Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Pugilist: A TankFollow

#1 Mar 21 2010 at 10:18 PM Rating: Decent
*
95 posts
I'm thinking that SE is going to allow for the 'monk' type class to be a true tank this time if players see fit and here is why:
1). The fact that pugilist, stated by SE, has a high evasion rather then defense allows for a different kind of tank.
2). Offensive stances to allow for threat control
3). Defensive stances to tank the mob. Not sure yet what different stats are affected by switching stances.
-I hope that the player can play pugilist either way, offensive or defensive. In XI monk had the highest HP count and the offensive firepower to hold threat and with the addition of the stance switch, I think we might be looking at our evasion tank.
____________________________
Sin(SWTOR): 50 Jedi Sentinel

Krystalin(FFXI) :(retired) 85BRD/85BLM/85WAR/85BLU/85SAM/85DRG/85PLD/85RDM/85THF/85DRK/75BST/75PUP/75COR/75MNK/75NIN/75RNG

Vikzul(WoW):(retired) 80 rogue

Clytie(WoW):(retired) 80 pld
#2 Mar 21 2010 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
There's a current discussion on BG right now about the roles of a Pugilist. General consensus and theory is that it will be mainly a DD with lesser tanking abilities.


My personal opinion is that I think SE is making a Pugilist main tank very possible, especially if it combines its tank and defensive abilities with Gladiator's.
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#3 Mar 21 2010 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,353 posts
I'm pretty sure Monk had highest HP and VIT and 2nd highest evasion in FFXI. Plus with counterattack and chakra (and a defensive stance called counterstance or some junk), it all seemed like a pretty good combo for a tank. It wasn't.

Just like you said... they had highest HP and the firepower, but they still weren't tanks in FFXI. I see no reason why people will decide they'll be good for FFXIV if they didn't want (pretty much the same thing) for FFXI.
____________________________
I will wake up at six a.m. again.
and I will find my way to the front door
like a soldier crawling through the smoking carnage.
smoldering bodies at my feet,
I'd love to stick around, but I've got someone to meet.
and I will put my best foot forward.
and I'll thank god I made it out of there
on the day when my new friends come.
#4 Mar 21 2010 at 10:53 PM Rating: Excellent
**
495 posts
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Monk had highest HP and VIT and 2nd highest evasion in FFXI. Plus with counterattack and chakra (and a defensive stance called counterstance or some junk), it all seemed like a pretty good combo for a tank. It wasn't.

Just like you said... they had highest HP and the firepower, but they still weren't tanks in FFXI. I see no reason why people will decide they'll be good for FFXIV if they didn't want (pretty much the same thing) for FFXI.


MNK's main issue was hate control and defensive manuevers could not go hand in hand. You subbed /NIN and if by some miracle you could keep hate well from there, MNK could be a great tank (At least near as good as NIN itself could be and more with the high HP). You sub /WAR for hate control but than you get paper thin damage mitigation even with Defender up, and obviously defender means nothing with counterstance up. A defensive stance + native hate control = possible situational tank. You still need a reliable damage mitigation for harder hitting foes (unless you want to see a PUG get one shotted) but thats what the stance system is for on Pugilist. More you are in a defensive stance, the more abilities open and passive traits designed specifically for tanking or taking less damage from getting hit.

MNKs other issue was chakra, it was a great situational cure but it had WAY too long a timer to be practical in tanking. With how every job ability now utilizes tp (Chakra definitely does at least), the timer to use Chakra is probably significantly less. With Pug you can choose to use more tp to just getting hate and using chakra to heal yourself and than supplement with increase evasion and guard skills and maybe get a weapon designed to fend off damage better.

And since it seems the main challenge of the game is going to not be high hitting mobs but party vs party battles, maybe that situational tank might just come in handy more than it did in FFXI. I see a lot of strategies revolved around mitigating the damage over the entire party since we have seen the Conjurer cure spell is actually AOE so having more than one character take damage besides the main tank might actually be beneficial in this game when it was stupid in FFXI (healer would get killed from the hate constantly healing the entire party at once).
#5 Mar 21 2010 at 10:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
279 posts
Hopefully. Always good to have different ways to do a job, attracts more people to it and for those that like to tank/heal, a new job to do it in can keep them doing it longer.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#6 Mar 22 2010 at 7:33 AM Rating: Default
*
144 posts
I doubt it, havnt seen one game with monk in it that allows them to tank effectively.
____________________________
Server: Alexander
Character Name: Lovestospoon
Level: 75 WHM
Crafts: 100 Cooking
#7 Mar 22 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
While I'd very much like to see the pugilist be an effective tank or off-tank, but I don't there is any evidence for that thus far. The FFXI Monk had a lot of tank like abilities that may have made it seem initially tank like as well: dodge for increased evasion, counterstance (might look like increase threat generation in exchange for defense), and blocking.
#8 Mar 22 2010 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
**
800 posts
While we don't know any real combat mechanics yet, SE is touting FFXIV as being casual friendly. This would imply that specific roles are spread over more than one class. Especially since they have a "provoke" ability, I would expect them to be at least an off tank, but probably a main tank if well geared.
#9 Mar 22 2010 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,102 posts
I'm not seeing Pugilist as one or the other. From the way they have described "leveling", it will more be like, it curves to whatever role you make it.

