There is no right answer to this poll, nor is there a "more correct" answer. Simply put, any amount of classes works in an MMO. The main issue, however, is identity within your class, or build, and balance between different classes and builds.
Every MMO, from Asheron's Call to Warhammer (classless to 20+) end up with having major balance issues between builds/classes. You will always have FotM classes, and this is only exaggerated to a point of frustration when thrown in with something like GW, where you end up giving everyone 50 million different skills (okay, okay, about 1200 or 1400) and can only choose 8.
Nevermind the frustration and anxiety with trying to find builds that work in a system as stupidly complex and overly-trivialized as guild wars was, you now have a system with full customization that compounds itself when you do pre-made group builds.
But I digress, the bigger issue, the crux of this poll, really is, which is the most balanced in your opinion. Frankly, they all lend themselves to different strengths and weaknesses. The more classes you add, the less customization there will be, but there should be a guaranteed identity for each class. Just, you will be a cookie cutter within your class.
Then, the more customization you add, the more cookie cutter it will become in the metagame, since everyone always wants to get stronger, and cookie cutters are strongest in games with a lot of customization, such as GW, AC, even pre-NGE SWG, where they will start to show heavily for their sheer power and the absurdity that comes with that power.
I voted 10-12, simply because I like how WoW has done classes, with class customization, but a forced cookie cutter with little wiggle room. It lends itself better to balance this way, and guarantees each class a unique method of play while allowing for the option to change between different styles within the same class.
I don't know, there is no right answer, regardless of what anyone thinks.
I too think creating classes based on lore is most important. However, that can go both ways. You can create lore to back up the classes you want to put in the game.
One problem with this is generic classes. Arguably, in any fantasy-themed game you will find a Warrior, a Mage, a Rogue, and a Priest. Fantasy just isn't fantasy without magic, and magic is useless without a person to wield it. Thus a mage is necessary in a game. A fantasy setting without conflict is a game without combat, so those who fight are needed, thus warriors are necessary. Where there are people, there are others that prey upon those people for a living, thus rogue's are necessary. A setting doesn't need religion, but a setting without religion would feel less real than one with religion, because religion is something we're used to in real life. A setting with religion will have its priests, so priests are necessary.
How you want to branch out from those or what you want to call them is up to you. How each plays is also up to you. What makes a setting interesting is the lore behind it. I really enjoyed DAoC as an example of how to make classes. Many classes used similar skills, such as slashing weapons, but they each had their own theme that was backed by lore. For example, the Albions had Infilitrators as one of their Rogue's, the Hibernian had the Nightshade, and the Midgardians had the Shadowblade. All three were each realms take on the stealthy "assassin" type of rogue, and each had its own flavor. Infiltrators were your traditional assassin, whereas the Nightshade could use magic, due to its hibernian decent.
Lore is a wonderful thing. It gives a person reasons for doing what they do, and ties the players ideals to the ideal of the game world. For example, a pious person in real life, who has a fantasy of being a warrior, and would love to wield some white type of magic, would love playing a Paladin in a world where Paladins fulfill that fantasy for that person. The lore behind the Paladin is what draws that person to the class, which in turn makes that person more interested to play in that world.
The key is making that class fulfill the expectations of what that person holds ideal for that fantasy, such as being able to wear plate armor, wield a one hander and shield or a two hander, and cast protective and healing magic on himself and others. The key is also making the game experience different for that Paladin and believable for the player playing the Paladin versus the other classes in the game. If a Paladin is asked to fetch a bucket of water for a farmers chickens, the player will start to lose the immersion the lore and class first had that player feeling. It worsens every time the player picks up a quest that had him doing something a Paladin wouldn't do. Another immersion breaking mechanic is when the game puts too much emphasis on balance, where that player now has to worry more about being a good tank or dps, rather than being a good Paladin. I'm not saying the two aren't one and the same, but when you hear talk of tanking and dpsing, and then entire specializations within the Paladin class revolve around those things, that person starts to think less like a Paladin who serves the people, vanquishes evil, and spreads the good word of his faith, and more like a tank who must up his constitution and strength if he ever hopes to get into a group.
