Additional Class Abilities in Expansions

Eronakis

I wanted to start a conversation here about what everyone feels is the best approach to handle additional class abilities you receive in expansions?

Several MMO's I have played handle this differently. 

Everquest simply recycled the same abilities, changed their names and their output modifiers. 

World of Warcraft has been all over the place. Sometimes they add in new baseline abilities, sometimes they prune everything and redesign the class/spec to have a different play style. 

To me, if I am playing a themepark-esque MMO with character level progression and new levels are added in a new expansion, I feel like the player should either... 


A: Gain access to 2-5 new abilities (Baseline specific and/or powerful with large cooldowns)

B: Create an additional layer to modify or improve previous abilities

C: Develop sub class/combat mechanics that compliment the existing class abilities template. 


There are pros and cons for each of my options above. As a player, what do you feel is the best way to approach expansion abilities for classes? 

Albatroes

Eronakis said:

I wanted to start a conversation here about what everyone feels is the best approach to handle additional class abilities you receive in expansions?

Several MMO's I have played handle this differently. 

Everquest simply recycled the same abilities, changed their names and their output modifiers. 

World of Warcraft has been all over the place. Sometimes they add in new baseline abilities, sometimes they prune everything and redesign the class/spec to have a different play style. 

To me, if I am playing a themepark-esque MMO with character level progression and new levels are added in a new expansion, I feel like the player should either... 


A: Gain access to 2-5 new abilities (Baseline specific and/or powerful with large cooldowns)

B: Create an additional layer to modify or improve previous abilities

C: Develop sub class/combat mechanics that compliment the existing class abilities template. 


There are pros and cons for each of my options above. As a player, what do you feel is the best way to approach expansion abilities for classes? 

Yeah, FFXIV has been all over the place with this as well. One thing you can say about EQ is that it had the AA system so it added another layer at cap which both WoW and XIV do not. Honestly, I feel abilities should be fewer in terms of leveling and have more of an AA like system (FFXI more or less did this but its was pretty much like EQ's AA system to an extent). I prefer this method because I only think about what I'm doing at cap since that's where most people spend their time. It gets stale if your only means of progression is through gear that is so commonly acquired or the differences between casual and hardcore rewards are so minor (or flat out reset at some point so people can "catch up") that it doesn't motivate, which is important to me. People can say what they want about elitists and so on, but the way people used to "catch-up" 10+ years ago was to be social and ask for help, not rely on devs to hold their hand or reset progression to keep it "even."

Amathe

I don't like when I make a major investment of my time - in some cases years - and then a dev team decides to rewrite my class. I want what I bargained for. 

Albatroes

Amathe said:

I don't like when I make a major investment of my time - in some cases years - and then a dev team decides to rewrite my class. I want what I bargained for. 

Frost mage memories in wow

Mendel

I don't know a perfect way to add new abilities to existing classes; everything that has been tried has some degree of dissatisfaction for the players.  Personally, I don't like that new abilities might not have been tested and balanced enough.

Eldurian

Amathe said:

I don't like when I make a major investment of my time - in some cases years - and then a dev team decides to rewrite my class. I want what I bargained for. 

This is a major problem with class based systems in general. One of the many reasons I like systems that allow you to train many highly customizable skillsets and then through gear limitations, skillbar reconfiguration whatever, change what build you are currently running as needed.

(EVE is a shining example of this system in action with Guild Wars 1 and ArcheAge being examples of games that lean more heavily toward this than pure class based systems)

In those systems they may nerf your particular build but most players have other builds or can adjust their build enough that they remain perfectly viable rather than being locked into a class which they now hate.

Xiaoki

All are bad ideas if they are the only options. WoW pruning or redesigning classes is probably the best course of action for aging MMOs.

What happens when an MMO is older and and has a lot of expansions? Given your options listed classes would have 70 spells, 5 layers of spell modification and 3 sub-classes.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

Just adding more and more and more to classes is stupid and unsustainable.

jusomdude

Adding new active abilities every expansion will get out of hand eventually, possibly after the first one. Passive abilities are boring though. Not sure what the best way to go about it is, but I don't want to perform keyboard gymnastics to use all my abilities. So I dislike the more and more abilities route the most.

If more abilities are going to keep being added I'd rather them be for new specs or new classes.

