Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why do MMOs "have" to have classes?
ShadowedMare
Member Posts: 30
I've been following TES:O and when they mentioned the game would be using a class-based system my heart dropped a little. I understand classes make it easier for developers to balance PvP but couldn't they limit your perk points so you can't become an all powerful god? And so what if some players are more powerful, people should be rewarded if their choice of strategy is a winning one.
I think classes do nothing more than limit players which is why I've enjoyed TES games for a long time, I love being able to design my own class.
The Shadowed Mare - A Tavern North of Caldera and an Elder Scrolls Online Fansite and Forums.
Comments
Class vs. Non-Class systems I don't really care about as long as I'm easily able to create a character I love playing.
But TES in particular definitely seems to have fumbled the ball by not playing into player expectations.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMO's don't have to have a specific class.
I've seen mmo's where you have the ability to switch to any class you wanted instead of following a class-tree for it.
Wouldn't it be nicer if MMO's could give you more than just one main class to play as? How about sub-division classes, free-style?
I guess I shouldn't say all class-based games are bad, I've enjoyed a few of these in my time and had no problem with it. In fact Vanguard was one of my favorite MMOs. I guess my problem is that many MMO developers are just going through the motions when designing their games and that's not just for classes. It's a shame developers aren't willing to try a few new things once in awhile.
The Shadowed Mare - A Tavern North of Caldera and an Elder Scrolls Online Fansite and Forums.
1. I agree with the winning arguement. That said, it helps if many different builds are all 'as powerful' but in totally different ways. I think this balance is easier to do then people think.
2. My un-scientific study is that game balance is far less of an issue then players PERCEPTION of game balance. People who lose tend to blame themselves last. So whoever won has the 'uber build'.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As much as I love playing mmo's, I've yet to come across one that allows for freestyle character class basing, would be nice to have a generic character to build into any style you wish for, with maybe a tree branch style of skills, that work for the type of character you want to build.
But, then, i guess someone would find an exploit of said skills, and you'll have just one type of character running around solo smashing top level bosses.
I think the main flaw in design at a top level is this.
if there is only one goal for all players then you will have the problem of alpha build. The key is to have different goals.
Whoever thought that an MMO is supposed to only involve combat really needs to be slapped.
If developers start thinking outside of the box in radical ways then the picture starts to become more clear but as it is, finding different ways to do the same thing is considered radical. what I am suggesting is to maybe not do the one thing in the first place, let along a different way to do it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
TSW and CO both do this. (Not that CO is a particularly good example. It was an attrociously-balanced progression system.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMOs have classes for the same reason FIghting games do.
its to customize the gameplay style of the character in ways that wont effect other styles indirectly.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
From a developer perspective classes are easy because they limit the diversity of builds of the playerbase.
They can also be used to cheat stats allowing them to gimp or buff specific classes with a few lines of code.
For example: Take a mage and a warrior of the same level in WoW. Reset their training to zero. Strip off all the gear. Compare their melee attack power. The stats are fudged based on class.
Link to WoWwiki. Look at the chart in the middle of the page.
Melee Attack Power
Mage MAP = Strength - 10
Warrior MAP = (Strength x 2) + (Char.Level x 3) - 20
In a classless system, this sort of cheating isn't possible. That's one reason devs use classes.
Also in a class based system, gear can be controlled by class. Since gear adds stats, then class controls stats. In a classless system, there is no class to control gear.
There was never a single game that did 48classes.
I assume you're talking about SWG, but SWG didn't have classes. It had skill boxes that you could take to mix and match your own personal "class". This was a profession system, and was far better than 12 solid locked classes.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Many people like classes as it differentiates a person playing each character to their own playstyle.
Having the exact same character multiple times means it is 100% skill + latency based.
Even with open classes where characters can be anything there are limitations and locked skills after inputting them with occassionally the chance to reset skills.
MMOs don't need classes, and there are indeed MMOs that are 'classless'.
The reason most (including TES:O) have classes, is for the exact reason you stated. It makes it easier to balance. This isn't just true for PvP, but for PvE as well. When you have a classless system, you need to balance every skill against every other skill, which is way harder than balancing a class against another class.
Just look at what's happening in TSW. Their skill balance is fairly off, and the result is you have a lot of skills that people just don't use, because there are others that are clearly better.
There have been MMO's without classes. Not sure what you mean.
This was a designer decision. Blame that guy.
Classes are an easy way to get people to replay the game more often and thus keep people subscribed.
Not all MMO's have classes. I can think of at least two off the top of head that have no classes whatsoever. However, there are people that wish to "fill a role" such as "healer" or "tank" or whatnot. Those people are lost when it come to a classless system. Even in those classless systems in the games I know of, you can still fill those "roles" although it is not as clearly defined. However, in those, you can at least mix and become a sort of "hybrid" of sorts by being both tank/healer/dps if you like. You just aren't labeled as such.
Let's party like it is 1863!
You said it best..
Also with classes personal attachment can become a norm and with classes your more defined...
plus who doesn't like to brag about entitlements like i'm the best paladin or warlock? I'm the best dps'er sound silly
Here are the list of classes from TES : Oblivion.
In a classless based system you have two types of players, FOTM, and RP. I know that all you FOTM are drooling and giggling about owning all the RP in PvP just now. But the RP will be on PvE servers, laughing at the single class PvP going on the FOTM servers.
True there will always be some fool that doesn't follow the FOTM. This has happened before and will happen again. They will roll some underpowered class, most likely a stealth class, and demand more power on the forums. Then the nerf bat will swing, again, and again. The FOTM crowd will respond with cries of “Come On!” But the nerf bat stops for no FOTM.
And so what if some players are more powerful, people should be rewarded if their choice of strategy is a winning one. And here’s your sign, “Single Class PvP Servers.” Listen Jethro, you are not the only one who can read a skill tree, choosing the most overpowered build is not that remarkable of an accomplishment. Assuming that it will remain unchanged is.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Why do you have to play games that have classes?
I will not lie,ive play 1 month of tera,just to wait for TSW....that ill play just to wait for archeage....i got lv 55 in some weeks of tera,got sick of it and now tera subs is canceled
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
FOTM is only because the game supports or requires it. If you need cookie cutter builds to beat even a single monster, and they just nerfed your build? Well, you surely can't keep it, and as this happens to many people if developers randomly nerf and buff, FOTM is created as no one wants to experiment for hours days or weeks if it's just gonna be nerfed again.
There are actually several games that do not have a strict class system or even none at all.
The prime example: Good old Ultima Online. Everyone can learn every skill, theoretically. The best thing is, with the private servers that were so prevalent those days, there were dozens, hundreds of ways in use to prevent people from actually doing so. The biggest thing was the time required to do so. The offiicial server also had a limit of 700 points max, so 7 skills, but it was your choice, no one told you "you have those skills".
Some shards (private servers for UO are called shards) included forgetting skills that you didn't use for too long, or on death. Others limited certain professions, especially mages, so you could not get a spellbook without GM consent, thus making playing a mage not viable without being allowed to do so. There was also a chance to fizzle for heavier armor, and on being hit, higher spells having a higher chance to be interrupted.
Most skills weren't directly related to combat, anyways, and the economy regulated itself if the shard was big enough.
Another example, Face of Mankind. It has no classes, levels or skills of any kind at all. Your role is determined by yourself. You can go out and hunt people down by the dozens, return to a hub and play the market as trader.
Some games like Guild Wars, while having classes, do have some freedom within these limits, like, which secondary class you take, which skills and how many points to spent on each attribute of a class,, while allowing you to change all three everytime you're in town (or guild hall), instead of having chosen the path your character will walk for all eternity.
The balance is far from perfect, some classes have less viable builds, some skills are plain useless, but overall, there is a much greater flexibility compared to a strict class system, especially outside PvP and elite areas.
They also had the option to seperate skills between PvE and PvP, meaning they could seperate them if they had to, if a skill was perfectly fine for PvE or PvP, but not for the other thing.
There is no need to have a class-based system if you build your game from the ground to not have one. It's like that with every feature. If a developers says "it's not possible to include coop" "we can't include multiplayer" or whatever, it's not "we can't". it's "we can't because it doesn't fit the game we have in mind" or "it would cost too much time at this point" or "we prefer x over y, it's the easiest way to achieve x"
Like, DRM. People not playing a game is easier to achieve (somewhat, as every DRM is destined to fail, something humans build can be destroyed by humans even easier) compared to making them want to buy the game.
Diablo III with having all logic on the servers was probably easier then seperating secure and insecure play, like Valve has with VAC-secured servers. To play on a secure D3 server, you would have to create a character there, it would never really leave the server, and the transisition between secure and insecure would be one-way.
This would have allowed for every combination of offfline/online and singleplayer/multiplayer while not using a secure server, and online singleplayer and multiplayer on a secure server (though online singleplayer would be pointless at this moment).
Having static classes allows developers to adjust one class without affecting another, like the WoW example by XAPGames on page 2. Every class has it's own skills, it's on stat progression, hit resistance etc. It's way easier to balance, especially if you do not have many classes and/or half the classes are copies of the other half, only for another faction etc.
With total freedom in what to choose, you theoretically have to test every combination every time you change something.
Thats also why a game like TSW only allows you to use only two skill trees at a time, with a fairly limited selection of skills, which also include copies or slight alterations of other skills, sometimes even within one skill tree.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Yeah I don't know why some developers can't vary it up a bit. TSW did somewhat.
Even in an MMO without classes people still get labelled and have roles to fill. You will find some will still head towards a healer layout, others a warrior, some a tank, ranged... etc. The thing is, in a game with that kind of freedom you can come up with a character that is unique. Of course, this only works with some limitations (such as UO capping you off at 700 skill points, and thus 7 maxed tiers). Darkfall IMO failed as it wanted everyone to be pretty well much the same, and just take longer to skill up.
Most gamers don't need classes. The ones that do are the kind that need games like WoW. They want their hand held and guided. There is nothing wrong with that. It is usually the type of person who just wants to hop in, play and be done with it. Where as a classless system requires typically a bit of forethrough. That's why for years to come you will still hear people bring up UO. That game let your imagination run wild with what you wanted to do.
Now a days you basically choose "Will I heal people and do little damage? Will I do damage from afar and be weak? Will I be a tank? Will I be a melee dps? Will I control pets? Will I do magic?"
Classes are not needed. Roles are. A class is a character type that fills a role (or more than one) and is different from game to game. A role defines what is expected of you in the game. Without the role, we would be playing MMO_PGs. So, it isn't classes that are mandatory for MMOs, but rather roles.
Another way to look at is that without roles, everyone is the same. Would you play a game where everyone is the same? What makes you special, other than your looks? You might as well play a first-person-shooter if you don't care about doing something different from the person next to you.
Newer games, like TSW and GW2 are blurring the role lines. Instead being forced into a role because you picked X class, you can define your own role. You will still need roles, though. Someone will have to be better at healing. Someone will have to be better at mitigating damage and holding aggro. Someone will have to be better at doing damage. Without those basic roles, fight mechanics can only mimic arcade fighting games, like the Monster Hunter series.
They don't.
There were mmorpg's without classes.
Not sure about other non-rpg mmo's.
I don't really mind class or classless based systems, both have been done well at some point or another in previous games. My only concern with classeless systems is when you don't have a really unique role to play in a team.
MMOs do not need classes, but MMORPGs do......In a RPG, you actually play a role (usually a class).....Also alot of MMORPGs are based off old D&D which had classes.