This is why I advocate for class specific quests and leveling path, and why I advocate against the heavy emphasis on class balance. Bioware claims that they will be the first to have a different leveling path for each class for their SWTOR MMORPG. I'm excited to see this, because it'll be the first game to implement what I've been advocating for so long. The closest that even came to this was DAoC, with their faction based epic quests, that you got every 5 levels, starting at 5 and ending at 45. But the wrench in all these grand ideas that emphasize creating a great experience for the player is the community.
The brutal truth is that there are people playing MMORPG's that have no business playing them; some of which have no business playing games at all. Granted, it's not my place to say this, but it's the truth. Those who care so much about class balance should be playing a FPS game, not a RPG. I'd rather have no PvP at all, than to have classes watered down in the name of balance, because a minority of the community, who are very vocal, will complain about one class kicking their ass, so they all reroll that one class.
Those who are so anal, that they must minimize and maximize every little stat to become the best tank, dps, or healer also have no business playing a RPG. They fail to get into the role of "Paladin" and get more into the mechanics of "tank" instead. They suck the fun out of the game and kill immersion. Eventually, everyone must adopt their ideals if they're to have a prayer of getting into a decent group.
Those who don't care about the lore, do not read quests, and do not like to read should not be playing RPG's, beause how can you get into your role if you know nothing about it? I'm not saying people should roleplay, as in "thou shall fall by my hand," I'm just saying a person should get into their role, as a Paladin or whatever, like people do their role when playing...say Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Those who have no interest in the lore or reading quests are better off playing an action adventure game.
Then you have those who want to have it NOW, want things easy, and so on. These people have no business playing games at all. Games since the beginning have been about using your brain and reflexes (sometimes) to overcome the challenges of the game. When you dumb down a game so much that you can play it half asleep, it no longer is a game in the traditional sense, it then becomes entertainment, similar to watching TV.
In summary, lore is very important to creating classes, because the lore is the tether that ties you in real life to the game in your fantasy life. If the class isn't enjoyable and believable to play, then your tether to the game world will be weak, making the game uninteresting to you as an RPG.
I'm in favor of cramming as many classes as possible. Having lots of choice is always a good thing and with the multitude of classes you're more likely to find something that best suits you rather then playing a warrior with 3 different specs you could choose to play a light tank with slightly less armor and do it all with agility and avoidance rather then taking it in the face day in and day out. If you're going to have classes bring back SUPPORT classes! Also make sure that Healers HEAL and don't out damage an assassin.
I agree good sir! I have 14 classes now.. but thinking about adding 4 more...but they wouldnt be support.. but support could work!
This is one of the reasons why I would wanna play a skill based MMO. You spec the way you want to without so much restrictions, wear and use whatever type of armor you want, mixing and matching. You're almost free to do whatever it is that you wanna do. An MMO with tons and tons of classes would be better off going as a skill based MMO.
I'm in favor of cramming as many classes as possible. Having lots of choice is always a good thing and with the multitude of classes you're more likely to find something that best suits you rather then playing a warrior with 3 different specs you could choose to play a light tank with slightly less armor and do it all with agility and avoidance rather then taking it in the face day in and day out. If you're going to have classes bring back SUPPORT classes! Also make sure that Healers HEAL and don't out damage an assassin.
I agree good sir! I have 14 classes now.. but thinking about adding 4 more...but they wouldnt be support.. but support could work!
This is one of the reasons why I would wanna play a skill based MMO. You spec the way you want to without so much restrictions, wear and use whatever type of armor you want, mixing and matching. You're almost free to do whatever it is that you wanna do. An MMO with tons and tons of classes would be better off going as a skill based MMO.
There would be no balance or consistencey. I think there are concrete arguements for both designes. I however, perfer and think there is more of a challenged from a class perspective because of some resitrictions.
