We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1

    Trait-Tree Ideas for RockX

    Hi,
    since Kelsan stated in the burglar forum, that they are experimenting with a tree system for the classes, we should collect hopes and concerns in an own thread, to give some feedback to our developer. Since I'm not really good in those things (English isn't my main language), I'm starting with two obvious hopes and concerns:

    My hopes:

    - I generally like skill trees in games (for example in Path of Exile) and the system in mounted combat wasn't that bad. My hope is, that a tree system could give options for more different and unique builds.

    My concerns:

    - A tree system could also lead to static builds. For example a build for Damage, a build for Healing and a build for tanking. When done wrong, the game could loose a lot of its flexibility. For example I built my warhorse tree once and have no intentions, to change anything on it.

    But Kelsan already said, that they are aware of this problem:

    The only Trees currently in LotRO are the Mounted Combat trees which are linear and restrictive. This design makes perfect sense for a system that is exclusive to a small level band and limited by encounter type. With this as the current example of Trees, it is a logical assumption that should we move classes to a Tree system that it would be very similar.
    All I can say is that, our classes are much more complex and hinge on player choice. Our experiments in Trees have been to support/encourage player experimentation in both specialization and generalization.
    Cheers,
    Andreas

    P.S. I'd prefer such a tree system for my legendary items over the current legacy system at any time.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/2721800000026c6da/01003/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    464
    Hmm. Interesting. A tree system INSTEAD of the classes could be good. Have to watch that everyone doesn't end up building whatever the current flavour of the month happens to be, tho. Make it easy to spend, but real-time consuming to recover spent points? It would also be nice to have no cap on how many points you can assign to any given ability.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hromgar
    Posts
    767
    All I have to say is, "please, no trait trees." I rather like LotRO's approach and would prefer it not be like most every other mmo.
    [COLOR=#FF8C00][SIZE=2][B]Hromgar[/B][/SIZE], Captain[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#FFFFF0][SIZE=2][B]Numenorean Guard,[/B][/SIZE] Landroval[/COLOR]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,724
    What I would like to see is communication in the process. Give us more intervals for uproar and the inevitable acceptance..a controlled burn, so to speak. If they wait until it's all ready to go to Beta, it's gonna be a lot of flame all at once, and could result in pushing people over the edge (as far as their desire to play).
    Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...

  5. #5
    Please no Trait trees. Lotro's system is so much better than the tree system. Are people really complaining about traits? If you want to make people happy fix the LI system, fix the fight clubbing in the moors, fix items on the bug list, add a new pvmp map, but don't go fixing what isn't broken. There is plenty of broken that needs fixing.

    Trey
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/022040000002c26ce/01008/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by borges_maze View Post
    All I have to say is, "please, no trait trees." I rather like LotRO's approach and would prefer it not be like most every other mmo.
    /agreed

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hannover
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellora1 View Post
    /agreed
    Double agreed!
    Second Marshall Maywyn Eorthas of Rohan - Captain - Rank 13

    Tyrant Gate Wargkönig, Son of Krithmog - Stalker - Rank 15

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    2,910
    What do people hate so much about trait trees? I'm genuinely curious.

    See, because the current system gives us only 8 class traits per line, to go into 7 trait slots. And at least for Captains, one trait slot always goes to Now For Wrath, at which point a second one needs to always go to another Blue trait, usually Relentless Optimism, because both Red and Yellow have at least three traits that are never worth equipping, and there's no incentive to take more than 5 in any one line anyway.

    So it can't be that people hate trait trees because they promote stale builds, because it would be tremendously difficult to get trait builds that are any staler than what the current system gives us.

    So. I'm curious. What's so bad about trait trees?
    Cainwen Ciaphas, Captain of Crickhollow, HERO OF MIDDLE EARTH!!!
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My opinions are my own!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    So. I'm curious. What's so bad about trait trees?

    It's because other MMORPGs have trees, too .

    Joke aside, I can see one major problem with trees, when done similar to mounted combat (and I bet, something similar is coming). You said, you trait Now for Wrath all the time and mostly Relentless Optimism with it. Now imagine, that the skills are separated in three trees: 1. Damage, 2. Healing, 3. Tanking

    Now for Wrath and Relentless Optimism would surely be in the Healing Tree. Now, when you are - similar to mounted combat - only allowed to put points in one of the three trees, you will have to do without these two blue traits, when you put points in the Damage or Tanking Tree. And I know a lot of captains, that would be pretty angry with such a change, when they can no longer build mixed trait lines.

    Why would the developers do this? Because it would make the classes a lot less homogeneous than the current trait system, where my Captain traits red and is still quite good at healing (thanks to traiting 2x blue). And this is exactly, what the developers want (according to the Twitter Dev-Chat).

    So I believe, something similar is coming. We'll have to adapt to it and better give some good suggestions to the developers, how to do it right.

    Cheers,
    Andreas
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/2721800000026c6da/01003/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hromgar
    Posts
    767
    I wrote a more detailed reply, but the lovely forums logged me out when I submitted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    So. I'm curious. What's so bad about trait trees?
    First, I agree the trait builds tend to be fairly stale or static or whatever you might like to call it. But I don't think they are as static as my builds have been in games with trait trees. For example, in SWTOR my builds for Consular and Scoundrel only changed when some dynamic shifted. In LoTRO, I shift between as many as three or four builds a day, mostly variations on HoH or LtC for pvp or pve. Furthermore, my group trait build for the Moors, while mostly static (5B2Y) shifts traits depending on group size and composition.

    Second, as shallow as it may be, I just like that LotRO does it differently. I was a little disappointed to see trees for mounted combat, though I think they were nicely done.

    If the devs are dead set on changing the method by which we build our traits, I would like (a) more horizontal options than are normally seen in mmos (the MC trees come close) and/or (b) a system like GW2's, with inlocking traits and "legendaries."
    [COLOR=#FF8C00][SIZE=2][B]Hromgar[/B][/SIZE], Captain[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#FFFFF0][SIZE=2][B]Numenorean Guard,[/B][/SIZE] Landroval[/COLOR]

  11. #11
    While my first reaction to the proposed trait trees was shock and horror, I think my opinion has mellowed. Our current trait setup and pure trees are merely specific cases of trait graphs, so perhaps the devs have an alternative topology planned than just 3 separate "trees". For example, it isn't required that we even have 3 distinct trait lines, or that all classes be treated the same way. I could imagine captains, as a hybrid class, having a more free flowing or interconnected graph, while minstrels, to concentrate on a specific role, could have less mixing. This could be more fun than we may have envisioned.
    I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. ~ Faramir

    Undo the U12 class changes. The trait trees were, are, and will always be a bad idea.
    Maedhric 100 Captain, Nunion 93 Champion, Taraviel 85 Minstrel, etc...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    2,910
    Has anyone else here played Torchlight II? If they made trait trees that worked like that, I think everyone would be happy. :P
    Cainwen Ciaphas, Captain of Crickhollow, HERO OF MIDDLE EARTH!!!
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My opinions are my own!

  13. #13
    I can't speak from any experience over what we are getting but it may not be as dramatic as one might think. We may not realize it but are using skill trees already. We don't have a big panel showing it because it is currently implemented differently than what we know as skill trees.

    Stances like war speech, or Over power etc are where our role/ability branches off into different paths and values. It may be easier to think of it that way, but again I can't speak from any knowledge on what they are planning.

    I'm on the fence myself till I know more about it, but I can see that we have something "like" an invisible skill tree now.
    Last edited by Armitas; Feb 28 2013 at 11:19 AM.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/022040000000c7eb3/01003/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    [CENTER]
    [/CENTER]

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hromgar
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    Has anyone else here played Torchlight II? If they made trait trees that worked like that, I think everyone would be happy. :P
    If I could blow up mobs like I can in Torchlight II, I'd be pretty happy too.

    But, yeah, those trees are pretty cool.

    And I do agree we already sort of have trees, especially if you think of the trait bonuses as traits themselves. Though, when I refer to trees, I'm referring to the cosmentic aspect as much as anything (i.e. the WoW tree like we see for MC).
    [COLOR=#FF8C00][SIZE=2][B]Hromgar[/B][/SIZE], Captain[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#FFFFF0][SIZE=2][B]Numenorean Guard,[/B][/SIZE] Landroval[/COLOR]

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Landroval
    Posts
    1,166
    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    What do people hate so much about trait trees? I'm genuinely curious.

    See, because the current system gives us only 8 class traits per line, to go into 7 trait slots. And at least for Captains, one trait slot always goes to Now For Wrath, at which point a second one needs to always go to another Blue trait, usually Relentless Optimism, because both Red and Yellow have at least three traits that are never worth equipping, and there's no incentive to take more than 5 in any one line anyway.

    So it can't be that people hate trait trees because they promote stale builds, because it would be tremendously difficult to get trait builds that are any staler than what the current system gives us.

    So. I'm curious. What's so bad about trait trees?
    Just cross-posting from the transcript thread. I agree that the current traits and set bonuses could be reworked and improved for specific areas in each class, but I look at this from a broader context. What I didn't mention below is that trees end up locking in or heavily promoting cookie-cutter builds far more than LotRO does across the spectrum of playstyles; it makes sense that the role-based raid content requires more precise traiting for any game, but LotRO has significant non-raid content where experimentation is just fine. Having raided in WoW where every member of a class was dressed in the same gear with exactly the same talent specs got boring as all hell, and one reason why I left (well, also one reason why I just don't raid anymore ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Trilwych View Post
    This is all "in my experience and opinion" of course. I played quite a bit of WoW before coming to LotRO in 2009--I don't know about the new "linear" talent system in WoW, but I suspect Blizzard did away with trees because they knew after years of experience that balancing the individual talents and branching paths became more troublesome with highly bloated trees. Linear sure is simple!

    Anyway. First, what makes LotRO unique and great--among a number of things, of course (though this feels lessened with each update, sometimes), this includes the free-form class and virtue trait system. Specifically for class traits, chosen traits confer set bonuses unto a capstone at the player's own choice. So long as your class traits are unlocked, you can pick ANY of the traits you wish in ANY of the three lines (which are not linear at all) for specific set bonuses and an optional capstone, and legendary traits.

    There is LESS player choice and customization in railroaded tree systems compared to the current LotRO system. It doesn't matter if you have 50 points especially if you only have enough points to go down a specific tree--you're forced to start at the bottom and are locked in. This makes sense for games where 5-mans and raiding content are a very significant portion of the entire game and the devs want to easily balance that content for specific roles, like WoW, but less so for games where 1-2-3-man content is more commonly experienced (hybrid roles/traits are perfectly viable and sometimes preferred) and some classes have different utility (buff/debuff, cc, etc.). If WB-Turbine intends now to significantly up fellowship/raid content, sure. That hasn't been the case since F2P was implemented.

    Another reason why you have LESS player choice with tree systems is that trees are hierarchical by "value"--and the only people who determine each talent value are the devs, not the players. This is certainly more "intuitive" in the sense that it makes decision-making much simpler for players. While LotRO's current free-form trait system means someone can take specific red traits they prefer over others (e.g. captain's red traits for pet DPS versus self DPS), in trees you have no choice but to follow a preset path laid before you by devs who've decided one trait is innately more valuable than another. And along the way, you will be forced to choose a "gate" trait just to unlock something else you prefer--maybe you don't want the enforced baseline -threat% in the Red Dawn tree in order to get the +DPS traits after that.

    A dev somewhere hinted that their future class revisions will "force difficult choices" or something to that effect. This would not be true with a tree system. Merely being forced to choose an initial role out of three at the root is nowhere near the same as deciding which specific individual traits in a line to pick for diverse set bonuses (potentially compromising a capstone) versus going for stronger set bonuses should you choose more to specialize. This means flexibility. More flexibility means more player choice, and in every case I've seen it (e.g. tons of feats to choose from in D&D), more truly "difficult" choices for players based on their own evaluation. Player choice is good. Enforced dev choices would be more akin to Instance Finder v1.

