Has anyone ever thought about why Scout classes do more damage than Fighter classes? Has anyone ever thought about why most everyone seems to take this for granted as being "reasonable?"
Take any other medium... books for instance, and the idea becomes ridiculous. Literature and mythology are two of MMORPGs most towering sources of inspiration and common grounds. Most people agree what an Orc is, or should be, based upon common depections.
MMORPGS can be their strangest, I think, when they veer from their source and portray something that most people take for granted as being "normal" and portraying it in a different way.
It is common throughout those sources of inspiration, common to the point that almost every reasonable person takes for granted, with the exception of the MMORPG player, that big beefy fighters with large wicked looking battle axes, do the most damage in a melee fight. Not a tiny ratman with a dagger, despite the fact that he is "stabbing someone in the back."
After thinking about this for a moment, do you really think that tiny dagger, despite being plunged into an enemies vitals, will do more damage than a weapon (and weilder) that can potentially sever an unarmored foes body completely in two?
Most well known "scout types" of mythology, are not known for thier battle prowess, so much as they are for their wits, and the choices they made. Robin Hood, is an excellent example. While certainly not a novice with a blade, by any means, it was his intelligence and charisma which ultimately won him the day (and the girl), not his remarkable battle prowess.
Epic figures like Beowulf and Hercules, while certainly not dunces (both were also leaders of men), are best known for their incredible physical feats. Refer to chapter 4 of Beowulf and see his incredible strength as he grasps Grendel's arm and causes the monster such fear, that he wishes to flee! This is the same monster who just moments before had eaten men whole!
The real question then, is why do most MMORPG players simply accept without question, that a scout not only does more damage than a fighter, but should do more damage than a fighter. This is something that has bothered me from the very beginning of MMORPGS. This disparity does not exist in the granddaddy of RPGs, AD&D, although thiefs do get bonuses for backstabing.
I can only guess that when the creators of Everquest tried to fit the scout class into the game, they didn't want to make them an obvious disadvantage. On one hand they had mages who could cast powerful destructive spells but had low health and little armor and fighters who did decent melee damage, decent health, and heavy armor. So they decided to put them in the middle and make them do more damage in combat than a fighter, but gave them lower armor.
I'm not proposing any changes or complaining. I simply want to start an interesting discussion on this board and hear your thoughts on the matter.
- Forums
- EverQuest II
- General Discussion
- Game Concept
Game ConceptFollow
Thats a very interesting concept, as well as something that i agree with. No matter what people will think, say, or do, scout type, and especially bard type characters should NOT make more damage in melee combat than a big beefy fighter. That rangers make more damage with a bow than the typical warrior type is fine with me, however, and i really liked your Robin Hood example, scouts are meant to be stealthy, agile and charismatic.
However, sadly enough, fantasy worlds like Everquest 2 give little room to the use of these abilities, essentially charisma. No matter how much you roleplay your character, as the most charismatic person in all of Norrath if you want, aggroing gnolls and orcs will still jump you, thus making the charisma stat useless (prolly why there is no such stat in the game). But truly, what is a bard without his legendary charismatic asset ? Just the dps class that do the less dps (but has great buffs, to balance them with the rest of the dps classes).
Your point on scout types brings out something : in MMORPGS like this one, everyone has to be 'equal'. No one would play a swashbuckler if not for the great dps ; evac and disarm trap on chests is great but who would want to play a character that is definately weaker than all the others ? Its all about aevraging for the average joe. If no one stands out to be stronger than the others, then no one can complain than some type of character advances in game quicker and better and become richer and more popular etc than other classes. Should it be this way ? In my opinion, no. There are geniuses in the world like there are the most retarded slugs too. There is black and there is white too. Nothing is all just grey, and averaging everything is just greying out a fantasy world in my humble opinion. Is everybody becoming a psychanalist irl because it has decent salary ? No. Why ? Because you have people that have no interest in that area. Because you have ppl that will prefer doing something they like out of a living over having a job only for money. Because you always have ppl that will find and try harder in another way to achieve their goal. And because you have ppl that do not have the brains enough (sadly) to achieve something like that. Is that fair ? Yes. That's how life goes. And i am not saying that fantasy worlds should be a reflection of real life, because most of us are playing these games as a way or another to escape that reality. But i do think that having particular distinctions between characters would only add to the feel of the game, rather than having the typical 'I heal and suck at DPS' and 'Im a meatshield only' feel of your character.
