Why Do I have to be Mr Pink?
Recently, our guild did a backflagging raid to work on some mythical updates and Veeshan’s Peak access. Out of 24 spots, 10 of them were filled by either a bard or an enchanter. I actually made one group that had a dirge, troubador, illusionist, and coercer all together (the scout was in heaven!). In many fantasy MMOs, there is a usual drought of bards, enchanters, and sometimes, healers, leaving guilds to claw, bribe, and even leech from each other in order to fill needed slots. Utility classes in particular are like left handed pitching – impossible to find, but important to have. Now, for the EQ2 raid purist, carrying 10 utility sounds like too much, but for our guild, which used to raid with 8 fighters (Yes, 8. Yes, that’s insane) it’s a nice problem to have.
Above: But really, why do I have to be Mr. Pink?
I’ve led guilds with a more hardcore attitude, and I’m currently leading RnH with a focused-yet-casual approach. Of the two, it’s much harder to run a casual raiding guild, because our progress will always be handcuffed by real life priorities. Babies, spouses, school, family responsibilities, work, etc, all cut into members’ playtimes, and trying to organize raids has become the equivalent of planing Operation Overlord. To fill a 24 person raid, it usually requires 30 people if you’re more hardcore, but in our case, it’s close to 50. Because we have to flag and gear up more players than a hardcore guild, our already casual pace is slowed down even more. It’s led to some frustrating nights, but people overall have been very patient and understanding, so it works ok for the most part.
Multi-group content almost always is designed around the concept of players logging in nightly and regularly – if one or two of your healers need to take the night off, everyone else is S.o.L. as far as raiding goes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had full raids and had to cancel, because we were short one healer, or one utility. 23 people (or in EQ’s case, as many as 72 people) can’t raid because we’re short one person that plays a crucial class. That’s wrong, but it’s not the player’s fault. (/eye game design) What’s even worse is when someone who plays a key class leaves either the guild or the game. Attrition is a part of the game, but losing certain class types can sometimes set a guild back so much that it can trigger a guild implosion. This is a big reason why many veteran gamers not only avoid guilds and the endgame, but actually resent them.
The bottom line is that raiding requires a carefully balanced force, and it always happens at the end of the level ladder. Since it’s impossible to get 30-50 people to all roll up characters that fit well from the start, some will inevitably have to reroll and start over on classes that do fit. What ends up happening is something akin to Reservoir Dogs – everyone starts jockeying for roles, and someone is always stuck being Mr Pink – the class that no one wants to play.
That’s why our backflagging raid was so notable. We’ve been in a utility drought for so long, we grew our own. What really amazed me is how many in the guild voluntarily started over with toons that fill class needs. It’s no small thing to stop playing your character of choice in order to work on a character that helps the guild progress, and we have more than a dozen who have done exactly that. It’s awesome that people here have the patience and the selflessness to do that, but it begs the question – why? Why should someone have to reroll and do the level grind, backflagging, and gearing up all over again just to play a class that helps balance a raid.
Above: If we had just one more healer, we could take down this…giant…owlbear…
We’ve been on the server for a little under two years, and we are finally at the point where we have built a strong, balanced, raid force. The hardest part of being a raiding guild isn’t the raid itself, it’s piecing together the raid force to be able to work the content. Every night, guilds advertise that they’re recruiting select classes to round out their raid force. And pickup raids are full with people sitting for hours, while the leader spams open chat in a fruitless attempt to snag that one missing class.
I’m not advocating a bland, classless game. But it would be nice to have some flexibility with raid balance in multiplayer content. It should start with character creation – no class should be the 5th wheel in a raid, and no class should lose importance because another class is better suited. There is something to be said for slimmed down class choice. And in an age where guilds are having a hard time finding a sense of purpose, why not provide guilds the ability to temporarily change a member’s class. Either that, or give guilds the ability to earn raid buffs that can be used to help get a raid off the ground on a night when certain classes are missing. I’ve written before about allowing mentoring up, or sidekicking. I also think players should have the ability to switch classes – an extension of the betrayal system in EQ2. Tailoring multiplayer content to fit the raid makeup would also be nice, of course, but probably too labor intensive and too difficult to properly balance fairly. Given that fact, if someone has to be Mr. Pink, at least let them skip over the level grind hurdle.