    Changing the current free-form trait system into talent trees would be simplification for both players and for the devs. The devs get to choose their trait priorities over player preference and players in turn would be forced to just go down a mindless railroaded color. Of course, one way around that is to implement it like the warsteed traits: Give enough points to reach all three capstones and allow instant "stance" change in combat. (This isn't really a better solution, though)

    Personally, I'd rather the devs keep the free-form trait system and add a slot and empower the class trait set bonuses and capstones even more--make the higher set bonuses particularly interesting, and that would certainly offer more difficult choices, but still keep the diverse lesser set bonuses.
    Now, I haven't played Torchlight II, so I'm curious about that, and someone in the thread mentioned how interesting Rift's tree system was, so I'm likely to try that with a friend (I mean, if every game will use trees, then I might as well try something else anyway). We'll see.


    ____________________
    Crit crafting & the RNG | Dumb noob things we've done in LotRO...
    "Be not so eager to advance that you fail to experience the moment, in life and in all things." -Deluros, Rivendell
    legendary: adj.
    1. Gilded (having a pleasing or showy appearance that conceals something of little worth)
    2. Having an appearance of grandeur that obfuscates by complexity and arbitrariness
    3. Disposable

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    2,910
    About Torchlight II, maybe the easiest way to understand what they're doing with skill trees is to play with a skill calculator like this one. In particular, switch back and forth between the lines as listed on the left (I think the default Class is Berserker, and their skill trees are Hunter, Tundra, and Shadow) and hover your mouse over some of the skills to see the requirements.

    Basically, you get a fixed number of skill points to invest as you level where you can invest multiple points in a given skill, sort of like Mounted Combat trees in LOTRO, but the skills themselves are only gated by level (and sometimes your equipped weapon), not by other skills. So the trees are more thematic than anything. Like, "Oh, here are all the Engineer skills that mostly involve summoning robots." or "Here are all the skills related to Embermage skills that primarily do crowd control and group effects."

    I love it because it's really free-form in how you can build, but the trees still feel coherent. Rather than forcing "you must take X to take Y", they make it so that Y has a synergistic effect with X -- but maybe skill Z in a different tree also synergises with Y, in which case you're totally free to use that combination instead.

    Now. I don't actually care that much for the skill rank thing. It works fine in Torchlight 2, where realistically you're only ever going to use three or four skills throughout the whole game but you still need to maintain a feeling of advancement through 100+ character levels. But in LOTRO, I don't think it makes as much sense to do trait ranks, particularly because a lot of traits alter your skills quite dramatically in a way that doesn't lend itself to being divided into ranks. This is, IMO, one of the few mistakes the Mounted Combat system made, although to its slight credit most of the traits that have ranks just give a flat +Mastery or whatever.

    (For the record, my interpretation of what the devs have said about trait trees is that they're changing the interface moreso than the underlying mechanics. Although probably a lot of traits will be changing due to the class revamps. I think what we're going to get for the new trait system is mostly just a new UI and the ability to save presets, rather than a "true" tree where traits on the bottom require you to slot traits above them.)
    Cainwen Ciaphas, Captain of Crickhollow, HERO OF MIDDLE EARTH!!!
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My opinions are my own!

  17. #17
    Hmm, the Torchlight tree looks interesting, I'll have to play around with that some more.


    My only fear with trait trees would be having more traits gated behind other traits. We have that with the capstones already, which is fine because they are (supposedly) much more powerful than the other traits. What I DON'T want to happen is to have it where, for example, you can't trait any solo traits until you've done 2 herald traits or something like that. By adding additional gates to our existing traits, it could LIMIT the number of possible combinations.

    Buuut, we don't really know what's actually gonna happen, so I guess I'll just sit tight and see.
    [B]Dwarrowdelf[/B]: Gufli-Champ(58), Gadhalion-Hunter(27), Galbarad-Warrden(23), Gildro-Burg(20)
    [B]Windfola[/B]: Fredemond-Mini(25), Fimorin-Cappy(34), Fallaf-Guard(25), Fumli-RK(25), Falandion-LM(21)

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    About Torchlight II,
    I was really disappointed with D3, but I haven't played Torch Light II, just the first one. How well would you say it captures what we remember from D2?

    Did you play hellgate london? Also from the D2 team. Kind of crazy that they ignored everyone who made D2 great and got someone from WOW to do D3.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/022040000000c7eb3/01003/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    [CENTER]
    [/CENTER]

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    2,910
    Honestly, I got into the ARPG genre with Torchlight. I had friends who played D2 back in the day, but at the time I was playing mostly flight sims and first-person shooters.

    TII is basically a complete upgrade from the first Torchlight. They took everything that worked, kept it, and expanded or improved everything else. And added multiplayer, of course. Enemy types and *especially* the levels have way more variety. Instead of descending vertically through a mine, you're traveling all over a quite large surface world. Act I, which is really just a brief preview, had temperate grasslands and frozen mountain and some crypt levels that look sort of similar to what you saw in TI. Act II so far (I'm only part-way through it because I restarted with a second character) is mostly desert but throws in a bunch of cool, vaguely Egyptian ruins to explore, plus some more fantastical crystal formations. Stuff like that.
    Cainwen Ciaphas, Captain of Crickhollow, HERO OF MIDDLE EARTH!!!
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My opinions are my own!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Techman10 View Post
    Hmm, the Torchlight tree looks interesting, I'll have to play around with that some more.


    My only fear with trait trees would be having more traits gated behind other traits. We have that with the capstones already, which is fine because they are (supposedly) much more powerful than the other traits. What I DON'T want to happen is to have it where, for example, you can't trait any solo traits until you've done 2 herald traits or something like that. By adding additional gates to our existing traits, it could LIMIT the number of possible combinations.

    Buuut, we don't really know what's actually gonna happen, so I guess I'll just sit tight and see.
    That's exactly the problem with Trait-Trees. They lock people into certain combinations to obtain the most powerful traits - so instead adding depth and variety to the class they often-times have the exact opposite effect. Also, it's been my experience that skill trees tend to replace the base concept of any given class, and characters begin to be defined by what tree they invest more heavily in rather the class itself. This can become a problem, especially for a class like Captain that excels at support and versatility.

    Torchlight 2 was fun, but way too easy to cheat on.

  21. #21
    Count me as another vote against trait trees. They allow for fewer viable builds than our free form system, and either have so few points that captains would lose their hybrid jack of all trades nature, or have so many points that everyone looks the same (like our warsteed trees).
    Arkenstone: Pelagor 100 Captain, Finarwe 100 Loremaster, Banderdas 100 Minstrel

  22. #22
    Here are some trait tree ideas that I just drew up quickly. They are not recommendations, but just illustrations of what might be possible.

    Here is our current trait setup drawn as a simple graph:


    The red boxes signify which traits the player has chosen.

    Here is a simple Trait Tree diagram:



    This is the prototypical strict tree, which is what I think most of us fear. I would probably be opposed to this.

    Here is a slightly more sophisticated tree, discarding the pure 3-Trait-Line format:



    This would be more fun, allowing more specialized builds, but still allowing the devs to disallow particularly wacky game-breaking builds if they choose.

    Finally, here's a crazy tree:



    This is just to illustrate how crazy of a tree I could think of in a few minutes. I'm sure the devs (or creative members of the community) could think of something even wackier.
    I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. ~ Faramir

    Undo the U12 class changes. The trait trees were, are, and will always be a bad idea.
    Maedhric 100 Captain, Nunion 93 Champion, Taraviel 85 Minstrel, etc...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Landroval
    Posts
    1,166
    Quote Originally Posted by furtim View Post
    I love it because it's really free-form in how you can build, but the trees still feel coherent. Rather than forcing "you must take X to take Y", they make it so that Y has a synergistic effect with X -- but maybe skill Z in a different tree also synergises with Y, in which case you're totally free to use that combination instead.