What I'm trying to get to is that companies such as SOE MUST make the more money they can out of their investment (the game itself). In order for people to like and want to buy the game, it is now a requirement that everyone should feel they are equal to Joe next door. And it has been accepted by the fan base in majority that it should be that way. But as far as fantasy worlds go, for the time I've played RPG's of all kinds, and playing with all kind of people, I know that mr. average Joe would always go for the uber class. But a lot of true gamers out there would love a challenge other than trying to beat a mob 6 levels higher than you. There would always have room for underdogs. Because underdogs are kind of appealing, too.
What I find a bit sad in EQ2 is that all races are equal too. That greys out even more a fantasy world where diversity has no room. I am very sorry, but an halfling berserker using a double handed axe should not make as much damage as his barbarian counterpart using the exact same weapon. That just makes no sense. Then again, its to average everything out. So that the person that decided to make an halfling berserker doesnt have to sit for 4 hours to find a group because there are 5 barbarian zerkers waiting out there. It takes out a bit of the challenge, in my opinion.
Just like the original poster, I am not trying to change things. And I do enjoy playing this game. It has very good features too. Only, games like that now tend to just grey out fantasy worlds to try and make everyone happy, to make everyone buy their game. Its sad indeed, because part of these worlds relay on imagination and what limits that imagination of yours can bring you to. And even though I fully understand that games must have certain limits in terms of what you can and cannot do, taking the feel away that Robin Hood would wound an evil being much more than Hercules just makes no sense. It's just taking a bit of the fantasy out of the fantasy itself.
However, sadly enough, fantasy worlds like Everquest 2 give little room to the use of these abilities, essentially charisma. No matter how much you roleplay your character, as the most charismatic person in all of Norrath if you want, aggroing gnolls and orcs will still jump you, thus making the charisma stat useless (prolly why there is no such stat in the game). But truly, what is a bard without his legendary charismatic asset ? Just the dps class that do the less dps (but has great buffs, to balance them with the rest of the dps classes).
Your point on scout types brings out something : in MMORPGS like this one, everyone has to be 'equal'. No one would play a swashbuckler if not for the great dps ; evac and disarm trap on chests is great but who would want to play a character that is definately weaker than all the others ? Its all about aevraging for the average joe. If no one stands out to be stronger than the others, then no one can complain than some type of character advances in game quicker and better and become richer and more popular etc than other classes. Should it be this way ? In my opinion, no. There are geniuses in the world like there are the most retarded slugs too. There is black and there is white too. Nothing is all just grey, and averaging everything is just greying out a fantasy world in my humble opinion. Is everybody becoming a psychanalist irl because it has decent salary ? No. Why ? Because you have people that have no interest in that area. Because you have ppl that will prefer doing something they like out of a living over having a job only for money. Because you always have ppl that will find and try harder in another way to achieve their goal. And because you have ppl that do not have the brains enough (sadly) to achieve something like that. Is that fair ? Yes. That's how life goes. And i am not saying that fantasy worlds should be a reflection of real life, because most of us are playing these games as a way or another to escape that reality. But i do think that having particular distinctions between characters would only add to the feel of the game, rather than having the typical 'I heal and suck at DPS' and 'Im a meatshield only' feel of your character.
What I'm trying to get to is that companies such as SOE MUST make the more money they can out of their investment (the game itself). In order for people to like and want to buy the game, it is now a requirement that everyone should feel they are equal to Joe next door. And it has been accepted by the fan base in majority that it should be that way. But as far as fantasy worlds go, for the time I've played RPG's of all kinds, and playing with all kind of people, I know that mr. average Joe would always go for the uber class. But a lot of true gamers out there would love a challenge other than trying to beat a mob 6 levels higher than you. There would always have room for underdogs. Because underdogs are kind of appealing, too.
What I find a bit sad in EQ2 is that all races are equal too. That greys out even more a fantasy world where diversity has no room. I am very sorry, but an halfling berserker using a double handed axe should not make as much damage as his barbarian counterpart using the exact same weapon. That just makes no sense. Then again, its to average everything out. So that the person that decided to make an halfling berserker doesnt have to sit for 4 hours to find a group because there are 5 barbarian zerkers waiting out there. It takes out a bit of the challenge, in my opinion.
Just like the original poster, I am not trying to change things. And I do enjoy playing this game. It has very good features too. Only, games like that now tend to just grey out fantasy worlds to try and make everyone happy, to make everyone buy their game. Its sad indeed, because part of these worlds relay on imagination and what limits that imagination of yours can bring you to. And even though I fully understand that games must have certain limits in terms of what you can and cannot do, taking the feel away that Robin Hood would wound an evil being much more than Hercules just makes no sense. It's just taking a bit of the fantasy out of the fantasy itself.
I do agree with fighters should do massive damage, but scouts should be more accurate approach.
