NEW Emulator Server

[Kika Maslyaka]

I disagree of this view of "interdependency".
Interdependency should work in combat: this class tanks, this class dps, this class heals, this class CCs etc.
But it doesn't work for casual utility conveniences.
Why is that some classes given inherited ability to generate cash by casting same spell over and over again, while others can't ?
Why 7 casters can bind and gate at their leisure, while rest of us have to beg for bind for 30 min instead of enjoying the game as they do?
Why does the only way you can do jewelry is to find an enchanter to enchant for you? (or level up one yourself).

Where is this EQUAL level of interdependency for other classes?

How about we make it like this - Warrior is the ONLY class that can process ore into iron bars - hence you MUST find warrior or you can't smith.
How about - SK is the ONLY class that can make needles that are REQUIRED to do tailoring?
How about you must find a Rogue in order to bank - no rogue , no access to the bank.
How about - the only way you can cross a zone-line is by grouping with Bard?

Would you like that?

What I see is not interdependence, but a screwed up class balance in regards to casual utilities, where some class imbued with convenience to come and go as they please while others must depend on them without having any bonuses of their own.

This idea of "interdependence" may have worked in PnP DnD, where in each gaming session, all of your classes are present at the table and ready to provide these casual utilities free of charge, but it doesn't work in MMO.

[Millburn]

Opportunity cost is incredibly important for having any sort of healthy stratification though. Having hard disparities is actually a really good thing.

[Uteunayr]

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

I disagree of this view of "interdependency".
Interdependency should work in combat: this class tanks, this class dps, this class heals, this class CCs etc.
But it doesn't work for casual utility conveniences.
Why is that some classes given inherited ability to generate cash by casting same spell over and over again, while others can't ?
Why 7 casters can bind and gate at their leisure, while rest of us have to beg for bind for 30 min instead of enjoying the game as they do?
Why does the only way you can do jewelry is to find an enchanter to enchant for you? (or level up one yourself).

Where is this EQUAL level of interdependency for other classes?

How about we make it like this - Warrior is the ONLY class that can process ore into iron bars - hence you MUST find warrior or you can't smith.
How about - SK is the ONLY class that can make needles that are REQUIRED to do tailoring?
How about you must find a Rogue in order to bank - no rogue , no access to the bank.
How about - the only way you can cross a zone-line is by grouping with Bard?

Would you like that?

What I see is not interdependence, but a screwed up class balance in regards to casual utilities, where some class imbued with convenience to come and go as they please while others must depend on them without having any bonuses of their own.

This idea of "interdependence" may have worked in PnP DnD, where in each gaming session, all of your classes are present at the table and ready to provide these casual utilities free of charge, but it doesn't work in MMO.

Every class is unique from one another. They can each do something different to bring some value to the game that a player with another class cannot. For this, they can reap some benefit. A wizard/druid can port, a shaman can do alchemy, a necro can summon, and so on. Warriors are probably the most gimped in this, and it's why they used to get first-loot rights in groups back in the day to make up for their risk and cost of playing a class like that. But even more so, they brought the strongest tank to the group, something that people depend upon.

If you're going to make a claim about Equal interdependence, that's fine. I wont argue that. I do believe that there is unequal interdependence, but that doesn't mean that interdependence is bad, or doesn't work. It just means that the design needs to be made better to make people depend upon one another. The fix to unequal interdependence isn't to get rid of it, it's to find ways of elaborating that interdependence for those classes with less to offer (such as warrior). A slippery slope argument isn't useful.

To your examples, I just need to ask: why should a Warrior be the only one that can smelt ore? The other limitations all make sense, but the ones you list don't. Why should a warrior be the only one who can smelt ore? An enchanter is the best to do jewelcrafting because they are the ones who have access to the magic to enchant metal, making it possible to create magical items. That is reasonable. Shamans hold the secrets of alchemy in their banks, and don't let others at it. That's reasonable. You're examples of interdependence just don't make sense.

Instead of "Should you need a bard to go through a zone line?", which doesn't make sense, what about "Should you need a spellcaster to levitate so you can get across that ravine?". Sure! Why not? That's what spellcasters do.

