Quote:
Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I disagree of this view of "interdependency".
Interdependency should work in combat: this class tanks, this class dps, this class heals, this class CCs etc.
But it doesn't work for casual utility conveniences.
Why is that some classes given inherited ability to generate cash by casting same spell over and over again, while others can't ?
Why 7 casters can bind and gate at their leisure, while rest of us have to beg for bind for 30 min instead of enjoying the game as they do?
Why does the only way you can do jewelry is to find an enchanter to enchant for you? (or level up one yourself).
Where is this EQUAL level of interdependency for other classes?
How about we make it like this - Warrior is the ONLY class that can process ore into iron bars - hence you MUST find warrior or you can't smith.
How about - SK is the ONLY class that can make needles that are REQUIRED to do tailoring?
How about you must find a Rogue in order to bank - no rogue , no access to the bank.
How about - the only way you can cross a zone-line is by grouping with Bard?
Would you like that?
What I see is not interdependence, but a screwed up class balance in regards to casual utilities, where some class imbued with convenience to come and go as they please while others must depend on them without having any bonuses of their own.
This idea of "interdependence" may have worked in PnP DnD, where in each gaming session, all of your classes are present at the table and ready to provide these casual utilities free of charge, but it doesn't work in MMO.
|
Every class is unique from one another. They can each do something different to bring some value to the game that a player with another class cannot. For this, they can reap some benefit. A wizard/druid can port, a shaman can do alchemy, a necro can summon, and so on. Warriors are probably the most gimped in this, and it's why they used to get first-loot rights in groups back in the day to make up for their risk and cost of playing a class like that. But even more so, they brought the strongest tank to the group, something that people depend upon.
If you're going to make a claim about Equal interdependence, that's fine. I wont argue that. I do believe that there is unequal interdependence, but that doesn't mean that interdependence is bad, or doesn't work. It just means that the design needs to be made better to make people depend upon one another. The fix to unequal interdependence isn't to get rid of it, it's to find ways of elaborating that interdependence for those classes with less to offer (such as warrior). A slippery slope argument isn't useful.
To your examples, I just need to ask: why should a Warrior be the only one that can smelt ore? The other limitations all make sense, but the ones you list don't. Why should a warrior be the only one who can smelt ore? An enchanter is the best to do jewelcrafting because they are the ones who have access to the magic to enchant metal, making it possible to create magical items. That is reasonable. Shamans hold the secrets of alchemy in their banks, and don't let others at it. That's reasonable. You're examples of interdependence just don't make sense.
Instead of "Should you need a bard to go through a zone line?", which doesn't make sense, what about "Should you need a spellcaster to levitate so you can get across that ravine?". Sure! Why not? That's what spellcasters do.
If the answer is to remove interdependence, rather than rebalance it, you get WoW and most other MMORPGs. Sorry, I'll take the struggle of finding my warrior a bind any day over making every class able to do everything on their own. And I think most people who play here will understand that sentiment.
If you have other ideas of interdependence that would be reasonable, I'd be all over adding stuff to balance out the level of stuff each class can bring to the game. It just should not be the same thing necessarily. Warriors shouldn't port, nor should the game baby people into making it easy to do everything.
If your answer is that each class should be given more equal interdependence traits, so that each person has something unique they can offer to others, I will agree. But that's not about interdependence itself, that's about the way EQ designed its' interdependence.
Now ultimately, what you posted did not, in any way, go against what I was saying about player interdependence helping to create a stronger community. If your criticism is merely balance of interdependence, I will say again, that's fine. But that's not an argument against interdependence, that's an argument about the balance of that interdependence.