That being said it is hard to handle what a scout can do. Tracking helps but isnt needed, it really isnt hard to find what you are looking for, especially since they are seldom random or hidden. We have no real need for spotting, especially since mages already get that ability. Traps are nothing, I have only seen them on chests and really a tank can open traped chest with little fear of dying. There really isnt anything specific to scouts to make anyone take one.
Then there is the whole risk to reward balance. Tanks having higher survivability in a game are balanced by lower damage, sorta like why mages wear clth. For game play it is better, or you just end up with almost everyone being a fighter. In a game there are always fine lines between what ideas seam to feel they should be, and what is possible or not overpowered.
Just to point out with your robin hood example, he regular creamed fighters, the gaurds and little john. You are right it wasnt through might, but skill. Then using that logic scouts do more damage then fighters as a way of representing the higher level of finess. Then hercules you have a hero, he was incredably strong, but wasnt really just a fighter. He used his brains, he was an archer and he was a tracker.
They are working on a DnD MMORPG, which I believe may open new ideas for MMO. They are trying to make rogues more of a burst damage, with them relying on their skills. It will be nice to see how it works in the end.
*Edit* Just to point out my dirge usually has higher str and agi then fighters I come across, so using the strong burly logic. I should be able to weild those massive weapons with ease, and do more damage.
Edited, Sun Oct 2 20:58:43 2005 by dirges
That being said it is hard to handle what a scout can do. Tracking helps but isnt needed, it really isnt hard to find what you are looking for, especially since they are seldom random or hidden. We have no real need for spotting, especially since mages already get that ability. Traps are nothing, I have only seen them on chests and really a tank can open traped chest with little fear of dying. There really isnt anything specific to scouts to make anyone take one.
Then there is the whole risk to reward balance. Tanks having higher survivability in a game are balanced by lower damage, sorta like why mages wear clth. For game play it is better, or you just end up with almost everyone being a fighter. In a game there are always fine lines between what ideas seam to feel they should be, and what is possible or not overpowered.
Just to point out with your robin hood example, he regular creamed fighters, the gaurds and little john. You are right it wasnt through might, but skill. Then using that logic scouts do more damage then fighters as a way of representing the higher level of finess. Then hercules you have a hero, he was incredably strong, but wasnt really just a fighter. He used his brains, he was an archer and he was a tracker.
They are working on a DnD MMORPG, which I believe may open new ideas for MMO. They are trying to make rogues more of a burst damage, with them relying on their skills. It will be nice to see how it works in the end.
*Edit* Just to point out my dirge usually has higher str and agi then fighters I come across, so using the strong burly logic. I should be able to weild those massive weapons with ease, and do more damage.
Edited, Sun Oct 2 20:58:43 2005 by dirges
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
While I agree that the role of scouts in EQ2 doesn't match those in the usual fantasy literature (and please remember that these are only stories) the reasoning behind their high dps can be put down to one thing - game mechanics.
EQ2 is really pretty simple - you repeatedly kill mobs, gaining XP and loot, and hence progress your character. It therefore follows that every class should be able to contribute effectively in this killing. If scouts are inefficient tanks, doing little damage, with no 'crowd control' abilities and unable to heal, then their appeal to a group is limited to say the least and they would almost certainly be unable to solo.
Some people claim the solution to the grouping problem is that a scout should be given necessary and class specific duties to perform eg only scouts can unlock doors. This would mean most zones would need to include locked doors and those that did would have to have advantages over those that didn't (otherwise why have a group of which a scout is a member and hence not as efficient). This would add a 4th necessary role for a balanced group (tank, healer, dps and scout) and there have always been too many complaints over the existing 3.
As a scout would not be able to solo in the conventional manner then it has been suggested that they should receive XP from performing their class specific roles - sneaking, scouting, disarming etc. Currently XP is awarded on a risk vs reward basis (harder mobs give more XP) and most of these roles are low to no risk activities. Clearly this would lead to XPing for a scout being far easier than any other class or so monotonously boring that no one would want to play that class.
So why do scouts have higher dps than tanks in EQ2? Simply because it is the role which fits and there would be more of an uproar if these classes were ommited completely.
EQ2 is really pretty simple - you repeatedly kill mobs, gaining XP and loot, and hence progress your character. It therefore follows that every class should be able to contribute effectively in this killing. If scouts are inefficient tanks, doing little damage, with no 'crowd control' abilities and unable to heal, then their appeal to a group is limited to say the least and they would almost certainly be unable to solo.
Some people claim the solution to the grouping problem is that a scout should be given necessary and class specific duties to perform eg only scouts can unlock doors. This would mean most zones would need to include locked doors and those that did would have to have advantages over those that didn't (otherwise why have a group of which a scout is a member and hence not as efficient). This would add a 4th necessary role for a balanced group (tank, healer, dps and scout) and there have always been too many complaints over the existing 3.
