Except your image betrays plate-like armor on the ranger-like character (leather is bulkier than that and chain has...well chains).
well obviously you know less about EQ classes than i thought , maybe stick to a subject you know more about like folding paper.. or go research EQ rangers a bit
Except reboot . Now kindly stop acting like you're superior in some way, I've seen better arguments from someone half your age.
You can have a skillbased system (no classes) and still have armour/weapon restrictions. Just make the restrictions skill based.
So for example, wearing plate will give you a penalty for using magic related skills. Or as another example, wearing cloth or leather armour, gives you a bonus in movement skills. Use your imagination.
This way you don't need classes and anyone can mix skills the way they like, but still have EQ style feeling. This is just to show that you dont need classes. Then you could still consider having skills to alleviate certain penalties, but that simply costs skillpoints which you won't be able to put somewhere else.
For a sandbox game, this would be a lot better then themeparky classes imo. But this is also more difficult to balance for the devs I guess.
My question is should classes be locked in to what weapons and armor they can use?
Personally I like the idea of making my character my own. I can live with being tied to a specific class (until I switch via multi-classing, ahem) but I would like some flexibility. Bards did get to wear plate in EQ after all. If I want to play a "Battle Mage" should I be able to roll a Wizard, wear plate and wield a 2h?
Thoughts?
In my opinion anarchy online did it correctly by allowing you to skill into any weapon or armor. There should always be hard choices, should I spend precious stats or skill points to wear this armor and neglect my class abilities? Should a mage be able to skill into plate as easily as a knight, maybe, maybe not, but what I do know is it should be a hard choice and not simply " platemail is the best so im skilling for it at no hindrance ".
With a limited number of skill points comes finite choices and I see no reason to stop people from creating a mage tank thats a lot more melee than mage. The problem usually arises when armor has no real effect on game play and sadly it usually doesnt. Normally platemail and cloth have very little difference in PvP or PvE as far as damage mitigation is concerned.
Buffs are also a huge problem. If I go mage and spec for chainmail and melee damage, I am doing it for a reason. If mage buffs are easily cast and scattered throughout every class, what becomes the reason I chose melee mage. Each class has to have abilities that are viable depending on the build you choose. If I have strength buff can only be cast on a single target then with this limitation in mind choices can be made. Maybe I go pure mage and do not take the strength buff, or I take it to buff a single friend, or I take it to buff myself and spec melee.
I believe that every class should have abilities designed for a multitude of player design choices. If I want to be an arcane archer and go mage and use a bow, there should be benefits and drawbacks. There should exist spells and abilities that will benefit me and will not.
I would like to see this game become a game of not only advantages but limitations as well. I want to see a limited number of skill options active at one time. I hate games where you have so many abilities that you must set up macros or have 5 bars full of them. I would love to see passives being chose by the player and placed on the skill bar so that you sacrifice for this always active ability.
Player design options should be the focal point of any role playing game. Sadly its almost always neglected and linear progression being the easier option, is the way developers choose to go.
I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.
I'm okay with seeing those things. I think people should be able to equip anything. I just don't think they should be particularly effective with said out-of-category stuff.
I think a rogue should be able to wield a 2h if they want to. They just shouldn't be allowed to backstab or get any benefits from the weapon.
Now, if it were a skill-based system, where the rogue could focus on skilling up a 2h instead of a dagger, and they wanted to do that for some reason, then they could be effective with that weapon... but again, nothing stupid like being able to backstab and stealth properly with one.
In the case of wizards in plate armor, there was a reason this wasn't allowed typically in RPGs/D&D. The reason being that a wizard/mage couldn't perform the appropriate physical motions and gestures of weaving a spell with their hands/arms if they were in stiff armor that limited their range of motion, etc.
So, let a wiz wear plate armor and wield a big, bad flaming 2h axe... just don't let them be able to cast their main spells while doing so. Let them cast a few things like weapon buffs and damage shields while doing it, but not be able to cast a fireball or super nuke, etc.
I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.
I'm okay with seeing those things. I think people should be able to equip anything. I just don't think they should be particularly effective with said out-of-category stuff.
I think a rogue should be able to wield a 2h if they want to. They just shouldn't be allowed to backstab or get any benefits from the weapon.
Now, if it were a skill-based system, where the rogue could focus on skilling up a 2h instead of a dagger, and they wanted to do that for some reason, then they could be effective with that weapon... but again, nothing stupid like being able to backstab and stealth properly with one.
In the case of wizards in plate armor, there was a reason this wasn't allowed typically in RPGs/D&D. The reason being that a wizard/mage couldn't perform the appropriate physical motions and gestures of weaving a spell with their hands/arms if they were in stiff armor that limited their range of motion, etc.
So, let a wiz wear plate armor and wield a big, bad flaming 2h axe... just don't let them be able to cast their main spells while doing so. Let them cast a few things like weapon buffs and damage shields while doing it, but not be able to cast a fireball or super nuke, etc.
I was thinking for wizards more along the line of allowing basic damage spells to be channeled through their weapons (like say spark or frost arrows). The spell itself would be weakened but it in conjunction with the sword would augment the damage dealt and also allow variation in damage types based on need (you don't cast spark on your sword while hitting a rock elemental, now do you?).
I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.
I'm okay with seeing those things. I think people should be able to equip anything. I just don't think they should be particularly effective with said out-of-category stuff.
I think a rogue should be able to wield a 2h if they want to. They just shouldn't be allowed to backstab or get any benefits from the weapon.
Now, if it were a skill-based system, where the rogue could focus on skilling up a 2h instead of a dagger, and they wanted to do that for some reason, then they could be effective with that weapon... but again, nothing stupid like being able to backstab and stealth properly with one.
In the case of wizards in plate armor, there was a reason this wasn't allowed typically in RPGs/D&D. The reason being that a wizard/mage couldn't perform the appropriate physical motions and gestures of weaving a spell with their hands/arms if they were in stiff armor that limited their range of motion, etc.
So, let a wiz wear plate armor and wield a big, bad flaming 2h axe... just don't let them be able to cast their main spells while doing so. Let them cast a few things like weapon buffs and damage shields while doing it, but not be able to cast a fireball or super nuke, etc.
I dont understand why you think a backstab with a two handed sword is a dumb idea? It makes perfect sense to me. The problem isnt the idea its the mechanic. Backstab in most games requires some lame cost for some huge benefit. Daggers usually deal incredibly less damage than other weapons as a result. In my opinion these are lame mechanics.
Being attacked when you are exposed should come with benefits and it should take skill to accomplish it. So I have no problem with a lightly armored character with a big weapon getting bonuses for sneak up and smacking you in the back.
I dont understand why you think a backstab with a two handed sword is a dumb idea? It makes perfect sense to me. The problem isnt the idea its the mechanic. Backstab in most games requires some lame cost for some huge benefit. Daggers usually deal incredibly less damage than other weapons as a result. In my opinion these are lame mechanics.
Being attacked when you are exposed should come with benefits and it should take skill to accomplish it. So I have no problem with a lightly armored character with a big weapon getting bonuses for sneak up and smacking you in the back.
Well, I agree. The problem is in the mechanics. But, we all know how backstab in these games tends to work. Backstabbing in its current form with a giant sword that hits for 10x more than the dagger would be incredibly overpowered and ridiculous.
I think they should just put flanking/vulnerability bonuses into the system for all melee attacks, but I doubt that's going to be there.
The way it works in all these games though... You'd go from 50 damage dagger backstabbing for 10x every 6-10 seconds(total 500 damage) to backstabbing a 250 damage sword x10 every 6-10 seconds.
So obviously something has to change before you can just give complete weapon freedom.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
I always hear people talking about evolution in MMORPG...i dont think that evolution is always a good thing. I m playing GW2, this game have removed roles of the classes and the aggro managment, some people could say that this is an innovation, that leave players to do what they want, but if you play this game for a bit you will see that PvE is an abort; there is no need of coordination between players, no tatics, nothing. If this is what that you call "freedom of choice" and innovation, well i prefer the tradition.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
I always hear people talking about evolution in MMORPG...i dont think that evolution is always a good thing. I m playing GW2, this game have removed roles of the classes and the aggro managment, some people could say that this is an innovation, that leave players to do what they want, but if you play this game for a bit you will see that PvE is an abort, There is no need of coordination between players, no tatics, nothing. If this is what that you call "freedom of choice" and innovation, well i prefer the tradition.
Evolution has dead ends too . But if you call GW2 a virtual world then you truly haven't played any decent games now have you?