    Now. I don't actually care that much for the skill rank thing. It works fine in Torchlight 2, where realistically you're only ever going to use three or four skills throughout the whole game but you still need to maintain a feeling of advancement through 100+ character levels. But in LOTRO, I don't think it makes as much sense to do trait ranks, particularly because a lot of traits alter your skills quite dramatically in a way that doesn't lend itself to being divided into ranks. This is, IMO, one of the few mistakes the Mounted Combat system made, although to its slight credit most of the traits that have ranks just give a flat +Mastery or whatever.
    Hmm, that looks interesting. Like a tier system of some kind, and creative synergy is always nice. WoW's old talent trees had prerequisites and multiple ranks as well, similar to the warsteed trees, and I agree that ranks within the talents/traits are a bit much unless they intend the talent trees to not directly affect specific skills but other types of modifiers. Or something.

    (For the record, my interpretation of what the devs have said about trait trees is that they're changing the interface moreso than the underlying mechanics. Although probably a lot of traits will be changing due to the class revamps. I think what we're going to get for the new trait system is mostly just a new UI and the ability to save presets, rather than a "true" tree where traits on the bottom require you to slot traits above them.)
    I really hope you're right. Personally, I suspect the warsteed trait trees were to "beta"-test the mechanic for general use, with only some tweaking. Considering some of the other changes WB-Turbine have been making--major stat revisions leading to nerfing of power skills and traits... It might make sense that power traits should be removed from a tree system because otherwise they must be "bottom-loaded" at the base of each tree across all three specs to maintain viability, and it's better to leave class traits for role-specific skills and bonuses instead of something so generic like power-return. (Can't explain the baseline, fundamental skill power nerfs, though. Just easier to balance a single stat, perhaps.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremi View Post
    Also, it's been my experience that skill trees tend to replace the base concept of any given class, and characters begin to be defined by what tree they invest more heavily in rather the class itself. This can become a problem, especially for a class like Captain that excels at support and versatility.
    WB-Turbine have essentially confirmed in the chat transcript that they want higher degrees of specialization within each talent-tree-role, so this much is a given. And this also points toward the death of hybrid classes, at least in my experience:

    This is what happened in WoW when I was still playing (someone should correct me if I'm mis-remembering). Hybrid or "cross-purpose" classes like druid and paladin, alongside the other classes with already clearly defined general roles (e.g. mage = DPS), became more and more role-defined by the talent trees with every revamp. That is, the "standard" must-haves for distinct group viability were moved towards the mid-high levels of trees such that viable hybridization became more difficult and less worthwhile. The roles defined by the three talent trees became divergent enough that even the hybrid classes could easily compete against other "primary" role classes, like druid versus warrior as main tank, and the counterpoint hybrid skills like druid healing were nerfed (or buffed-only-by-talent-tree) in such a way that they weren't viable for group play anymore. What that meant is the "jack of all trades, expert of none" model was discarded completely. The concept of a "hybrid" class no longer meant multiple secondary roles at the same time in a given combat situation, but rather "Sure, this class can tank or heal or do damage, but only one at a time and only if you're specced right."

    Now, I know raiders especially don't mind this and would probably welcome the ability to compete toe-to-toe with "primary" role classes (hey, I main-tanked in WoW as a druid), but this isn't a great thing for LotRO IMO because of the significant amount of 1-2-3-man content counter to the smaller raid scene, as I mentioned in my transcript reply, where experimentation is tolerated and still viable. "Spec as ye will" is a freedom many desire, particularly players who've experienced spec limitations and related side effects in other games.

    Here's a problem in the tree math for LotRO, though. Many classes have significant utility skills baked into the basic class description, like buff/debuff/cc, and in the interest of "fair balance," that would require talent tree roles to be still lesser to "primary" role classes. I don't remember the particulars very well now, but I think WoW got around this by homogenizing utility skills more, like adding and buffing cc skills in classes that didn't have or had minimal such skills. Hmm.


    Quote Originally Posted by dietlbomb View Post
    Here is a slightly more sophisticated tree, discarding the pure 3-Trait-Line format:

    This would be more fun, allowing more specialized builds, but still allowing the devs to disallow particularly wacky game-breaking builds if they choose.
    I think we can safely assume that the devs intend to stick with a traditional 3-role 3-tree/whatever format, given the transcript quotes, something about bringing definition to primary roles and whatnot. I don't get the "game-breaking builds" comment, though--the nature of hybridizing means you get lesser set bonuses (or only the lower branches of trees), so it's not like you're going to be OP. Are there any game-breaking "wacky" builds for any classes right now?

    These are also the most goddamn slow forums ever.

    ____________________
    Crit crafting & the RNG | Dumb noob things we've done in LotRO...
    "Be not so eager to advance that you fail to experience the moment, in life and in all things." -Deluros, Rivendell
    legendary: adj.
    1. Gilded (having a pleasing or showy appearance that conceals something of little worth)
    2. Having an appearance of grandeur that obfuscates by complexity and arbitrariness
    3. Disposable
    Last edited by Trilwych; Mar 01 2013 at 01:58 AM. Reason: Clarity, more or less

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Trilwych View Post



    WB-Turbine have essentially confirmed in the chat transcript that they want higher degrees of specialization within each talent-tree-role, so this much is a given. And this also points toward the death of hybrid classes, at least in my experience:

    This is what happened in WoW when I was still playing (someone should correct me if I'm mis-remembering). Hybrid or "cross-purpose" classes like druid and paladin, alongside the other classes with already clearly defined general roles (e.g. mage = DPS), became more and more role-defined by the talent trees with every revamp. That is, the "standard" must-haves for distinct group viability were moved towards the mid-high levels of trees such that viable hybridization became more difficult and less worthwhile. The roles defined by the three talent trees became divergent enough that even the hybrid classes could easily compete against other "primary" role classes, like druid versus warrior as main tank, and the counterpoint hybrid skills like druid healing were nerfed (or buffed-only-by-talent-tree) in such a way that they weren't viable for group play anymore. What that meant is the "jack of all trades, expert of none" model was discarded completely. The concept of a "hybrid" class no longer meant multiple secondary roles at the same time in a given combat situation, but rather "Sure, this class can tank or heal or do damage, but only one at a time and only if you're specced right."

    Now, I know raiders especially don't mind this and would probably welcome the ability to compete toe-to-toe with "primary" role classes (hey, I main-tanked in WoW as a druid), but this isn't a great thing for LotRO IMO because of the significant amount of 1-2-3-man content counter to the smaller raid scene, as I mentioned in my transcript reply, where experimentation is tolerated and still viable. "Spec as ye will" is a freedom many desire, particularly players who've experienced spec limitations and related side effects in other games.

    Here's a problem in the tree math for LotRO, though. Many classes have significant utility skills baked into the basic class description, like buff/debuff/cc, and in the interest of "fair balance," that would require talent tree roles to be still lesser to "primary" role classes. I don't remember the particulars very well now, but I think WoW got around this by homogenizing utility skills more, like adding and buffing cc skills in classes that didn't have or had minimal such skills. Hmm.
    I don't like the sound of this, and I wish developers would stop trying to copy WoW. I wonder how many more MMORPGs are going to have to fail trying to mimic WoW before they realize it's not the game play aspects that make WoW so successful. If LOTRO really wants to copy something from WoW, they should start by copying their lag-free servers and excellent cross-server instance finder. I'm convinced these are the real reasons WoW remains so popular. I doubt it's their awesome skill trees.

    Your post makes an apt correlation though, and Captains will almost certainly go the way of the Paladin if skill trees are introduced, and that's a shame, at least from my perspective. So I definitely agree with you that this isn't a great thing for LOTRO.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by dietlbomb View Post
    Here is a slightly more sophisticated tree, discarding the pure 3-Trait-Line format:



    This would be more fun, allowing more specialized builds, but still allowing the devs to disallow particularly wacky game-breaking builds if they choose.
    I could get behind this for a trait tree.

    It makes sense, still lets us keep most of our flexibility (although NfW needs to be lower if our power costs aren't adjusted), and also helps to put some much needed requirements on the stronger traits for DPS and Healing, so it's not so easy to mix the top end of each without 3/4 build.

    It all depends on the implementation, and the agility the devs have with acting upon our feedback =/
    Maley Oakensage, Captain of Elendilmir

    Alas Elendilmir, may you *jingle jangle* forever in the Forgotten West

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload