.
So summary of this? While looking from outside of the factions, both seems to be somewhat good overall, but when you work with in the factions, you see the other faction demonized so to say (except to neutrals to a degree). And working for a faction reveals the "truth" of their doings.
At least I think it goes that way... anyways see ya folks laterz!
6/24/2011
6/23/2011
Faction balance
Whoa 4th post this month... ok not going to continue that to obvious joke of sorts. But anyways...
Faction balance
Ultimately this is the biggest challenge any game developer who wishes to develop a MMORPG. In the end, you can't control which side people decides to make their characters. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the reasons Warhammer Online failed, and it is even present today in World of Warcraft, but it has been remedied to a degree in there via cross realm battlegrounds and dungeons.
This is something that makes or breaks the game in the longer run. I keep using the WAR as example here mostly. All European role players of WAR knows the situation, in the end there was zero role playing servers in WAR, and in the end it wasn't the lack of RP tools that killed it, it was in fact the faction balance. If order out numbered destruction 5 to 1 in the end (and even at best it was 3 to 1 and I'm being generous here in both occasions, reality was something way different) there is no reason for the losing side to log in and try to do anything.
And when browsing the forums back then, people were ASKING the possibility to do a faction change to balance it out. Oh sure, re-rolling is an option, but who are you kidding there? Me personally, I had Bright Wizard level 40 and renown rank 52(ish) by the end of Burlok, I sure the hell wasn't going to delete everything and start again, in fact even that would have come too late if I had re-rolled.
In WoW? I have both alliance and horde characters, but in the end, I always return to that one Night Elf Death Knight, and partially it is because of the fact that he "has it all" pretty much. There is little reasons to stay on my blood elf in the longer run since everything I have is on the other side. Which is bit sad at times. But lets move on.
Now, Warhammer "lore" would give options to switch sides rather easily, if it would be within the game mechanics to do so. Humans could easily be tempted by the chaos gods, high elves could easily start worshiping Khaine and the list goes on and on... but there wasn't any mechanics to support it. No bright wizard could turn in to magus, no archmage could turn in to sorcerer. But, this would have only worked on humans, elfs and dwarfs, if they would have added chaos dwarfs to the games. Orcs would never have this option.
And there lies another flaw, the two factions. High elves and dwarfs working together? {Sarcasm} Yeah this is highly possible solution to the matter (yes both links tells the same somewhat) {/sarcasm}. Chaos side... well, I can see that the Dark Elves could use orcs and chaos folks to accomplish their goals, but with chaos humans it is less likely to happen.
As a concept, some what flawed in my opinion, for MMORPG the two factions normally could work, in theory. But more and more you evolve the game, the two factions just comes too limiting. This is also seen in World of Warcraft, but for WoW it is too late to add third faction since the game has gone for too long, of course Blizzard can prove me wrong here, but in generally speaking.
But is adding other player factions an solution to the faction balance issues? Yes, I've talked about this before in here but I'm going more "in depth" and focusing only this issue right now. Answer is to the question, is to a degree yes and no. 3 factions seems to be somewhat the breaking point without taxing the player base too much, 4... don't work that well. As for WAR? Designing it for two factions might have seen a good idea back then... and lets leave it there.
So what I'm proposing here? Already said it in the past and I'm going to use simplified terms here, three factions: Light, neutral and darkness. Obviously, light and darkness are the opposing factions, but where it leaves the neutrals?
My concept of the matter is that neutrals are free to join either of the sides if they wish or stay neutral and group with either sides player (not on the same time of course). Fantasy race wise it could go something like this:
Light
Human and elves
Darkness
Fallen (humans and elves) and gnome
Neutral
Dwarf, halfling, lizard men, minotaur and orc
Now, if player would want to play "chaos dwarf" he easily could start doing mostly the darkness side quests and perhaps do some quest chain that affiliates him with the "evil faction". Now that said player in purpose of battlegrounds/secenarios and dungeons would only side the darkness.
Other player choses to play neutral dwarf, she can group up with either of the factions for dungeons and randomly placed to either side in battlegrounds (favoring the underdog faction to balance queues up, but this can cause "problems" of different sort but can be over come with UI flags for example).
But what if someone would want to play gnome that is on the light side? This is more difficult concept to make, yes lore wise in all "RP settings" falling from the grace and redeeming is possible in one way or another, falling way easier. But it SHOULD be an option, it wouldn't be easy path to undertake. How ever, there should be limitations how often the players would be allowed to "fall from grace" or redeem. AND! Apart from role playing servers, this option should be considered only be allowed if the faction balance is too one sided.
This is part of giving the players a "free choice" what they like to play, but what if people don't want to fall or redeem their characters and the only pool to balance the population is the neutrals? Simple answer, give players a reason to join the "underdog" side from neutral. Yes the other side will whine about it, but lets be honest here. Would you want to have a game that has healthy population on both sides for PvP and PvE wise? Personally answer would be yes.
And yes, I made gnomes be evil in fantasy setting, since lets be honest, they are annoying as hell {grins}
There is another "issue" related to this but since this is somewhat longish post I post it soonish I think at least =P
Faction balance
Ultimately this is the biggest challenge any game developer who wishes to develop a MMORPG. In the end, you can't control which side people decides to make their characters. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the reasons Warhammer Online failed, and it is even present today in World of Warcraft, but it has been remedied to a degree in there via cross realm battlegrounds and dungeons.
This is something that makes or breaks the game in the longer run. I keep using the WAR as example here mostly. All European role players of WAR knows the situation, in the end there was zero role playing servers in WAR, and in the end it wasn't the lack of RP tools that killed it, it was in fact the faction balance. If order out numbered destruction 5 to 1 in the end (and even at best it was 3 to 1 and I'm being generous here in both occasions, reality was something way different) there is no reason for the losing side to log in and try to do anything.
And when browsing the forums back then, people were ASKING the possibility to do a faction change to balance it out. Oh sure, re-rolling is an option, but who are you kidding there? Me personally, I had Bright Wizard level 40 and renown rank 52(ish) by the end of Burlok, I sure the hell wasn't going to delete everything and start again, in fact even that would have come too late if I had re-rolled.
In WoW? I have both alliance and horde characters, but in the end, I always return to that one Night Elf Death Knight, and partially it is because of the fact that he "has it all" pretty much. There is little reasons to stay on my blood elf in the longer run since everything I have is on the other side. Which is bit sad at times. But lets move on.