As a scout would not be able to solo in the conventional manner then it has been suggested that they should receive XP from performing their class specific roles - sneaking, scouting, disarming etc. Currently XP is awarded on a risk vs reward basis (harder mobs give more XP) and most of these roles are low to no risk activities. Clearly this would lead to XPing for a scout being far easier than any other class or so monotonously boring that no one would want to play that class.
So why do scouts have higher dps than tanks in EQ2? Simply because it is the role which fits and there would be more of an uproar if these classes were ommited completely.
The concept of making quest completion the primary source of experience sounds good to me. It will be interesting to see if they can pull it off. Aren't they working in a model of a hub area where players can meet with everyting else being instanced? Sort of like Splitpaw. That way they can set up many different areas suited to different types of groups and/or soloers. Hopefully even geared toward different class abilities.
Killing monsters should reasonably provide little or no experience after the first few of any type. How much can you learn from killing your 1000th goblin, really? Monsters should be (one of many) roadblocks to quest completion.
As far as damage output of scouts vs. fighters, I would think that a priest who can call down the wrath of God on her enemies would be outdamaging everyone. The wrath of God levels cities.
Killing monsters should reasonably provide little or no experience after the first few of any type. How much can you learn from killing your 1000th goblin, really? Monsters should be (one of many) roadblocks to quest completion.
As far as damage output of scouts vs. fighters, I would think that a priest who can call down the wrath of God on her enemies would be outdamaging everyone. The wrath of God levels cities.
Quote:
As far as damage output of scouts vs. fighters, I would think that a priest who can call down the wrath of God on her enemies would be outdamaging everyone. The wrath of God levels cities.
That also isnt concidering how nature, which is independent of gods would react.
Then there is no way in game to to actually appease gods. Priest need a sacrifice ability to appease their god and gain temp powers.
Sorry to put in my oppinion that does not exactly agree. I read alot of fantasy and see your point from that aspect. But from another aspect if a fighter is standing toe to toe with a mob that mob gets to see every attack and react accordingly (Dodge, Parry, or just make sure it hits his armor rather then his face). However the scout standing behind him does not have the same problem thus they can find the chinks and the armor and take advantage of them rather then having to batter thru the armor the way a fighter class would.
Epic heros like Hercules are just that, Epic...so they will be able to do amazing amounts of damage while wielding a tree. The rest of us are just Joe Fighter that comes from the farms.
A Fighter can be likened to someone that knows how to take a beating, is strong, and lays on damage by blind brute force. Since his swings are more power than accuracy, the opponents defenses may absorb it. (low dps)
A Scout has a keen eye and can move quicker. His swings, although not as powerful, are able to find the hole in the armor, all the while aiming for that critical spot on the body that will cause the most damage. (high dps)
Like in all games (AD&D), your HP goes up with levels. So 1 stab from a dagger will kill your 1st level Mage because you don't know how to avoid it. But the same swing to a level 15 mage means much less since the mage can "dodge" and wind up with a mere graze of the blade.
And yes, I'll jump the "yea, what he said" bandwagon on SOE. The game has to be balanced somehow so no one class is too powerful and another class is useless. Each has a strength they bring to the group, and a full group will rein supreme.
I feel they have done a good job with the overall concept of AC/DPS for each class. It kind of boils down to this:
The more DPS you do, the more easy it is for you to get killed.
and conversly...
The less DPS you do, the harder it is for you to get killed.
...almost like the stock market...
A Fighter can be likened to someone that knows how to take a beating, is strong, and lays on damage by blind brute force. Since his swings are more power than accuracy, the opponents defenses may absorb it. (low dps)
A Scout has a keen eye and can move quicker. His swings, although not as powerful, are able to find the hole in the armor, all the while aiming for that critical spot on the body that will cause the most damage. (high dps)
Like in all games (AD&D), your HP goes up with levels. So 1 stab from a dagger will kill your 1st level Mage because you don't know how to avoid it. But the same swing to a level 15 mage means much less since the mage can "dodge" and wind up with a mere graze of the blade.
And yes, I'll jump the "yea, what he said" bandwagon on SOE. The game has to be balanced somehow so no one class is too powerful and another class is useless. Each has a strength they bring to the group, and a full group will rein supreme.
I feel they have done a good job with the overall concept of AC/DPS for each class. It kind of boils down to this:
The more DPS you do, the more easy it is for you to get killed.
and conversly...
The less DPS you do, the harder it is for you to get killed.
...almost like the stock market...
38 posts
Good ideas here! As someone interested in game design, this thread holds a lot of useful ideas.