I agree with the need for classes... as if all characters could morph/ take on all abilities where would the challenge be. There would be no specialisation of skill sets and no need to team to complete large instances.
There was even a hint to this on this site, in regards to Champions on line, everybody is a superhero, and thus there is very little team action going on. The same is occuring in some respects in LOTR were the storyline adventures are not being utilised in a group/team dynamic, so they are about to alter these adventures so that they can be done solo.
But to many can spoil the fun also... what use is it to have say 10 styles of magic users, when they wold probably have some percentage of the skills of each different one, and just master in say one elemental plane... to much choice is not always a bonus.
I agree with the need for classes... as if all characters could morph/ take on all abilities where would the challenge be. There would be no specialisation of skill sets and no need to team to complete large instances.
No and yes.
Yes, meaning it's all about specialization making more interesting team gameplay.
No, meaning it's not about challenge at all. If you have 999k health, 75% mitigation, 999 DPS, and 99 HPS, you're still going to be challenged by the monster with the 0.75-sec spellcast that deals 2 million damage, and you're going to need a group for any monster harder than that -- it's just that without role specialization you're not going to have interesting groups because everyone will be the exact same.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's refreshing to see forum users take the time to develop thoughts and not resort to TLDR posts and/or commentary.
Just remember that there is indeed a role for 'stat min/maxing'. It is a less evident aspect of skill. It's called preperation, and a game function should include this for immersion. Even in pure lore context, our adventurer wouldn't forgo weilding a mightier weapon when facing his doom lest he betray his heritage? Or would he? *queue roleplay* I just don't think it should be a 'clear' upgrade every time. I think there should be statistical choices, all similar, to allow the gamer to choose based not only off of stats, but visuals etc. and still be a valid choice.
Also, while I can embrace the aspect of a Paladin shouldn't be collecting chicken eggs around a farm, if the quest was done properly, perhaps the Paladin could be humbling himself to show the true meaning of his crusade: respecting the people he represents.
It can go many ways. But again, good post. A solid read.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
There's no such thing as a 'challenge' in restrictions. There's restrictions. Using classes, be it 3 or 7 or 24 or 90 each with 3 or 4 trees doesn't pose a challenge. It offers users a set path.
One's role should be defined by their own choices. A classless system with choices AND (a dirty word in MMORPGs because of the carebear ninny-fufu players out there) consequences.
Balance shouldn't be an issue any more either if a game designer would simply allow logic into their design. If you make the basic functions of the game functional, then it'd be a non-issue simply due to the fact plays could access (over exploit) the intended function.
Going classless would make players choose to play how they're best apt at playing. They could build a traditional role, a hybrid role, a focused role and a viable designer would make each choice functional therefore balanced. But this would take some outside of the box thinking but with games like CrimeCraft and Champions Online out there.. It'll be here.
Even a game like Alganon simply making classes more or less a role choice that a player can build upon is better than just trying to reinvent D&D.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
@ nate1980 It's refreshing to see forum users take the time to develop thoughts and not resort to TLDR posts and/or commentary. Just remember that there is indeed a role for 'stat min/maxing'. It is a less evident aspect of skill. It's called preperation, and a game function should include this for immersion. Even in pure lore context, our adventurer wouldn't forgo weilding a mightier weapon when facing his doom lest he betray his heritage? Or would he? *queue roleplay* I just don't think it should be a 'clear' upgrade every time. I think there should be statistical choices, all similar, to allow the gamer to choose based not only off of stats, but visuals etc. and still be a valid choice. Also, while I can embrace the aspect of a Paladin shouldn't be collecting chicken eggs around a farm, if the quest was done properly, perhaps the Paladin could be humbling himself to show the true meaning of his crusade: respecting the people he represents. It can go many ways. But again, good post. A solid read.
Enchanted gear has always been rare in any novel and any game you play, except WoW and its predecessors. Enchanted, as in armor that gives some kind of special protection and weapons that deal special damange. There's a benefit to doing things the traditional way. For one, it reduces the amount of min/maxing going on in game. The game then becomes more about what you prefer to wear, rather than having to choose between the family sword and some random drop in some dungeon. For two, it makes the game more believable. For three, it makes the game less gear centric. Gear centric games draw and fosters a greedy unhealthy community.