Now, Warhammer "lore" would give options to switch sides rather easily, if it would be within the game mechanics to do so. Humans could easily be tempted by the chaos gods, high elves could easily start worshiping Khaine and the list goes on and on... but there wasn't any mechanics to support it. No bright wizard could turn in to magus, no archmage could turn in to sorcerer. But, this would have only worked on humans, elfs and dwarfs, if they would have added chaos dwarfs to the games. Orcs would never have this option.
And there lies another flaw, the two factions. High elves and dwarfs working together? {Sarcasm} Yeah this is highly possible solution to the matter (yes both links tells the same somewhat) {/sarcasm}. Chaos side... well, I can see that the Dark Elves could use orcs and chaos folks to accomplish their goals, but with chaos humans it is less likely to happen.
As a concept, some what flawed in my opinion, for MMORPG the two factions normally could work, in theory. But more and more you evolve the game, the two factions just comes too limiting. This is also seen in World of Warcraft, but for WoW it is too late to add third faction since the game has gone for too long, of course Blizzard can prove me wrong here, but in generally speaking.
But is adding other player factions an solution to the faction balance issues? Yes, I've talked about this before in here but I'm going more "in depth" and focusing only this issue right now. Answer is to the question, is to a degree yes and no. 3 factions seems to be somewhat the breaking point without taxing the player base too much, 4... don't work that well. As for WAR? Designing it for two factions might have seen a good idea back then... and lets leave it there.
So what I'm proposing here? Already said it in the past and I'm going to use simplified terms here, three factions: Light, neutral and darkness. Obviously, light and darkness are the opposing factions, but where it leaves the neutrals?
My concept of the matter is that neutrals are free to join either of the sides if they wish or stay neutral and group with either sides player (not on the same time of course). Fantasy race wise it could go something like this:
Light
Human and elves
Darkness
Fallen (humans and elves) and gnome
Neutral
Dwarf, halfling, lizard men, minotaur and orc
Now, if player would want to play "chaos dwarf" he easily could start doing mostly the darkness side quests and perhaps do some quest chain that affiliates him with the "evil faction". Now that said player in purpose of battlegrounds/secenarios and dungeons would only side the darkness.
Other player choses to play neutral dwarf, she can group up with either of the factions for dungeons and randomly placed to either side in battlegrounds (favoring the underdog faction to balance queues up, but this can cause "problems" of different sort but can be over come with UI flags for example).
But what if someone would want to play gnome that is on the light side? This is more difficult concept to make, yes lore wise in all "RP settings" falling from the grace and redeeming is possible in one way or another, falling way easier. But it SHOULD be an option, it wouldn't be easy path to undertake. How ever, there should be limitations how often the players would be allowed to "fall from grace" or redeem. AND! Apart from role playing servers, this option should be considered only be allowed if the faction balance is too one sided.
This is part of giving the players a "free choice" what they like to play, but what if people don't want to fall or redeem their characters and the only pool to balance the population is the neutrals? Simple answer, give players a reason to join the "underdog" side from neutral. Yes the other side will whine about it, but lets be honest here. Would you want to have a game that has healthy population on both sides for PvP and PvE wise? Personally answer would be yes.
And yes, I made gnomes be evil in fantasy setting, since lets be honest, they are annoying as hell {grins}
There is another "issue" related to this but since this is somewhat longish post I post it soonish I think at least =P
6/20/2011
Encounter design
Like I ranted errr two days ago or so, encounter design is there to give challenge to the players and gives their class a reward by "favoring" them in the fight. Last part isn't really true however, the encounters should vary, but they shouldn't straightly favor single class over others. Of course, if you make boss who's back is exposed to the classes that has positional requirements it gives boost to them. But if you make "melee" friendly fight without the possibility of exposing the back... you get the drift.
But why the fights should be different in same dungeon? Simple, as a melee DPS in current tier of World of Warcraft I'm extremely frustrated because of the fights being heavily melee unfriendly over all.
Yes, creating encounters where melee, ranged and melee/ranged hybrids can "shine" is tedious work in the longer run. But anything that reduces the over all frustration of the players is better. I'm going to quickly outline few types of encounters, just to give you an idea what I'm talking about.
Dragon
Simplest form of encounter that can be made to favor both. Two phases, ground and air.
During ground phase, frontal claw swipes and aoe to the "max" range, centering on random player from 5 meters to 40 meters forcing rdps to heavy movement, most damage comes from melee. Air phase, bearly in reach of the melee ranged has advantage here, "AoE" is focused under the dragon forcing melee to move a lot.
As you can see, the "dragon" type can be made easily to favor both, but "air phase" is just only one of the ways to give ranged advantage.
Melee AoE
This type of fight generally either has melee cleave (can be avoided by staying behind the boss) or point blank AoE (which can be avoided by running away from the boss). Now, first type don't really affect melee DPS that much, unless boss is something that you can't get behind really (Magmaw from Blackwing Descent, WoW), it is one way to hinder the melee, but the PBAoE is better over all since it forces the melee to get out of the melee range thus giving favor to ranged in this type of fight.
Ranged AoE
This style is bit harder to do, since it can hinder the melee as well. Generally, ranged being hit with something isn't much going to reduce their damage, but forcing them to move interrupts casting, so ground AoE effects at range that forces the rdps to move out is decent style to make it, stressful if used constantly though.
Shields
This is one of the styles I'm not sure I even like, but basically the fight goes around between two different shield phases, magic shield and "physical" shield. The shield absorbs certain amount of magical or physical damage. Keeping the DPS numbers equal roughly for both melee and ranged.
Armor and Resistances
Plate wearers have high armor (for example) thus takes reduced melee damage, some magical being like demon could have high magic resistance so it takes reduced magical damage. This is something I would advice against at doing, unless tools are given to aid the hindered side, it is possible but it just causes groups switching magical dps to physical dps and other way around. But tools can be there, like buff to 10 seconds that ignores the targets armor, or increased damage, or spell penetration. Things like that.
Adds
Problem with add's is that they either require additional tank or they are just insects that are crushed under the heel of players. Generally they are more annoyance then problem. Of course it depends of the style you create it. Random spawns that targets random players? Doable, but if that would be the case of the insects in most cases, since you can't make the add hit million points of damage in encounter that isn't designed to have off tank to begin with. But go for it if it is offtank type encounter.
But making variations of the add style can make the encounter interesting. Lets say first giving out of few mobs that needs to be kited by the ranged, next giving mobs that casts spells unless someone is in melee range. Things like that. And no, putting caster in melee range of the last type of mob (requires someone in melee range) isn't the answer as the mob would hit the player, making the player lose cast time. So it is better to put melee in there and kill it.
There, few examples how the encounters can be made melee and ranged friendly instead of favoring one over other constantly.
But why the fights should be different in same dungeon? Simple, as a melee DPS in current tier of World of Warcraft I'm extremely frustrated because of the fights being heavily melee unfriendly over all.
Yes, creating encounters where melee, ranged and melee/ranged hybrids can "shine" is tedious work in the longer run. But anything that reduces the over all frustration of the players is better. I'm going to quickly outline few types of encounters, just to give you an idea what I'm talking about.
Dragon
Simplest form of encounter that can be made to favor both. Two phases, ground and air.
During ground phase, frontal claw swipes and aoe to the "max" range, centering on random player from 5 meters to 40 meters forcing rdps to heavy movement, most damage comes from melee. Air phase, bearly in reach of the melee ranged has advantage here, "AoE" is focused under the dragon forcing melee to move a lot.
As you can see, the "dragon" type can be made easily to favor both, but "air phase" is just only one of the ways to give ranged advantage.
Melee AoE
This type of fight generally either has melee cleave (can be avoided by staying behind the boss) or point blank AoE (which can be avoided by running away from the boss). Now, first type don't really affect melee DPS that much, unless boss is something that you can't get behind really (Magmaw from Blackwing Descent, WoW), it is one way to hinder the melee, but the PBAoE is better over all since it forces the melee to get out of the melee range thus giving favor to ranged in this type of fight.
Ranged AoE
This style is bit harder to do, since it can hinder the melee as well. Generally, ranged being hit with something isn't much going to reduce their damage, but forcing them to move interrupts casting, so ground AoE effects at range that forces the rdps to move out is decent style to make it, stressful if used constantly though.
Shields
This is one of the styles I'm not sure I even like, but basically the fight goes around between two different shield phases, magic shield and "physical" shield. The shield absorbs certain amount of magical or physical damage. Keeping the DPS numbers equal roughly for both melee and ranged.
Armor and Resistances
Plate wearers have high armor (for example) thus takes reduced melee damage, some magical being like demon could have high magic resistance so it takes reduced magical damage. This is something I would advice against at doing, unless tools are given to aid the hindered side, it is possible but it just causes groups switching magical dps to physical dps and other way around. But tools can be there, like buff to 10 seconds that ignores the targets armor, or increased damage, or spell penetration. Things like that.
Adds
Problem with add's is that they either require additional tank or they are just insects that are crushed under the heel of players. Generally they are more annoyance then problem. Of course it depends of the style you create it. Random spawns that targets random players? Doable, but if that would be the case of the insects in most cases, since you can't make the add hit million points of damage in encounter that isn't designed to have off tank to begin with. But go for it if it is offtank type encounter.
But making variations of the add style can make the encounter interesting. Lets say first giving out of few mobs that needs to be kited by the ranged, next giving mobs that casts spells unless someone is in melee range. Things like that. And no, putting caster in melee range of the last type of mob (requires someone in melee range) isn't the answer as the mob would hit the player, making the player lose cast time. So it is better to put melee in there and kill it.
There, few examples how the encounters can be made melee and ranged friendly instead of favoring one over other constantly.
6/19/2011
Class design
First of, bit general thoughts. This was actually triggered by my last posting, since when I was starting to think about the PvP balance issues I just kept running in to "problems" so to say with all the spec variables. But later that night it dawned me. In the end even if we take all the classes in World of Warcraft and all their specs in the end are pretty much the same, apart from Death Knight, Warrior, Paladin, Druid, Shaman and Priest. And why those 5 are special? Simply because they have either tanking or healing spec attached to them.
This realization got me thinking for a bit about class design over all. Lets start with some things. Also, I might be using over decade ago made "designs" for examples, yes these are fantasy classes and designs, but in the end it is up to me what and which design I end up sharing.
Class role
This is part of the design process, to give classes a role that they fill. But, is giving a role of "tank, healer or dps" required? Personally, I would LOVE that it wouldn't be so, but in reality if you want the classes to have uniqueness you give them a role they fill. Also there is the reason of limiting the bitching of the community about classes not having "clear" role.
Hybrid or Pure
This isn't that much of a choice in the end, since in most games every class is some sort of hybrid. How ever, it should be made clear at this point: IF going to the WoW route, make sure that the "hybrids" are equal to the "pure" classes. But interestingly I'm not going this route. All classes are "pure" classes, designed to do one role only in PvE. PvP, they get a choice of some sort.
Specialization/mastery/talents
What spec? Good question, don't exists in my world, sorry. This was another issue that I realized, in the end in WoW (for example) there isn't multiple specs that people are in. There is only one, for DPS it is always the one that does the highest damage (PvE). Currently in WoW 4.1 every single mage who raids is arcane if they want to be taken seriously, every single death knight is frost. Both have viable alternative trees to spec in, but they aren't used in reality because the damage difference is too great.
In PvP, heh, it is even more limited, with healers being the only ones of choice in the end. If you want to be "top" warlock you are Affliction, top Warrior? Arms, Death Knight? Frost, Mage? Frost... you see the picture.
But what if you take the specs away? In the end, it probably would change the game for the best. Oh yes, I can hear people saying, "THERE IS NO CUSTOMIZATION OF MY CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!", but good folks there is alternative ways to customize your character and their performance. I've given you a hint of the one of the ways in here. Well a hint... can't be more blunt about that. Then there is this stuff. Both are good ways to add customization to your character with out resorting to talent/mastery trees. And add some other features there and you have more rewarding character ability customizing system out there.
Faction specific classes
In theory? This sounds good, and I'm talking more about classic WoW style with paladin being alliance only and shaman being horde only. In reality? Go for it if you want head aches when you are designing the encounters.
There is a way to give something "unique" in way to factions, I would call it giving it a "mirror class" to the other side. Now I dig up those examples. Lets take three factions: Light, Chaos and neutral. And class... Paladin. This is obviously the "light side" class, in fact, it is tank class for humans, now should chaos side get something equal? Yes, and I'm calling it Blackguard, which is tank for the fallen. Ability wise, these are equal, with different animations and spell names, but in the end they do the same.
Now, I can see few "issues" there, but no paladin's aren't healers in my design, yes they have "limited" healing (Lay on Hands and one other limited way to heal), but they CAN'T be healers, that role is reserved to someone else. Nor they are damage dealers, they are tanks in PvE, end of discussion. PvP? They still aren't healers either, but that is another thing really.
The Blackguard works same way, but instead of using "holy powers" they use unholy ones... yeah I had to mention it. Now both sides have tank with "wipe prevention" via the the Lay on Hands-style spell. With different names, animations and ability names it is enough to give the illusion that they are different classes, while in reality they are the same.
But it seems that I forgot to mention the neutral tank? Not really, since paladin and blackguard are "restricted" by race as well, every others race's tank is simply called warrior. And now I can hear the whines from the players who wants to have plate DPS... just WAIT for the day that I eventually chose which style classes are publish, or both.
Also note! Certain "unique" classes should be neutral as well, since neutral's can group up with either of the sides if they decide to do so.
Race restrictions
How about race restrictions, should they be there? Yes they can be there. Like in above example I already gave two race specific classes, humans gets the paladin and fallen (corrupted humans) gets blackguard. But should every race have "unique" class... that is debatable honestly. If there would be "one special" class/race they still should be mirrored. But over all, preventing certain races to be certain class, well yeah, don't make much sense to have gnome as giant slayer if there would be class like that, since what the gnome would do against a giant? Stab it's toe?
Anyways, this was more or less shortly of the things I have in mind about class design.
This realization got me thinking for a bit about class design over all. Lets start with some things. Also, I might be using over decade ago made "designs" for examples, yes these are fantasy classes and designs, but in the end it is up to me what and which design I end up sharing.
Class role
This is part of the design process, to give classes a role that they fill. But, is giving a role of "tank, healer or dps" required? Personally, I would LOVE that it wouldn't be so, but in reality if you want the classes to have uniqueness you give them a role they fill. Also there is the reason of limiting the bitching of the community about classes not having "clear" role.
Hybrid or Pure
This isn't that much of a choice in the end, since in most games every class is some sort of hybrid. How ever, it should be made clear at this point: IF going to the WoW route, make sure that the "hybrids" are equal to the "pure" classes. But interestingly I'm not going this route. All classes are "pure" classes, designed to do one role only in PvE. PvP, they get a choice of some sort.
Specialization/mastery/talents
What spec? Good question, don't exists in my world, sorry. This was another issue that I realized, in the end in WoW (for example) there isn't multiple specs that people are in. There is only one, for DPS it is always the one that does the highest damage (PvE). Currently in WoW 4.1 every single mage who raids is arcane if they want to be taken seriously, every single death knight is frost. Both have viable alternative trees to spec in, but they aren't used in reality because the damage difference is too great.
In PvP, heh, it is even more limited, with healers being the only ones of choice in the end. If you want to be "top" warlock you are Affliction, top Warrior? Arms, Death Knight? Frost, Mage? Frost... you see the picture.
But what if you take the specs away? In the end, it probably would change the game for the best. Oh yes, I can hear people saying, "THERE IS NO CUSTOMIZATION OF MY CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!", but good folks there is alternative ways to customize your character and their performance. I've given you a hint of the one of the ways in here. Well a hint... can't be more blunt about that. Then there is this stuff. Both are good ways to add customization to your character with out resorting to talent/mastery trees. And add some other features there and you have more rewarding character ability customizing system out there.
Faction specific classes
In theory? This sounds good, and I'm talking more about classic WoW style with paladin being alliance only and shaman being horde only. In reality? Go for it if you want head aches when you are designing the encounters.
There is a way to give something "unique" in way to factions, I would call it giving it a "mirror class" to the other side. Now I dig up those examples. Lets take three factions: Light, Chaos and neutral. And class... Paladin. This is obviously the "light side" class, in fact, it is tank class for humans, now should chaos side get something equal? Yes, and I'm calling it Blackguard, which is tank for the fallen. Ability wise, these are equal, with different animations and spell names, but in the end they do the same.
Now, I can see few "issues" there, but no paladin's aren't healers in my design, yes they have "limited" healing (Lay on Hands and one other limited way to heal), but they CAN'T be healers, that role is reserved to someone else. Nor they are damage dealers, they are tanks in PvE, end of discussion. PvP? They still aren't healers either, but that is another thing really.
The Blackguard works same way, but instead of using "holy powers" they use unholy ones... yeah I had to mention it. Now both sides have tank with "wipe prevention" via the the Lay on Hands-style spell. With different names, animations and ability names it is enough to give the illusion that they are different classes, while in reality they are the same.
But it seems that I forgot to mention the neutral tank? Not really, since paladin and blackguard are "restricted" by race as well, every others race's tank is simply called warrior. And now I can hear the whines from the players who wants to have plate DPS... just WAIT for the day that I eventually chose which style classes are publish, or both.
Also note! Certain "unique" classes should be neutral as well, since neutral's can group up with either of the sides if they decide to do so.
Race restrictions
How about race restrictions, should they be there? Yes they can be there. Like in above example I already gave two race specific classes, humans gets the paladin and fallen (corrupted humans) gets blackguard. But should every race have "unique" class... that is debatable honestly. If there would be "one special" class/race they still should be mirrored. But over all, preventing certain races to be certain class, well yeah, don't make much sense to have gnome as giant slayer if there would be class like that, since what the gnome would do against a giant? Stab it's toe?
Anyways, this was more or less shortly of the things I have in mind about class design.
6/17/2011
Balance
This topic has been in the works for a while now, but Blizzards recent blog post about their 4.2 patch "Explanation for balance" triggered finally for me to post this.
Balance can and should be placed in two categories PvE and PvP, I have said in the past that these two should be separate issues. But that is class design issue, but on with the show!
Disclaimer! I'm NOT talking about World of Warcraft in here, I'm just using WoW's classes as EXAMPLE!
PvE
At first glance this should be no brainer, but it isn't. Why? Answers aren't that simple and they need to be broken down by the class roles.
Tanks:
All tanks should preform equally, but in reality it isn't always so. I'll take WoW classes as example. PLEASE NOTE! These are based from either personal experience and observations, which may be different to other people depending on their playstyle and skill, also my experience has come mostly from pre-cata era (Classic/TBC to be precice with little to moderate experience with DK's in Wrath).