There will be Pugilist Tanks and Pugilist DD's. If SE's system works anything how they're saying it does, they probably differ greatly, and excel in each role.
____________________________
------------------
#10 Mar 22 2010 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
It wouldn't surprise me to see Pugilists as the base class for a "tank that is not a gladiator". It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Pugilists as the base archetype for the ninja-type 'job', given that they appear to be the only class atm that can dual wield (even if it is just fist weapons). Marauders also get tank-like abilities, and I think SE's goal might be to make it so that if you want to tank, you would learn the tank-like abilities from other classes and then incorporate them into your class of choice (probably not a conjurer or thaumaturge, though :P) In the end it comes down to the kind of itemization SE supports, the way they scale borrowed and native abilities, and how they tune the encounters. Of all the original FFXI jobs, none of them wound up as common tanking jobs. Subjobs for the common tanking jobs yes, but I never really saw too many warrior tanks in FFXI beyond about level 30 and nobody would take a would-be tank MNK seriously.
#11 Mar 22 2010 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
*
107 posts
Looking at the job descriptions, it looks like all the front line fighters will have a way to draw hate. If we're dealing with a party of monsters, we will need all of the melee fighters to be able to pull hate.

Hopefully we get a wider variety of tanks this time around, or at least the general consensus will not pigeon hole Pugilists into purely DD.
____________________________
FFXI Hazero, Elvan PLD, retiered.
CoV, King Ghidora, Dominator retired
AoC, Mecha Ghidora, Dark Templar retired
Tabula Rasa, Super King, Grenadier retired
SWG, Hazero Ghidora, retired
DCUO, Crushlordian Earth Tank Retired
#12 Mar 22 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
520 posts
KingGhidora wrote:
Looking at the job descriptions, it looks like all the front line fighters will have a way to draw hate. If we're dealing with a party of monsters, we will need all of the melee fighters to be able to pull hate.


This.

If you have a 4 man party fighting a 4 man party of mobs, each one will have to be able to hold a mob. Someone will have to hold 2 mobs possibly if you have a thaumaturge along. Think of the whole game as one giant ODS Melee Style run. Everyone picks a mob and fights it, maybe just add a mage in the mix to drop a few -aga spells.
____________________________
FFXI: Nyse - PLD, DNC, DRG
Asura Server

FFXIV: Nyse Celestre - Working on PLD
Ridill Server...for now.
#13 Mar 22 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
**
800 posts
KingGhidora wrote:
or at least the general consensus will not pigeon hole Pugilists into purely DD.


I think this is the ticket here. Ninja was originally intended to be a DD/debuffer with a spell to avoid damage should they "accidentally" pull aggro, and look where that went.
#14 Mar 22 2010 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
977 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Of all the original FFXI jobs, none of them wound up as common tanking jobs. Subjobs for the common tanking jobs yes, but I never really saw too many warrior tanks in FFXI beyond about level 30 and nobody would take a would-be tank MNK seriously.


MNK turned out the main tank for Salvage, which was pretty much the end all end game event when I stopped playing. Also, wasn't PLD one of the original jobs at release, granted it was an advanced one?
____________________________
A drink. A drink. A drink.
#15 Mar 22 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
116 posts
I loved my MNK tanks in XI. But, this isn't XI we're talking about, or MNK.

I can see Pugilist being the "different kind" of tank they speak of. As pointed out, some situations it may be 4vs4.. with increased evasion, the Pugilist may be someone who holds off 3 weaker enemies while everyone else takes down the single powerful enemy. By the time that happens, maybe the Pugilist took down one of the weaker ones already.

Bottom line is, we're going to have to wait and see what happens.. and even more so we're going to have to wait and see what changes and additions are made as the game progresses. Remember, RDM in XI didn't always have Refresh. Nor did MNK have Counterstance.


Also, I'm fairly certain it was just the 6 jobs at release.. WAR THF MNK RDM BLM WHM.. It wasn't until Zilart that PLD and such came along. Which I suppose would be NA release.
#16 Mar 22 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
279 posts
No, NIN, DRG, and SAM were released with Zilart, the others were already in.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#17 Mar 22 2010 at 4:27 PM Rating: Default
***
1,102 posts
Quote:
No, NIN, DRG, and SAM were released with Zilart, the others were already in.


This is correct.
____________________________
------------------
#18 Mar 22 2010 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
44 posts
I've said this in a lot of threads already but i still see pugilist as for sure being a tanking class. My reasons may not be entirely true because it could end up being a lot different but from what we know SO FAR pugilist is somewhat like a white monk class from FFT A2. The reason i say this is because a white monks epic gear was called "pugilist gear" in the bazaar, and if anyone has played that and took a look at the stats on the ONLY race that could use white monk; they had extremely high hp and defense. In this even with lighter armour i see them having a decent amount of hp with just really decent evade but still good defense overall. Of course that's just speculation because of the general way that all classes tend to carry of their same basic skills no matter what FF game their in. IE. Ninjas have ALWAYS carried the dual wield trait. thats something that's always been for just them.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2010 9:28pm by Kingdestiny
#19 Mar 22 2010 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
12 posts
Let's ask Sigourney.
#20 Mar 23 2010 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
531 posts
I think that since it will be party vs party that the pugilists along with the gladiators will have to make sure their mages or archers aren't getting killed and will both be considered as tanks. As to which will be more of a "main" tank we'll just have to wait and see.
____________________________






#21 Mar 23 2010 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,146 posts
Since it is stated that groups will fight more mobs at one time it is safe to think that not in all situation the tank will tank the whole group but an other melee tank the first 1 where the rest kill that one quick.
#22 Mar 25 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
When has Pugilist (Or as it's otherwise been known, Fighter) ever had tanking abilities?

Wouldn't be more akin to Soldier?
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#23 Mar 26 2010 at 3:29 AM Rating: Good
I think it looks like they're making it so all classes have a lot of different possibilities for how you use them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if pugilist, gladiator, and marauder all have tanking skills and if you choose to take that path they will be (planned to be) competent tanks.
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#24 Mar 26 2010 at 8:51 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
am I the only one who would rather see the whole tank and healer concept die in a fire?
I want to play an MMO where we have a new class structure that doesn't require one person to be a damage sponge and another person to be solely responsible for keeping EVERYONE alive while the rest of the group is filled with half afk face roller dps who care nothing about anything but damage meters..

**** it, I want to play an MMO where we don't spend 30 minutes looking for a tank for every single group
I want combat that involves fighting mobs that intelligently pick targets and everyone is somewhat responsible for keeping each other alive in one way or another. Where you actually have to think on your feet.

I know I know.. pie in the sky..
Here we go again with this tank crap again, like we don't know how THATS going to turn out for the 50th freakin time.....
"Looking for a tank and good to go! Cmon we need a tank to log on! Full group here just need a **** tank!!"
#25 Mar 26 2010 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
thorazinekizzez wrote:
am I the only one who would rather see the whole tank and healer concept die in a fire?
I want to play an MMO where we have a new class structure that doesn't require one person to be a damage sponge and another person to be solely responsible for keeping EVERYONE alive while the rest of the group is filled with half afk face roller dps who care nothing about anything but damage meters..


The whole idea of a tank is that they can take hits and survive that would flatten any other class. In the absence of that kind of incoming damage, monsters, especially towards endgame, would seem ridiculously chumpy. Same goes for encounters that can be managed without a dedicated healer. In that case, you're not really a party...you're a group of individual players that just happens to be killing faster.

*********** it, I want to play an MMO where we don't spend 30 minutes looking for a tank for every single group
I want combat that involves fighting mobs that intelligently pick targets and everyone is somewhat responsible for keeping each other alive in one way or another. Where you actually have to think on your feet.[/quote]

And you'd end up sharing the game with the tiny handful of people who could actually function and coordinate that style of combat unless the game was ridiculously easy.

Quote:
I know I know.. pie in the sky..
Here we go again with this tank crap again, like we don't know how THATS going to turn out for the 50th freakin time.....
"Looking for a tank and good to go! Cmon we need a tank to log on! Full group here just need a **** tank!!"


So be a tank.
#26 Mar 26 2010 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
you're a group of individual players that just happens to be killing faster.


Yes because arena requires zero team work and winning is all about having one guy soak up all the damage while we merely kill faster. >.>

Look I am not expecting everyone to have the ability to think out of the box for a second. But the bottom line is this tank healer **** is tired as ****. I want some combat that keeps me on my toes and id prefer to see something new.
#27 Mar 26 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
What makes good PVP != what makes good PVE. And please don't tell me your 3v3 and 5v5 arena teams don't have at least one dedicated healer.

If you can come up with some original way to incorporate legendary fights against overwhelming opponents without resorting to the tank/healer tactic, the post it here. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in it, but I can't figure out how it would work.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#28 Mar 26 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
Inralkil wrote:
What makes good PVP != what makes good PVE. And please don't tell me your 3v3 and 5v5 arena teams don't have at least one dedicated healer.

If you can come up with some original way to incorporate legendary fights against overwhelming opponents without resorting to the tank/healer tactic, the post it here. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in it, but I can't figure out how it would work.


In effect really all that is actually happening in arena is you are forced to do everything your class brings to the table practically at the same time. A druid that stays in Tree of life form the entire time treating it like some PVE encounter is failing his team. You got to do everything you can using everything you have to pull off a win. I am using Arena as just an example because it does have many flaws. The core concept is there though.

If every class can heal, tank, or dps but cannot do all of these things at exactly the same time then your goal is to work with your team as well as possible to pay attention to WHO the monster is currently targeting and change tactics based on that. Now your class synergy and personal playing skill is what makes your group successful. To me it almost makes the idea of always being a tank, always being a dps sound almost two dimensional.
#29 Mar 26 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
thorazinekizzez wrote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
you're a group of individual players that just happens to be killing faster.


Yes because arena requires zero team work and winning is all about having one guy soak up all the damage while we merely kill faster. >.>

Look I am not expecting everyone to have the ability to think out of the box for a second. But the bottom line is this tank healer sh*t is tired as ****. I want some combat that keeps me on my toes and id prefer to see something new.


Try to avoid bringing competitive team PvP mechanics to a PvE discussion. It doesn't work.

The tank/damage/healer setup provides structure to groups. In the absence of structure is chaos. If you can manage a fight without a dedicated tank + healer, it means the thing(s) you were fighting didn't hit that hard and/or had very little HP. If everyone is a hybrid self healing, you're not really functioning as a team. If everyone is a hybrid healing everyone else, most of the time spent healing will have been wasted. If you're going to think outside the box, come up with an alternative that could actually work. If you don't like the team structure of MMOs, maybe MMOs aren't for you.
#30 Mar 26 2010 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
am I the only one who would rather see the whole tank and healer concept die in a fire?

At first I'm tempted to say "no," because I too would like to see more options for party setups, but after having quite a few discussions with friends about MMORPG design I realize that different people truly want different styles of games. Some people genuinely like being locked into a tank and healer setup.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
I want combat that involves fighting mobs that intelligently pick targets and everyone is somewhat responsible for keeping each other alive in one way or another. Where you actually have to think on your feet.

While I too would liek to see players have to think on their feet, I don't think a truly intelligent mob is possible. I think hate systems can be improved to the point where they provide much greater challenge, but developers rarely pursue doing anything interesting with them.
AureliusSir wrote:
The whole idea of a tank is that they can take hits and survive that would flatten any other class. In the absence of that kind of incoming damage, monsters, especially towards endgame, would seem ridiculously chumpy. Same goes for encounters that can be managed without a dedicated healer. In that case, you're not really a party...you're a group of individual players that just happens to be killing faster.

I'm fairly certain thorazine understands the idea of a tank, but his point is that he finds games built to focus on the tank-healer setup to be very unoriginal. It is possible for parties to exist with unique setups, but it's rare and usually not intentional. Manaburns are an example of a party that is not built around a tank and healer, it was a unique type of party. BCNM40 steamed sprouts was an encounter that also wasn't built around a typical tank and a healer setup (you did tank the mandies a bit, but usually a DD was a better "tank" and wasn't built to take damage but merely to dish it out). DotA/HoN are not MMORPGs, but they share some elements and they don't have true tanks either. Guild Wars also didn't have tanks for a large part of the game, and it was built around suriving and dealing out burst damage.

There are other ways to make MMORPGs than tank and spank, but it requires greater creativity than what we often see.
AureliusSir wrote:
So be a tank.

I know you're trying to be funny here, but it's a legitimate complaint. Not being able group because of a single class is annoying, and you shouldn't have to play a class you don't care for just to replace that frustration with a new one. I liked playing bard in FFXI, and I was lucky to be that way, but I never once thought that all those people complaining about the lack of bards should pick up bards themselves.

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 10:19pm by Allegory
#31 Mar 26 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
hello Allegory

One of the things about FFXI that I did find very interesting was that often in basic play, meaning rarely high end end game events, often did go away from the standard tank + healer style of play as you have mentioned. However for me it was often the norm to partake in these different styles of play than not. I seeked them out, from rdm soloing hnm all the way to 3 party alliance bst groups. Smn burns bst burns mana burns tp burns you name it.

for example one of my favorite groups was beast master parties. Typically formed of various bst who would work together and flow in a unique way. while the pets served as being "tanks" they were often our damage and sometimes it was necessary to bounce hate around to out last the enemy. We would often melee along side our pets to increase damage and sometimes we couldn't because the mobs we fought were so fierce.

Dancers main healing also felt like a very interesting twist to the group makeup because often times the idea of actually having a tank was not necessary at all if everyone was subbing nin. ( the tank was merely a first voke to pull off of the brd ) Mana burns were also interesting that everyone could heal and everyone could dps at the same time. The goal was very different in each case it felt like another game. Exploring another world.

These were some of my favorite types of groups and I would LOVE to see vastly different styles of play expanded on allowing for group makeups to at least not always require the same makeup every single time.

There were many times in FFXI where I was able to break the mold and especially in the case of bst it was EASILY the most fun I ever had in an MMO. Man especially back when I first got into it. It was amazingly fun. Everyone could heal, everyone could dps and we sure as **** had to work together. If you were alone you would solo, if 2 bsts showed up you merely took down tougher mobs. No LFG for a tank or healer, **** ZERO LFG at all, it was me vs the world with many friends I met along the way.

It was seriously @#%^ing awesome...
More of that please ; ;

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 12:27am by thorazinekizzez

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 12:29am by thorazinekizzez
#32 Mar 26 2010 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Allegory wrote:
I'm fairly certain thorazine understands the idea of a tank, but his point is that he finds games built to focus on the tank-healer setup to be very unoriginal. It is possible for parties to exist with unique setups, but it's rare and usually not intentional. Manaburns are an example of a party that is not built around a tank and healer, it was a unique type of party. BCNM40 steamed sprouts was an encounter that also wasn't built around a typical tank and a healer setup (you did tank the mandies a bit, but usually a DD was a better "tank" and wasn't built to take damage but merely to dish it out). DotA/HoN are not MMORPGs, but they share some elements and they don't have true tanks either. Guild Wars also didn't have tanks for a large part of the game, and it was built around suriving and dealing out burst damage.


None of that really matters. What matters is having a game that works. Manaburns were an abnormality and were just as restrictive (if not moreso) than a standard party setup in terms of who you could bring. Replace the tank in a Steamed Sprouts group with a BRD. Same thing. No matter how you slice it, games involving multiple players require specialized roles. In the absence of those specialized roles, it's a group of hybrids running around playing a solo game just with more people involved. That's not to say that you won't find exceptions or that there is no room for originality or a new spin on old concepts. How do you structure a group if everyone can soak the hits, everyone can do solid damage, and everyone can heal? You can't. How do you sort out who is doing what? Do you really want a game that requires a 10 minute strategy discussion at the start of each group to make sure each person is on the same page? Really?

You know what you'd get if you tuned a game with a bunch of hybrids all doing a bit of everything? People designated to tank, people designated to heal, and people designated to focus on damage. Why? Because it's easier to manage a group that way. Everyone knows what is expected of them. Fewer duplication of efforts yielding ineffective results. Less people watching the group wipe and then complaining, "I thought you were going to heal that one."

If you don't like something, fine. If you want to see it replaced with something else, that's fine too. Pointing out your perception of problems isn't "thinking outside the box" as thorazine seems to think he's doing...it's complaining. "Thinking outside the box" is coming up with innovative, functional solutions to problems, not simply complaining about them and then passing it off to someone else to figure out.