Posted by jayernh under Uncategorized | Comments (4)
The problem isn’t with the concept of classes, but of encounter design and “perceived” requirements.
For years, my guild was a “good only” guild. We intentionally removed ourselves from 1/3 of the classes available in the game and were still able to hit content that we were told we could not hit because of our lack of assassins, coercers, brigands, or other evil classes. We were told on several occasions back then that it was “impossible” to split Vyemm and Alzid Prime without a coercer, or that it was “impossible” to hold enough hate in Deathtoll without a coercer in the MT group, or that it was “impossible” to keep enough power in a raid force without Necromancers.
Today, the new requirement deals with enchanters and bards. Due to some attrition issues, we’re currently raiding without any illusionists or troubadours. We have one coercer who has been on vacation for the past week or so. We’re not using a Shadowknight main tank. We’re not stacking shamans into every raid group.
We’re still hitting content and targets. Oh sure, we could be hitting harder content more often with a more optimal raid force, but it’s not a requirement. Up through a certain point, that’s really more of a matter of perceived opinion – players feel it’s a requirement, so obviously it is.
Sure, a balanced raid force is a beautiful thing…just as a balanced group is. However, the best players I know of won’t wait for a perfect group to come along just to hit some dungeons. They’ll grab who they can and get moving, realizing that a good group moving right now is better than a great group later on.
Comment by Kendricke — October 19, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
Raid balance does matter. We’ve raided without an ideal set up plenty of times. Even today, we usually do not carry the ideal raid breakdown. You’re right that content is doable without perceived requirements, although it is certainly more difficult, and arguably less fun.
But there is a point where it does become impossible. Raiding endgame TSO content is simply not doable with, say, 3 healers. It’s not doable with, say, 8 fighters, as we had been carrying for quite a while. I remember a chat that you and I had a while back, when I was in Legion, about that very exact topic actually.
Comment by jayernh — October 19, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I’m not saying raid balance doesn’t matter. I’m saying that the underlying problems with raid encounters in Everquest II are largely due to encounter design and player perceptions, neither of which are going to be fixed by allowing players to swap up classes or by having classes become more homogenized.
You say that there’s a point at which raiding becomes impossible. I agree and thought I’d made it clear when I said “up through a certain point…” However, you use the example of “three healers” as the point at which raiding becomes impossible, which isn’t actually an example of class balance, but rather one of role balance. Yes, there are minimum roles involved in raiding – X tanks, Y healers, Z damage dealers. Yet, there are minimum roles involved in virtually any team sport or game you can think of – quarterbacks, receivers, offense, defense, fielders, centers, goalies, pitchers, sweepers, bowlers, etc.
If your pitcher doesn’t show up for the league softball playoffs, you can put a fielder into that position…but chances are that the fielder isn’t going to suddenly start pitching a no hitter. If the star wide receiver for your flag football game doesn’t make it on Saturday, the guy who normally plays as a lineman probably isn’t going to suddenly start outrunning defenders to score all the big plays. At some point, roles end up mattering. As play shifts to more competitive goals and away from more casual play, those roles should become more important – not less.
None of this means that class balance doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. Just because my raid force has been running without enchanters for the past week or so doesn’t mean we don’t want enchanters on our raid force. We do. However, I also acknowledge that those same enchanters aren’t needed for the content we’re hitting or trying to hit – they make the encounters easier, but they aren’t the line in the sand between what’s possible or not.
That’s where player perception comes in. Those discussions we used to have when you were in the Legion back in ’06 or so? Those dealt with optimizing our raid force at that time – not whether or not some content was outright impossible if we kept 3 monks on the roster. At that time we thrived on hitting content with “impossible” raid forces. To a certain extent, we still do.
So, are raid forces carrying 8-10 enchanters/bards because it’s necessary for the content, or because it makes the content that much easier?
Comment by Kendricke — October 21, 2009 @ 11:19 am
I actually think we’re in agreement about this, although I’m not quite clear on your sports analogy.
Comment by jayernh — October 21, 2009 @ 9:47 pm