Pages: [1] 2 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem? (Read 45847 times)
|
jpark
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538
|
I've been thinking about this: in almost any MMORPG the ultimate sacrafice class is the Healer - which if you assume this role - getting groups is pretty easy given the rarity of this class (WoW, EQ, CoH, Shadowbane).
I am beginning to think EQ2 may break this pattern.
EQ2 in my understanding assures that all subclasses belonging to the Priest class (shaman, inquisitor, fury, templar) can all heal the same. We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare, druids and shamans were not. This simple measure may make "healers" as popular a class as any other - by ensuring that many classes have equal stewardship over healing, rather than the single (cleric) class of EQ (or empathy in CoH; Priest in WoW etc.).
While there may be obstacles to getting a good group together in EQ2 - making sure you have a healer will not likely be one of them anymore.
This one of the reasons I am beginning to consider EQ (someday they will hire some artists though I am sure) - it offers new mechanics to address old problems and will most assuredly introduce entirely new issues (locked encounters etc.).
|
"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation. " HaemishM.
|
|
|
Romp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 140
|
from my memory of EQ the main reason to have a cleric in your group was for resing not for healing. Druids or Shamans and even some other classes could heal but no one wanted to group if they couldnt get a res if they died and lost all their xp so everyone had to have a cleric.
|
|
|
|
ajax34i
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2527
|
I'm not sure if any of the listed sub-classes are like what the EQ druid was. It doesn't sound like it, judging by their names.
I played a cleric, and part of the fun of the class was the fact that we could pretty much heal nicely and be appreciated. I'm not sure if it'll be possible to still feel special with these subclasses, especially if they all get the same healing spells. They feel like all the work and none of the recognition.
But what they're doing makes sense, I guess. The group of people who actually liked playing cleric is much smaller than the group of people who liked a class with diversity, including the ability to heal somewhat (druid). So swapping one group for the other will get them a much bigger healer base, even if not the exact same people as before. Provided that each of the 4 subclasses listed above provides diversity, ability to solo, a whole range of useful utility spells, etc. Like the druid class did.
|
|
|
|
CassandraR
Terracotta Army
Posts: 75
|
The healer classes will have different cames of heals from what I heard. I think they will probably have some baseline heals from the archtype then their own specialized heal. Clerics and Templars using instant heals, druid classes using heals over time, and shaman classes using absorb shields that provide temporary hitpoints then heal a certain amount when they are breached. Might of changed though.
|
|
|
|
Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675
|
druid classes using heals over time As someone who played a DAOC Shaman because they were a healing class, I am not interested in trusting devs to balance "different types of healing."
|
If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
from my memory of EQ the main reason to have a cleric in your group was for resing not for healing. Druids or Shamans and even some other classes could heal but no one wanted to group if they couldnt get a res if they died and lost all their xp so everyone had to have a cleric. This changed a lot in PoP and beyond. Basically, from original release through Luclin, they made mobs harder by increasing their hit points and mitigation a ton, but their damage output only a little. In PoP-GoD, they made them harder by having them do a metric fuckon of damage, despite low hit points and little mitigation. This made cleric-level healing much more important.
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
Sable Blaze
Terracotta Army
Posts: 189
|
It did at first, but as melee classes gained AA and more and more AC and hit points through itemization, druids became viable healers again (and got their own AAs, etc.).
My guild used druids heavily in CH-chains for Luclin and PoP content. Much of our CH-chain for RZtW was done with druids. As the so-called tank classes surpassed the 8k hps mark and 2k AC, it just became easier for druids and even shaman to support a group. Clerics were always preferred, but their availability was always very limited (and no wonder).
EQoA had all the "priest" classes use essentially the same healing spells. This works out fine, but the stumbling point is what else the classes offer. The problem was the cleric was extremely good at healing, but could do little else (other than nuke undead). So for most gameplay you'd use druids or shaman and clerics languished unless you were fighting stuff WAY over your head.
Hopefully, the individual priest classes in EQ2 have a broader spectrum of abilities that we've seen so far in EQ games. Otherwise, clerics will again languish as a practically unplayed class, aside from heal-bots.
|
|
|
|
Polysorbate80
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2044
|
Clerics got a raw deal for a while; shaman/druids were indeed preferred for their other abilities during the earlier part of EQ's existance.
After much bitching and moaning and re-balancing and re-re-balancing, clerics are now on top of the healing food chain, druids are an acceptable second for healing, and shamans still kinda take it in the shorts thanks to mobs mitigating slow.
|
“Why the fuck would you ... ?” is like 80% of the conversation with Poly — Chimpy
|
|
|
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205
|
The only people who can answer this question are those who can't answer the question. NDA.
|
|
|
|
jpark
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538
|
druid classes using heals over time As someone who played a DAOC Shaman because they were a healing class, I am not interested in trusting devs to balance "different types of healing." Or any developer. Even in CoH which I have the upmost respect for - not all tank builds are equal (stone, fire, invulnerability etc.). So which subclass you choose will be critical. Healing over time is great for pvp (Shadowbane) and grinding (EQ) or AoE attacks against party members (CoH). But not for any serious raiding. I realize folks can't break the EQ2 NDA if they are part of the beta - so this thread is really in the spirit if uninformed speculation :)
|
"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation. " HaemishM.
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117
I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.
|
I heard Dick Cheney sits on Sony's board now!
|
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
I was thinking more along the lines of P.T. Barnum.
Yes I actually considered registering for the beta invite. I hate myself and want to die.
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
Shannow
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3703
|
Heh anyone play Arctic MUD? Man the standard MMORPG players head would pop if they had to go through what you did on that one to get 'heal' for you cleric
Nothing like 50 runs to Xak Tsaroth to pop a heal staff and fail the spell.
|
Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that. ~ The Walrus
|
|
|
jpark
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538
|
I am still confused a bit on this point after reviewing the EQ2 boards more. Some poster indicate that the Cleric is still the best healer. So I am confused just how much on an equal footing Priests are (cleric, fury etc.) in healing power.
|
"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation. " HaemishM.
|
|
|
shiznitz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4268
the plural of mangina
|
The announcement uses the word "attendees" so it reads like one has to pay $100 AND show up to get in the beta.
|
I have never played WoW.
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
It's not worded very well, but it reads to me that they are goving registrants beta invitations on or about Oct 11. Since the FF isn't until Oct 28, I don't think they can condition it on actual attendence. Then again, maybe they'll just take it away if you don't show. I don't think that's what they are doing, since this comes across to me as a "buy your way into beta for $100, but we'll paper it over by saying we are letting you in to prepare for the fan faire catass competition." I could be wrong about their intent.
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
blindy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32
|
Heh anyone play Arctic MUD? Yeah, I played it off and on for a few years. I think I still remember the path through the cleric only section of xak (s;s;get key;unlock door;open door;s;get staff altar;study staff;n;n;n;recite recall me;shout fuck, I failed heal staff;quit;4;password). Like anything, it gets old, but it was a game I liked a lot, more than any MMORPG I've played.
|
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
It's not worded very well, but it reads to me that they are goving registrants beta invitations on or about Oct 11. Since the FF isn't until Oct 28, I don't think they can condition it on actual attendence. Then again, maybe they'll just take it away if you don't show. I don't think that's what they are doing, since this comes across to me as a "buy your way into beta for $100, but we'll paper it over by saying we are letting you in to prepare for the fan faire catass competition." I could be wrong about their intent. I saw it confirmed on /gu comic's boards that attendence is not mandatory. So yeah, you could pay SOE $100 to get into the EQ2 beta. You'd have been better off pre-ordering LOE if you wanted to pay your way in. At least then you'd have a game and paid 1/2 the price.
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613
|
I think the role of the healer in mmog's sucks on so many levels that it will be tough to fix without just eliminating the class entirely.
I played a cleric to 60 in EQ (this was Velious and 60 was the cap), a friar, shaman, and druid in daoc. From those limited experiences, here's my brief summary for your flaming pleasure:
1) The only skill required is the ability to cycle through your targets and pick the appropriate heal for the situation. Tanks can use a slow cast/high hp heal while casters require a fast cast heal. Often this became mind-numbingly boring in a very short time. Not being a proactive member of the action (i.e. a damage dealer) made you a reactive player... this wasn't my style though I was considered a "good" healer.
2) If you do your job it's expected... when things go to hell (often because of someone else's screw up) you're the goat.
3) Buffing people isn't fun.
4) Rezzing people is less fun. I can remember people bitching at me in EQ because I wouldn't traverse 8 zones to give them a rez. These were people I didn't even know...
Bottom line: if you make playing a support class fun, people will play it. Being a druid in EQ was at least marginally more fun than being a cleric and soon you saw more druids and fewer clerics. If your game is going to have support classes, then at least give them some good abilities that require proactive (rather than reactive) action to play them.
I have found being a cleric in EQ and a druid in daoc to be unfun experiences and wonder why (beyond their desire to fill a group need) anyone would even play one. I guess if you have a strong desire to get into an uber group, being a support class is one way to do it... just another example of how people see "fun" differently.
|
"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."
- Mark Twain
|
|
|
Evil Elvis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 963
|
This thread is about class based systems, which, by the way, suck ass.
More open skill tree systems, please.
|
|
|
|
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117
I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.
|
Bottom line: if you make playing a support class fun, people will play it. The beginning of the end of EQ for me was when my necro went from being a lord of the undead to a mana battery. Now I can't cast my spells on mobs, I have to sit like a bitch and give my mana to someone else, so they can use their spells? No. And I'd cast Ignite Bones if anyone had a problem with that ;)
|
|
|
|
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551
|
The healer class is fundamentally flawed because it hurts soloing. For a healers heals to be worthwhile, individual healing must be hurt to the point where soloing those classes becomes non-viable. In turn, the healer is also made a non-viable solo class in turn because the non-healing abilities must be correspondingly reduced. (Note that this is in the ideal; there are cases of games where this type of balance wasn't accomplished.)
Now, personally, since I want a solo-friendly MMOG, I would simply accept the fact healers would be second-class citizens. Their heals and other abilities would still be very useful; they simply wouldn't be necessary. The only people who would be healers are people who WANT to be healers, and if they WANT to be healers you really don't have to worry about making the class more attractive from a play-balance standpoint.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Ardent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 473
|
Now, personally, since I want a solo-friendly MMOG, I would simply accept the fact healers would be second-class citizens. I think City of Heroes take on this is interesting. By choosing different kinds of primary and secondary ability lines, many combinations of classes are hybrids. You can be a healer who can nuke or tank, or a tank who can do a bit of healing. It is up to you to decide when you acquire your abilities (do I want to load up on my invulnerability early on, or my empathy, or a combination?). Of course, I can't really say how successful the formula is past level 15, which is as high as I got. In any case, the title of this thread poses a question. I don't think it's breaking the NDA to say that EQ2 is a group-centric game, as SOE has said as much in their marketing materials. You can extrapolate from there.
|
Um, never mind.
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
To solo well you need to be adequate at everything (dealing damage, avoiding/mitigating damage, healing). Classes that are the best at one of these things have to be weak in the others to preserve balance. This makes it difficult for those classes to solo.
One way to get around that is to come up with mechanics that prevent you from using your most powerful specialized abilities when soloing while at the same time granting you access to adequate proficiency in the other areas. What I am thinking of is more of a buff/debuff in one. When it is active, the cleric's healing ability goes down, but their damage goes up. Your tank classes could have access to a similar ability that reduces their defense to a reasonable level, but increases their damage to a reasonable level. WoW is sort of doing this with some classes (warriors via stances most obviously, the "solo stance" gives the warrior enough dps to solo effectively, but a at the cost of the warrior's defensive skill) but I don't know if that's the intent (it also isn't balanced well atm).
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
Ardent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 473
|
To solo well you need to be adequate at everything (dealing damage, avoiding/mitigating damage, healing). Classes that are the best at one of these things have to be weak in the others to preserve balance. This makes it difficult for those classes to solo. If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups. Even at higher levels, druids and shaman (druids especially) can choose to use their talents to come close to equalling priests at healing, and keep their already formidable support abilities.
|
Um, never mind.
|
|
|
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551
|
If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't. Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW. Bruce
|
|
|
|
Ardent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 473
|
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't. Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW. Well, if you're looking for a game you can solo at every level, none of the big ones about to be released are going to satisfy you.
|
Um, never mind.
|
|
|
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024
I am the harbinger of your doom!
|
If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't. Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW. Bruce This has got to be one of the dumber gripes I've ever heard. OHH NOES, I CAN'T SOLO THE WORLD. Really, what percentage of the overall quests are going to be Elite? You'll still likely have enough quests to keep you happily progressing alone through the tree. Really, what's wrong with occasionally having people group for a completely optional part of the game? Should I be able to enter an instance for a "one man raid" and take out the big scary dragon all by myself? Should WoW design every single little bit of content to keep in mind that some people just won't group ever? Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.
|
-Rasix
|
|
|
Alkiera
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1556
The best part of SWG was the easy account cancellation process.
|
If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't. Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW. Bruce I STILL don't understand this argument. MMOGs are, by definition, played by more than one person. By design, most if not all of them want you to play with some of those other people. People working together(or even working seperately in the same location) are more effective than a solo player. So, to provide challenges to a group of people working together, you need make more difficult encounters. Pretty much always, this difficulty increase means the encounter can no longer be completed by a solo player. This would imply, from your own statement, that an MMOG you'd subscribe to could have no content designed for groups, only for solo content. I know of no MMOs, live or in development, which meet this requirement, tho there are several online games which do... Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights(official campaigns only), and similar titles. These kinds of games do not really attract people who desire grouping, since grouping in these games amounts to having several people solo in the same direction in the same area. The concept of an MMO without group content isn't gonna fly any time soon, SirBruce. Sorry. -- Alkiera
|
"[I could] become the world's preeminent MMO class action attorney. I could be the lawyer EVEN AMBULANCE CHASERS LAUGH AT. " --Triforcer
Welcome to the internet. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a character assassination on Slashdot.
|
|
|
Ardent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 473
|
Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while. Rasix said it better than I could. So, I'm going to plagiarize slightly: Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as healer class friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.
|
Um, never mind.
|
|
|
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551
|
If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't. Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW. Bruce I STILL don't understand this argument. Please do a search on the boards. The subject has come up before and I've explained it before. MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone. This would imply, from your own statement, that an MMOG you'd subscribe to could have no content designed for groups, only for solo content. I know of no MMOs, live or in development, which meet this requirement, tho there are several online games which do... Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights(official campaigns only), and similar titles.
Ideally, the MMOG would have no content designed for groups, yes. Or rather, the content could be dynamic enough so the same "quest" could be enjoyed be either a group or solo, and the mobs involved would adjust accordingly. While no MMOG fits this bill perfectly, several are more conducive to solo play than others. WoW isn't one of them. Bruce
|
|
|
|
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551
|
This has got to be one of the dumber gripes I've ever heard. OHH NOES, I CAN'T SOLO THE WORLD. Really, what percentage of the overall quests are going to be Elite? You'll still likely have enough quests to keep you happily progressing alone through the tree.
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level. Really, what's wrong with occasionally having people group for a completely optional part of the game? Should I be able to enter an instance for a "one man raid" and take out the big scary dragon all by myself? Should WoW design every single little bit of content to keep in mind that some people just won't group ever? Yes. Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.
You need to try more games. There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development. AC2, CoH, and EQ II (according to their development statements, anyway) spring to mind. UX:O was going to be more solo-friendly as well. Note that none of those are perfect; CoH, for example, had task forces that couldn't be done solo, but they were infrequent quests that were fairly easy to get pick-up groups to do. Bruce
|
|
|
|
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024
I am the harbinger of your doom!
|
Bruce, I'd bother to rebut, but you made all of my points for me. Thanks.
|
-Rasix
|
|
|
Ardent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 473
|
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level. That is a complete exaggeration. From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite. For post-20+ levels, elite quests will increase, and will likely be closer to 5-10% of your total quest burden. Elite quests are completely optional, but they do represent great ways to gain XP and the best quest rewards and (GASP!) interact with other people in a multiplayer game. There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development. AC2, CoH, and EQ II OK, you go ahead and keep thinking that.
|
Um, never mind.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
|
 |