The basic tank/healer/damage party composition works. That's why it's the standard in MMOs. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean those exceptions are functional across the board.

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 9:56pm by AureliusSir
#33 Mar 27 2010 at 12:23 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Aurelius there is a lot that you are misunderstanding.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
None of that really matters. What matters is having a game that works.

What matters is a game that is fun. For many players, using the same strategy through the entire game is very much not fun.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Manaburns were an abnormality and were just as restrictive (if not moreso) than a standard party setup in terms of who you could bring.

No one here is asserting that the game should only be manaburns or only be some other type of weird party. What made manaburns great and fun is that they were an option. If you were bored of traditional party setups and roles then manaburns offered you an effective alternative.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
No matter how you slice it, games involving multiple players require specialized roles.

No one is asserting the contrary, but you're operating under the false assumption that those roles have to come together in a specific arrangement. No they don't.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
How do you structure a group if everyone can soak the hits, everyone can do solid damage, and everyone can heal?

No one is suggesting that. You're inventing false points. Blms and bards didn't have to soak the hits to be an effective manaburn group. In certain /nin parties there is almost no healing at all.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Do you really want a game that requires a 10 minute strategy discussion at the start of each group to make sure each person is on the same page? Really?

Compared to the 30 to 60 minute wait for just getting a party in FFXI, 15-20 minute travel time, and 5-10 minute skillchain and pull discussion, 10 minutes of strategy doesn't sound that bad.

I'd rather have a game that required some strategy all the time than no strategy most of the time.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
You know what you'd get if you tuned a game with a bunch of hybrids all doing a bit of everything?

Again with hybrids. Do you realize you are the only person to mention hybrids in this thread? You don't need hybrids to do what we're talking about. in manaburns brd is purely support, no hybrid role and blms are purely DD and don't even bother debuffing. No hybrids are needed to make a atypical party.
#34 Mar 27 2010 at 12:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
The basic tank/healer/damage party composition works. That's why it's the standard in MMOs. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean those exceptions are functional across the board.


Not only do I want to discuss strategies for 10 minutes I want to discuss them endlessly fine tuning my skills, practicing, theory crafting until the day I stop playing. I want a fun and engaging game that feels fresh.

edit: trimmed because I rambled too much even for my own standards ><

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 3:24am by thorazinekizzez
#35 Mar 27 2010 at 1:33 AM Rating: Decent
Allegory wrote:
Aurelius there is a lot that you are misunderstanding.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
None of that really matters. What matters is having a game that works.

What matters is a game that is fun. For many players, using the same strategy through the entire game is very much not fun.


Ya, you say that now until the game ends up so convoluted that you can't get anything done with a PUG because it's too much of a pain in the ***. You played a BRD in FFXI...try half the stuff you're talking about without a BRD handy. It tends to change your perspective.

Quote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Manaburns were an abnormality and were just as restrictive (if not moreso) than a standard party setup in terms of who you could bring.

No one here is asserting that the game should only be manaburns or only be some other type of weird party. What made manaburns great and fun is that they were an option. If you were bored of traditional party setups and roles then manaburns offered you an effective alternative.


Ya, if you were one of the few select classes that could take part in them. You're trading one narrow restriction for another.

Quote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
No matter how you slice it, games involving multiple players require specialized roles.

No one is asserting the contrary, but you're operating under the false assumption that those roles have to come together in a specific arrangement. No they don't.


No, I'm not. I'm saying simply that the larger the group, the more specific the roles become. In the absence of specific roles, you've got a situation that is a) impossible for the developers to tune content and b) needlessly complex. The tank/healer/damage setup is as much a developer tool to build encounters around as it is a way for players to more readily coordinate the fighting.

Quote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
How do you structure a group if everyone can soak the hits, everyone can do solid damage, and everyone can heal?

No one is suggesting that. You're inventing false points. Blms and bards didn't have to soak the hits to be an effective manaburn group. In certain /nin parties there is almost no healing at all.


Ya, manaburns, steamed sprouts, and /NIN. Really complex. Right. Be a sport and stop throwing those around like they were winning mechanics. They were broken mechanics. The FFXI community knows it. I know it. Deep down in your heart of hearts, you know it.

Quote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Do you really want a game that requires a 10 minute strategy discussion at the start of each group to make sure each person is on the same page? Really?

Compared to the 30 to 60 minute wait for just getting a party in FFXI, 15-20 minute travel time, and 5-10 minute skillchain and pull discussion, 10 minutes of strategy doesn't sound that bad.


Unfortunately, the devs have already said they like the tank/healer/damage setup, so you might as well just get used to it now.

Quote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
You know what you'd get if you tuned a game with a bunch of hybrids all doing a bit of everything?

Again with hybrids. Do you realize you are the only person to mention hybrids in this thread? You don't need hybrids to do what we're talking about. in manaburns brd is purely support, no hybrid role and blms are purely DD and don't even bother debuffing. No hybrids are needed to make a atypical party.


You're going to need to do more than keep puking out the manaburn argument to convince me.
#36 Mar 27 2010 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
I like that Allegory brought up DoTA/HoN, because I think that this brings forward a system that I could see being effective in breaking the tank/healer mold in XIV. In HoN and DoTA, your actual hero does in some ways reflect your role, but the items that you buy are what clearly define you. There are heroes that are practically blank slates until you buy them items, at which point they truly start to shine. (For those of you who play, Spectre/Sand Wraith, Void/Chronos, Axe/Legionnaire are some decent examples.)