Threat:
- Warrior, good single target threat, AoE threat is hardest to establish with warriors with trigger happy DPS
- Druid, good single target, good to moderate AoE
- Paladin, good single target, excelent AoE
- Death Knight, good single target, excelent AoE
As you can see, single target threat isn't issue for any of the tanks, AoE varies with warriors being the low end of the spectrum and paladins and DK's at the high end of it. Should this be "normalized" between the tank classes? Yes and no, while warriors could do some help with their AoE threat, it isn't that much of an issue with skilled warrior. Also, if player is pretty much brain dead and choses paladin or a DK as their tank they probably suck ass (about 95% of the level 55 to 75 DK's sucks ass as tanks, but that is mostly of due DPS jumping to a tank class and not having a clue how to tank)
Migitation:
- Paladin, good migitation (avoidance tank with block, parry and dodge)
- Warrior, good migitation (avoidance tank with block, parry and dodge)
- Druid, decent migitation (more soak tank, high dodge chance)
- Death Knight, abysmal to good migitation (only parry and dodge, low HP with gimmicky self heal + shield)
Druid has been always in the middle of the pack they tend to soak the damage more then avoid it. Death Knights, this is one of the reasons also why "lowbie" Death Knights sucks as tanks, it takes more skill and management of your cool downs and abilities to achieve the good migitation.
Should this be changed so they are equal? Yes and no, if they would be equal in migitation there wouldn't be reason to be a different kind of tank, but if they aren't "equal" why anyone would want to take Druid or DK as a tank instead of paladin or warrior?
Solution?
1) Encounter design, should avoid extreme usage of "one shot"-mechanics, they can be there but allow people to predict them so they can avoid them one way or another. Also, don't favor 1 tank over another in the whole dungeon/raid. It is good that certain tanks preform better in certain fights then others, but it shouldn't be stresful experience to others to tank the encounter.
2) Class design, if druids are damage soaking tanks, give them high health pools. This goes to Death Knights as well, they have among the lowest hit points among the tanks (due Death Strike heals and shield), but in other end, Death Knights can "absorb" loads of magical and physical damage if they use their cooldowns wisely (and timing the abilities).
Overall, if we look tanking in WoW, it is fairly balanced over all. Are there things I would change? Of course there is, but it isn't MY job to design WoW classes either.
Healers
Oh boy, I keep using WoW as example. Over all, all the 4 healers (Priest, Paladin, Shaman and Druid) have different playstyles, but preform fairly equally. Meaning, they get their job done, and there isn't really that many things I would change about them to begin with. Who to bring is mostly about their buffs that they can bring, but it isn't that much of an issue with the changes that Cataclysm has brought to WoW.
If I would be raid leader still in WoW, I don't really see the reason to favor one over another, class wise that is, player wise it is different thing.
Damage dealing
Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this, there is so many issues with DPS classes that it isn't even funny. But lets start with something.
Melee DPS
- Death Knight
- Warrior
- Rogue
- Feral Druid
- Paladin
- Shaman
In ideal world, these should be treated equally among each other as melee DPS, but they aren't. Certain specs are better then others and do more damage (Frost doing up to 20% more damage then unholy to single target at the moment for example, should be equal in 4.2 or roughly there). Should they all doing same DPS? Yes and no. Rogue is only "pure" melee dps in the game, since it is all it CAN do in the end. So yes they should be doing higher damage then they are doing right now. But problems lies with the other classes DPS specs, if they are in DPS spec, they should be able to do equal damage to the rogues. So let me get this clear to all of you: IF DEATH KNIGHT IS FROST OR UNHOLY (example) HE/SHE SHOULD BE DOING EQUAL DAMAGE AS PURE CLASS. End of discussion.
But in reality, rogues (and feral druids) are hindered mostly due the encounter design and their abilities requiring them being behind the target. Warriors, Death Knights, Shamans and Paladins being behind the targets back isn't "mandatory", preferable but not mandatory.
And yes, on AVARAGE, they SHOULD be doing the similiar DPS on "equal" fight (simple tank and spank fight roughly saying). 1000 DPS over all (numbers pulled out of thin air) with all is a good thing, bring the player not the class. But if certain class pulls 3000 DPS instead of the 1000 (on avarage tank and spank fight, with equal latency and skill between the players), why you would want to bring any other melee class then the one with highest DPS? Thats why, parring the player skill (and luck & latency) melee DPS should be doing roughly similiar DPS on avarage.
This can be then varied with encounter design, give rogues and feral druids (for example) some fights where they can shine over the warrior, death knight and shaman, and then give the same opportunity to warrior, death knight and shaman.
Ranged DPS
- Mage
- Warlock
- Druid
- Shaman
- Priest
- Hunter
I think I didn't miss anyone now. Same thing applies as above, there is little to no reason to prevent them doing equal damage on avarage tank and spank fight. Certain fights favors DoT classes more then the nukers, and other way around. All about encounter design once again).
Above all, most problems comes between the specs in WoW, mages for example with Arcane, Fire and Frost. Arcane is currently the TOP dps spec for mages, there is little reasons to go fire. Frost? Yeah only class with clear PvP spec is mage truth to be heard.
Between the specs, they should be doing equal damage (note in PvE!). But different ways! This is rather simple concept. Lets take 1 minute time span of a fight (tank and spank). During that time DoT spec should be able to do lets say 10 000 points of damage (Affliction for example). Thats over a minute, slowly building it keeping it steady. Now the nuke spec (Destruction for example) should do equal damage over that 1 minute, BUT! this is "burst damage" mostly, so one spell hits for 100 damage 10 times and crits for 200 damage 3 times. Same goes for other spells that they use on their "rotation" so to say, but in the end after the 1 minute it should be roughly around the same numbers as the DoT spec. Same goes for pet spec (Demonology).
Now, with different style encounters this changes. Heavy movement? DoT spec comes on top. Little movement? The nuke spec comes on top. Heavy AoE? The pet spec should come on top. BUT! Via class design all of the specs SHOULD be vialable for the encounter! So, for example the destruction warlock don't suck ass completly on heavy movement fights, they still do good enough damage so players don't need to go respec in the middle of the dungeon to affliction (personal experience!).
And now the last, Melee vs Ranged!
This is encounter design issue, on some fights ranged should be on top and on some fights melee should be on top. Of course I can hear the whines of clothies on melee friendly fight about "bohoo I'm class cannon why I can't be the best DPS since that is all I have!!!!" Really? "Pure" melee DPS classes disagrees you in there. Personally, I enjoy my death knight and warlock. And rarely in the dungeons I've done ranged class has done more damage then me (over all), most of the times they are giving me good enough challenge.