So min/maxing stats, such as Str, Dex, and etc. is one thing, but min/maxing gear stats the entire freaking game kind of defeats the purpose of it being a RPing game. Again, I'm not talking about RPG as in talking in character, rather I'm referring to playing the role you selected at the character creation screen.
Min/maxing happens, because as you said it's a skill that helps you beat a game. However, it shouldn't be the core of the game. It shouldn't be what people spend a lot of time doing. Using WoW as an example, min/maxing is unhealthy for that game. Look at the websites dedicated to it and theorycrafting. The game isn't even that hard, yet people feel the need to squeeze every last .01% out of their gear and excluded anyone who doesn't follow the same ideology.
Hrmm... thinking out loud... 'enchantable' weapons? Weapons that level up for your usage only, based on how 'loyal' to them you are? That would be quite interesting indeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I generally prefer to not have classes at all, skill based builds are far more interesting imo, but if there had to be classes I would prefer more of them, with in depth multi class builds (including non combat options).
Comments
There is no right answer to this poll, nor is there a "more correct" answer. Simply put, any amount of classes works in an MMO. The main issue, however, is identity within your class, or build, and balance between different classes and builds.
Every MMO, from Asheron's Call to Warhammer (classless to 20+) end up with having major balance issues between builds/classes. You will always have FotM classes, and this is only exaggerated to a point of frustration when thrown in with something like GW, where you end up giving everyone 50 million different skills (okay, okay, about 1200 or 1400) and can only choose 8.
Nevermind the frustration and anxiety with trying to find builds that work in a system as stupidly complex and overly-trivialized as guild wars was, you now have a system with full customization that compounds itself when you do pre-made group builds.
But I digress, the bigger issue, the crux of this poll, really is, which is the most balanced in your opinion. Frankly, they all lend themselves to different strengths and weaknesses. The more classes you add, the less customization there will be, but there should be a guaranteed identity for each class. Just, you will be a cookie cutter within your class.
Then, the more customization you add, the more cookie cutter it will become in the metagame, since everyone always wants to get stronger, and cookie cutters are strongest in games with a lot of customization, such as GW, AC, even pre-NGE SWG, where they will start to show heavily for their sheer power and the absurdity that comes with that power.
I voted 10-12, simply because I like how WoW has done classes, with class customization, but a forced cookie cutter with little wiggle room. It lends itself better to balance this way, and guarantees each class a unique method of play while allowing for the option to change between different styles within the same class.
I don't know, there is no right answer, regardless of what anyone thinks.
Classes have Lore. No Classes doesnt.
Nuff Said on that
I too think creating classes based on lore is most important. However, that can go both ways. You can create lore to back up the classes you want to put in the game.
One problem with this is generic classes. Arguably, in any fantasy-themed game you will find a Warrior, a Mage, a Rogue, and a Priest. Fantasy just isn't fantasy without magic, and magic is useless without a person to wield it. Thus a mage is necessary in a game. A fantasy setting without conflict is a game without combat, so those who fight are needed, thus warriors are necessary. Where there are people, there are others that prey upon those people for a living, thus rogue's are necessary. A setting doesn't need religion, but a setting without religion would feel less real than one with religion, because religion is something we're used to in real life. A setting with religion will have its priests, so priests are necessary.
How you want to branch out from those or what you want to call them is up to you. How each plays is also up to you. What makes a setting interesting is the lore behind it. I really enjoyed DAoC as an example of how to make classes. Many classes used similar skills, such as slashing weapons, but they each had their own theme that was backed by lore. For example, the Albions had Infilitrators as one of their Rogue's, the Hibernian had the Nightshade, and the Midgardians had the Shadowblade. All three were each realms take on the stealthy "assassin" type of rogue, and each had its own flavor. Infiltrators were your traditional assassin, whereas the Nightshade could use magic, due to its hibernian decent.