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
I always hear people talking about evolution in MMORPG...i dont think that evolution is always a good thing. I m playing GW2, this game have removed roles of the classes and the aggro managment, some people could say that this is an innovation, that leave players to do what they want, but if you play this game for a bit you will see that PvE is an abort, There is no need of coordination between players, no tatics, nothing. If this is what that you call "freedom of choice" and innovation, well i prefer the tradition.
Evolution has dead ends too . But if you call GW2 a virtual world then you truly haven't played any decent games now have you?
If you tell me what are decent games for you, i can say if i have played or not. Howether i have played many mmorpg since 1999, but im my opinion EQ1 is the best of all.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I'm ok with a plate wearing mage if he has severe penalties to casting, for example. Each player should find the sweet spot between offense and defence by choosing their own armor.
Let every class be able to use any weapon... maybe not from the start but they should be able to train with all weapons.
Say a wizard who uses a bow when he is running out of mana or a melee class who wants to use a more unusual weapon like a scythe or a thief who wants to use a whip as a weapon.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
While i do agree with a lot of what you have stated, all that class restrictions have done is allowed us (the players) to do is easily identify what a character's skill set is if you think about it. I think the problem is that people (myself included as it took some time for me to wrap my head around it being a classic EQ and EQ2 vet) tend to associate the class with the mechanic. But in the end, isn't it the mechanic (say, backstab dps, as you suggested) that we were looking for when forming groups or raids?
Traditional classes (like in classic EQ) are simply a template with the skill restrictions that were preordained and labeled with a name by the devs; instead of the player picking them. The CORE aspects of the game were attached to the skill restrictions; they were merely attached to a predestined class with a nametag.
Classes will still be there if you allow players to wear any armor or use any weapon (with restrictions); it will simply blur the line. The point is, the line will STILL be there. All you are truly removing is the name of the class. The role is what's important. You will still see "LFG" in global chat, it will simply look something like "tank LFG, cc LFG, dps LFG, healer LFG, puller LFG (...etc)" instead of warrior, mage, ranger, priest, monk (...etc) "LFG."
Unless group combat is somehow designed to be broken away from the "holy trinity," it shouldn't be any more ineffective to invite a "plated ranger with a maul" then it is to invite a traditional character (such as the rogue you described) as long as the role they are intended to be used for is effectively fulfilled. After all, isn't it the role that encourages the social aspect? For me personally, i couldnt care less if the "plated ranger with a maul" could backstab if that's what they devoted their skill lines to.
All that aside, i can understand how some people are still not warm to the idea since we have always associated the history of a specific class only being able to do/wear/use certain things. The history of those core classes, through association, is really the only thing that's being truly compromised. Since EQN is allegedly making the next vision for the series, maybe it's time to create a new history. *shrug*
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
I agree it would be wrong to award it based solely on the fact that the wizard could equip it, (using your example), but if the wizard had excellent 2h slashing skills (same as the warrior), maybe there could be some sort of a "skill check" the game could apply before allowing the wizard to roll on it. For example: in order to be granted permission to roll on the "greatsword of inferno" the game checks to see who has a 2h skill of 200+ and only allows those players to roll.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
I agree it would be wrong to award it based solely on the fact that the wizard could equip it, (using your example), but if the wizard had excellent 2h slashing skills (same as the warrior), maybe there could be some sort of a "skill check" the game could apply before allowing the wizard to roll on it. For example: in order to be granted permission to roll on the "greatsword of inferno" the game checks to see who has a 2h skill of 200+ and only allows those players to roll.
Raiding rewards materials, all items are crafted, bam, solution.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
I agree it would be wrong to award it based solely on the fact that the wizard could equip it, (using your example), but if the wizard had excellent 2h slashing skills (same as the warrior), maybe there could be some sort of a "skill check" the game could apply before allowing the wizard to roll on it. For example: in order to be granted permission to roll on the "greatsword of inferno" the game checks to see who has a 2h skill of 200+ and only allows those players to roll.
Your skill check system is something to ponder on. I guess my point is, I don't think wizards should be running around with gear that is designed for warriors. If the gear is able to be equipped but is less effective, then why bother? Why would someone take an item from someone else simply because they can? I believe this just opens the door to all sorts of greed, especially if you are dealing with people that are used to the instant gratification games of today. I think this would happen if items didn't get appropriately flagged for certain classes. Ok, lets take it one step further. Lets say that the sword has some +melee skills like dodge/attack power/damage also attached to the item and some +stats that are geared toward tanking/fighting classes; lets say 5 stamina and 5 strength. Would it still be ok for the Wizard to take the item? I can just see all kinds of rolling paybacks! Warriors rolling against casters who stole their swords and rolling on those robes! Maybe it would police itself this way? I just don't get the point of no item restrictions.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
I agree it would be wrong to award it based solely on the fact that the wizard could equip it, (using your example), but if the wizard had excellent 2h slashing skills (same as the warrior), maybe there could be some sort of a "skill check" the game could apply before allowing the wizard to roll on it. For example: in order to be granted permission to roll on the "greatsword of inferno" the game checks to see who has a 2h skill of 200+ and only allows those players to roll.
Your skill check system is something to ponder on. I guess my point is, I don't think wizards should be running around with gear that is designed for warriors. If the gear is able to be equipped but is less effective, then why bother? Why would someone take an item from someone else simply because they can? I believe this just opens the door to all sorts of greed, especially if you are dealing with people that are used to the instant gratification games of today. I think this would happen if items didn't get appropriately flagged for certain classes. Ok, lets take it one step further. Lets say that the sword has some +melee skills like dodge/attack power/damage also attached to the item and some +stats that are geared toward tanking/fighting classes; lets say 5 stamina and 5 strength. Would it still be ok for the Wizard to take the item? I can just see all kinds of rolling paybacks! Warriors rolling against casters who stole their swords and rolling on those robes! Maybe it would police itself this way? I just don't get the point of no item restrictions.
Throw out the notion of "designed for" because swords are made to kill and plate mail to protect, nothing more or less, view them as tools not as extensions of something, then you will be able to see things better.
Comments
Except reboot
. Now kindly stop acting like you're superior in some way, I've seen better arguments from someone half your age.
You can have a skillbased system (no classes) and still have armour/weapon restrictions. Just make the restrictions skill based.
So for example, wearing plate will give you a penalty for using magic related skills. Or as another example, wearing cloth or leather armour, gives you a bonus in movement skills. Use your imagination.
This way you don't need classes and anyone can mix skills the way they like, but still have EQ style feeling. This is just to show that you dont need classes. Then you could still consider having skills to alleviate certain penalties, but that simply costs skillpoints which you won't be able to put somewhere else.
For a sandbox game, this would be a lot better then themeparky classes imo. But this is also more difficult to balance for the devs I guess.
In my opinion anarchy online did it correctly by allowing you to skill into any weapon or armor. There should always be hard choices, should I spend precious stats or skill points to wear this armor and neglect my class abilities? Should a mage be able to skill into plate as easily as a knight, maybe, maybe not, but what I do know is it should be a hard choice and not simply " platemail is the best so im skilling for it at no hindrance ".
With a limited number of skill points comes finite choices and I see no reason to stop people from creating a mage tank thats a lot more melee than mage. The problem usually arises when armor has no real effect on game play and sadly it usually doesnt. Normally platemail and cloth have very little difference in PvP or PvE as far as damage mitigation is concerned.
Buffs are also a huge problem. If I go mage and spec for chainmail and melee damage, I am doing it for a reason. If mage buffs are easily cast and scattered throughout every class, what becomes the reason I chose melee mage. Each class has to have abilities that are viable depending on the build you choose. If I have strength buff can only be cast on a single target then with this limitation in mind choices can be made. Maybe I go pure mage and do not take the strength buff, or I take it to buff a single friend, or I take it to buff myself and spec melee.
I believe that every class should have abilities designed for a multitude of player design choices. If I want to be an arcane archer and go mage and use a bow, there should be benefits and drawbacks. There should exist spells and abilities that will benefit me and will not.
I would like to see this game become a game of not only advantages but limitations as well. I want to see a limited number of skill options active at one time. I hate games where you have so many abilities that you must set up macros or have 5 bars full of them. I would love to see passives being chose by the player and placed on the skill bar so that you sacrifice for this always active ability.
Player design options should be the focal point of any role playing game. Sadly its almost always neglected and linear progression being the easier option, is the way developers choose to go.
I'm okay with seeing those things. I think people should be able to equip anything. I just don't think they should be particularly effective with said out-of-category stuff.
I think a rogue should be able to wield a 2h if they want to. They just shouldn't be allowed to backstab or get any benefits from the weapon.
Now, if it were a skill-based system, where the rogue could focus on skilling up a 2h instead of a dagger, and they wanted to do that for some reason, then they could be effective with that weapon... but again, nothing stupid like being able to backstab and stealth properly with one.
In the case of wizards in plate armor, there was a reason this wasn't allowed typically in RPGs/D&D. The reason being that a wizard/mage couldn't perform the appropriate physical motions and gestures of weaving a spell with their hands/arms if they were in stiff armor that limited their range of motion, etc.
So, let a wiz wear plate armor and wield a big, bad flaming 2h axe... just don't let them be able to cast their main spells while doing so. Let them cast a few things like weapon buffs and damage shields while doing it, but not be able to cast a fireball or super nuke, etc.
I was thinking for wizards more along the line of allowing basic damage spells to be channeled through their weapons (like say spark or frost arrows). The spell itself would be weakened but it in conjunction with the sword would augment the damage dealt and also allow variation in damage types based on need (you don't cast spark on your sword while hitting a rock elemental, now do you?).
I dont understand why you think a backstab with a two handed sword is a dumb idea? It makes perfect sense to me. The problem isnt the idea its the mechanic. Backstab in most games requires some lame cost for some huge benefit. Daggers usually deal incredibly less damage than other weapons as a result. In my opinion these are lame mechanics.
Being attacked when you are exposed should come with benefits and it should take skill to accomplish it. So I have no problem with a lightly armored character with a big weapon getting bonuses for sneak up and smacking you in the back.
Well, I agree. The problem is in the mechanics. But, we all know how backstab in these games tends to work. Backstabbing in its current form with a giant sword that hits for 10x more than the dagger would be incredibly overpowered and ridiculous.
I think they should just put flanking/vulnerability bonuses into the system for all melee attacks, but I doubt that's going to be there.
The way it works in all these games though... You'd go from 50 damage dagger backstabbing for 10x every 6-10 seconds(total 500 damage) to backstabbing a 250 damage sword x10 every 6-10 seconds.
So obviously something has to change before you can just give complete weapon freedom.
If any of you actually PLAYED Everquest or Everquest 2, you would realize that weapon/armor limitations were one of the CORE aspects of the game. Rogues had entire AA skill lines devoted to backstab and dagger use. It was built in from the very beginning of the game. It lasted two games and 15 years and spawned an entire genre of hundreds of games. Seemed to work out pretty well, right?
Paladins cannot dual wield, SOE game both Pal/SK crusader specific weapons and abilities that took into account the class restrictions. Mages, Druids, Bards, Monks....all had restrictions and all had things to deal with those restrictions. Monks had innate AC bonus but could not wear armor without a severe weight penalty. Druids could use scimitars but could not dual wield or double attack.
It would not be Everquest if it did not have the core EQ classes. And that means class/armor restrictions.
Had a similar discussion on a Facebook regarding another game universe and it being linked to certain mechanics. Put bluntly if you think Everquest is a themepark and all it is ever going to be is a themepark then you do a greater disservice to your game than anything you think I am doing.
Put simply this game is not Everquest 3, it is Everquest Next, that implies evolution and MMOs evolve into virtual worlds and virtual worlds are based on freedom of choice. If you want a game with fixed classes you said it best: There are literally hundreds of those, if you want the next evolution of Everquest then you play this game, mechanics be damned, the universe is what counts and anyone that says otherwise needs to stop looking at a cube dead on and calling it a square.
I always hear people talking about evolution in MMORPG...i dont think that evolution is always a good thing. I m playing GW2, this game have removed roles of the classes and the aggro managment, some people could say that this is an innovation, that leave players to do what they want, but if you play this game for a bit you will see that PvE is an abort; there is no need of coordination between players, no tatics, nothing. If this is what that you call "freedom of choice" and innovation, well i prefer the tradition.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Evolution has dead ends too
. But if you call GW2 a virtual world then you truly haven't played any decent games now have you?
If you tell me what are decent games for you, i can say if i have played or not. Howether i have played many mmorpg since 1999, but im my opinion EQ1 is the best of all.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Rather than just put names of classes allowed to equip things on items,I'd rather just see them have downsides to being worn.
Like a wizard COULD wear big platemail, but it usually wouldn't be desirable to do so.
Let every class be able to use any weapon... maybe not from the start but they should be able to train with all weapons.
Say a wizard who uses a bow when he is running out of mana or a melee class who wants to use a more unusual weapon like a scythe or a thief who wants to use a whip as a weapon.
While i do agree with a lot of what you have stated, all that class restrictions have done is allowed us (the players) to do is easily identify what a character's skill set is if you think about it. I think the problem is that people (myself included as it took some time for me to wrap my head around it being a classic EQ and EQ2 vet) tend to associate the class with the mechanic. But in the end, isn't it the mechanic (say, backstab dps, as you suggested) that we were looking for when forming groups or raids?
Traditional classes (like in classic EQ) are simply a template with the skill restrictions that were preordained and labeled with a name by the devs; instead of the player picking them. The CORE aspects of the game were attached to the skill restrictions; they were merely attached to a predestined class with a nametag.
Classes will still be there if you allow players to wear any armor or use any weapon (with restrictions); it will simply blur the line. The point is, the line will STILL be there. All you are truly removing is the name of the class. The role is what's important. You will still see "LFG" in global chat, it will simply look something like "tank LFG, cc LFG, dps LFG, healer LFG, puller LFG (...etc)" instead of warrior, mage, ranger, priest, monk (...etc) "LFG."
Unless group combat is somehow designed to be broken away from the "holy trinity," it shouldn't be any more ineffective to invite a "plated ranger with a maul" then it is to invite a traditional character (such as the rogue you described) as long as the role they are intended to be used for is effectively fulfilled. After all, isn't it the role that encourages the social aspect? For me personally, i couldnt care less if the "plated ranger with a maul" could backstab if that's what they devoted their skill lines to.
All that aside, i can understand how some people are still not warm to the idea since we have always associated the history of a specific class only being able to do/wear/use certain things. The history of those core classes, through association, is really the only thing that's being truly compromised. Since EQN is allegedly making the next vision for the series, maybe it's time to create a new history. *shrug*
EQ1 vets (myself included) are hoping to see some of the core classic aspects of the original game return. I for one would love to see SOE finally do the EQ name justice and return to their roots in terms of game difficulty and risk vs. reward. Given the trend almost all games since EQ1 (1999-2003ish era) have set; no one wants to see more World of Warcraft type games. Classes with armor/weapon limitations are a must if you ask me. Why? Because it divides players into needed categories. The level of item greed that limitless restrictions will promote will be sickening. If I am a warrior in a group with excellent 2H slashing skills and some 2 handed sword drops from a mob, is it fair that just because a wizard is able to wield the item, they should be allowed to compete for gear that is much less useful to them? Some may say yes, he participated in the content so he should have a stake at the item.. I don't know, but it was always cool seeing an item that was specifically made for specific or select classes drop; this also eliminated for the most part so much bickering over equipment. Sure there were items such as the Fungi Tunic that would sometimes create drama because so many players could use it and benefit from it, but it was also extremely valuable and like almost every piece of equipment in EQ1; it was able to be sold/traded. Thoughts?
I agree it would be wrong to award it based solely on the fact that the wizard could equip it, (using your example), but if the wizard had excellent 2h slashing skills (same as the warrior), maybe there could be some sort of a "skill check" the game could apply before allowing the wizard to roll on it. For example: in order to be granted permission to roll on the "greatsword of inferno" the game checks to see who has a 2h skill of 200+ and only allows those players to roll.
Raiding rewards materials, all items are crafted, bam, solution.
How about materials and a tracking system to see how much you need of a certain material so when you pick it up you get a little progress bar.
Your skill check system is something to ponder on. I guess my point is, I don't think wizards should be running around with gear that is designed for warriors. If the gear is able to be equipped but is less effective, then why bother? Why would someone take an item from someone else simply because they can? I believe this just opens the door to all sorts of greed, especially if you are dealing with people that are used to the instant gratification games of today. I think this would happen if items didn't get appropriately flagged for certain classes. Ok, lets take it one step further. Lets say that the sword has some +melee skills like dodge/attack power/damage also attached to the item and some +stats that are geared toward tanking/fighting classes; lets say 5 stamina and 5 strength. Would it still be ok for the Wizard to take the item? I can just see all kinds of rolling paybacks! Warriors rolling against casters who stole their swords and rolling on those robes! Maybe it would police itself this way? I just don't get the point of no item restrictions.
Throw out the notion of "designed for" because swords are made to kill and plate mail to protect, nothing more or less, view them as tools not as extensions of something, then you will be able to see things better.