The main factor in any game should be fun. It's fun to do massive dmg to monsters, obviously, so everyone wants in on that. Since it's not fun if you don't feel just as good (or better then) the next guy, companies like SOE concentrate on having game balance between the classes. Where they err is in messing with basic assumptions and mechanics to try and make classes equal, instead of being creative.
Case in point: Fighters should do the most meelee dmg, obviously. That's what they do. The higher lvl they get, the tougher they should be. A 1st level fighter is a farmboy (or farmtroll) with a sword and armor. A 60th lvl fighter is a Warlord, veteran of 100s of battles, master of arms and mighty on the battlefield. A 2 handed greatsword, weilded by a huge fighter, should do massive dmg on a clean hit. In EQ2, scout classes do more damage per second (even though it's only from back or side, and only with special attacks). Does this make sense?
Yes and no. Obviously, attacks to vital points do massive dmg. get a dagger thrust into your throat from behind, you'll be dead. The same thing would happen if you get chopped in two by a greatsword, just a bit messier. Now, as far as sheer dmg goes, the fighter with the sword does much more dmg then the thief with the knife. However, the results are the same. When you add in factors like Armor, hardness of a creature's hide, ect, you can point to situations where either class has the advantage.
Ex 1: A tank and a thief are fighting a heavily armored warrior. The warrior has very strong armorand is a skilled warrior. Our mighty barbarian with greatsword keeps getting parried, and when he hits, the Warrior's uber armor is so strong, it can absorb much of the dmg. Luckily, the Warrior doesn't see the thief behind him, who finds a hole in the armor under the warrior's arm, and kills him with one blow.
Ex 2: Same barbarian and thief are in the deadly crypt. Skeletons, zombies, and other undeads charge at them from all sides. The barbarian's greatsword cleaves through the skellies 5 at a time, turning them into a pile of rubble. Meanwhile, the undead aren't fooled by the thief's stealth, and it's all he can do to parry them and keep them away. Even when he can get behind one, it doesn't matter, since the undead have no vital points. So the thief lets the barbarian clear out the undead, and disarms the terrible trap on the last casket.
In each example, one class had a clear advantage over the other. And in each example, the 2 classes work together. Balance doesn't mean making sure every class can solo as well as every other class, or nerfing sucessful combinations because they're "too good". Balance is about giving each calss a role, and many ways to fufil that role.
One problem is that scouts have a limited role in EQ2. They can open chests, track, stealth, evac, snare, do great DPS from behind, nad make people run faster. Opening chests is useful, but any soloer knows it's not vital. tracking is awesome IMHO, espically when you're looking for a named to pop, or the NPC for a quest, or for mobs to kill for a specific quest. Still, this is also not vital. Evac is great help, so is stealth and the run buff, but groups can get by without them. So we're left with high DPS, which has to be high to justify taking a scout. look at the other classes: Tanks take lots of dmg so everyone else lives. They hold aggro, can pull mobs off people, and do decent dmg. Vital for a group. Mages do supreme DPS, root, buff and debuff. Very useful. Healers... we know how vital they are. So what's a scout's role in MMORPGS if fighters tank and do good dmg, Healers heal, and wizzies DPS and buff?
A suggestion would be to expand thieves roles. Instead of putting their DPS to ridiculously high lvls and nerfing tank DPS, just make a few changes:
* Give thieves opportunity to do one hit kill from behind, % of success goes up with lvl, skilll put on timer or only used once a fight (since the monsters know you're there afterward) No need for high DPS.
* Give each thief class something desirable (Assasians get poisons, more kill attacks, better stealth. Rangers get uber bow skills, pet, some nature skills, traps. Bards get great buffs and debuffs, AoE sonic attacks, and a sampling of other things, like a few spells and lockpicking skills. Swashies get great parry/block, can parry enemy attacks into each other, and can improvise attacks using what's around them)
* Let thieves be thieves. Let them plant traps; lock and unlock things; steal from mobs, NPCs and players; have a chance of talking an incoming add into attacking your enemy instead; coating weapons, thiers and others, in poison; setting up ambushes; scouting out and area (possibly act like a ghost in SC, being a wizard's eyes so he can use a devestating long range blast on mobs the scout sees from hiding)
As it is now, it seems silly for thieves to out dmg fighters. it's more a failure of mechanics then anything else. Mind you, the game is very fun the way it is. And rangers do kill with the bow, and bards are sought after for their buffs. But a bard shouldn't be out damaging a tank. An Assasian, maybe, with poison. But a bard? nope. They get great skills and buffs, but should do more dmg then healer, less then tank.
I hope this adds something to the discussion, seeing as I'm a little cloudy headed as I write this, wanting to finish my thought before drifting off to sleep, where I fight ogres with my great axe. :)
And one last thing: A barbarian and a halfling aren't equal as tanks. A barbarian will do more dmg then a halfling, since he naturally has more strength. A halfling with equal strength does do equal dmg, true, but the strength is from armor, weapons and buffs, and that halfling is understood to be an exceptional member of his race. If both are in equal equip and equal buffs, Barbarian should do more dmg every time. True, halfling may not be far behind, but a 50th lvl halfling fighter should have just as much battle skill as a 50th lvl barbarian. But i DO think halfers shouldn't be allowed to use huge swords and axes, since they're just too awkward. I don't care how strong you are, if you're 3' tall trying to swing a 8' blade, it's going to be pretty difficult to hit anything. And it looks pretty funny.
The main factor in any game should be fun. It's fun to do massive dmg to monsters, obviously, so everyone wants in on that. Since it's not fun if you don't feel just as good (or better then) the next guy, companies like SOE concentrate on having game balance between the classes. Where they err is in messing with basic assumptions and mechanics to try and make classes equal, instead of being creative.
Case in point: Fighters should do the most meelee dmg, obviously. That's what they do. The higher lvl they get, the tougher they should be. A 1st level fighter is a farmboy (or farmtroll) with a sword and armor. A 60th lvl fighter is a Warlord, veteran of 100s of battles, master of arms and mighty on the battlefield. A 2 handed greatsword, weilded by a huge fighter, should do massive dmg on a clean hit. In EQ2, scout classes do more damage per second (even though it's only from back or side, and only with special attacks). Does this make sense?
Yes and no. Obviously, attacks to vital points do massive dmg. get a dagger thrust into your throat from behind, you'll be dead. The same thing would happen if you get chopped in two by a greatsword, just a bit messier. Now, as far as sheer dmg goes, the fighter with the sword does much more dmg then the thief with the knife. However, the results are the same. When you add in factors like Armor, hardness of a creature's hide, ect, you can point to situations where either class has the advantage.
Ex 1: A tank and a thief are fighting a heavily armored warrior. The warrior has very strong armorand is a skilled warrior. Our mighty barbarian with greatsword keeps getting parried, and when he hits, the Warrior's uber armor is so strong, it can absorb much of the dmg. Luckily, the Warrior doesn't see the thief behind him, who finds a hole in the armor under the warrior's arm, and kills him with one blow.
Ex 2: Same barbarian and thief are in the deadly crypt. Skeletons, zombies, and other undeads charge at them from all sides. The barbarian's greatsword cleaves through the skellies 5 at a time, turning them into a pile of rubble. Meanwhile, the undead aren't fooled by the thief's stealth, and it's all he can do to parry them and keep them away. Even when he can get behind one, it doesn't matter, since the undead have no vital points. So the thief lets the barbarian clear out the undead, and disarms the terrible trap on the last casket.
In each example, one class had a clear advantage over the other. And in each example, the 2 classes work together. Balance doesn't mean making sure every class can solo as well as every other class, or nerfing sucessful combinations because they're "too good". Balance is about giving each calss a role, and many ways to fufil that role.
One problem is that scouts have a limited role in EQ2. They can open chests, track, stealth, evac, snare, do great DPS from behind, nad make people run faster. Opening chests is useful, but any soloer knows it's not vital. tracking is awesome IMHO, espically when you're looking for a named to pop, or the NPC for a quest, or for mobs to kill for a specific quest. Still, this is also not vital. Evac is great help, so is stealth and the run buff, but groups can get by without them. So we're left with high DPS, which has to be high to justify taking a scout. look at the other classes: Tanks take lots of dmg so everyone else lives. They hold aggro, can pull mobs off people, and do decent dmg. Vital for a group. Mages do supreme DPS, root, buff and debuff. Very useful. Healers... we know how vital they are. So what's a scout's role in MMORPGS if fighters tank and do good dmg, Healers heal, and wizzies DPS and buff?
A suggestion would be to expand thieves roles. Instead of putting their DPS to ridiculously high lvls and nerfing tank DPS, just make a few changes:
* Give thieves opportunity to do one hit kill from behind, % of success goes up with lvl, skilll put on timer or only used once a fight (since the monsters know you're there afterward) No need for high DPS.
* Give each thief class something desirable (Assasians get poisons, more kill attacks, better stealth. Rangers get uber bow skills, pet, some nature skills, traps. Bards get great buffs and debuffs, AoE sonic attacks, and a sampling of other things, like a few spells and lockpicking skills. Swashies get great parry/block, can parry enemy attacks into each other, and can improvise attacks using what's around them)
* Let thieves be thieves. Let them plant traps; lock and unlock things; steal from mobs, NPCs and players; have a chance of talking an incoming add into attacking your enemy instead; coating weapons, thiers and others, in poison; setting up ambushes; scouting out and area (possibly act like a ghost in SC, being a wizard's eyes so he can use a devestating long range blast on mobs the scout sees from hiding)
As it is now, it seems silly for thieves to out dmg fighters. it's more a failure of mechanics then anything else. Mind you, the game is very fun the way it is. And rangers do kill with the bow, and bards are sought after for their buffs. But a bard shouldn't be out damaging a tank. An Assasian, maybe, with poison. But a bard? nope. They get great skills and buffs, but should do more dmg then healer, less then tank.
I hope this adds something to the discussion, seeing as I'm a little cloudy headed as I write this, wanting to finish my thought before drifting off to sleep, where I fight ogres with my great axe. :)
And one last thing: A barbarian and a halfling aren't equal as tanks. A barbarian will do more dmg then a halfling, since he naturally has more strength. A halfling with equal strength does do equal dmg, true, but the strength is from armor, weapons and buffs, and that halfling is understood to be an exceptional member of his race. If both are in equal equip and equal buffs, Barbarian should do more dmg every time. True, halfling may not be far behind, but a 50th lvl halfling fighter should have just as much battle skill as a 50th lvl barbarian. But i DO think halfers shouldn't be allowed to use huge swords and axes, since they're just too awkward. I don't care how strong you are, if you're 3' tall trying to swing a 8' blade, it's going to be pretty difficult to hit anything. And it looks pretty funny.
Just a question on why a bard shouldnt do more damage then a tank. If my bard has more str and agi, wouldnt it be fair for me to do more damage? Afterall while soloing I can easily reach almost 200 str and over 230 agi.
Another thing is why cant scouts use blint weapons, how much harder is it to use a stick over a long sword.
Another thing is why cant scouts use blint weapons, how much harder is it to use a stick over a long sword.
My guess on the blunt weapons is that they have you designed to be going for the vital areas in order to get your dps. Its a little hard to penetrate a vital area with a club. :D
Quote:
Just a question on why a bard shouldnt do more damage then a tank.
Because bards by definition are travelling musicians, not fighters. In my opinion, and dont get me wrong i really like the bard class, its even strange to me that bards can use the same amount of weapons that other scout type can use.
Bards in most fantasy worlds Ive known so far are mostly there to follow the heroes and write songs and tails about them so they will be remembered. Take the bard in Asterix. He aint no great fighter. But he DOES have his role in the story.
When I think of a bard (generally speaking and not EQ2 oriented) I think of a charismatic dude that can speak his way out of a hard situation ; I think of a guy that writes songs and sings them to motivate his comrades...I dont really think about a dps machine.
Like one of the posters said, they gave so little room to scouts in the game that high DPS is the only way they found to have them appealing to most people. Without the high DPS they would be close to useless in a group, hard to solo with, and quickly left behind.
Though I do agree bards should be low on the damage, with buffs to make up the difference, which is one of the reasons I dont mind not having poison. Most of it is flaws in game.
But my question was since I have more str and agi then a fighter, why shouldnt I do more damgae, and now learn to wield large weapons? If fighters do massive damage by being strong, wouldnt a bard that is stronger do more damage? If I am stronger then why shouldnt I be able to swing that giant axe?
But overall I believe thy did a lot wrong with bards, one being they took out cha. One whe should be doing mental damage, why does my song do disease damage.
Right now bards are buffers, makes sense songs raise the spirits. This makes the stat buffs make sense, as well as parry/defense buffs and resists somewhat. But then I can also grant a disease proc to all group members, how is my singing suppose to make people do disease damage, extra dps sure, but not disease damage.
We are also debuffers, with the stat decreases making the obvious sense, since our songs make the mobs unwilling to fight. But why some much resist debuffs, most of the time resists are done by gear and spells, why should a song disable something the target has no control over. I could understand mental resists from affecting the targets mind. Run/attack speed debuffs make some sense since the song makes the targets group more unwilling to attack, but I would rather see more stuns, confuses and fears for our debufs.
Another thing I never got is why SOE doesnt use what the class descriptions say in deciding more of the class. Troubs sing spirit lifting songs, while dirges sing sorrowfull songs. So troubs should be the better buffers and dirges the better debuffer. Afterall singing a sorrowful song shouldnt raise a groupmembers spirit as much as singing them a upbeat song. While singing a sad song to an enemy should have more effect then singing them a happy song.
But my question was since I have more str and agi then a fighter, why shouldnt I do more damgae, and now learn to wield large weapons? If fighters do massive damage by being strong, wouldnt a bard that is stronger do more damage? If I am stronger then why shouldnt I be able to swing that giant axe?
But overall I believe thy did a lot wrong with bards, one being they took out cha. One whe should be doing mental damage, why does my song do disease damage.
Right now bards are buffers, makes sense songs raise the spirits. This makes the stat buffs make sense, as well as parry/defense buffs and resists somewhat. But then I can also grant a disease proc to all group members, how is my singing suppose to make people do disease damage, extra dps sure, but not disease damage.
We are also debuffers, with the stat decreases making the obvious sense, since our songs make the mobs unwilling to fight. But why some much resist debuffs, most of the time resists are done by gear and spells, why should a song disable something the target has no control over. I could understand mental resists from affecting the targets mind. Run/attack speed debuffs make some sense since the song makes the targets group more unwilling to attack, but I would rather see more stuns, confuses and fears for our debufs.
Another thing I never got is why SOE doesnt use what the class descriptions say in deciding more of the class. Troubs sing spirit lifting songs, while dirges sing sorrowfull songs. So troubs should be the better buffers and dirges the better debuffer. Afterall singing a sorrowful song shouldnt raise a groupmembers spirit as much as singing them a upbeat song. While singing a sad song to an enemy should have more effect then singing them a happy song.
Quote:
But my question was since I have more str and agi then a fighter, why shouldnt I do more damgae
So now you are all big and strong but cant figure out how to uses a big sword. Your strength really isnt helping all that much cuz no matter how hard you try a 2 inch dagger only goes in 2 inches:D. Sorry just had to be a wise @##.
That is why a said why couldnt I use those giant axes, it isnt like it is too heavy if a weaker player can use one. I already have skill in useing one handed axes, why couldnt I use larger axes in my my hands, and it is not like it actually takes a whole lot more skill to weild one weapon in two hands over a weapon in each hand.
If you look at it, dumb as an ox fighter have figured out how to use 2 handed weapons, weak bearly able to fight mages and healers have figured out how to use them, how hard could it really be for a scout to learn how to.
If you look at it, dumb as an ox fighter have figured out how to use 2 handed weapons, weak bearly able to fight mages and healers have figured out how to use them, how hard could it really be for a scout to learn how to.
Quote:
That is why a said why couldnt I use those giant axes, it isnt like it is too heavy if a weaker player can use one. I already have skill in useing one handed axes, why couldnt I use larger axes in my my hands, and it is not like it actually takes a whole lot more skill to weild one weapon in two hands over a weapon in each hand.
Just thinking some more and I thought that maybe it works like this. A group of people walk up to a fight. All of them are carrying these big 2 handed weapons except for the scout. He has his daggers tucked into his belt behind his back. The enemies see all the big weapons and focus there attention on that rather then on the scout stealthily slipping behind them to stab them in the back. While he may not a have a huge weapon that takes forever to swing do to that he does not draw attention to himself and can attack the vital points due to the enemy not focusing its attention on him.
I have to add my thoughts. We are forgetting a very prominent ranger: Stryder. He was strong, he was skillful and he was very deadly. It's coming from Tolkien, so it must be right.
Quote:
I have to add my thoughts. We are forgetting a very prominent ranger: Stryder. He was strong, he was skillful and he was very deadly. It's coming from Tolkien, so it must be right.
Rrikor, just for some reason I dont see my dirge being staelthy, shoot trying to snea up on something while singing a combination of 6 songs doesnt sound very stealthy to me. As far as songs getting the mobs attention, they sure do. You wouldnt imagine how many times I have given haryns angry sennota on a tank to increase their aggro and I still get hit regularly.
im kinda sloshed right now but try to follow me. wulfgar was a giant fighter that kill all that stood in his way with 1-2 hitsd while drizzt was a stealthy little ****** with 2 little pin pricks but kileld jsut as well. if you read the most recent of the books you must remember obold the orc guy. hes uber strong and blessed by grumsch the orc god. hes much like a paladin strong smart and holy. he just servs his god and acts as he things is good. neither of them could kill obold becasue of devine blessing. dont that mean paladins kick the **** outa every one? i mean i play a paladin and a necro and i love both but my paladin is my main becasue pallys are ******* kewl man they juist are as you know tyhey are. pallys can heal and kil lat the same time and i am glad that they diont have hgiher dps as they are strong enoguh as it is right now. 2 pallys in a groyup means you dont needa healer all you need is dps. so if enything they need to nerf us pallys more. my lvl 32 pally eats yellow abnd orange orcs in zek for lunch. i have allmost no mana and 30% hp but i still kill. so IMHO scoutm and tanks suck and apllys rule.
Recent Visitors: 223
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (223)
- Forums
- EverQuest II
- General Discussion
- Game Concept
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC