Situational Combat and Class Ballance

With their promise to reward player innovation and creativity I have heard some worry about the class balancing. Which can be a real big issue in an MMO. I have heard of many times where a class will be completely ignored because it has such a large disadvantage due to being a close range fighter, or just not having a good enough DPS.

Maybe a good solution would be to base each class on a different situation.

Some examples would be if fighting a heavily armored enemy, such as a crab, you would do more damage as a Marauder, than as any other class, or if fighting a fast lightly armored enemy, like a Marmot, Pugilist would be the best option. Fighting Multiple enemies would be a job done best by Lancer and fighting element based enemies would be best handled by a conjurer.

By giving each class a specialty they give them all a role to play in raids and parties. It adds a great amount of strategy as you would have to think of how to equip your skills as well as build your party to cover your weaknesses. Because then you could party with a few classes, like a party of 3 archers, 3 gladiators and 2 healers. But in situations against heavily armored enemies or swarms of enemies you would have a major disadvantage because you have nothing in your party for these types of situations. If you had a lancer then maybe your party would not have been overwhelmed by that swarm of mobs, or if you had a marauder then maybe you would have been able to do enough damage to kill that large mob before it wiped your party.

Situation based class balance gives the options and strategy of combat to the players, while avoiding Parties only taking one or two classes because the other ones don't have any compared to the others.

Edit: Well after seeing everyone's arguments as to why this system would not be the best of ideas, I no longer support it as a main system for balance.

But as a system to encourage diverse parties and an added layer to the strategy, what do people think?

The mechanic won't work if you simply make a job better at a common task like damaging marmots versus crabs, and just leads to inbred parties.

You have to make a job irreplaceable and unnecessary at the same time by giving the job something everyone wants to have, and not giving them a reason to not invite them.

I'm sorry but I am not completely sure what you mean in your comment. Every party wants to have the most Offensive and defensive abilities possible. If the world can throw heavy enemies, light enemies, or swarms of enemies (there are more variations that could be used but these are the ones that come to mind) at you then the only way to ensure that you are keeping yourself secure and doing the most damage possible is to 1: study the area where you are going, and the monsters you will encounter, and 2: ensure you equip your party with the best men/women for the job.

If you are headed into an area where you will encounter a lot of light armor units, you would be better off for bringing more pugilists, but to leave without a marauder would be foolish as you would have a major hole in your offensive abilities against any armored enemies. The fact is that these classes become irreplaceable because they have something to offer that fills a hole in the weakness of the other classes.

So if you see a hole in my plan you are going to have to be more specific as to what it is because, honestly, I am kinda confused as to what you are trying to say is the right course of action, and why my idea fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemnantWolf

So if you see a hole in my plan you are going to have to be more specific as to what it is.

---

"LFM leveling party"
"No marauders online :("
"Ok guess we'll have to disband" <-- The hole in your plan

You can't give specific classes advantages like that because it will alienate people. Diversity should be encouraged, not demanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemnantWolf

So if you see a hole in my plan you are going to have to be more specific as to what it is because, honestly, I am kinda confused as to what you are trying to say is the right course of action, and why my idea fails.

---

"We're going to fight crabs" ~~> Form party of 7 gladiators and a token healer.
"We're going to fight marmots" ~~> Form party of 7 pugilists and a token healer.

Plus what Micronowski said ... the idea is NOT to exclude people as much as possible. So rather than forcing each particular class to be represented, introduce a mechanic that rewards diversity over 'monochromatic' parties.

The current Battle Regimen system attempted to do this. Chaining weaponskills and/or spells from different classes was required in order to maximize the regimen damage. It didn't matter quite as much which classes they were, as long as they were different. Unfortunately, the BR system didn't live up to it's promise ... in part because the harder content that would have required their use wasn't in play, in part for other reasons.

That said, there should be content where a smaller number of party compositions will "work", but requiring it in too many cases will lead to "LFM for hours", trying to find that one <insert class here>.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micronowski

"LFM leveling party"
"No marauders online :("
"Ok guess we'll have to disband" <-- The hole in your plan

You can't give specific classes advantages like that because it will alienate people. Diversity should be encouraged, not demanded.

---

I guess I can see how that would be a problem. But, the fact that classes can be switched at any time is definately something that helps aleviate this problem (although it doesn't fix it I know).

But something else to take into consideration is that with SE's current attitude towards keeping things at least casual friendly we can be pretty sure that a mechanic like this would not make not having a Marauder a party breaker, just one more thing to take into consideration for for people who want to take their game that extra mile. This was more an attempt to suggest ways for SE to reward strategy and innovation, as they say they wish to, by giving every class something to bring to the table.

I don't think systems like this should be forced onto players but I do think they make great additions for people who want them.

Also how would this alienate people? I am really kinda confused as to how this would have such an effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemnantWolf

Also how would this alienate people? I am really kinda confused as to how this would have such an effect.

---

I'm not really the best person to try and understand people's motivations (being more of a logical thinker than emotionally "in tune"), but I'll give it a stab.

If you join a party, and are ready to go, but the party lead says "Oh, we have to wait, we need a MRD", it makes your own class feel marginalized. Not that your class isn't necessary or useful, but it could just feel that way to people, I guess.

A happier situation is, the party lead looks at the composition and says, "okay, we have THM, LNC, PUG, so let's look for something else to round us out." Meaning that you are doing your job, and someone else being added will add something, without overshadowing the role that you play.

Another example, maybe. In your example MRD does more damage to a crab. So, if you AREN'T playing a MRD, you are going to feel overshadowed and useless, like you might as well just sit on the sidelines and watch the MRD do everything. Completely demoralizing.

Now, if the MRD had an ability that allowed other characters to ALSO do more damage, that would make for better party play. Thinking along the lines of Comrade in Arms II. It helps the caster generate TP faster, but also helps the entire party generate TP faster and kill faster. The Lancer is contributing, without making the other players superfluous.

I think partially why the "jobs" currently in XIV are so watered down and lack clear definition is because it was probably their original vision and solution to the issue that XI (and other mmo's) ran into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amineri

I'm not really the best person to try and understand people's motivations (being more of a logical thinker than emotionally "in tune"), but I'll give it a stab.

If you join a party, and are ready to go, but the party lead says "Oh, we have to wait, we need a MRD", it makes your own class feel marginalized. Not that your class isn't necessary or useful, but it could just feel that way to people, I guess.

A happier situation is, the party lead looks at the composition and says, "okay, we have THM, LNC, PUG, so let's look for something else to round us out." Meaning that you are doing your job, and someone else being added will add something, without overshadowing the role that you play.

Another example, maybe. In your example MRD does more damage to a crab. So, if you AREN'T playing a MRD, you are going to feel overshadowed and useless, like you might as well just sit on the sidelines and watch the MRD do everything. Completely demoralizing.

Now, if the MRD had an ability that allowed other characters to ALSO do more damage, that would make for better party play. Thinking along the lines of Comrade in Arms II. It helps the caster generate TP faster, but also helps the entire party generate TP faster and kill faster. The Lancer is contributing, without making the other players superfluous.

---

This is a good idea, the idea of armor break etc, which goes with the idea of the marauder being strong and wrecking stuff, but also helps the overall party. So really, It comes down to creating bonuses that either help the party, or you dont get as much reward for stacking the party, like on crabs, the first marauder is really useful for breaking their armor, but after that one, teh next marader isnt really better than a lancer or pug, maybe slightly less useful because you could get comrade or something else going on with a different member.

I dunno, the idea of different classes being good at certain types of damage, and mobs being susceptible or resistant to certain types of damages just has very little potential as a "diversity" engine. It causes more problems than it's worth because someone's always going to be on the out.

There will always be that one lolibri class that everyone wants to murder by the thousands all the way to 75 if they could, and it sucks to be pugilist in tha world. They never go to bones. They always go to what you suck at.

It always sucks to be someone in that system, and it always pays to be someone else instead. I think that system just needs dropped. Adds no real diversity or tactics to the game and just excludes people.

In XI, the heavy DDs were slashers, and their neutral DPS often beat piercer-bonuses on other DDs. Thus there was no point in being a piercer class (thief, dragoon) and blunt class even (monk) unless you were a ranger because duhranger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I dunno, the idea of different classes being good at certain types of damage, and mobs being susceptible or resistant to certain types of damages just has very little potential as a "diversity" engine. It causes more problems than it's worth because someone's always going to be on the out.

There will always be that one lolibri class that everyone wants to murder by the thousands all the way to 75 if they could, and it sucks to be pugilist in tha world. They never go to bones. They always go to what you suck at.

It always sucks to be someone in that system, and it always pays to be someone else instead. I think that system just needs dropped. Adds no real diversity or tactics to the game and just excludes people.

In XI, the heavy DDs were slashers, and their neutral DPS often beat piercer-bonuses on other DDs. Thus there was no point in being a piercer class (thief, dragoon) and blunt class even (monk) unless you were a ranger because duhranger.

---

welll in exp parties turns out monk was often one of the best dps in any situation, even on colibris i wasnt lagging behind much, but to be perfectly honest colibris were pretty easy. any party could probably chain them infinitely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine

You have to make a job irreplaceable and unnecessary at the same time by giving the job something everyone wants to have, and not giving them a reason to not invite them.

---

This needs to be quoted again for emphasis.

It's splitting hairs. There's blunt/pierce/slash/demonsbane/dragon slayer/elemental spells/debuffs/ resistances/ etc/etc/etc.

Are you claiming that we shouldn't have situational abilities in a world of situational abilities?

There's no clear cut formula in how to make classes interesting, never have, never will.

The only noteworthy idea is that the more abilities you cross reference, the more harder it is to balance. And in that it's true that having frivolous abilities like strength/weaknesses against a race is wasting the betterment of a more elegant ability.

The problem here is not the type of situational combat. It's always situational on some levels. It's the quality of it.

One thing I think I should point out real quick, as I think that some people are misinterpreting my idea as a bonus system, is that this is more just a direction for the development team for giving out weapon skills and other ability's.

To use the popular Pugilist vs Marauder example, a pugilist would be given WSs that are low stamina and TP consumption, but are weaker. The marauder is given weapon skills that take more TP and stamina, but do much more damage per strike.

This means that the Pugilist is hitting more often than the marauder, so while he does less damage per strike he makes up for it in quantity, giving him an edge against light defense enemies. But his attacks, being weaker, do not as well penetrate the shell of the heavily defended enemies giving the Marauder the edge.

Of course being weapon skills they could be swapped at will. But a pugilist using marauder ability, while good enough for many scenarios, can not replace an actual marauder on the team. This gives each class a visible advantage on the field, yet does not force the use of any class.

I admit that misunderstanding is my fault. When I get excited about an idea I tent to overstate it's importance, and understate the actual base plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemnantWolf

Edit: Well after seeing everyone's arguments as to why this system would not be the best of ideas, I no longer support it as a main system for balance.

But as a system to encourage diverse parties and an added layer to the strategy, what do people think?

---

I mean no malice, but in my humble opinion, making one character better than another character in a particular situation does not encourage diversity. It does reinforce identity, though.

"I'm a Marauder. I'm good at killing Crabs."
"I'm a Paladin. I'm good at a killing Ashkin (Undead)."

Honestly, the best way to develop diversity is to just let everyone be themselves, and play whatever they want. What they decide may not be useful, but it will certainly be varied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorel

Honestly, the best way to develop diversity is to just let everyone be themselves, and play whatever they want. What they decide may not be useful, but it will certainly be varied.

---

That's the kind of novice thinking that doomed FF14. What are you peter pan?

There is no such thing as "I want to be different but at the same time fit in with everyone" and so on.

You are have to play by the system rules to be balance, and the system itself defines your experience. It's paradoxical in nature. You can't have both. So let the voice of experience make the hard choices instead, of chasing never never land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemnantWolf

This means that the Pugilist is hitting more often than the marauder, so while he does less damage per strike he makes up for it in quantity, giving him an edge against light defense enemies. But his attacks, being weaker, do not as well penetrate the shell of the heavily defended enemies giving the Marauder the edge.

Of course being weapon skills they could be swapped at will. But a pugilist using marauder ability, while good enough for many scenarios, can not replace an actual marauder on the team. This gives each class a visible advantage on the field, yet does not force the use of any class.

---

You just boned the monk to a life of 2nd class citizenry. The marauder is better at high-defense mobs, and what mobs matter the most? The ones with high defense. Monks would be the kings of piddlydink content, things that no one cares about.

You can't do that to a job, make it the best at something that no one cares about. That's not a gift. That's a noose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kukurumei

There is no such thing as "I want to be different but at the same time fit in with everyone" and so on.

You are have to play by the system rules to be balance, and the system itself defines your experience. It's paradoxical in nature. You can't have both.

---

I was actually referring to reality. In real life, people are VERY diverse when they are allowed to be. This is because they can (more or less) be themselves. When you build a system that artificially imposes "balance" and implements restrictions, you get something not unlike communism. I'm not saying that communism is bad, or that communist societies are bad. But I think I can argue that they are low on the totem pole when it comes to diversity.

And the OP is asking about diversity.

what does communism have to do with diversity. communism has never actually existed, its a fantasy concept. Maybe you mean socialism? but i dont know if that really effects diversity anyhow.

But yeah i think i can agree that a game can be diverse, and successful, every game needs rules, but different games have different rules, and different amounts of rules. Balancing it is tricky, but it has been done, GW is one example Champions online actually has a fair amount of diversity as well.

Perhaps I just look at it all differently. I don't see them making it so you are better against certain mobs, but perhaps better at certain situations.

MRD for example could master various aspects of the class. (I like to this a "master class") MRD for the sake of arguement, I will make up an example idea, could be berserker, perhaps lowering there defence, but giving them great focus on mellee damage. They could in turn be the polar opposite of that (insert master class name here) and master in defence with perhaps AoE taunts.

CON could master in on of there 5 focuses. Hydromancer, Pyromancer, Geomancer, Aeromancer, with obvious focus on its relative element, with healing/buffing as a 5 option possibly.

THM could have a focus in enfebling in one master class, and specialize in umbral damage in another, and astral in yet another.

So on, and so forth in the other classes as well, the ideas are virtually endless.

Granted all of this is just my idea of how i would like to see it work.

If SE changes (Comrade in Arms) and (Twisting Vice) to be Lancer only, that will give a Lancer an identity. Lancer adds to the damage of the party through increasing TP generation of the party, and reduces damage taken by reducing the number of TP attacks the enemy gets off.

Note that there are alternative strategies that can be used if there is no Lancer, which is great. A party shouldn't be REQUIRED to bring a Lancer. And certainly I don't want to see all-Lancer parties.

So, for the other classes, how do we define them to make them useful but not absolutely essential, and not OP when stacked?

[Note: I play a Lancer as one of my principle classes]

I will say i've always tried to make a diverse party in anything I play, and especially whenever I organized parties in XI. Honestly, its just not fun...or even visually interesting to have multiples of the same class/job/skill set in a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teknoman

I will say i've always tried to make a diverse party in anything I play, and especially whenever I organized parties in XI. Honestly, its just not fun...or even visually interesting to have multiples of the same class/job/skill set in a party.

---

Me too. Fight the fights that need fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amineri

If SE changes (Comrade in Arms) and (Twisting Vice) to be Lancer only, that will give a Lancer an identity. Lancer adds to the damage of the party through increasing TP generation of the party, and reduces damage taken by reducing the number of TP attacks the enemy gets off.

Note that there are alternative strategies that can be used if there is no Lancer, which is great. A party shouldn't be REQUIRED to bring a Lancer. And certainly I don't want to see all-Lancer parties.

So, for the other classes, how do we define them to make them useful but not absolutely essential, and not OP when stacked?

[Note: I play a Lancer as one of my principle classes]

---

As long as archers are archers and have heavy shot, there will never be a role for lancers to be TP controllers of the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine

As long as archers are archers and have heavy shot, there will never be a role for lancers to be TP controllers of the party.

---

Agree 3000%. Hopefully when Matsui-san said

Quote:

---

we will work from the ground up to redesign and reassign actions based on clearly identified class roles

---

that if Lancers are going to be the TP controllers, then Heavy Shot gets reassigned.

At the very least the TP drain / damage dealt should be adjusted so that an ARC only party using Heavy Shot will either fail to eliminate enemy TP, or will deal insignificant damage.