Originally posted by Death1942 i dont mind classes too much. i think however things need to be changed. an option to do some quests to change your class (FFXI had something like that) or simply adding more stuff to classes (to make them more varied) would be a welcome change.
Actually, FFXI lets you change your class at will whenever you're in your mog house (player housing). The quests made more jobs available for you to change to (another quest makes it possible to be two jobs at once, a necessary ability for anyone past the rank beginner stage).
UO and EVE are the only mmo's that I know that don't have classes. Neither one has been a market faliure.
What do you mean Eve does not have classes? For example, you want to be a tackler, you train the skills to be a tackler. Alternatively, you could say training to fly a particular ship is the same as chosing a class. How is this really different from chosing a class in a traditional MMO?
Istaria (Horizons) has classes for bipeds, but you can switch to a different class at any time by talking to a trainer and then switch back without any penalty. So the assumption that classes must lock you into a single class is as false as the assumption that a skill based game will or will not do something similar.
City of Heroes as mentioned above is a good combination of skills and classes. For most missions, almost any combination of classes will work in a team of heroes.
I would like to see an improvement in the description of skills in games. Most skill descriptions give insufficient information to quantify the actual improvement. Skill descriptions are often qualitative rather than quantitative, ambiguous or use in game jargon that may have a completely different meaning in another game. For example an " increase in attack" in different games may or may not affect things like damage per hit and chance to hit or miss. With such vague descriptions how do you actually calculate your increase in damage per second or damage per hit?
The actual mathematics can be quite complex. What skill based games need is a skill planner that allows you to make some hypothetical builds to see what effect this has on your overall statistics (maximum damage per hit, damage per second, maximum hitpoints, resists, regeneration, etc). Mids Hero Designer, made by a fan of City of Heroes, is an example of a module that allows hypothetical builds. Another option might be to display some basic character information so that you can make comparisons before you confirm and lock in your changes.
One of the most addictive things about Everquest for me was that maximum level toons could continue to improve by earning and spending alternate experience points on skills.
The MMO's I have played have actually been a combination of classes and skills.
I want a morrowwind style system. Where you train your character by doing, and you build your character by training. And you can focus on as many styles of fight as you want.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
D&DO has classes and yet you can't tell me it doesn't have absolutely brilliant character customization. If you're looking to improve current generation MMO's, this is the wrong tree to bark up because this is the least of their problems.
Why does every mmo that releases now thinks that in order to be successful you need to have classes? It is just stupid; classes limit customizability and cause you to reroll when you decide that you don’t want to play that class anymore. If you don’t want to reroll you will just quit the game all together and I doubt developers want that. It limits pvp to a rock paper scissors match. Take pvp in WoW for example if you play a warrior and see a mage it doesn’t matter if you have more skill and better gear you will still lose just because the class is made to kill you. And if the classes aren’t fair at release (they never are) the developers have to take time to nerf some classes and buff others, time that could be used to add more content to the game. I think Oblivion and Morrowind are perfect examples on how a no class game can work. If you don’t like the way you built your character you can just use a different type of weapon/armor/magic. You should make your own destiny instead have the developers hold your hand the entire game. /end rant
Please do not confuse anything that I am post here as advocating core trinity gamelay. I just say that 'cause people tend to get confuse when you are talking about the positives of a class system.
Classes serve several mechanical functions in a SOCIALLY BASED CO-OP MMORPG;
They are a shorthand for clear and fast communication. I don't nee to have a long dscussion with a wannabe group member about what school healing did he take, or what rank is his particular style of healing at, or des he choose to have 'Perpetual Mana' or whatever as a spell. I call for a 'L50 cleric', I get a L50 cleric. I know what he does, I know what role he fills. I know he enjoys the role he has chosen to play. We can just get on with the game.
They make a game very accessible for the starter, while providing a scaling frame for character develoments the player grows in knowledge. Classes also make it very hard for a newb to gimp his character from the go, cutting down much frustration.
Classes encourage group roles and reduce zerg gameplay. You take away defined group jobs and you have everyone running around DPSing, healing, tanking.... The strategy element of the game has gone as we just all bullrush from one mob to the next.
Classes give the character a strong and instant indentity, allowing even newbs to connect with them and what they do straight away.
You see, you acutally choose the exact wrong example of your point in Oblivion. First, Oblivion is really overrated as a RPG imo. Second, it actually did have classes. ok, these turned out to be a false choice as your character slowly turned into a generic porridgy grey 'adventurer', but the game did ask you to choose.