Akulas

I can't be a mana battery with my SPriest in WoW anymore and don't need to worry about resource management.

cameltosis

To me, progression has never been about numbers getting bigger, I always describe that as false progression as whilst your numbers get bigger, so do the enemies so things kind of say the same. 

Progression, to me, is the actual gameplay progressing. The way I approach combat and the flexibility I have is what I would describe as real progression and in most MMOs, that is achieved through unlocking skills or unlocking traits/passives/gear that dramatically alter skills. 

So, that is what I look for in my games and it is what I hope for in my expansions.


When discussing new skills granted in expansions, I am looking for these things:

• A learning opportunity with existing skills. This comes from upgrading existing skills. Basically, I will have been using the same skills for the previous year or more, doing the same rotations and making the same decisions. By providing skill upgrades, the game is asking me to re-evaluate my skill usage, develop new rotations and think about making different decisions in combat. This is a fun learning curve for me but also acts as a reset point, so those who are new to the game won't be too far behind the vets in terms of player skill. 
• My role(s) should stay the same. I don't want my tank to suddenly become a viable dps character, or my healer to suddenly become crowd control. New skills or skill tweaks should keep players in their assigned roles. 
• My role(s) should be enhanced / expanded. This is the primary form of progression for me, acquiring new skills that let me perform my role better. If I'm playing a buffer, an expansion should give me some new buffs. If I'm a healer, then I want some more healing/support skills. If I'm a tank, some new threat or mitigation skills. 

Skill bloat is a definite issue but I've found it comes from poor design choices, it doesn't have to happen. Most skill bloat that I've observed comes from adding too many "basic" skills, i.e. skills that form part of your damage rotation. For example, my Jedi Shadow in SW:TOR often tanked during raids, but I think only maybe 5 of my skills were related to threat or mitigation, the rest were all for doing damage. Whilst I understand the need to do damage on a tank, there is no good reason for having 20 damage skills when 5 would do. It adds unnecessary complexity without adding any depth, so it has no value to us as players. 


I really like the way that Camelot Unchained is approaching skills. Basically, you don't have skills! Not in the traditional sense anyway. Instead, you unlock components and then create your own skills. So, you might combine sword with aoe attack, then add in two modifiers to add fire damage and increase the AoE range. As you progress through the game, you unlock more components and modifiers and can build bigger skills. 

In this way, any bloat ends up being self inflicted and you can easily just delete skills and create new ones that are more efficient. Its going to be really interesting to see what everyone comes up with!

Eldurian

Xiaoki said:

What happens when an MMO is older and and has a lot of expansions? Given your options listed classes would have 70 spells, 5 layers of spell modification and 3 sub-classes.

Can't speak to the rest but if I'm playing a Themepark I'm ok with almost any amount of spell modification options. Sounds like a lot of room for customization/personalization of your build.

Eronakis

cameltosis said:

When discussing new skills granted in expansions, I am looking for these things:

• A learning opportunity with existing skills. This comes from upgrading existing skills. Basically, I will have been using the same skills for the previous year or more, doing the same rotations and making the same decisions. By providing skill upgrades, the game is asking me to re-evaluate my skill usage, develop new rotations and think about making different decisions in combat. This is a fun learning curve for me but also acts as a reset point, so those who are new to the game won't be too far behind the vets in terms of player skill. 
• My role(s) should stay the same. I don't want my tank to suddenly become a viable dps character, or my healer to suddenly become crowd control. New skills or skill tweaks should keep players in their assigned roles. 
• My role(s) should be enhanced / expanded. This is the primary form of progression for me, acquiring new skills that let me perform my role better. If I'm playing a buffer, an expansion should give me some new buffs. If I'm a healer, then I want some more healing/support skills. If I'm a tank, some new threat or mitigation skills. 

Skill bloat is a definite issue but I've found it comes from poor design choices, it doesn't have to happen. Most skill bloat that I've observed comes from adding too many "basic" skills, i.e. skills that form part of your damage rotation. For example, my Jedi Shadow in SW:TOR often tanked during raids, but I think only maybe 5 of my skills were related to threat or mitigation, the rest were all for doing damage. Whilst I understand the need to do damage on a tank, there is no good reason for having 20 damage skills when 5 would do. It adds unnecessary complexity without adding any depth, so it has no value to us as players. 

Your bullet points are on the same frequency of thought for me. First I'd like to discuss the skill bloat. I think it's okay for a class to receive some new skills in an expansion, but perhaps NOT every expansion. If new skills are issued to classes the number should be low. 

The way I am approaching this is to have an "Epic, Legendary and Mythical" Spells/Skills. Each class will have 1 slot for each. The player will have options to choose which Epic, Legendary and Mythical Spell/Skill they would like to slot. That is 3 new abilities per class for 1 expansion. However, these new abilities are very powerful with a 3-5 minute cooldown or longer. They are used for serious challenging situations. This could be a potential way to simmer down skill bloat. That way with more powerful abilities, they're not used as frequent in a rotation. 

I really like the AA system in Everquest where you essentially level up AA points to put in trees to improve your current ability library. I think it would be interesting for players to have a choice of how they would modify or ad additional modifiers to specific current abilities in their library. 

I believe one of the things that constitutes sound class design is having the foundation of your class (your role) be a constant. So I agree whole heartily with you there. When you start adding in abilities that are meant for other roles it can create massive imbalances. Those are my thoughts. 

Scot

If the combat system is working don't make changes for the sake of it. If there seem to be balance issues think again, think a third time before you start to make changes. MMO history is littered with games that start to become unbalanced because of falsely perceived imbalance, or the desire to put something, anything in content updates.

Mendel

Eronakis said:

<snip>
I really like the AA system in Everquest where you essentially level up AA points to put in trees to improve your current ability library. I think it would be interesting for players to have a choice of how they would modify or ad additional modifiers to specific current abilities in their library. 

While I really love the EQ1 AA system, there's no denying that many of the AA abilities that were added were entirely unbalanced.  The developers also seem to change their minds periodically and remove specific AAs or completely change the definition and way an ability worked.  This changes the importance of some AAs to some classes, and forces the player into new directions they hadn't previously considered.

Still, I don't think AAs in EQ1 are on the same level of 'badly thought out' as the introduction of mercenaries in EQ1.  Tank mercs can only function without a healer up to a certain level of content.  Beyond that, characters switch to a healer merc.  While this might be okay for some classes, Enchanters and wizards, who had previously avoided being pounded on by mobs, now find themselves in a tanking role, which they are ill-designed for.  'Get a group' just isn't a viable option for many players these days.

Flyte27

Mendel said:

Eronakis said:

<snip>
I really like the AA system in Everquest where you essentially level up AA points to put in trees to improve your current ability library. I think it would be interesting for players to have a choice of how they would modify or ad additional modifiers to specific current abilities in their library. 

While I really love the EQ1 AA system, there's no denying that many of the AA abilities that were added were entirely unbalanced.  The developers also seem to change their minds periodically and remove specific AAs or completely change the definition and way an ability worked.  This changes the importance of some AAs to some classes, and forces the player into new directions they hadn't previously considered.

Still, I don't think AAs in EQ1 are on the same level of 'badly thought out' as the introduction of mercenaries in EQ1.  Tank mercs can only function without a healer up to a certain level of content.  Beyond that, characters switch to a healer merc.  While this might be okay for some classes, Enchanters and wizards, who had previously avoided being pounded on by mobs, now find themselves in a tanking role, which they are ill-designed for.  'Get a group' just isn't a viable option for many players these days.

Wizards and Enchanters should be able to solo in modern-day EQ.  They could do it in original EQ without any merc or attribute increasing items.  The enchanter would charm something to act as tank, root them, or use their pet.  The Wizard could eventually aoe root and aoe nuke for quad kiting.  Until that point, they could just root and nuke single mobs that didn't have range attacks.  Part of the charm of EQ was that classes weren't equal in solo or group effectiveness.  It made the classes stand out in different ways.  

Mendel

Flyte27 said:

Mendel said:

Eronakis said:

<snip>
I really like the AA system in Everquest where you essentially level up AA points to put in trees to improve your current ability library. I think it would be interesting for players to have a choice of how they would modify or ad additional modifiers to specific current abilities in their library. 

While I really love the EQ1 AA system, there's no denying that many of the AA abilities that were added were entirely unbalanced.  The developers also seem to change their minds periodically and remove specific AAs or completely change the definition and way an ability worked.  This changes the importance of some AAs to some classes, and forces the player into new directions they hadn't previously considered.

Still, I don't think AAs in EQ1 are on the same level of 'badly thought out' as the introduction of mercenaries in EQ1.  Tank mercs can only function without a healer up to a certain level of content.  Beyond that, characters switch to a healer merc.  While this might be okay for some classes, Enchanters and wizards, who had previously avoided being pounded on by mobs, now find themselves in a tanking role, which they are ill-designed for.  'Get a group' just isn't a viable option for many players these days.

Wizards and Enchanters should be able to solo in modern-day EQ.  They could do it in original EQ without any merc or attribute increasing items.  The enchanter would charm something to act as tank, root them, or use their pet.  The Wizard could eventually aoe root and aoe nuke for quad kiting.  Until that point, they could just root and nuke single mobs that didn't have range attacks.  Part of the charm of EQ was that classes weren't equal in solo or group effectiveness.  It made the classes stand out in different ways.  

Charming is a change for the crowd-control enchanter.  A pretty substantial change.  Up to a point, crowd-control works with a tank merc.  Most enchanters I've observed do that at low levels.  After that point, the enchanter is forced to change how they play.  Charmed mobs can't usually hold agro on multiple targets, where the tank merc can (up to a point).  So changing tactics from merc to charm also affects the content available to the solo enchanter.

When you do a '/who all 75 85' and you get 1 player (you) and 20 vendors, there's no chance for a level 80 to find a group.  The lack of groups makes the distinction in classes less important than it once was.

Yes, my enchanter can solo without charming.  Only I have to grind against green-level mobs.  That's not exactly working with my restricted available time.

Flyte27

Mendel said:

Flyte27 said:

Mendel said:

Eronakis said:

<snip>
I really like the AA system in Everquest where you essentially level up AA points to put in trees to improve your current ability library. I think it would be interesting for players to have a choice of how they would modify or ad additional modifiers to specific current abilities in their library. 

While I really love the EQ1 AA system, there's no denying that many of the AA abilities that were added were entirely unbalanced.  The developers also seem to change their minds periodically and remove specific AAs or completely change the definition and way an ability worked.  This changes the importance of some AAs to some classes, and forces the player into new directions they hadn't previously considered.

Still, I don't think AAs in EQ1 are on the same level of 'badly thought out' as the introduction of mercenaries in EQ1.  Tank mercs can only function without a healer up to a certain level of content.  Beyond that, characters switch to a healer merc.  While this might be okay for some classes, Enchanters and wizards, who had previously avoided being pounded on by mobs, now find themselves in a tanking role, which they are ill-designed for.  'Get a group' just isn't a viable option for many players these days.

Wizards and Enchanters should be able to solo in modern-day EQ.  They could do it in original EQ without any merc or attribute increasing items.  The enchanter would charm something to act as tank, root them, or use their pet.  The Wizard could eventually aoe root and aoe nuke for quad kiting.  Until that point, they could just root and nuke single mobs that didn't have range attacks.  Part of the charm of EQ was that classes weren't equal in solo or group effectiveness.  It made the classes stand out in different ways.  

Charming is a change for the crowd-control enchanter.  A pretty substantial change.  Up to a point, crowd-control works with a tank merc.  Most enchanters I've observed do that at low levels.  After that point, the enchanter is forced to change how they play.  Charmed mobs can't usually hold agro on multiple targets, where the tank merc can (up to a point).  So changing tactics from merc to charm also affects the content available to the solo enchanter.

When you do a '/who all 75 85' and you get 1 player (you) and 20 vendors, there's no chance for a level 80 to find a group.  The lack of groups makes the distinction in classes less important than it once was.

Yes, my enchanter can solo without charming.  Only I have to grind against green-level mobs.  That's not exactly working with my restricted available time.

I was never a big fan of mercs being added to EQ.  It makes gameplay a bit generic for a classes.  It seems more interesting if every class that is able to solo uses their class abilities to do so.  An Enchanter has a lot of abilities to solo with.  They can mez and charm mobs in particular.  If they want things to be a bit safer or more efficient they could get a Druid partner to snare the charmed mobs and cast SoW on them.  The Enchanter also has a pet that can take a few hits for them if needed.  EQ was never a very friendly soloing game unless you played a class like Necromancer, Druid, Shadow Knight, Bard, Shaman.