If the answer is to remove interdependence, rather than rebalance it, you get WoW and most other MMORPGs. Sorry, I'll take the struggle of finding my warrior a bind any day over making every class able to do everything on their own. And I think most people who play here will understand that sentiment.

If you have other ideas of interdependence that would be reasonable, I'd be all over adding stuff to balance out the level of stuff each class can bring to the game. It just should not be the same thing necessarily. Warriors shouldn't port, nor should the game baby people into making it easy to do everything.

If your answer is that each class should be given more equal interdependence traits, so that each person has something unique they can offer to others, I will agree. But that's not about interdependence itself, that's about the way EQ designed its' interdependence.

Now ultimately, what you posted did not, in any way, go against what I was saying about player interdependence helping to create a stronger community. If your criticism is merely balance of interdependence, I will say again, that's fine. But that's not an argument against interdependence, that's an argument about the balance of that interdependence.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Well personally, I am against out of combat interdependence.
Interdependence should be COMBAT ONLY. (you can call this wow-like if you prefer, but I strongly believe that tradeskiling should not be connected to your adventure class.)

However back to EQ original design, even if we do bring interdependence for all aspects of the game (not just combat), then yes the classes are not equal. they are ridiculously not equal. They gave Enchanting to Enchanters, Alchemy to Shamans, and Tinkering to Gnomes, cause those were SIMPLE lore-based connections, and didn't bother to balance it against the rest of the classes.

Where are human, barberian and dark elf trade skill related bonuses? There are none.
Warrior, paladin, SK, bard TS bonuses? Again none.
Why didn't dwarves got massive blacksmithing bonuses? They should have.

100% lore-based system works for a book or a movie, but in a game, some lore have to be sacrificed in order to keep all ends even.

[Uteunayr]

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

Well personally, I am against out of combat interdependence.
Interdependence should be COMBAT ONLY. (you can call this wow-like if you prefer, but I strongly believe that tradeskiling should not be connected to your adventure class.)

Why? There is strong science evidence that interdependence is a force for natural conflict resolution. Not just when it's involved in coming together to overcome enemies (as in the combat only sense), but in all aspects of life. Check out Keohane and Nye, and most of the democratic peace literature, specifically by Russet and O'Neal.

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

However back to EQ original design, even if we do bring interdependence for all aspects of the game (not just combat), then yes the classes are not equal. they are ridiculously not equal. They gave Enchanting to Enchanters, Alchemy to Shamans, and Tinkering to Gnomes, cause those were SIMPLE lore-based connections, and didn't bother to balance it against the rest of the classes.

Why? Every class has a purpose. Why should shamans be less unique and interesting? It's not as if Warriors are not being used because they don't have Alchemy. Heck, probably the most "useless" class is a Druid, but even they have (had) a solid track mechanic, and the ability to port people around. Regardless as to their relative value in the amount of equality, each class has a role.

It's not as if because of Rogues, no other DPS role matters. It's not as if being a Gnome invalidates being a Non-Gnome. The closest thing to that is a Necromancer for Iksar, because Regeneration is just that vital. But in Velious and Luclin, they introduce HP regen items that start to curb off that negative effect.

They are lore based connections that make sense. It gives the game character. Look at EQ2 and WoW if you want to see what happens when things are homogenized so that everyone can do everything equally in balance.

I don't care if I am not as high a DPS as a Rogue being a Necromancer. I do other things better than any other class. Every class does something better than every other, in some way, and it validates each class if they live up to playing to that strength.

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

Where are human, barberian and dark elf trade skill related bonuses? There are none.

Other than racial armor, why should they?

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

Warrior, paladin, SK, bard TS bonuses? Again none.

Why should they? What trade skill should Warriors be able to do better than a Paladin, and why?

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

Why didn't dwarves got massive blacksmithing bonuses? They should have.

Why? Not every game's lore needs to be the exact same.

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

100% lore-based system works for a book or a movie, but in a game, some lore have to be sacrificed in order to keep all ends even.

Why do all ends need to be kept even? Why does every choice need to be neutralized because people feel they made bad choices?

