necessary roles and character splits.

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
Abbayarra
Sojourner
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Diego

necessary roles and character splits.

Postby Abbayarra » Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:05 am

Every mud should have a split on characters and roles. Also, every mud should have at least 2 classes who can share the same role and then have a secondary role that is different than each other.

The roles are:

Tank: Get hit and keep others from getting hit

Damage: Do massive damage.

Healing: Heal party of damage and debuffs(all debuffs should show on glance with detect magic).

Debuff: Disable remove protections of opponents through spells or skills, primary high level effects should be able to affect groups.

Protections: Protect group members through skills and spells from damage and debuffs.

Scouting: Unlock and detect traps, lure when appropriate, find weaknesses of opponents, sneaks through some areas where cover is available.

Examples:
Warrior: Primary Tank, Secondary Damage
Invoker: Primary Damage, Secondary Debuff
Cleric: Primary Healing, Secondary Protections
Enchanter: Primary Protections, Secondary Damage
Rogue: Primary Scouting, Secondary Damage
Necromancer: Primary Debuff, Secondary Damage
These are just examples. Each class would have a second or third that could do the primary role just as well, but do different secondary role.

Also, every class should depend on equipment to be able to perform their primary role.
Warriors need armor class and hitpoints to tank well.
Invokers would need intelligence adding and skill/damage modifying equipment to do well.(i.e. an invoker naked but a book would mem much slower and do much less damage)
Etc.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby daggaz » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:14 pm

Enchanter: Primary protection; secondary debuff.

Hmm...with breach like it is, you could almost call us primary debuffers too.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby daggaz » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:26 pm

but uh.... the mud is already like this. whats your point here?
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby daggaz » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:27 pm

but uh.... the mud is already like this. whats your point here?
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:11 am

but uh.... the mud is already like this. whats your point here?
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Abbayarra
Sojourner
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Diego

furthermore

Postby Abbayarra » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:09 am

Actually, what we have are pure classes and hybrid classes. This system would have every class have a pure core and a hybrid aspect. This way if you had a choice between a paladin, a warrior, and a dire raider, all would perform exactly the same if equiped the same and had the same practice on skills.
The hybrid classes cannot do anything as well as the pure classes(in many peoples opinions). They can do a little of everything. This can leave them no place. This would not be true if two hybrid were as useful as two pure classes.(i.e. 2 rangers = 1 invoker 1 warrior)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:38 am

quite a concept, i get it, but it would essentially make every class a hybrid. Instead of 1 class being best at something, you have each class being equal capable in two different areas. I don't think anyone would really be a hybrid, you'd all be just different classes.

but you would need to balance out relative importance of each niche, most likely by making certain niches MUCH MUCH more useful powerful than they currently are like debuffing for one. Equalizing melee and spell damage for a 2nd. Decreasing the emphasis on area damage. ect...
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Abbayarra
Sojourner
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Diego

1 and 1/2

Postby Abbayarra » Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:09 am

Let me try and explain again.

Warrior and Paladin
Warrior and Paladin can and do tank the same mob the exact same amount of time successfully. They are primary tanks, it is what they do best. A ranger would be able to tank the same mob exactly 1/2 the amount of time successfully due to that being his secondary role.

The warrior secondary role is as a debuffer. His skills are exactly half as useful as a primary debuffer. That means he has secondary skills for like keeping a caster from casting, blinding, stunning.
A primary debuffer would have more powerful abilities and be able to affect multiple mobs at one time.

A primary scout can see through closed doors, lock door to prevent tracking, hide and sneak when terrain permits it. Backstab for damage and effects, and through awareness intercept incoming hostile mobs and prevent backstab damage to fellow group members. This would be a rogue and illusionists primary role. You can call it what you want but each class would handle these primary roles differently.
Rogues secondary role would be damage, doing is 1/2 as fast as the best rate for a primary damage dealer. The secondary role for an illusionist would be debuffer.
Thus each class has a primary role that only 1 to 3 other classes can do as well and a secondary role that they can do 1/2 as well as a primary would do it.
This in my opinion would make balancing classes much easier.

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests