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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Kind of off-topic, but I saw your comment about DAoC's friar and remembered the disaster of a character system that DAoC has, that is best illustrated by my Warden.
DAoC had a kind of worst-of-all-worlds approach to characters. They had character classes with 'specializations' within the character classes. The problem was, most character classes had one specizlization that worked fairly well for that type, and two specializations that would leave you, often, with a royally gimp character. They gave you a limited amount of specialization points, and you had to spend them on 1-2 of the specializations (for the most part - certain character classes, like rangers, got both more specializations to persue, and more spec points).
Now, to my Warden. Warden was a character type that the game manual (Tip for MMOG newbies: most game manuals LIE blatently about character types in their descriptions. Don't pay any attention to them) described as being a hybrid healer/fighter. The truth is, they had something like 4 specializations - a weapon spec, a healing spec, a buffing, and a shielding spec. They actually did the best with the shielding spec (they had these magical shields they could put on people, that helped quite a lot - they reflected a portion of damage that enemies attacked you with back at the enemies, which simultaneously reduced incoming damage, and increased damage to enemies).
Well, as I recall, the Warden was my first or 2nd character, and after like 15 levels, I ended up with an almost hopelessly screwed up character, because early on, I didn't really understand the specialization choices I was making, and DAoC had a specialization system where, if you were specced to your character level in your 1 or 2 specs you could max, you were fine, but if you tried to generalize by spreading points into 3 or 4 of the specs, you were totallly, completely useless.
But, even when they introduced respecs into the game, so you could have an opportunity to re-allocate your spec points, it turns out that some specializations were just MUCH better than others. I tried speccing my Warden as primarily a fighter with some healing. Turned out that even specced to my own level in the weapon ability, and with good gear (armor, weapons, etc), I was *still* a highly innefective fighter, with weak heals.
The point of this post is, an MMOG designer, if they are going to try to choose a hybrid system, which gives people choices, it is their responsibility to make sure that all choices are fairly viable. In DAoC, there were certain character types that were sub-par overall, or sub-par unless they chose the ONE TRUE PATH for that character type. Any other choice led you down a road of complete frustration.
I'm completely convinced, to this day, that DAoC, while it's basic design (the Realm vs Realm system, backstory, etc) was pretty cool, it had the worst character system I've ever encountered, and to boot was pretty badly mis-managed. The management of the game was more interested in releasing expansion pack after expansion pack, than fixing badly designed specializations and powers.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter lol.
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?