Slashdot Mirror
The Whys of MMOG Archetypes
heartless_ writes "The decision to use an archetype class system in Vanguard : Saga of Heroes has been met with mixed feelings by the fanbase. Some like it; others dislike it, and still others just don't know what to think. Gamergod has a rundown on what's involved in an archetype system, as well as the pros and cons from both sides of the game's design." From the article: "The balancing of classes is simplified because the system introduces a distinct measurement for comparing classes within an archetype. For example, if the Cleric and the Shaman belong to the archetype whose primary role is to heal, the developers can use this to crunch the numbers and ensure both classes are equal in this ability."
After playing EQ and other MMORPG games for years, in the end it won't matter. Certain groups or classes will always feel slighted and make noise about it whether it is truly the case or not.
I am Homer of Borg. Resistance is Fut.. Mmmmmmmm, Donuts!
I'd love to see a game where the numbers simply aren't available to the players.
Something whose mechanics are derived from Runequest, for example, where every time you try something, you MIGHT succeed and if you do (or even sometimes if you don't) you get better. There's no fixed/limited list of 'talents' available to anyone, although there are some special skills that you can't learn until you reach a certain level of expertise.
You know you're ready to move out of the newbie zone when the creatures you're fighting no longer pose a challenge and the rewards are uninteresting, not because all their names turn green or something.
You know you are a good wall-climber because you've scaled a number of dangerous precipices and survived, not because you're a level 12 rogue and you have the "climb walls" ability.
You know your "inflict agony" spell lasts about 15 seconds because that's what it's done the last five times you've cast it. There was that one creature on whom it only lasted 6 seconds, however....
You know that new sword you got is a sweet one either because you paid to have someone magically investigate it, or more frequently because you killed the last 5 nasties in a single swing, not because the "pluses" are better.
Where is a Darklands MMO?
* truth in commenting note: I don't think this would EVER exist commercially, because not enough people want something that hard. I do think it might be conceivable however to get a CURRENT class-based game to run a mod version where the numbers/details like this are not shown...even that alone would be interesting.
-Styopa
"I would prefer to start with a freeform system and move towards the archetype system"
This would end up being a total kludge. If you do it live (I.E. the game is developed in this manner while people are playing) then you will have a lot of people who developed some unique characters get royally screwed when it starts becoming more archetype centered and their character doesn't really fit an archetype. If you do this preproduction, then players are saddled by the limitations of both types of systems.
However, if you designed a game where individual players started based on an archetype but were then able to branch off and develop their player as they wished, you would at least have the advantage of simplicity in the early stages while characters can learn the ins and outs of which skillsets would be beneficial to practice. But the code/rules behind this would probably become exceedingly kludgy and unnecesarilly complicated, leading to frustration from a playability standpoint.
But then again, I'm not a video game designer.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
as the mini-maxed characters appear. UO had flexibility but at least was wise enough to limit players from becoming best at everything. Horizons had the archetypes but allowed players to pick up as many types as they wanted. In the end you have characters that could do nearly everything. Asherson's Call was open ended but attempted to contain what players could do with limiting the number of choices afforded. Yet at the same time unlimited experience meant most skills capped and characters at the end game looked very much alike.
There are other games with some openeness to character development but the end result is usually the same. Over time the players learn what skills actually are worth it and those are the only ones the players have. Throw PvP into the mix and you will see less deviation.
Having a defined role also helps players identify easier with their characters. They can learn their place fairly easily with the help of other more experience players. It also makes fighting MOBs in the game easier as you can generally know what to expect of your opponent.
Which is more fun? Really it depends on the game.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
.... the system just boils down to "Healer", "Fighter", "Thief", etc. Generic RPG. REALLY generic. Plain white box with "RPG" in 24 point type on the front generic.
I seriously doubt you can compare classes on paper, like the article suggests. That might work in theory, but players always use their class in ways the developers never thought of. Its unrealistic to balance classes like that, without extensive playtesting.
Had a lot of diversity, as well as THE BEST MMORPG PVP yet to hit the MMO market.
All classes in EQ2 currently belong to one of four archetypes - fighter, priest, scout or mage. These branch out at level 10 to classes (like, cleric, druid and shaman for priests), and again at 20 (inquisitor, templar, warden, fury, defiler and mystic as the final subclasses for the priest archetype). At every step, each is supposed to be the equal at their primary role as anyone else (healing in this case).
In actuality... There are clear choices as to which is best. Clerics have the best direct heals and have powerful single target and group reactive heals, so they are still the best healers by far. Templars have better heals than Inquisitors, and Inquisitors have better debuffs - but in EQ2, it is the rare fight that is hard enough to need Inq. debuffs and also not require that cleric to spend their time healing. And of course, who wants debuff aggro.
One thing that is notable about the EQ2 healers is that they tend to work well together; a druid and a cleric in the same group is worth far more than two clerics. I believe it is this meshing of roles that Sigil is attempting with Vanguard.
The article made an excellent point about tanks. In EQ2, if you wanted to be a main tank, you were a Guardian. The Players That Be decided that damage mitigation and superior taunting ability were all that mattered with fighters, and so that's what they chose (and too bad for all the monks, berserkers and knights...)
Vanguard will have to find ways of making the classes mesh. A knight class could so cripple a monster that its melee damage would be decreased as much as a pure fighter's mitigation provided. Who knows....
When I was playing EQ2, everyone was acutely aware where their class stood in the desirability list. As an inquisitor, I was right after templars, but ahead of druids. And as my troubadour, I was behind all the other scout classes once people figured out how little difference bard songs really made in a battle.
It's worth pointing out that EQ2 is revamping the whole archetype/class/subclass thing.
Up until a few years ago, Ultima Online had exactly this system. Potion kegs were "almost full" or "nearly empty". You got a magic sword? Great. What is it? You need to use an Item ID skill on it to know. And it didn't suddenly make the stats available, you might get a "Supremely Accurate Katana of Vanquishing". Some keywords (Supremely Accurate, Vanquishing) there gave you a ball park of how good it was compared to others, but not exact numbers and even then, not all with the same name were exactly equal.
Pretty much everything worked this way. Also, there were no predifined classes, everything was based on a set of skills which you got better at the more you used. Want to be mage? Cast a lot of spells. Of course there was a skill limit, so you can't be great at everything. There are even some nearly useless skills like Camping, Herding, etc. that were really only useful for RP.
A couple years ago when they released the "Age of Shadows" expansion, all items were basically converted to a stat system. Lists of numbers on everything. I think they felt the pressure to do what all the other MMOs were doing. The game changed a lot over the years. In the end, I think they gave up what made them unique.
Just my two cents. But, this has been tried, and worked successfully for a long time. It would be nice if a newer game would do it, but it seems the mass market just isn't into it. They'd rather look at stats.
Did Gandalf cast magic spells because he was a Wizard, or was he a Wizard and hence could cast spells? Was Conan a Barbarian because he didn't wear armour and swung a huge weapon or was he swinging a huge weapon and not wearing armour because he was a Barbarian?
Lazy game designers simply update the last successful thing they find... and that's D&D. Now go back and think about why D&D used classes? Because it was basically a minitures system where all the pieces belonged to classes. Spearman, archers, horsemen... all classes.
Break Free!
Archtypes are boring, stiffling the one thing that MMOGs having going for them which is the ability to make a character that stands out from the crowd. They force players into cliques and alienate others ("sorry we already have a tank")...
How about a system that mimics the real world a little more? How about making your character good at what ever he does... if he goes around swinging a sword... make him a good swordsman. If he tries to cast spells, make him a spellcaster. If he wants to do both, let him, but don't let him be quite as good as someone dedicated to one thing.
I can't wait until MMOGs get what people want:
1. Persistance (When I change the world, the world stays changed)
2. Personality (My character is unique)
3. Psychology (My character isn't insane and won't do stupid things like attack randomly anyone they come across... unless he's psychotic. But that's all done by the character.)
Message me if you want me to explain this further, particularly if you want me to consult on your next game.
The question isn't one of classes, but one of roles. Roles are things like:
... but no one class can be 'the healer' by themselves. Everyone's a 'hybrid.'
- healing damage
- preventing damage to others
- preventing damage to self
- doing damage (melee, magical, single or multi-target)
- enhancing others' abilities to do something
- overcoming obstacles (utility)
(and more)
The problem with early MMOGs is that they assigned classes directly tied to the most important roles, so that *one* class fulfilled each primary role. Thus, other classes were secondary.
The archetype system amends this somewhat by allowing multiple classes to fulfil a primary role; but it runs the danger (which can be overcome through smart design) of making the multiple classes mere clones of each other.
IMO the best way to approach classes, assuming one wishes a class-based system, is to make sure not that *several* classes can assume primary roles, but that *no* class can fully assume a primary role by themselves.
In short, no 'tank' class, but some classes will be able to avoid damage better than others. Some classes will have healing
This could be a tricky balancing act for designers trying to ensure that no one class ends up with the 'uber' or 'gimped' combination of roles, but it does avoid the issue of cookie-cutter classes.
There is no one right answer, whether it's class-based or open; it all depends on how thoroughly designed the whole system is. As long as players have interesting roles and can fulfill them, the system will work.
I completely agree. I only played EQ2 for a couple months after release and the despite the archetype model, they still created pecking order for group spots. The funniest part is their argument to get away from the "holy trinity" of EQ. So now instead of warrior, cleric, enchanter, every group needs archetype A, B, and C. Oh and since your all the same choosing who you want in your group comes down to what, looks? Fight it all you want, certian classes will always be better at particular things then others. And the MMO mob has pre-determind that to be take pain = best tank, biggest heal = best "cleric", most damage/crowd control = 3rd group spot. IMHO the trick is not class balancing but world balancing. What if there were quests/bosses who might deal very little damage but are constantly regenerating/healing. Your damage dealing "tank" now becomes more attractive for that instance over one that can take a beating better. Of course, this also requires there to be some balance in quest rewards.
One thing I was looking forward to with Vangaurd was the "new" MMORPG classes like diplomats. Perhaps someone who could "unlock" or make possible certian quests by his negotiation skills with NPCs, or take advantage of difficult battles by persuading some of the enemy to turn against their friends. Of course, once you dump this special sort of class into an archetype where their counterpart uses magic to simply destroy their way through you have lost a huge element of an immersive RPG.
Archetypes in MMORPGs make it easier to group. In City of Heroes, for example, I know what I need to make a successful group by looking at the archetype: Scrappers deal a lot of melee damage, Controllers control mobs, etc. Without that, you might spend a longer time looking for the right people than playing the game.
:)
The problem, of course, is when you have classes that are neither one type nor another. The Friar, for example, in Dark Age of Camelot: "I can heal, but not as well as a cleric, and I can fight, but not as well as a Fighter." Then everyone in your group can hate you for not healing good enough or beating up mobs enough.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
all the comments, which i found interesting, i think it important to note something no one has addressed yet: finding people. the idea is certainly noble to allow every player to create their character to exactly their own specifications and develop them in exactly their own way, etc, etc, but what happens when you try to put together a group of people? in most, i've not played all, archetype-style games it is not overly difficult since you already know what each class, or sub-class, will do well. so if you need someone to take damage, you look for classes x and y and if you need someone sneaky you look for class z.
the problem with completely free-form gaming is that you don't know what anyone else can do. in fact, for all you know, they may not really know what they can do either. this makes it very difficult to cooperate with people you don't know, either irl or in-game. i just can't see large numbers of users being willing to risk getting screwed with groups everytime they form one. just my $.02
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
There are generally two disinct styles of RPG like games: Classless and Classed Systems. Neither one is better but they are different and have some serious drawbacks. A lot of what is good and bad about Classed Systems is already covered in the article so I won't bother to go over that. Read the article if you want to see what is good and bad about a ridgid class system.
So what about Classless systesm? A classic example of a Classless setup is something like Final Fantasy 7. No one is a fighter. No one is a caster. They are, at their cores, just baseline characters. FF7 does put limitations on these characters only by weapondry beyond that there is nothting to say any character has to stick with any particular archtype. This wasn't really a bad thing for FF7 because there was little reason for class enforcement (what skills were offered where given to all, there was very little leveraging of any skills). In a Classless system is supposed to bring out "player skills" since all "character skills" are theroetically offered to all, it is the actual active decisions the player makes instead of things like "passive class bonuses" that determin the success or failure.
The problem with a Classless System is that given open choices, a majority gravitates to the same structure. If one doesn't build up their character like the competitive majority, you can't compete at all. In FF7 everyone was a "fighter/caster" with very little deviation. This meant that unless you needed a specific trick a character offered you really could bring out any combination of characters you want and succeed in the same manner. You also saw this in Ultima Online. As soon as something changed about the game, everyone gravitated towards it. This isn't necessarily bad but it does make for a bland experience. At a particular stratta of the game, like "end game", all of the players start looking the same, performing the same, and desiring the same thing. Your groups and the game in general ended up with very little variation because everyone was offered and is striving for the same "perfection". In a system that has ridgid classes, the "perfection" for a warrior type is far removed from the goals of the caster type.
There are for sure problems with Class based systems but there are also problems with Classless systems as well. I haven't see a Classless system that has done it right yet where they can avoid the same bland nature. But then again, if everyone is really "the same" is it not just a reflection that everyone who is serious chooses the same things?
Various games have been trying a "Hybrid System" where it starts open like a Classless system but utlimately forces one to choose a class role like a Classed system. I'm not convinced these are correct either but this seems to be more flexible than both for the early parts of any game.
You won't find any numbers in this game, it and its ilk are what I consider to be among the world's first mmorpg:
Genesis, The Original LP MUD
http://genesis.tekno.chalmers.se/
Regards
Wax on, wax off baby!
Then, to field a complete team, people need to be able to identify the positions each player will fulfill. If there is no easy way to classify a player, it is difficult to know where their position should be.
This is no different from any activity that requires cooperation to accomplish a goal.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
"If one entity had the ability to accomplish 100% of the meaningful tasks in a given game, then there would be no reason for a game to be "Massively Multiplayer." By segmenting players into specialized classes, it forces people to team up."
:)
I disagree. Several MMORPGs (Meridian59, Guild Wars, Tibia, etc) allow for character advancement to be fairly easy solo. Most often, it seems to result in PVP combat (when it's available) becoming the focus of the MMORPG, rather than the grind, which changes the game's dynamic entirely. This, in turn, tends to change the social atmosphere of the game and can provide a much more socially active community due to politics and competition. One could argue that the essential part MMORPGs is the 'social experience,' which is fueled by player interaction, and you can hardly get much more player interaction than players killing other players
I read TFA, and I am not sure why the author decided to write it. While he makes points, they are moot, imo. I mean, WoW pretty much has an archetype system in the way that you craft your character's class with skill points. And for all of that, you have most classes using only 2-3 builds per class. Nobody cried that much about it. (Well, they did on the forums, but people are still using cookie cutter models.)
Priests in WoW used one build if they soloed to 60, and a 2nd build is they were grouping. Once hitting 60, they went with either the PvP DPS types or group-healing build.
Fighters either used a shield build or a DPS build.
Rogues used either a stealth build or a weapon/combat build.
Warlocks just got laughed at. Come to think of it, so did paladins.
Even the 2 hybrid classes of shaman and druid only saw 2 builds as a general rule.
So, their archetype system devoloved down into being able to split their characters into only a few realistic builds.
EQ was sadly locked into fairly rigid thinking by most of its players. I did some fairly hard LDoN quests with a druid and/or shaman as a healer. For a solid 6 months, a SK and sometimes a pali was a better tank than a warrior for most encounters. Monks were no longer the kings of pulling, as SKs did it better.
Besides, to me, it wasn't the holy trinity, but the holy quad. I really wanted a shaman along in my groups. Heck, as a wizard, I really wanted a BL, too. Kitty-Crack really made my life a lot easier.
I don't see how archetypes makes it that much easier on Devs. Folks need to get out of the "all classes must be balanced" ideas. Each class is a tool to be used in certain situations. Cross-over abilities don't hurt too much, as long as it doesn't go TOO far. EQ druids could heal, but not nearly as well (or effeciently) as a cleric, and they couldn't rez. If druids could heal as well, who would ever want a cleric?
So, let them use archetypes. Most MMO players think inside the box, and won't even TRY alternatives. Me, I went through most of WoW with my wife's druid as my rogue's only healer. We made it to 60 before some paladin busted her confidence as to her ability to heal as well as a priest.
Oh, and DDO isn't balancing the classes. Mostly because the PnP game isn't about balance, but group composition. It has been refreshing to see folks fit their roles. Of course, all groups wait for a cleric, unless they are all WF.
The biggest problem is that group sizes in most games are limited to 5-6 people, and that certain classes you HAVE to have to be able to survive. Not saying that there is anything wrong with requiring certain classes to survive (I know I wouldn't go into a dungeon without a big burly man to protect me), but it means that there are limited slots in any groups for hybrids and individuals with multiple secondary abilities.
The holy trinity is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that you have to cram the 75% of the server's population into the remaining 50% of the group.
Some MMOs have managed to avoid this and let a multitude of character types flourish. Dark Age of Camelot, for instance, allowed eight people per group, so once you got beyond the three types you needed (tank, healer, crowd controller), you had plenty of room for variation and individuals with multiple secondary abilities. Up group sizes and those archetype benders will be able to flourish.
Just my thoughts...
Archetypes also make communicating the primary role of the class to other players easier.
When your group is a warrior, archer, and thief, you know you'd be stronger with a priest, witch doctor, or physician.
When your group is Bob, Ted, and Alice, you're not sure if you be better with Charlie or Frank.
You could figure it out, and some of the play might be in figuring, but generally players don't want to spend their time that way.
"40 Healer LFG" is already more than most seem willing to type.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Hi. "Whys" is not a word. Thanks.
I personally like the way Guild Wars got around this issue... let players decide what they want to do, within limits. Given six classes (Warrior, Ranger, Elementalist, Necromancer, Mesmer, Monk), each with a job, you are given choices IN that job (i.e. Monk can heal, protect, or deal holy damage) AND you are given a secondary class, so you can have a warrior that heals itself or a Mesmer that only uses it's primary class for one thing: fast casting elementalist spells. This basically lets you make up your own class, if you really want to: the best of both worlds.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
Theres actually a successful paytoplay mud called Gemstone III that has permadeath. It basicly works like this - You have to make a Gem or Cash donation to your patron god to gain favors/contracts. The cost is based off of your level, and the number of contracts you have - the more you have, the more expensive.... If you dont have one of those contracts when you die, Booom.
What's happened? The designers made all the classes the same so it would be easier for them to balance out the numbers? Fantastic.
Remind me not to sign up for this one!
Games need to be complex and unbalanced in all sorts of different areas. The difference between one class and another class, and all the varied strengths and weaknesses are what defines the RPG genre. They need to be unbalanced because that way you can, as a player, feel good about your strengths in the areas that you're strongest in. Weaknesses are a vital driver for team play, because classes complement each other to make a much stronger whole than the sum of the parts.
Otherwise, if everyone is the same, you're playing unreal tournament.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Check out Darkfall