Balance and game design : Why red got it right?

[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]

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by innocent51 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.