This could be extended to XIV tenfold because of the reliance on your items as far as leveling skills goes. And granted, this is already played into via the leveling system, you could take it one step further by allowing weapons and armor to be augmented in such a way that you can switch roles easily enough, allowing for you to customize to the point that you don't necessarily have to specialize in anything.

Yes, this turns most classes into hybrids, but depending on how creative you can get with the system, it opens up so much more than just "hey this hybrid can heal and tank and do damage and also do my trig homework for me all at once" and instead turn it into "This fight is going to require this, this, and this of the team members."
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#37 Mar 27 2010 at 2:51 AM Rating: Good
thorazinekizzez wrote:
am I the only one who would rather see the whole tank and healer concept die in a fire?
I want to play an MMO where we have a new class structure that doesn't require one person to be a damage sponge and another person to be solely responsible for keeping EVERYONE alive while the rest of the group is filled with half afk face roller dps who care nothing about anything but damage meters..

**** it, I want to play an MMO where we don't spend 30 minutes looking for a tank for every single group
I want combat that involves fighting mobs that intelligently pick targets and everyone is somewhat responsible for keeping each other alive in one way or another. Where you actually have to think on your feet.

I know I know.. pie in the sky..
Here we go again with this tank crap again, like we don't know how THATS going to turn out for the 50th freakin time.....
"Looking for a tank and good to go! Cmon we need a tank to log on! Full group here just need a **** tank!!"


I've thought about this too. I'd like to see tanking go away (at least from what it is now) because it seems pretty unrealistic and arbitrary. I think the healer job makes sense. I'd like to see some system where the heavy armored melee block for the ranged in a more realistic manner, so you'd still have those heavy defenders, they just wouldn't operate on a threat basis, but a proximity basis. Smart mobs might try to go around, but it'd be their job to defend their clothies with skills like cover as opposed to taunt- however mobs would also hit the back rows with their aoe and ranged skills.

Make each class's defense skills somewhat important in a party: whether its their range, their heavy armor, or their agility. Have mobs use a lot more swiping attacks and aoe cones.

And- something that it sounds like might happen, and I'm excited for is for there to be groups of mobs to deal with in a more realistic fashion.

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 1:51am by digitalcraft
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#38 Mar 27 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
Aurelius
I am not buying into this "Its different so its not possible it can be an improvement" argument.
#39 Mar 27 2010 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Ya, you say that now until the game ends up so convoluted that you can't get anything done with a PUG because it's too much of a pain in the ***. You played a BRD in FFXI...try half the stuff you're talking about without a BRD handy. It tends to change your perspective.

Such a ridiculous statement.

1. Developers are nowhere near at risk for making MMORPGs too strategic. When people are starving for strategy their biggest concern isn't becoming bloated from having too much... it's starvation.

2. A brd doesn't make it any/more less difficult to explain a strategy to a group. I know we've got high charisma, but that's jsut a game state Aurelius. :)

3. If anything, because I was a bard I know exactly what I'm talking about. I played bard during NA release, when they were still very rare and the game was still very new to NA players. Every party I entered required a 5-10 minute explanation of how to stand for songs and how to move about. When we were in cramped places I'd also have to explain when the tank and melee DD had to swap positions. Basically every party I was in involved these 5-10 minute explanations, and I never found it to be a problem. With all the other time wasters in FFXI this was the least of my worries, and strategy talks could always be done while en route so that they didn't add extra time.
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Allegory wrote:
No one here is asserting that the game should only be manaburns or only be some other type of weird party. What made manaburns great and fun is that they were an option. If you were bored of traditional party setups and roles then manaburns offered you an effective alternative.

Ya, if you were one of the few select classes that could take part in them. You're trading one narrow restriction for another.

Again, no one here is asserting that the game should only be manaburns.

Apparently I do need to walk you through this very slowly. If you can only tank and spank, how many options do you have? 1! Hurray for counting. If you can only manaburn, how many options do you have? 1! Yaa, have a cookie. Now if you can tank and spank OR manaburn, how many options do you have? WHOA 2! Amazing!

A system that provides you all the options you had before in addition to new options is necessarily less restrictive.

AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying simply that the larger the group, the more specific the roles become. In the absence of specific roles, you've got a situation that is a) impossible for the developers to tune content and b) needlessly complex. The tank/healer/damage setup is as much a developer tool to build encounters around as it is a way for players to more readily coordinate the fighting.

It's not impossible or needless complex. It's just not as easy as copy-pasting the generic RPG formula into your game. No matter how much you argue that it can't be done, you'll always be wrong because it has been done.



Aurelius I don't see why you even bother to play new games. You're clearly against any sort of progress. You seem quite happy with doing the exact same thing over and over again.
#40 Mar 27 2010 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Aurelius
I am not buying into this "Its different so its not possible it can be an improvement" argument.


That's not the argument and I've said as much. I've told you why he no tank/no healer setup can't work as a mainstay, particularly at endgame. And if you need tanks/healers a endgame, they're going to be present pre-endgame.

I've acknowledged that there are encounters where the standard group composition isn't necessary. And I have nothing against the idea. I just think that blanket statements like doing away with the tank/healer/damage composition altogether are poorly thought out.
#41 Mar 27 2010 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
Allegory wrote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Ya, you say that now until the game ends up so convoluted that you can't get anything done with a PUG because it's too much of a pain in the ***. You played a BRD in FFXI...try half the stuff you're talking about without a BRD handy. It tends to change your perspective.

