Balance and game design : Why red got it right?

[innocent51]

Disclaimer : This is a not a thread about Red server.

I realised the xp bonus introduced on Red server makes perfect sense with EverQuest design and, even if it is not classic, it completely changes the whole balance of the game.

EverQuest always was a social game. It is about making friends (or at least contacts), getting to know people and stuff. On classic EQ you can solo, some class are good at it. After some point actually almost half the classes make better xp solonig. After 50ies on blue xp is so slow that you see more and more optimized trio/duo.

The xp bonus introduced on Red makes grouping with anyone always better. Even if on live you would be better off soloing separately the bonus on Red makes you do on improbable trios everyone trying to bring the less sucky they can do the team. But never mind if they are here, they bring the xp bonus anyway.

Anyone who ever played City of Heroes understand this feeling. Group members are never a weigh (ok unless that break mezes, train you and shit), they are always, even if not in an optimal way participating to the team effort. And it makes perfect sense with EQ's social, group grind oriented design.

I don't think EQ is meant to be a PvP game but this statement is very arguable. Its just a point a view. I really think this xp bonus should be introduced on Blue. Even if it means reducing the overall xp income (so people don't level too fast, EQ is meant to be slow, to take the time to do quest on the way, to travel through dangerous places and to farm cash to buy your new spells...).

It is not classic, it is meta-classic.

[Estu]

I think this is a very good point. The EXP bonus on Blue (and in classic EQ) was clearly meant to promote grouping; the problem is that it does not make up for the inevitable slower EXP that comes from most grouping (especially large groups) due to things like having to wait for pulls. You're absolutely right that a souped-up group EXP bonus on blue would not be classic but would definitely be in the spirit of the game.

[Tecmos Deception]

Eh.

I like the idea of groups being worthwhile in terms of XP. But I dislike the thought of an xp bonus making up for every member of a group playing well to try to get good xp, I dislike the thought of players grouping JUST because they get more XP that way (players should group because they want to group, not because they are crippling their XP if they don't), etc.

I'd be in favor of something like +10% xp in groups per member, but not the huge amount that red has. This would kind of take the sting out of a full group but without basically forcing people to play in full groups. It'd make groups more appealing, but without making the XP fast even if 4 of the 6 people are 3/4 AFK. Etc.

[Swish]

If you went to red to solo your way to 60 you're definitely doing it wrong... unless maybe you're playing a blue character and a red character at the same time :p

A good XP rate brings people to red, there's no question about that.

[Splorf22]

The problem is that neither Classic nor Kunark was designed for a bunch of max level/max geared toons. For example, lets take a P1999 Sebilis Disco group. They are of course roflstomping the whole area D1/D2. We delevel everyone from 58ish to 53ish. We delete their epics. We delete their dragon haste. We delete their Fungi tunics. We delete their Kunark spells. Suddenly this group is going to find the content reasonably challenging even with the full 6 players.

I think Velious may see a bit of a return of the full group.

[webrunner5]

I think Velious may see a bit of a return of the full group.

I can just about bet that Velious will see a lot more grouping. There is very few mobs and very few classes that can solo Velious mobs. Mobs hit like hell and fights last a LONG time compared to Kunark.

Like I said in another thread, in Velious, Melee types run out of Hit Points, and Caster types run OOM. So XP will be slow as heck in Velious solo and even in groups people will run out on HP and Mana. Velious is a whole NEW game compared to Kunark. And dying in it is a LONG ASS run for a lot of people. There is only like 3 or 4 normal cities in the whole expansion to even get bound in. And NO noob zones either. And some zones are LONG as hell. You will wish you were a Bard lol. :eek:

[Kika Maslyaka]

There shouldn't be any group XP bonus at all.
Just by being in a group already grants you tremendous bonuses:
-mutual protection and buffs from other classes
-ability to kill boss mobs
-chain pulling
-being able to survive in heavily npc-crowded places

Compare this to just being alone, getting swarmed by 2-3 mobs at a time and quickly dieing. Does grouping really needs more bonuses?
Of course the inherited problem of EQ that classes are unequal in both solo and group environment, which causes disparity.
If all classes would completely suck at soloing - only being able to solo low-blue mobs, no quading, no fear-kiting, EQ would truly be 100% group game.
Or make it more like WoW - everyone can solo trash, but group for dungeon runs.