A major problems is that most MMORPGs demand a level optimised character build so even with no classes everyone would play recognised best builds. This makes most no class systems a false choice at best, as most people won't deliberetly gimp themselves and cut down their involvement in the game.
The illusion of choice is no choice at al.
Like I say, in any game built on social co-op principles, classes serve a valuable role. In today's solo casual quest grind market though? Who knows...
While I hate classes I have to agree with Gameloading. Many players don't like complexity, look at all the negative comments that Eve draws. Many people just want to get into a game to play and not spend hours on end trying to learn all it's depths.
Hence classes are easier to sell than an complex skill system. So unfortunately the skill systems will most probably continue to be niche products.
Ok by me, Eve can't really handle a large population. But I would like to see a modern fantasy game out there with a skill system. It definitely could get a decent sized niche audience.
Most of these developers don't think, they all seem to go for the homerun instead of actually aiming for a successful niche. Kind of dumb really because lately many of them have been simply striking out.
D&DO has classes and yet you can't tell me it doesn't have absolutely brilliant character customization. If you're looking to improve current generation MMO's, this is the wrong tree to bark up because this is the least of their problems.
I agree. Nothing wrong with classes.
If you are going to do skills, then I won't like the game unless:
1. You get skill points to spend. I HATE doing something over and over to increase skill. That's retarded.
2. There is some way to stop players from being a tank mage, like penalties for taking skills that are not alike. Otherwise everyone becomes a tank mage, and what's the point in the skills since all characters end up the same?
3. You have a skill cap so you can't get every skill in the game. Otherwise, it's just a grind to get all the skills in the game to max, or close to max, and again, everyone has the same character in the end.
Also remember, skills can be much harder to balance if you have PvP than classes.
The thing with classes is you don't have specific classes for specific roles. It seems like the more they balance the classes the more they all start playing the same. Pretty soon every class will be the same as the other. Tanks healing, casters tanking, rogues casting, etc...
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
D&D uses a class system where you can combine any amount of classes for an exp penalty.
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back.
I played a few games using the second edition which had multi classing/duel classing, but not nearly to the extent that the 3rd edition did. Most of the games that used the second edition I enjoyed because everyone had a role in the group.
On the flip side it was interesting to combine different classes together in the 3rd edition, but I found that the combination you ended up with were a bit boring anyway. It also took away from grouping in the game as you characters didn't have distinct roles.
I like the idea of being able to take levels from different classes whenever you want to as you progress, but so far they haven't been able to come out with a good system that works well.
Originally posted by Flyte27 Originally posted by ChrisMattern
Originally posted by Flyte27 D&D uses a class system where you can combine any amount of classes for an exp penalty.
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back. <snip>
Actually, they didn't go back. What they did is abolish multi-classing as it used to be known. You now are forever and permanently the class you roll up as, and you gain experience and advance in levels in only that class. What you have now is each class has an associated "multi-class feat". In order to take this feat, you must *not* be the feat's class (and it would be pretty pointless to take it if you were), and you can only take *one* multi-class feat. Taking the feat gets you one of the feat's class's powers (defined by the feat) and one of the class's skills (which may be defined by the feat or may be left to the player's choice, depending on the class). Once you have the feat, you are considered be a member of the class for purposes of choosing future feats and skills, and you gain access to a set of other feats that offer limited access to the multiclass feat's class's powers.
UO had classes, they were just called "Templates of the Month".
Eve has classes, they're just not labeled as such, and there's no limit on the number you can be except for that small thing of "Time played". Which of course sucks for newbies.
And that "having to respec" thing, it makes me laugh. Make a new character if you feel the desire to play something different. I've never understood why people think being able to lobotomize yourself is desirable gameplay. At least in Eve you don't have to give up the knowledge already gained, but then, Eve is a spreadsheet with a nice space background screen saver on top as far as gameplay goes.
Skill systems are always abused into making the "optimal" templates, which of course, are called "Classes" by most people. And in fact, the skill based games typically have fewer choices to play (if you want to be competitive) than a class based system. AC1 basically had the tank, tank mage, and mage. UO was similar... till they get nerfed, in which case you grind the next "template of the month"...
It is an illusion of "choice" that skill based systems give. They end up having less freedom than class based systems in the end.