Such a ridiculous statement.

1. Developers are nowhere near at risk for making MMORPGs too strategic. When people are starving for strategy their biggest concern isn't becoming bloated from having too much... it's starvation.


There's a fine line between strategic at an entertaining level and overly convoluted.

Quote:
2. A brd doesn't make it any/more less difficult to explain a strategy to a group. I know we've got high charisma, but that's jsut a game state Aurelius. :)


You know how I respond to people who misread, misinterpret, and put words in my mouth, so I'm just going to extend you the courtesy and stop there. Except to say...

Quote:
Aurelius I don't see why you even bother to play new games. You're clearly against any sort of progress. You seem quite happy with doing the exact same thing over and over again.


Based on the things I've posted about on these boards, that's about the dumbest conclusion you could have arrived at. You're not addressing encounter tuning in a general sense, you're not addressing mob tuning in an explicit sense, you're just repeating the same exceptional exceptions like they can be translated to a game on a much larger scale. If you're going to argue the points, argue the points. The points are:

1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.

If you can't answer those questions clearly and explicitly, you're just dreaming. Which is fine. You know me by now. I like to challenge poorly thought out daydreams. It's good fun. But only if you play along and handle it at the level of intelligence I know you're capable of. So please, try again.

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 1:30pm by AureliusSir
#42 Mar 29 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
Skimming over the last couple of posts I have to say that AureliusSir strikes me as the kind of person who was adamantly against the idea of replacing horses with cars. ;)

-Traveling is not fun or possible unless its with a horse because that is the only way it has worked thus far!

-You cannot have an epic battle without 20 half afk face rolling dps, combined with whackamole healers forced to play heart stopping healing tetris, while the tanks are forced to painstakingly pay attention to every detail of the fight!

Edited, Mar 29th 2010 10:27am by thorazinekizzez
#43 Mar 29 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Skimming over the last couple of posts I have to say that AureliusSir strikes me as the kind of person who was adamantly against the idea of replacing horses with cars. ;)

-Traveling is not fun or possible unless its with a horse because that is the only way it has worked thus far!

-You cannot have an epic battle without 20 half afk face rolling dps, combined with whackamole healers forced to play heart stopping healing tetris, while the tanks are forced to painstakingly pay attention to every detail of the fight!


Sure, avoid the questions. Best way to carry on a discussion, imo.
#44 Mar 29 2010 at 9:05 AM Rating: Default
***
2,890 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:

Sure, avoid the questions. Best way to carry on a discussion, imo.

1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.


hmm
Judging by the content of these questions I do not believe you understand the design process enough for my answers to make sense to you. In fact in order to answer these in a way that you would be able to understand I would practically have to write a GDD.

Play Ultima Online or something. The graphics are terrible but the games core design is still to this day quite ingenious and it would be a far better answer to your questions. Or rather understand that there is little absence to what you do not understand on this topic.

Edited, Mar 29th 2010 11:06am by thorazinekizzez

Edited, Mar 29th 2010 11:07am by thorazinekizzez
#45 Mar 29 2010 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
thorazinekizzez wrote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:

Sure, avoid the questions. Best way to carry on a discussion, imo.

1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.


hmm
Judging by the content of these questions I do not believe you understand the design process enough for my answers to make sense to you. In fact in order to answer these in a way that you would be able to understand I would practically have to write a GDD.

Play Ultima Online or something. The graphics are terrible but the games core design is still to this day quite ingenious and it would be a far better answer to your questions. Or rather understand that there is little absence to what you do not understand on this topic.


I love it when people go out of their way to sound intelligent and make no sense at all.

You still haven't addressed the questions.
#46 Mar 29 2010 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Sure, avoid the questions. Best way to carry on a discussion, imo.

Honestly Aurelius, on this topic you aren't worth debating here. I don't mean that to be insulting, but the contentions you've brought forth have been largely either unrelated or nonsensical.

In this example:
Quote:
In the absence of those specialized roles, it's a group of hybrids running around playing a solo game just with more people involved. That's not to say that you won't find exceptions or that there is no room for originality or a new spin on old concepts. How do you structure a group if everyone can soak the hits, everyone can do solid damage, and everyone can heal? You can't. How do you sort out who is doing what?

It just doesn't make sense. Neither Thorazine nor I have mentioned hybrids, hybrids are in no way needed for our suggestion to be viable, and we've made explicit use of examples where there are no hybrids. It's a strawman, but not some sort of deliberate or malicious one, but a failure to understand what thorazine and I are getting at.
Quote:
1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.

If you can't answer those questions clearly and explicitly, you're just dreaming.

You also fail to understand how answering those is neither possible nor relevant.

I can't tell you how to tune content for a game that hasn't been made yet. I can't tell you how abilities and classes will work that haven't been thought up yet. I can't tell you how to prevent players from exploit a system than hasn't been coded yet.

Furthermore, I don't need to. You aren't paying me to develop a game for you, so why should I?I'm not being paid to come up with solutions to these problem, but we are saying that the exist.

Aurelius, you just seem to have little interest in having a discussion. You don't seem interested in paying attention or thinking about the comments thorazine. You've been too eager to try and poke holes--missing what has been said in the process, and ended up poking holes in empty space; we're 3 meters to the left.

Edited, Mar 29th 2010 10:23am by Allegory
#47 Mar 29 2010 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:

I love it when people go out of their way to sound intelligent and make no sense at all.

You still haven't addressed the questions.


I'm not going to write a game design document to answer these questions. You will have to accept that you do not get it. To answer your questions one simply would write this.

1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
By tuning the game to be manageable for soloists yet still be interesting for larger groups.. ( Long answer would be 500 word document where I talk about a combat system balanced in such a way ) lol this is retarded...

2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
By making it so it is clear what is meant for more than one person vs what is meant to be soloed. ( I feel like I'm talking to a child asking why the sky is blue ) ( Once again the long answer would be 500 word document on how to implement ******* UI functions to make it easy to explain to the player what is required to complete various tasks. )

3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.
By the way did you know that making MMOs is hard? Like this question is filed under normal stuff you have to deal with when designing a huge MMO...
#48 Mar 29 2010 at 9:31 AM Rating: Decent
Allegory wrote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:
Sure, avoid the questions. Best way to carry on a discussion, imo.

Honestly Aurelius, on this topic you aren't worth debating here. I don't mean that to be insulting, but the contentions you've brought forth have been largely either unrelated or nonsensical.


No, they've been totally related. It makes me question your understanding of encounter tuning that you can't see the relevance of encounter tuning in a no-tank, no-healer game.

Quote:
Quote:
In the absence of those specialized roles, it's a group of hybrids running around playing a solo game just with more people involved. That's not to say that you won't find exceptions or that there is no room for originality or a new spin on old concepts. How do you structure a group if everyone can soak the hits, everyone can do solid damage, and everyone can heal? You can't. How do you sort out who is doing what?

It just doesn't make sense. Neither Thorazine nor I have mentioned hybrids, hybrids are in no way needed for our suggestion to be viable, and we've made explicit use of examples where there are no hybrids. It's a strawman, but not some sort of deliberate or malicious one, but a failure to understand what thorazine and I are getting at.


Again, it absolutely does make sense. If you're able to heal, soak damage, and do damage, you're what would traditionally be referred to as a hybrid. If nobody in a group can heal, what does that say to the level of challenge in an encounter if you can still be successful? You think you're going to be able to stunlock everything to death? You think all endgame encounters can feature mobs that can all be CC'd? Again, you and thorazinekizzez seem to have foregone actually addressing the points for the sake of insulting my intelligence.

Just answer the questions.

Quote:
Quote:
1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.

If you can't answer those questions clearly and explicitly, you're just dreaming.

You also fail to understand how answering those is neither possible nor relevant.


I agree it's not possible to satisfactorily answer those questions in a no-tank, no-healer game. Which is exactly why they're relevant to the discussion.

Quote:
I can't tell you how to tune content for a game that hasn't been made yet. I can't tell you how abilities and classes will work that haven't been thought up yet. I can't tell you how to prevent players from exploit a system than hasn't been coded yet.


We've seen a pretty good snippet of what the classes are going to be getting. Certainly not all, but enough to get a very general feel. There will be tanks. There will be healers. Your argument is moot.

Quote:
Furthermore, I don't need to. You aren't paying me to develop a game for you, so why should I?I'm not being paid to come up with solutions to these problem, but we are saying that the exist.


If you're going to accuse me of being narrow minded, yes, you do need to. And if you aren't willing to, you shouldn't have said anything.

Quote:
Aurelius, you just seem to have little interest in having a discussion. You don't seem interested in paying attention or thinking about the comments thorazine. You've been too eager to try and poke holes--missing what has been said in the process, and ended up poking holes in empty space; we're 3 meters to the left.


I've read what has been said. Narrow arguments to support a lame idea that not only is not going to feature heavily in FFXIV, it's not likely to feature heavily in any mainstream MMO in the near future.
#49 Mar 29 2010 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
thorazinekizzez wrote:
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:

I love it when people go out of their way to sound intelligent and make no sense at all.

You still haven't addressed the questions.


I'm not going to write a game design document to answer these questions. You will have to accept that you do not get it. To answer your questions one simply would write this.

1) How to tune content to be challenging but manageable in the absence of a generalized group structure.
By tuning the game to be manageable for soloists yet still be interesting for larger groups.. ( Long answer would be 500 word document where I talk about a combat system balanced in such a way ) lol this is retarded...

2) How to draw the line between accessible, casual content if the strategic requirements are over the top.
By making it so it is clear what is meant for more than one person vs what is meant to be soloed. ( I feel like I'm talking to a child asking why the sky is blue ) ( Once again the long answer would be 500 word document on how to implement @#%^ing UI functions to make it easy to explain to the player what is required to complete various tasks. )

3) How to account for the myriad class combination potentials in a game shaping up as FFXIV is if there is no generalized group structure.
By the way did you know that making MMOs is hard? Like this question is filed under normal stuff you have to deal with when designing a huge MMO...


I could paraphrase all of what you just wrote thusly:

"I have no idea how to answer those questions."

Thanks. Next.
#50 Mar 29 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
AureliusSir the Mundane wrote:

I could paraphrase all of what you just wrote thusly:

"I have no idea how to answer those questions."

Thanks. Next.


Actually I did answer them. The quality of the question often determines the quality of the answer. Your idea to ask impossibly stupid and broad questions as a method to make yourself sound smart is not helping your point.

Obvious Troll

Edited, Mar 29th 2010 12:56pm by thorazinekizzez
#51 Mar 29 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
549 posts
No matter how much you weight your argument has, Aurelius will never recognize any of it. So you might as well argue with an orange Toyota Camry with a spoiler.

He expects every single detail, just so he can say it'll never work.
____________________________
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)