BUT! If the class design allows the classes be "equal" within their own "damage dealing group", you can make a lot of variance with the encounter design. Some fights favors rogues, some mages, some shamans, some druids and so on. But how about the tank & spank fights, which should come on top? Good question here. Personally, generally ranged should get "head start" at the start of the fight, but when the fight continues melee should catch up, if there is no latency issues and player skill is equal, I don't see a reason with "target dummy"-style fights why the DPS shouldn't be doing the same damage in the end.
PvP
Several problems here that I can see. How to balance PvP? 1 vs 1, 2 vs& 2, 3 vs 3, 5 vs 5 or raid vs raid? MOST, PvP players would want it to be balance 1 vs 1, with 50/50 chance on equal terms of latency and gear, so the "skill" would matter. But that is impossible to do in the end when talking about game that has PvE part with it with various encounter designs.
Should the be balanced around the "Holy Trinity" (tank, dps, healer)? Should there be "anti class" for certain? Should it be balanced with ranged beating melee? Good questions there, but here it is how it should be in general:
Ranged > melee out of melee distance, melee > ranged in melee range, tank > DPS, DPS > healer, healer > tank.
BUT! That isn't going to work in longer run. It is GOOD guideline but it gets complicated even more. Since various classes have pets how they come to equation? Some classes wears plate instead of chain mail, some leather instead of cloth, how that should come to question? And how each spec goes against each other?
PvP game is impossible to balance in the longer run. Thats why MMORPG's are generally worst games to have PvP. But if asked from me? It should be balanced around the consept of "anti class" mostly. So the Assasin type is pain of mages, but "equal" to healers and weak against heavier armor. And mages strong against tanks, weak against assassins, strong against healers and equal to physical RPDS. Something along those lines...
Balance can and should be placed in two categories PvE and PvP, I have said in the past that these two should be separate issues. But that is class design issue, but on with the show!
Disclaimer! I'm NOT talking about World of Warcraft in here, I'm just using WoW's classes as EXAMPLE!
PvE
At first glance this should be no brainer, but it isn't. Why? Answers aren't that simple and they need to be broken down by the class roles.
Tanks:
All tanks should preform equally, but in reality it isn't always so. I'll take WoW classes as example. PLEASE NOTE! These are based from either personal experience and observations, which may be different to other people depending on their playstyle and skill, also my experience has come mostly from pre-cata era (Classic/TBC to be precice with little to moderate experience with DK's in Wrath).
Threat:
- Warrior, good single target threat, AoE threat is hardest to establish with warriors with trigger happy DPS
- Druid, good single target, good to moderate AoE
- Paladin, good single target, excelent AoE
- Death Knight, good single target, excelent AoE
As you can see, single target threat isn't issue for any of the tanks, AoE varies with warriors being the low end of the spectrum and paladins and DK's at the high end of it. Should this be "normalized" between the tank classes? Yes and no, while warriors could do some help with their AoE threat, it isn't that much of an issue with skilled warrior. Also, if player is pretty much brain dead and choses paladin or a DK as their tank they probably suck ass (about 95% of the level 55 to 75 DK's sucks ass as tanks, but that is mostly of due DPS jumping to a tank class and not having a clue how to tank)
Migitation:
- Paladin, good migitation (avoidance tank with block, parry and dodge)
- Warrior, good migitation (avoidance tank with block, parry and dodge)
- Druid, decent migitation (more soak tank, high dodge chance)
- Death Knight, abysmal to good migitation (only parry and dodge, low HP with gimmicky self heal + shield)
Druid has been always in the middle of the pack they tend to soak the damage more then avoid it. Death Knights, this is one of the reasons also why "lowbie" Death Knights sucks as tanks, it takes more skill and management of your cool downs and abilities to achieve the good migitation.
Should this be changed so they are equal? Yes and no, if they would be equal in migitation there wouldn't be reason to be a different kind of tank, but if they aren't "equal" why anyone would want to take Druid or DK as a tank instead of paladin or warrior?
Solution?
1) Encounter design, should avoid extreme usage of "one shot"-mechanics, they can be there but allow people to predict them so they can avoid them one way or another. Also, don't favor 1 tank over another in the whole dungeon/raid. It is good that certain tanks preform better in certain fights then others, but it shouldn't be stresful experience to others to tank the encounter.
2) Class design, if druids are damage soaking tanks, give them high health pools. This goes to Death Knights as well, they have among the lowest hit points among the tanks (due Death Strike heals and shield), but in other end, Death Knights can "absorb" loads of magical and physical damage if they use their cooldowns wisely (and timing the abilities).
Overall, if we look tanking in WoW, it is fairly balanced over all. Are there things I would change? Of course there is, but it isn't MY job to design WoW classes either.
Healers
Oh boy, I keep using WoW as example. Over all, all the 4 healers (Priest, Paladin, Shaman and Druid) have different playstyles, but preform fairly equally. Meaning, they get their job done, and there isn't really that many things I would change about them to begin with. Who to bring is mostly about their buffs that they can bring, but it isn't that much of an issue with the changes that Cataclysm has brought to WoW.
If I would be raid leader still in WoW, I don't really see the reason to favor one over another, class wise that is, player wise it is different thing.
Damage dealing
Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this, there is so many issues with DPS classes that it isn't even funny. But lets start with something.
Melee DPS
- Death Knight
- Warrior
- Rogue
- Feral Druid
- Paladin
- Shaman
In ideal world, these should be treated equally among each other as melee DPS, but they aren't. Certain specs are better then others and do more damage (Frost doing up to 20% more damage then unholy to single target at the moment for example, should be equal in 4.2 or roughly there). Should they all doing same DPS? Yes and no. Rogue is only "pure" melee dps in the game, since it is all it CAN do in the end. So yes they should be doing higher damage then they are doing right now. But problems lies with the other classes DPS specs, if they are in DPS spec, they should be able to do equal damage to the rogues. So let me get this clear to all of you: IF DEATH KNIGHT IS FROST OR UNHOLY (example) HE/SHE SHOULD BE DOING EQUAL DAMAGE AS PURE CLASS. End of discussion.
But in reality, rogues (and feral druids) are hindered mostly due the encounter design and their abilities requiring them being behind the target. Warriors, Death Knights, Shamans and Paladins being behind the targets back isn't "mandatory", preferable but not mandatory.
And yes, on AVARAGE, they SHOULD be doing the similiar DPS on "equal" fight (simple tank and spank fight roughly saying). 1000 DPS over all (numbers pulled out of thin air) with all is a good thing, bring the player not the class. But if certain class pulls 3000 DPS instead of the 1000 (on avarage tank and spank fight, with equal latency and skill between the players), why you would want to bring any other melee class then the one with highest DPS? Thats why, parring the player skill (and luck & latency) melee DPS should be doing roughly similiar DPS on avarage.
This can be then varied with encounter design, give rogues and feral druids (for example) some fights where they can shine over the warrior, death knight and shaman, and then give the same opportunity to warrior, death knight and shaman.
Ranged DPS
- Mage
- Warlock
- Druid
- Shaman
- Priest
- Hunter
I think I didn't miss anyone now. Same thing applies as above, there is little to no reason to prevent them doing equal damage on avarage tank and spank fight. Certain fights favors DoT classes more then the nukers, and other way around. All about encounter design once again).
Above all, most problems comes between the specs in WoW, mages for example with Arcane, Fire and Frost. Arcane is currently the TOP dps spec for mages, there is little reasons to go fire. Frost? Yeah only class with clear PvP spec is mage truth to be heard.
Between the specs, they should be doing equal damage (note in PvE!). But different ways! This is rather simple concept. Lets take 1 minute time span of a fight (tank and spank). During that time DoT spec should be able to do lets say 10 000 points of damage (Affliction for example). Thats over a minute, slowly building it keeping it steady. Now the nuke spec (Destruction for example) should do equal damage over that 1 minute, BUT! this is "burst damage" mostly, so one spell hits for 100 damage 10 times and crits for 200 damage 3 times. Same goes for other spells that they use on their "rotation" so to say, but in the end after the 1 minute it should be roughly around the same numbers as the DoT spec. Same goes for pet spec (Demonology).
Now, with different style encounters this changes. Heavy movement? DoT spec comes on top. Little movement? The nuke spec comes on top. Heavy AoE? The pet spec should come on top. BUT! Via class design all of the specs SHOULD be vialable for the encounter! So, for example the destruction warlock don't suck ass completly on heavy movement fights, they still do good enough damage so players don't need to go respec in the middle of the dungeon to affliction (personal experience!).
And now the last, Melee vs Ranged!
This is encounter design issue, on some fights ranged should be on top and on some fights melee should be on top. Of course I can hear the whines of clothies on melee friendly fight about "bohoo I'm class cannon why I can't be the best DPS since that is all I have!!!!" Really? "Pure" melee DPS classes disagrees you in there. Personally, I enjoy my death knight and warlock. And rarely in the dungeons I've done ranged class has done more damage then me (over all), most of the times they are giving me good enough challenge.
BUT! If the class design allows the classes be "equal" within their own "damage dealing group", you can make a lot of variance with the encounter design. Some fights favors rogues, some mages, some shamans, some druids and so on. But how about the tank & spank fights, which should come on top? Good question here. Personally, generally ranged should get "head start" at the start of the fight, but when the fight continues melee should catch up, if there is no latency issues and player skill is equal, I don't see a reason with "target dummy"-style fights why the DPS shouldn't be doing the same damage in the end.
PvP
Several problems here that I can see. How to balance PvP? 1 vs 1, 2 vs& 2, 3 vs 3, 5 vs 5 or raid vs raid? MOST, PvP players would want it to be balance 1 vs 1, with 50/50 chance on equal terms of latency and gear, so the "skill" would matter. But that is impossible to do in the end when talking about game that has PvE part with it with various encounter designs.
Should the be balanced around the "Holy Trinity" (tank, dps, healer)? Should there be "anti class" for certain? Should it be balanced with ranged beating melee? Good questions there, but here it is how it should be in general:
Ranged > melee out of melee distance, melee > ranged in melee range, tank > DPS, DPS > healer, healer > tank.
BUT! That isn't going to work in longer run. It is GOOD guideline but it gets complicated even more. Since various classes have pets how they come to equation? Some classes wears plate instead of chain mail, some leather instead of cloth, how that should come to question? And how each spec goes against each other?
PvP game is impossible to balance in the longer run. Thats why MMORPG's are generally worst games to have PvP. But if asked from me? It should be balanced around the consept of "anti class" mostly. So the Assasin type is pain of mages, but "equal" to healers and weak against heavier armor. And mages strong against tanks, weak against assassins, strong against healers and equal to physical RPDS. Something along those lines...
5/27/2011
Side tracks and clarifications
Right, these are things that I've have been asked recently via email and other conversations I have had. So lets get started with them. Also, could have sworn that I hit publish post like two weeks ago on this one o.O
Design
Right, all of my designs apart from most classes works in both fantasy or scifi setting with minor tweaking. Also, the tradeskills aren't changed that easily between the settings, but you see why when I post them eventually.
PvP/PvE
World design wise? These needs to work together in non intrusive ways. Ability wise? SEPARATE! End of discussion. Lets say it like this, DPS (pure) classes are doing decent damage in PvE, now hybrid classes (tank in DPS spec for example) needs to be buffed so their DPS spec is viable as damage dealer but they are doing well (kill/death ratio) in PvP, now this buff would make them OP in PvP as well which would lead nerfing some aspect of them someway which again hurts PvE side in other ways. So separating the abilities to do 100 points damage in PvE and 75 points of damage in PvE (as a tank dps due armor migitation) is more suitable then going: PvP and PvE damage 100, nerf the survivability due PvP, see more floor in PvE because something hits harder now, buff the survivability issue in PvE and nerf the damage back to original for PvP - cycle. But that is my opinion on the matter, which is smart {rolls eyes}
World PvP vs Arena/Battleground/Scenario
Ok, this isn't versus issue at all. They aren't exclusive to each other. World PvP should be promoted to be done in various ways (objects out there in the world that boosts your faction etc) and also the battlegrounds/scenarios/arenas for the "quick" fix for PvP for people who don't have time to go out there and get the objectives at times. Of course, in the end, participating the WPvP objectives should be more rewarding in the end then quick fixes.
Tradeskill materials
{sigh} I so should have been more clear with this what I mean. Example follows peeps! Lets take tailoring from World of Warcraft as example shall we? Tailoring has 3 "real life material" (4 if you argue about ember silk but lets not go there), these are: Linen, Wool and Silk. Other cloths are: Mageweave, Runecloth, Netherweave, Frostweave and the Ember silk. Now, since most (not all) tailors have enchanting as their other profession since the work well together (IMHO) why not allow to use lets say 5 silks and 5 suitable level dusts which you don't have any use anyways to turn them in to 1 mageweave? Oh sure, there is the AH argument here, but what good it does to a person who just started playing and don't have access to amounts of gold people are asking for cloth in the AH? 40g for stack of mageweave at level 40 or so? Yeeeah... at level 40 when you have much more need for the gold else where then cloth.
Mind you, in WoW the tradeskills don't support the leveling anymore until Cata content at 80+, but what I want is that they support your leveling also if you don't get the lucky drop from the dungeon or the quest rewards are bit meh because you have been enjoying/exploring the content past the "reconmended" level.
And that is it so far, I hope you got your answers that needed clarification of sorts.
Design
Right, all of my designs apart from most classes works in both fantasy or scifi setting with minor tweaking. Also, the tradeskills aren't changed that easily between the settings, but you see why when I post them eventually.
PvP/PvE
World design wise? These needs to work together in non intrusive ways. Ability wise? SEPARATE! End of discussion. Lets say it like this, DPS (pure) classes are doing decent damage in PvE, now hybrid classes (tank in DPS spec for example) needs to be buffed so their DPS spec is viable as damage dealer but they are doing well (kill/death ratio) in PvP, now this buff would make them OP in PvP as well which would lead nerfing some aspect of them someway which again hurts PvE side in other ways. So separating the abilities to do 100 points damage in PvE and 75 points of damage in PvE (as a tank dps due armor migitation) is more suitable then going: PvP and PvE damage 100, nerf the survivability due PvP, see more floor in PvE because something hits harder now, buff the survivability issue in PvE and nerf the damage back to original for PvP - cycle. But that is my opinion on the matter, which is smart {rolls eyes}
World PvP vs Arena/Battleground/Scenario
Ok, this isn't versus issue at all. They aren't exclusive to each other. World PvP should be promoted to be done in various ways (objects out there in the world that boosts your faction etc) and also the battlegrounds/scenarios/arenas for the "quick" fix for PvP for people who don't have time to go out there and get the objectives at times. Of course, in the end, participating the WPvP objectives should be more rewarding in the end then quick fixes.
Tradeskill materials
{sigh} I so should have been more clear with this what I mean. Example follows peeps! Lets take tailoring from World of Warcraft as example shall we? Tailoring has 3 "real life material" (4 if you argue about ember silk but lets not go there), these are: Linen, Wool and Silk. Other cloths are: Mageweave, Runecloth, Netherweave, Frostweave and the Ember silk. Now, since most (not all) tailors have enchanting as their other profession since the work well together (IMHO) why not allow to use lets say 5 silks and 5 suitable level dusts which you don't have any use anyways to turn them in to 1 mageweave? Oh sure, there is the AH argument here, but what good it does to a person who just started playing and don't have access to amounts of gold people are asking for cloth in the AH? 40g for stack of mageweave at level 40 or so? Yeeeah... at level 40 when you have much more need for the gold else where then cloth.
Mind you, in WoW the tradeskills don't support the leveling anymore until Cata content at 80+, but what I want is that they support your leveling also if you don't get the lucky drop from the dungeon or the quest rewards are bit meh because you have been enjoying/exploring the content past the "reconmended" level.
And that is it so far, I hope you got your answers that needed clarification of sorts.
5/18/2011
Trade skill materials
Ok mate, this one is for you, mostly because you asked for it.
Right, I've said it in the past that I would love if the crafting would support the leveling process, in most games this isn't so. This is mostly due the materials what you get and need to use. Partially, this issue has been covered via the market system I also talked way back. But is there any other way?
Yes, to me there is. Since we are talking about scifi system in here I really don't see people crafting copper and bronze swords just to level up the trade skills. No, it is more broken down to components. Copper wiring, coils, casings and things like that. Now the first step isn't that hard to anyone, but when you reach certain level and you are needing the next material and it is rather difficult to get because it is in the next level zone, so what should you do?
Solution is rather simple, upgrade the components from what you have, oh certainly you can't make gold wiring out of copper wires, but you CAN create a working alternative for it. This allows you to get reasonable upgrade from your trade skill (still dungeon drops are better etc) that you can gain something from the crafting if you need, instead of having higher level character doing all the crafting for a leveling character (which is still possible).
The process would be like this, roughly saying:
Copper wire => Silver wire/paired copper wire => Gold wire/paired silver wire => Platinum wire/paired gold wire etc.
Or course, the paired wires (for example sake) don't give out as good item as the "pure" component, sure it is in the same power range but it might be slower, have less durability or less stat boosting (if going that way) but never the less, it would be viable alternative for drops, quest items or the unlucky roll from dungeon.
This is already working in WoW for leather working, turn leather scraps to light leather, light to medium, medium to heavy etc. This is similar concept, except we don't magically turn copper to silver in here.
Right, I've said it in the past that I would love if the crafting would support the leveling process, in most games this isn't so. This is mostly due the materials what you get and need to use. Partially, this issue has been covered via the market system I also talked way back. But is there any other way?
Yes, to me there is. Since we are talking about scifi system in here I really don't see people crafting copper and bronze swords just to level up the trade skills. No, it is more broken down to components. Copper wiring, coils, casings and things like that. Now the first step isn't that hard to anyone, but when you reach certain level and you are needing the next material and it is rather difficult to get because it is in the next level zone, so what should you do?
Solution is rather simple, upgrade the components from what you have, oh certainly you can't make gold wiring out of copper wires, but you CAN create a working alternative for it. This allows you to get reasonable upgrade from your trade skill (still dungeon drops are better etc) that you can gain something from the crafting if you need, instead of having higher level character doing all the crafting for a leveling character (which is still possible).
The process would be like this, roughly saying:
Copper wire => Silver wire/paired copper wire => Gold wire/paired silver wire => Platinum wire/paired gold wire etc.
Or course, the paired wires (for example sake) don't give out as good item as the "pure" component, sure it is in the same power range but it might be slower, have less durability or less stat boosting (if going that way) but never the less, it would be viable alternative for drops, quest items or the unlucky roll from dungeon.
This is already working in WoW for leather working, turn leather scraps to light leather, light to medium, medium to heavy etc. This is similar concept, except we don't magically turn copper to silver in here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)