[Tecmos Deception]

There shouldn't be any group XP bonus at all.
Just by being in a group already grants you tremendous bonuses:
-mutual protection and buffs from other classes
-ability to kill boss mobs
-chain pulling
-being able to survive in heavily npc-crowded places

Compare this to just being alone, getting swarmed by 2-3 mobs at a time and quickly dieing. Does grouping really needs more bonuses?
Of course the inherited problem of EQ that classes are unequal in both solo and group environment, which causes disparity.
If all classes would completely suck at soloing - only being able to solo low-blue mobs, no quading, no fear-kiting, EQ would truly be 100% group game.
Or make it more like WoW - everyone can solo trash, but group for dungeon runs.

This is wrong :p

Imo you're basically listing the reasons why full groups suck and calling them strengths. A good duo/trio doesn't have issues being overwhelmed or dropping boss mobs. Chain pulling isn't a bonus to a full group, it's a requirement in order to keep any kind of XP or loot flowing. Safety in numbers is a real thing, except that it USUALLY lulls members of a full group into complacency, imo.

[Swish]

Server pop had 60-70 people on after the original XP bonus got taken away.

Gotta throw the dog a bone.

[innocent51]

There shouldn't be any group XP bonus at all.
Just by being in a group already grants you tremendous bonuses:
-mutual protection and buffs from other classes
-ability to kill boss mobs
-chain pulling
-being able to survive in heavily npc-crowded places

Compare this to just being alone, getting swarmed by 2-3 mobs at a time and quickly dieing. Does grouping really needs more bonuses?
Of course the inherited problem of EQ that classes are unequal in both solo and group environment, which causes disparity.
If all classes would completely suck at soloing - only being able to solo low-blue mobs, no quading, no fear-kiting, EQ would truly be 100% group game.
Or make it more like WoW - everyone can solo trash, but group for dungeon runs.

This is, indeed, wrong.
Most classes can solo, half the classes for a better xp than full group.
Soloing is not hard, is not dangerous and for some grants you the ability to kill boss mobs (tho you have to define boss here).

When you go down to duo and trio you just can take anything if you have the proper classes/gear.


If I had to design a game I would make everyone completely unable to solo shit (and my game will probably close after 2 month because you have to care the bears). But it would take too much of EQ to make it such on P99 (remove spells? really?).
So the best thing to promote grouping, if you ever want to, is giving a large bonus to group xp.

[Kika Maslyaka]

And that's why WoW is popular. The casuals can progress without dependance on others, and those who want challenge get dungeons.

[Glenzig]

And that's why WoW is popular. The casuals can progress without dependance on others, and those who want challenge get dungeons.

Dungeons in WoW are challenging? Never felt that way to me.

[Swish]

Dungeons in WoW are challenging? Never felt that way to me.

Some of the TBC dungeons were hard I thought, especially on release before everyone got their OP raiding gear.

[Clark]

There shouldn't be any group XP bonus at all.
Just by being in a group already grants you tremendous bonuses:
-mutual protection and buffs from other classes
-ability to kill boss mobs
-chain pulling
-being able to survive in heavily npc-crowded places

Compare this to just being alone, getting swarmed by 2-3 mobs at a time and quickly dieing. Does grouping really needs more bonuses?
Of course the inherited problem of EQ that classes are unequal in both solo and group environment, which causes disparity.
If all classes would completely suck at soloing - only being able to solo low-blue mobs, no quading, no fear-kiting, EQ would truly be 100% group game.
Or make it more like WoW - everyone can solo trash, but group for dungeon runs.

[Tecmos Deception]

EQ solo v group balance is pretty damn good overall, imo. MOST classes can XP solo even without any kind of twinking, especially nowadays with most players having much more knowledge about the game. Solo AND group content range from faceroll easy (a druid fighting low dark blues in OT, a group of mid-50s XPing in LCY in KC) to extremely challenging (an enchanter XPing solo in HS wings, a group of appropriate level XPing in most of the games dungeons)... the "imbalance" comes in because a class like an enchanter can partake in easy or difficult solo or grouping, while a class like a warrior can't solo at all.

But that imbalance MOSTLY evens out for most classes. Wizards are shunned from XP groups, but they shine solo and in raids and in AE groups. Warriors are very poor solo, but they are highly desired in groups and they are the center of attention in raids. Even enchanter and shaman, although good and and in demand for every aspect of the game, have the negatives of being pretty boring for raid bosses (both basically being buffbots most of the time) and being not unlike bard in that you have to be busy nonstop for either of them to perform well.