Seriously, you're talking to someone who rolled a Dark Elf Necromancer, got him to level 60, just to realize how fucking stupid I was for making that choice. I am now level 57 on my Iksar Necromancer to make up for that mistake. And you know what? That's fine. Because I fucked up. I was dumb, and I made dumb choices. People should be allowed to fail because of their dumb choices, or learn to live with their dumb choices. If you want to do Alchemy and you roll a Warrior, you made a dumb choice.

Not everyone has to be able to do everything. It invalidates the uniqueness of each class, it takes away from what makes each great. That's how you get WoW, it's how you get EQ2.

You don't have to sacrifice anything just because it's a game. If anything, you can put more stuff in it because now people will interact with the lore in more thoughtful ways.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

Not everyone has to be able to do everything

I am only commenting to this, since I think this is the main point of this argument.

Yes, not everyone has to be able to do everything.
yet, you get classes/race who get perks, and you get others who don't get anything.
This choice is NOT between: "Do I want to RP beautiful elf or ugly ogre?"
This is the choice between: "Do I want to play a class that is powerful or sucks?"

Comparing to WoW interdependence: in WoW you are limited to only 2 TS professions - which means you will have to have obtain soem TS components from other crafters to do some of the better items. In EQ - you can do all of the TS at once, yet you can't do enchanting without enchanter - hows that for FAILED interdependence?

In vanilla EQ2 TS interdependence was even more severe - you were limited to a single TS and had to get multiple components from multiple other crafters to do pretty much anything. (this did eventually removed it to make it easier, which sucks IMHO, but it was way better thought out than in eq1)

Another problem with EQ1 interdependence balance, is when they give class great out of combat powers (teleports) and penalize them in their combat performance.
Yes I am talking about druids and wizards. So druids got ports, which is balanced of by sucky heals and sub par dps, which makes them neither a healer nor a caster. And outside of porting, wizard is just a gimped mage.

My point is: Combat power should not be balanced vs non combat powers.
If you are great tank, then you can't dps and can't heal.
If you are great dps, then you can't tank and can't heal.
If you are healer, then you can't dps and can't tank.

But what they did they classes that could not do neither but gave them cool "side perks". So yes everyone did hadve an alt-druid in a guild just to port people around cause they were mega useless otherwise (up until PoP)

I am not arguing that Rogue, Ranger and Monk should have PRECISELY 25,677.88 DPS EACH EXACTLY. I am arguing for that classes should be more or less reliable in what they do in Combat and outside of combat as separate issues.

You just can't make class that is good at nothing in combat, compensating it by "but it can teleport!" It just doesn't work. Same goes for - for classes that uber tank/dps, but have to spend 45 min looking for a bind.

[Uteunayr]

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

This is the choice between: "Do I want to play a class that is powerful or sucks?"

But this is where we are inherently disagreeing. No class sucks in EQ as far as I am concerned. Some have more unique traits to make them more connected, others have less. But every class has a role, a unique role. Heck, I'm a Necromancer, and I like to think I kick ass at groups, but I fight against a legacy of a lot of bad necromancers.

I was in a group the other day. They decided to grab me in instead of a Rogue. When we got to a wipe, I managed to FD, get out, come back in, EE the cleric, and return the group. That's something a rogue would not have provided. Alternatively, with a rogue, they could have done more DPS than I could offer. Which is better?

So I don't agree that it is a choice between one being powerful, and one sucking. Tinker isn't going to make you a god. Being a shaman with Alchemy doesn't make you more powerful than another class. Being able to port doesn't make you powerful. All these things do is to give you utility.

Some people have more utility, others have less. And I already agreed that I am not opposed to giving more classes more unique abilities to help round it out so that everyone has unique traits that gives them something to offer others. The answer, though, is not to get rid of Alchemy, nor to make everyone have the same thing (everyone get an Alchemy, everyone get a Tinker, etc).

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

Comparing to WoW interdependence: in WoW you are limited to only 2 TS professions - which means you will have to have obtain soem TS components from other crafters to do some of the better items. In EQ - you can do all of the TS at once, yet you can't do enchanting without enchanter - hows that for FAILED interdependence?

WoW isn't failed interdependence in that regard. First off, in WoW, only really 1 profession needs more professions than a player can have, and that is Engineering. Leveling the first 300 points of Engineering requires stuff from Tailors, Leatherworkers, Miners, Blacksmiths, and so on. So you do need to engage, and I applauded, and still do applaud Blizzard for designing a fantastic profession in Vanilla.

However, since my original post, you have continued to focus on Tradeskills, which are only one major part of the overall web of interdependence. For this one great thing that WoW does, it has since abandoned it. It has made it so that everyone can get a flying mount with ease. No one needs a port anywhere, because there are NPC ports. The Auction House will handle all your trades. You don't need to even talk to people to get into a group, or even a raid anymore. The social elements are all melted away because the cost of interdependence (occasional frustration at being unable to get what you rely on others for) was seen as something that pushes people away from the convenience that WoW offers.

In all these ways, WoW has failed to build a strong community. The strongest communities in that game are in guilds who need one another to complete advanced raiding content.

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

Another problem with EQ1 interdependence balance, is when they give class great out of combat powers (teleports) and penalize them in their combat performance.

Yes I am talking about druids and wizards. So druids got ports, which is balanced of by sucky heals and sub par dps, which makes them neither a healer nor a caster. And outside of porting, wizard is just a gimped mage.

Just because they behave differently, doesn't mean they are penalized. A Wizard can port, and a Wizard can't do great sustained DPS. Sure. But who else can spam burst 2k blasts on a dragon in Velious? No one. Wizards have insane value beyond what a Mage has outside of porting.

A druid can't do very good DPS, but that's because it's a mix healer/DPS. It isn't because they can port.

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

My point is: Combat power should not be balanced vs non combat powers.

And I think they should. If you're a rogue, you bring solid DPS. What else? About it. You can pick locks, sneak tag, and some other stuff, but you're mostly a DPS machine. Meanwhile, if you're a Wizard, you're a sick burst DPS with ports. If you're a Necromancer, you're a sustained DPS with the ability to sustain group mana.

Not everyone has to DPS to be valuable. Not everyone has to be equally able to do combat stuff, if they can make up for it in other ways. It doesn't matter how many rogues you have at your raid if you don't have ports to get there. You can have 4 rogues if you like to max DPS, but you're going to have issues finding a puller, handling large pulls, and so on.

Every class has their value, regardless of how they are weighted in combat. So when you say "You just can't make class that is good at nothing in combat", I disagree that this happens. Every class is good at something in combat. Druids can charm kill, they can group regrowth, they can buff, evac in case of emergency, place out some DoTs (which becomes more valuable in Velious). Just because not every class can do maximum DPS doesn't mean they are less powerful.

Regardless of if you agree to the balance of the interdependence (and again, I am not opposed to giving classes with less, more to make up for it), the positive, strong influence on a community of players due to interdependence is well known. Luclin and PoP killed it, and I'd like to see a Luclin and PoP without stones, without the bazaar, without the port up dudes, and so on. Just the new content, and keep the player base reliant upon each other as they are.

I think now I will conclude my part of this conversation by saying: I feel no shame in saying that I believe we must agree to disagree. We are arguing at the moment about opinions, not empirical fact. I think we both accept the same facts about the game and all, and we're just arguing about opinions as to how the game should be. Thanks for the talk.

[Grimfan]

For some people consequence of choice, and limited abilities and such are ideal, for others they are not, and they are not fun.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

I think now I will conclude my part of this conversation by saying: I feel no shame in saying that I believe we must agree to disagree. We are arguing at the moment about opinions, not empirical fact. I think we both accept the same facts about the game and all, and we're just arguing about opinions as to how the game should be. Thanks for the talk.

I can respect this, and certainly agree that to each his own [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just wanted to stay for the record that I am in no way consider WoW/EQ2 to be example of "perfect game". It just, in my opinion, some design elements are better balanced (again in my opinion), but of course both WoW/EQ2 are plagued by myriad of other issues that I definitely don't like, which is why I have given up on both.
Not being able to build/connect with the community is certainly a problem in most modern MMOs that concentrate too much on convenience (yes even for my tastes), and too much on instancing, that certainly makes any individual guild or small group of player to play in their own little world only occasionally encountering other players somewhere by the bank.

[Dragonmist]

They need to bring the players back together for sure EQ 1 definitely done that very well we probably wont see games go back to that point but remain further away from the need for other players/guilds/groups.