I don't get how people say skill base games are anymore complicated. You want to swing a sword, pick up a sword type weapon and start hitting something. Want to be a metal smith go pick up a pick axe, dig up some ore, smelt it into ingots and smith it into desired items. You decide you don't like X skill stop working on it and work on something else.
The only thing that is true it is harder to develop and balance.
I don't get how people say skill base games are anymore complicated. You want to swing a sword, pick up a sword type weapon and start hitting something. Want to be a metal smith go pick up a pick axe, dig up some ore, smelt it into ingots and smith it into desired items. You decide you don't like X skill stop working on it and work on something else. The only thing that is true it is harder to develop and balance.
I agree. Skill based games are no harder to develop then games like WoW and Lotro.
I always thought Rubies of Eventide ahd one of the best systems for classes....basically you picked a type of class (think there were 96 different classes or something) but within each class you could choose any skill to put your points into......The nice thing about it was if I selected a Warrior type class and I wanted to use Bardic magic it would cost me several times the amount of points than it would cost a bard..... You had the freedom to make your character any way you wanted and no two characters were alike in their builds......You could build your mage with heavy armor but it would cost you so many points ot do it taht you wouldnt have much left for your spellcasting skills......The major downfall of the game was the graphics were subpar and teh combat was flat out awful......If someone would improve the graphics and combat and usee the same class/skill system youd have a very good game.......
I always thought Rubies of Eventide ahd one of the best systems for classes....basically you picked a type of class (think there were 96 different classes or something) but within each class you could choose any skill to put your points into......The nice thing about it was if I selected a Warrior type class and I wanted to use Bardic magic it would cost me several times the amount of points than it would cost a bard..... You had the freedom to make your character any way you wanted and no two characters were alike in their builds......You could build your mage with heavy armor but it would cost you so many points ot do it taht you wouldnt have much left for your spellcasting skills......The major downfall of the game was the graphics were subpar and teh combat was flat out awful......If someone would improve the graphics and combat and usee the same class/skill system youd have a very good game.......
D&D uses a class system where you can combine any amount of classes for an exp penalty.
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back.
<snip>
Actually, they didn't go back. What they did is abolish multi-classing as it used to be known. You now are forever and permanently the class you roll up as, and you gain experience and advance in levels in only that class. What you have now is each class has an associated "multi-class feat". In order to take this feat, you must *not* be the feat's class (and it would be pretty pointless to take it if you were), and you can only take *one* multi-class feat. Taking the feat gets you one of the feat's class's powers (defined by the feat) and one of the class's skills (which may be defined by the feat or may be left to the player's choice, depending on the class). Once you have the feat, you are considered be a member of the class for purposes of choosing future feats and skills, and you gain access to a set of other feats that offer limited access to the multiclass feat's class's powers.
It sounds somewhat confusing to me. I haven't been a big fan of D&D since the second edition. I liked the idea of the 3rd edition, but for whatever reason I didn't find games that used it much fun to play. The 1st and 2nd editions remain the best IMO even though they didn't have class balance. What they did have was very good group balance with very defined roles for each character.
I am not against classes per se. Yet I feel they do not work well in the context of balancing. I still have to see ONE game where class balancing got right.
Maybe one issue is that many games just have too many classes. Many classes will result in overlapping. Since almost every game is based around the concept of hit points it all comes down to reducing hit points by dealing damage, increasing hit points by healing and protecting hit points by damage reduction.
Whenever there's more than one class for one job, let's say dealing damage, things are getting complicated. Take WoW for example. WoW has many damage dealing classes. The result? Endless discussions about who is the better damage dealer, endless cries for nerfs and buffs. Same applies to the healing classes.
Add to this that players quite often follow the min/max strategy. How often do you read "Which class is the BEST damage dealer?" Or the best healer. Or the best tank. No one want's to be a second class damage dealer. Even more worse are hybrid classes. Being a master-of-none, bit-of-everything hurts in a min/max world. And if a hybrid class comes close to a main class be prepared for endless rage/cries/frustration.
Guild Wars is another example. GvG is still all about the core classes. Why? Because they are specialists (again the min/max thing). Ritualists for example are a failed concept. Why take a ritualist as a healer when a monk is just better? Why take a ritualist as a damage dealer when a elementalist is just better?
So in summary I'd say because of the nature of hit points based games there aren't many tasks to do. Thus there aren't many classes needed. Too many classes will only add overlapping which will lead to conflicts in a min/max world. Therefore either have no classes (like in EvE or Ryzom) or keep the number of classes low and very distinct (every class performs only one job without any overlapping).
Lets say I wanted a game focused on PvP endgame. How would you balance things if there were no classes? And how would you promote teamwork and roles within groups? (not asking rethorically btw, I'm really wondering if you guys have some good ideas).
Lets say I wanted a game focused on PvP endgame. How would you balance things if there were no classes? And how would you promote teamwork and roles within groups? (not asking rethorically btw, I'm really wondering if you guys have some good ideas).
Endgame? This term was invented once limited class based games came along.
UO and Eve online, dont have endgames. They are sandbox virtual worlds with economies and risk/reward.
I actually like the concept of classes. They allow much better control over game balance, and introduce a variety of play. Playing a warlock is very different to playing a mage in WoW, which is once again very different to playing a moonkin or elemental shaman, even though all of them are ranged magic users. Without classes, this sort of difference wouldn't exist, since almost anyone who decided to play a ranged magic user would just pick whichever combination of spells was seen to be most powerful.
Similarly, games such as WoW and everquest have a variety of healing classes. Playing a fury is very different to playing a mystic. In a game without classes, there would typically be just one "Heal everything" build. Whilst people could pick combinations of skills that were popularly seen as sub-optimal, they would be likely to be socially frowed on and forced to change to be a "proper healer" (to an extent this occurs in class based games, but since the cost of re-rolling is so high, most people don't seriously expect you to do it, so they take you as you are).
Comments
Until you learn you can't play it.
Actually, FFXI lets you change your class at will whenever you're in your mog house (player housing). The quests made more jobs available for you to change to (another quest makes it possible to be two jobs at once, a necessary ability for anyone past the rank beginner stage).
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
What do you mean Eve does not have classes? For example, you want to be a tackler, you train the skills to be a tackler. Alternatively, you could say training to fly a particular ship is the same as chosing a class. How is this really different from chosing a class in a traditional MMO?
Istaria (Horizons) has classes for bipeds, but you can switch to a different class at any time by talking to a trainer and then switch back without any penalty. So the assumption that classes must lock you into a single class is as false as the assumption that a skill based game will or will not do something similar.
City of Heroes as mentioned above is a good combination of skills and classes. For most missions, almost any combination of classes will work in a team of heroes.
I would like to see an improvement in the description of skills in games. Most skill descriptions give insufficient information to quantify the actual improvement. Skill descriptions are often qualitative rather than quantitative, ambiguous or use in game jargon that may have a completely different meaning in another game. For example an " increase in attack" in different games may or may not affect things like damage per hit and chance to hit or miss. With such vague descriptions how do you actually calculate your increase in damage per second or damage per hit?
The actual mathematics can be quite complex. What skill based games need is a skill planner that allows you to make some hypothetical builds to see what effect this has on your overall statistics (maximum damage per hit, damage per second, maximum hitpoints, resists, regeneration, etc). Mids Hero Designer, made by a fan of City of Heroes, is an example of a module that allows hypothetical builds. Another option might be to display some basic character information so that you can make comparisons before you confirm and lock in your changes.
One of the most addictive things about Everquest for me was that maximum level toons could continue to improve by earning and spending alternate experience points on skills.
The MMO's I have played have actually been a combination of classes and skills.
I want a morrowwind style system. Where you train your character by doing, and you build your character by training. And you can focus on as many styles of fight as you want.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
D&DO has classes and yet you can't tell me it doesn't have absolutely brilliant character customization. If you're looking to improve current generation MMO's, this is the wrong tree to bark up because this is the least of their problems.
Please do not confuse anything that I am post here as advocating core trinity gamelay. I just say that 'cause people tend to get confuse when you are talking about the positives of a class system.
Classes serve several mechanical functions in a SOCIALLY BASED CO-OP MMORPG;
You see, you acutally choose the exact wrong example of your point in Oblivion. First, Oblivion is really overrated as a RPG imo. Second, it actually did have classes. ok, these turned out to be a false choice as your character slowly turned into a generic porridgy grey 'adventurer', but the game did ask you to choose.
A major problems is that most MMORPGs demand a level optimised character build so even with no classes everyone would play recognised best builds. This makes most no class systems a false choice at best, as most people won't deliberetly gimp themselves and cut down their involvement in the game.
The illusion of choice is no choice at al.
Like I say, in any game built on social co-op principles, classes serve a valuable role. In today's solo casual quest grind market though? Who knows...
While I hate classes I have to agree with Gameloading. Many players don't like complexity, look at all the negative comments that Eve draws. Many people just want to get into a game to play and not spend hours on end trying to learn all it's depths.
Hence classes are easier to sell than an complex skill system. So unfortunately the skill systems will most probably continue to be niche products.
Ok by me, Eve can't really handle a large population. But I would like to see a modern fantasy game out there with a skill system. It definitely could get a decent sized niche audience.
Most of these developers don't think, they all seem to go for the homerun instead of actually aiming for a successful niche. Kind of dumb really because lately many of them have been simply striking out.
I agree. Nothing wrong with classes.
If you are going to do skills, then I won't like the game unless:
1. You get skill points to spend. I HATE doing something over and over to increase skill. That's retarded.
2. There is some way to stop players from being a tank mage, like penalties for taking skills that are not alike. Otherwise everyone becomes a tank mage, and what's the point in the skills since all characters end up the same?
3. You have a skill cap so you can't get every skill in the game. Otherwise, it's just a grind to get all the skills in the game to max, or close to max, and again, everyone has the same character in the end.
Also remember, skills can be much harder to balance if you have PvP than classes.
I would like to see a skill system like GURPS.
The thing with classes is you don't have specific classes for specific roles. It seems like the more they balance the classes the more they all start playing the same. Pretty soon every class will be the same as the other. Tanks healing, casters tanking, rogues casting, etc...
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back.
I played a few games using the second edition which had multi classing/duel classing, but not nearly to the extent that the 3rd edition did. Most of the games that used the second edition I enjoyed because everyone had a role in the group.
On the flip side it was interesting to combine different classes together in the 3rd edition, but I found that the combination you ended up with were a bit boring anyway. It also took away from grouping in the game as you characters didn't have distinct roles.
I like the idea of being able to take levels from different classes whenever you want to as you progress, but so far they haven't been able to come out with a good system that works well.
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back.
<snip>
Actually, they didn't go back. What they did is abolish multi-classing as it used to be known. You now are forever and permanently the class you roll up as, and you gain experience and advance in levels in only that class. What you have now is each class has an associated "multi-class feat". In order to take this feat, you must *not* be the feat's class (and it would be pretty pointless to take it if you were), and you can only take *one* multi-class feat. Taking the feat gets you one of the feat's class's powers (defined by the feat) and one of the class's skills (which may be defined by the feat or may be left to the player's choice, depending on the class). Once you have the feat, you are considered be a member of the class for purposes of choosing future feats and skills, and you gain access to a set of other feats that offer limited access to the multiclass feat's class's powers.
UO had classes, they were just called "Templates of the Month".
Eve has classes, they're just not labeled as such, and there's no limit on the number you can be except for that small thing of "Time played". Which of course sucks for newbies.
And that "having to respec" thing, it makes me laugh. Make a new character if you feel the desire to play something different. I've never understood why people think being able to lobotomize yourself is desirable gameplay. At least in Eve you don't have to give up the knowledge already gained, but then, Eve is a spreadsheet with a nice space background screen saver on top as far as gameplay goes.
Skill systems are always abused into making the "optimal" templates, which of course, are called "Classes" by most people. And in fact, the skill based games typically have fewer choices to play (if you want to be competitive) than a class based system. AC1 basically had the tank, tank mage, and mage. UO was similar... till they get nerfed, in which case you grind the next "template of the month"...
It is an illusion of "choice" that skill based systems give. They end up having less freedom than class based systems in the end.
I don't get how people say skill base games are anymore complicated. You want to swing a sword, pick up a sword type weapon and start hitting something. Want to be a metal smith go pick up a pick axe, dig up some ore, smelt it into ingots and smith it into desired items. You decide you don't like X skill stop working on it and work on something else.
The only thing that is true it is harder to develop and balance.
I agree. Skill based games are no harder to develop then games like WoW and Lotro.
Just do what you want to do.
I always thought Rubies of Eventide ahd one of the best systems for classes....basically you picked a type of class (think there were 96 different classes or something) but within each class you could choose any skill to put your points into......The nice thing about it was if I selected a Warrior type class and I wanted to use Bardic magic it would cost me several times the amount of points than it would cost a bard..... You had the freedom to make your character any way you wanted and no two characters were alike in their builds......You could build your mage with heavy armor but it would cost you so many points ot do it taht you wouldnt have much left for your spellcasting skills......The major downfall of the game was the graphics were subpar and teh combat was flat out awful......If someone would improve the graphics and combat and usee the same class/skill system youd have a very good game.......
Sounds like a hybrid system. I like that too.
Not any more it doesn't. Haven't read the Fourth Edition rulebooks, have you?
I haven't read the fourth edition, but I can understand why they would go back.
<snip>
Actually, they didn't go back. What they did is abolish multi-classing as it used to be known. You now are forever and permanently the class you roll up as, and you gain experience and advance in levels in only that class. What you have now is each class has an associated "multi-class feat". In order to take this feat, you must *not* be the feat's class (and it would be pretty pointless to take it if you were), and you can only take *one* multi-class feat. Taking the feat gets you one of the feat's class's powers (defined by the feat) and one of the class's skills (which may be defined by the feat or may be left to the player's choice, depending on the class). Once you have the feat, you are considered be a member of the class for purposes of choosing future feats and skills, and you gain access to a set of other feats that offer limited access to the multiclass feat's class's powers.
It sounds somewhat confusing to me. I haven't been a big fan of D&D since the second edition. I liked the idea of the 3rd edition, but for whatever reason I didn't find games that used it much fun to play. The 1st and 2nd editions remain the best IMO even though they didn't have class balance. What they did have was very good group balance with very defined roles for each character.
I am not against classes per se. Yet I feel they do not work well in the context of balancing. I still have to see ONE game where class balancing got right.
Maybe one issue is that many games just have too many classes. Many classes will result in overlapping. Since almost every game is based around the concept of hit points it all comes down to reducing hit points by dealing damage, increasing hit points by healing and protecting hit points by damage reduction.
Whenever there's more than one class for one job, let's say dealing damage, things are getting complicated. Take WoW for example. WoW has many damage dealing classes. The result? Endless discussions about who is the better damage dealer, endless cries for nerfs and buffs. Same applies to the healing classes.
Add to this that players quite often follow the min/max strategy. How often do you read "Which class is the BEST damage dealer?" Or the best healer. Or the best tank. No one want's to be a second class damage dealer. Even more worse are hybrid classes. Being a master-of-none, bit-of-everything hurts in a min/max world. And if a hybrid class comes close to a main class be prepared for endless rage/cries/frustration.
Guild Wars is another example. GvG is still all about the core classes. Why? Because they are specialists (again the min/max thing). Ritualists for example are a failed concept. Why take a ritualist as a healer when a monk is just better? Why take a ritualist as a damage dealer when a elementalist is just better?
So in summary I'd say because of the nature of hit points based games there aren't many tasks to do. Thus there aren't many classes needed. Too many classes will only add overlapping which will lead to conflicts in a min/max world. Therefore either have no classes (like in EvE or Ryzom) or keep the number of classes low and very distinct (every class performs only one job without any overlapping).
Lets say I wanted a game focused on PvP endgame. How would you balance things if there were no classes? And how would you promote teamwork and roles within groups? (not asking rethorically btw, I'm really wondering if you guys have some good ideas).
Actually the ritualist in current GvG is a pivital role, the fact that it's hybrid makes it incrediably useful.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
I think class combat CAN be fun, but yeah I agree class-less is better.
My blog:
/signed.
I hate class based games. So limiting.
Endgame? This term was invented once limited class based games came along.
UO and Eve online, dont have endgames. They are sandbox virtual worlds with economies and risk/reward.
imo MMORPGs shouldnt have 'endgames'
I actually like the concept of classes. They allow much better control over game balance, and introduce a variety of play. Playing a warlock is very different to playing a mage in WoW, which is once again very different to playing a moonkin or elemental shaman, even though all of them are ranged magic users. Without classes, this sort of difference wouldn't exist, since almost anyone who decided to play a ranged magic user would just pick whichever combination of spells was seen to be most powerful.
Similarly, games such as WoW and everquest have a variety of healing classes. Playing a fury is very different to playing a mystic. In a game without classes, there would typically be just one "Heal everything" build. Whilst people could pick combinations of skills that were popularly seen as sub-optimal, they would be likely to be socially frowed on and forced to change to be a "proper healer" (to an extent this occurs in class based games, but since the cost of re-rolling is so high, most people don't seriously expect you to do it, so they take you as you are).
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium