Situational Combat and Class Ballance

[Physic]

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

[Rentahamster]

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.

[kukurumei]

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.

[RemnantWolf]

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.

[Sorel]

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.

[kukurumei]

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.

[Peregrine]

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.

[Sorel]

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.

[Physic]

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.

[Coglin]

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.