Like I said before, some XP bonus would be nice (even though it wouldn't be a classic mechanic) to encourage grouping without making grouping the only way to roll like it is on red. But meh. It's just one of the parts of play on p99 that is different than play on live was, mostly/entirely as a result of it being 2014 and not 1999 + the slower timeline on the servers here.

[Splorf22]

I wouldn't mind say a 5% bonus per character, i.e. 105% xp per duo kill, 125% xp per 6-man group. Red's XP bonus is just a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to play over there.

Also Tecmos, you cannot possibly say Enchanters and Shamans are balanced relative to, say, Magicians and Druids with a straight face. And are wizards emerging from their leveling pariah chrysalis into beautiful raid butterflies really an example of good game design? And lets not even talk about caster gearing.

One of the things that really frustrates me about P1999 is I feel Kunark is just such a horrible, horrible expansion. I think the game balance is even worse than Classic: Verant just didn't realize that giving all the mobs 3x HP would totally change how the game works. Velious improves things quite a bit, but I think Pasi is right: the first xpac to take a decent stab at game balance was Luclin.

[Jauna]

Disclaimer : This is a not a thread about Red server.

I realised the xp bonus introduced on Red server makes perfect sense with EverQuest design and, even if it is not classic, it completely changes the whole balance of the game.

EverQuest always was a social game. It is about making friends (or at least contacts), getting to know people and stuff. On classic EQ you can solo, some class are good at it. After some point actually almost half the classes make better xp solonig. After 50ies on blue xp is so slow that you see more and more optimized trio/duo.

The xp bonus introduced on Red makes grouping with anyone always better. Even if on live you would be better off soloing separately the bonus on Red makes you do on improbable trios everyone trying to bring the less sucky they can do the team. But never mind if they are here, they bring the xp bonus anyway.

Anyone who ever played City of Heroes understand this feeling. Group members are never a weigh (ok unless that break mezes, train you and shit), they are always, even if not in an optimal way participating to the team effort. And it makes perfect sense with EQ's social, group grind oriented design.

I don't think EQ is meant to be a PvP game but this statement is very arguable. Its just a point a view. I really think this xp bonus should be introduced on Blue. Even if it means reducing the overall xp income (so people don't level too fast, EQ is meant to be slow, to take the time to do quest on the way, to travel through dangerous places and to farm cash to buy your new spells...).

It is not classic, it is meta-classic.

You get less exp per kill, but you kill alot faster and get more per hour. My Root/rot, quad kite druid gets more exp healin while other people kill Kobalds for me then I do with soloing. EverQuest has always been about tradeoffs for everything, especially in classic.

Instead of making Blue the new EZ99 server, why not just ask the Devs to add ZEMs to unused zones? ZEMs are classic as fuck, it promotes people to hunt elsewhere without making things way too easy. I mean really, when was the last time you wanted to take a group to Permafrost or Runnyeye or those... those dungeons in Kunark that I cant really remember because no one goes there outside of a few level 60 farmers.. daldidir or something? or n..something

[Tecmos Deception]

Also Tecmos, you cannot possibly say Enchanters and Shamans are balanced relative to, say, Magicians and Druids with a straight face. And are wizards emerging from their leveling pariah chrysalis into beautiful raid butterflies really an example of good game design?

It's not a bad design, imo. It's just an old design. Late-blooming classes, classes useful in some situations but useless in others, classes entirely reliant on others to function, these are all trademarks of old RPGs. Classic EQ is/was as much an oldschool RPG as a modern MMO. So we get these quirks. You'd be silly to call Casablanca a bad movie, even though it's age (and the quirks that come with it) would stop it from being successful if it re-released in theatres tomorrow.

And I do think that enchanters and shamans are relatively balanced compared to magicians and druids... OVERALL. And with that word I really do mean in every aspect possible of the game. There's something to be said for the playstyle and vibe of a class, for the convenience features and gimicky things, for the roleplaying side of things (who doesn't enjoy thinking about their character as a character sometimes, even if you don't go around ever like you are an actual resident of the world of Norrath?), etc. You and I think magicians are one-faceted and druids are just plain weak, but that doesn't mean druid isn't the perfect class for a lot of people or that magicians aren't great in groups and crucial for raids. People who don't like enchanters don't give a shit that enchanters are the most powerful solo and duo and group class, because they don't want to play an enchanter. People who don't want to solo nameds in dungeons couldn't care less that their druid or ranger or bard can't. /shrug

Every class has certain strengths and weaknesses. Some classes have appeal even though they have more weaknesses and fewer strengths than other classes. That's perfectly okay in my book. It's over 9000 times more interesting than the class system you have in a game like WoW, even if it is far from perfect.


Reworked ZEMs sounds pretty awesome to me. Although that would probably spawn a slew of threads of people whining about this and that as a result just like anything else would... haha.

[Fame]

Nothing wrong with class balance, it's fantasy you fucks!

[Frug]

Red's XP bonus is just a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to play over there.

Now there's a keeper.

[Swish]

Red's XP bonus is just a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to play over there.

Nobody making anyone play on either server, I don't get where this hate comes from :(

[loramin]

It's not a bad design, imo.
but that doesn't mean druid isn't the perfect class for a lot of people or that magicians aren't great in groups and crucial for raids. People who don't like enchanters don't give a shit that enchanters are the most powerful solo and duo and group class, because they don't want to play an enchanter. People who don't want to solo nameds in dungeons couldn't care less that their druid or ranger or bard can't. /shrug
The part I would argue is bad design is that everything you just said is true ... but a new player looking at the available classes has no idea what any of those classes are really about. When you pick a Bard the class description doesn't say "you're the master of killing when in grassy fields, but stay out of dungeons unless you're with friends", and when you pick a shaman envisioning yourself casting voodoo curses, nothing warns you you'll be sitting on your ass root/roti-ng.

I don't like how the newer MMOGs have oversimplified their classes, but I do think games like WoW explain their classes better, and have a much more well-thought-out focus for them. Compare that to EQ, where many of the class-defining features (things like quad kiting, ae groups, sneak plulling, etc.) weren't even planned by the developers.

Reworked ZEMs sounds pretty awesome to me. Although that would probably spawn a slew of threads of people whining about this and that as a result just like anything else would... haha.

I think the trick would be to only lower any given zone's mod by 5% or 10% at most, but add a more substantive bonus (20%?) to the under-used goblin dungeons, Dalnir, etc. People can't whine that much about their favorite zone going down by 5%, but a 20% bonus would certainly draw people to new places.

[Iumuno]

I much preferred the late luclin changes that made level 55+ mobs give a lot more xp than they used to. Additionnal xp from tougher content should be the incentive for grouping, not artificial bonuses.

[iruinedyourday]

Dungeons in WoW are challenging? Never felt that way to me.

yea challenging to give a shit about, like the rest of that game. ;p

[Clark]

I much preferred the late luclin changes that made level 55+ mobs give a lot more xp than they used to. Additionnal xp from tougher content should be the incentive for grouping, not artificial bonuses.

[hivemind]

Stop with your attempts to stop the blue server from bleeding. Pras exp bonus on red, may blue shrivel and die as it bleeds out. Blood is blue before it turns red, you know...

Okay, I'm kidding. But honestly, the exp bonus was only awesome for red in that it brought a SHITLOAD of people to the server (and I was all-for EXP bonus for this VERY reason). I personally despise leveling so much faster (so I solo or just don't exp). The group exp bonus on red makes leveling trivial. Why would you implement something like that on blue where EXPing is literally one of the only things you can do outside of AFKing in EC?

Trust me, you don't want none of this.

[Tecmos Deception]

It's not a bad design, its just different. You guys are looking at 'balance' from the viewpoint of someone entrenched in modern MMOs. A game can be good, great even, even if it isn't balanced in every way and 100% noob friendly and such.

[Splorf22]

I much preferred the late luclin changes that made level 55+ mobs give a lot more xp than they used to. Additionnal xp from tougher content should be the incentive for grouping, not artificial bonuses.

Luclin, the greatest expansion?!! /ducks nilbog's wrath

[Breeziyo]

cats on the moon taught my iksar to have a pet scaled wolf. best xpac

[Corbin]

The part I would argue is bad design is that everything you just said is true ... but a new player looking at the available classes has no idea what any of those classes are really about. When you pick a Bard the class description doesn't say "you're the master of killing when in grassy fields, but stay out of dungeons unless you're with friends", and when you pick a shaman envisioning yourself casting voodoo curses, nothing warns you you'll be sitting on your ass root/roti-ng.

I don't like how the newer MMOGs have oversimplified their classes, but I do think games like WoW explain their classes better, and have a much more well-thought-out focus for them. Compare that to EQ, where many of the class-defining features (things like quad kiting, ae groups, sneak plulling, etc.) weren't even planned by the developers.



I think the trick would be to only lower any given zone's mod by 5% or 10% at most, but add a more substantive bonus (20%?) to the under-used goblin dungeons, Dalnir, etc. People can't whine that much about their favorite zone going down by 5%, but a 20% bonus would certainly draw people to new places.

When I started solo I rolled a warrior. I chose warrior after I read a class description. When I played chess I was a fairly defensive player. I liked to attack from a position of strength. So, being older, slower, a total newb (with a kind of turn based preference), and without much social energy; I thought playing a warrior would give me more time to figure things out on my own and prevail:D

Still, it turned out to be the perfect choice. Of course, I encouraged my wife to try EQ and eventually to play a shaman...

I always felt grouping power made for it's own reward. Of course I was a warrior and it wasn't P1999.

[radda]

a shit load of people for you to twink dance all over. @ hivemind

[Mac Drettj]

If you went to red to solo your way to 60 you're definitely doing it wrong... unless maybe you're playing a blue character and a red character at the same time :p

A good XP rate brings people to red, there's no question about that.

ya, good xp means you can spend more time being casual and getting into fun little skirmishes which is what its all about

[freez]

blue needs exp bonus? super saturated market + over pop not enough to gain exps?


naw.


better yet, wont happen.

[hivemind]

a shit load of people for you to twink dance all over. @ hivemind

There can be nothing better than fresh blood for the server. Pras red99. Pras PVP.

[Ikonoclastia]

This is, indeed, wrong.
Most classes can solo, half the classes for a better xp than full group.
Soloing is not hard, is not dangerous and for some grants you the ability to kill boss mobs (tho you have to define boss here).

When you go down to duo and trio you just can take anything if you have the proper classes/gear.


If I had to design a game I would make everyone completely unable to solo shit (and my game will probably close after 2 month because you have to care the bears). But it would take too much of EQ to make it such on P99 (remove spells? really?).
So the best thing to promote grouping, if you ever want to, is giving a large bonus to group xp.
Wasn't like that on live early on though. Its like it on P1999 because of the availability of gear for so little pp.

In classic at least when I played you couldn't get better xp soloing unless you were a necro, wiz, druid or bard. And then you could only solo outside zones.

Charming was a complete bitch to do. You could charm as an enchanter but you couldn't charm the way you can charm on P1999 imo.

I remember even in PoP, when charming was really buffed with AA's and gear that would make you a god in classic it was still better in group for grinding aa's.

The only real powerlevelers were bard reverse charm kiters till they nerfed them.

[iruinedyourday]

you could totally charm the way you can in 1999, the only diff is now we're not total bitches like we were back then. I used to pee my pants all day long playing eq.. now i know how to make EQ MY BITCH.

things are more available, but not in the way that its solo making of any class, people are just better at the game, especially us people that came back 15 years later to re live our fantasies of being the botb.

[Iumuno]

Luclin, the greatest expansion?!! /ducks nilbog's wrath

Not saying that regarding the content of course :p

But a lot of the mechanics changes in the second half of the luclin era made a lot of sense, this one among them.

[Champion_Standing]

Group content is supposed to be moved through slowly in this game. Soloing is faster assuming you can kill at a decent rate, but a lot of the games content just isn't really accessible when it is level appropriate for soloers. Grouping is not supposed to be a way to level up faster in EQ, it is a way to experience more content and get better loot. Not that it always works out that way, but I think that was the intention.

[Gaffin 7.0]

server doesnt need more xp just more often xp bonus weekends and such which is classic as fuck

[Softcore PK]

Group xp bonus isn't in the spirit of the game. What would be is a big solo xp nerf... maybe disabling it entirely ;)

[Clark]

blue needs exp bonus? super saturated market + over pop not enough to gain exps?


naw.


better yet, wont happen.

[tanknspank]

I think what's needed is a buff to the 5-6 group size bonus, without one for 2-3.

Duo/trioing gives a lot of benefit (ability synergy, someone having your back, ability to handle oh shit! moments) that makes up for the xp split, but the benefits do not scale as well past that.

[iruinedyourday]

have to write code to prevent me from just selling 5 spots while I aoe kite with the bonus tho.