Lore is a wonderful thing. It gives a person reasons for doing what they do, and ties the players ideals to the ideal of the game world. For example, a pious person in real life, who has a fantasy of being a warrior, and would love to wield some white type of magic, would love playing a Paladin in a world where Paladins fulfill that fantasy for that person. The lore behind the Paladin is what draws that person to the class, which in turn makes that person more interested to play in that world.
The key is making that class fulfill the expectations of what that person holds ideal for that fantasy, such as being able to wear plate armor, wield a one hander and shield or a two hander, and cast protective and healing magic on himself and others. The key is also making the game experience different for that Paladin and believable for the player playing the Paladin versus the other classes in the game. If a Paladin is asked to fetch a bucket of water for a farmers chickens, the player will start to lose the immersion the lore and class first had that player feeling. It worsens every time the player picks up a quest that had him doing something a Paladin wouldn't do. Another immersion breaking mechanic is when the game puts too much emphasis on balance, where that player now has to worry more about being a good tank or dps, rather than being a good Paladin. I'm not saying the two aren't one and the same, but when you hear talk of tanking and dpsing, and then entire specializations within the Paladin class revolve around those things, that person starts to think less like a Paladin who serves the people, vanquishes evil, and spreads the good word of his faith, and more like a tank who must up his constitution and strength if he ever hopes to get into a group.
This is why I advocate for class specific quests and leveling path, and why I advocate against the heavy emphasis on class balance. Bioware claims that they will be the first to have a different leveling path for each class for their SWTOR MMORPG. I'm excited to see this, because it'll be the first game to implement what I've been advocating for so long. The closest that even came to this was DAoC, with their faction based epic quests, that you got every 5 levels, starting at 5 and ending at 45. But the wrench in all these grand ideas that emphasize creating a great experience for the player is the community.
The brutal truth is that there are people playing MMORPG's that have no business playing them; some of which have no business playing games at all. Granted, it's not my place to say this, but it's the truth. Those who care so much about class balance should be playing a FPS game, not a RPG. I'd rather have no PvP at all, than to have classes watered down in the name of balance, because a minority of the community, who are very vocal, will complain about one class kicking their ass, so they all reroll that one class.
Those who are so anal, that they must minimize and maximize every little stat to become the best tank, dps, or healer also have no business playing a RPG. They fail to get into the role of "Paladin" and get more into the mechanics of "tank" instead. They suck the fun out of the game and kill immersion. Eventually, everyone must adopt their ideals if they're to have a prayer of getting into a decent group.
Those who don't care about the lore, do not read quests, and do not like to read should not be playing RPG's, beause how can you get into your role if you know nothing about it? I'm not saying people should roleplay, as in "thou shall fall by my hand," I'm just saying a person should get into their role, as a Paladin or whatever, like people do their role when playing...say Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Those who have no interest in the lore or reading quests are better off playing an action adventure game.
Then you have those who want to have it NOW, want things easy, and so on. These people have no business playing games at all. Games since the beginning have been about using your brain and reflexes (sometimes) to overcome the challenges of the game. When you dumb down a game so much that you can play it half asleep, it no longer is a game in the traditional sense, it then becomes entertainment, similar to watching TV.
In summary, lore is very important to creating classes, because the lore is the tether that ties you in real life to the game in your fantasy life. If the class isn't enjoyable and believable to play, then your tether to the game world will be weak, making the game uninteresting to you as an RPG.
I agree good sir! I have 14 classes now.. but thinking about adding 4 more...but they wouldnt be support.. but support could work!
This is one of the reasons why I would wanna play a skill based MMO. You spec the way you want to without so much restrictions, wear and use whatever type of armor you want, mixing and matching. You're almost free to do whatever it is that you wanna do. An MMO with tons and tons of classes would be better off going as a skill based MMO.
I agree good sir! I have 14 classes now.. but thinking about adding 4 more...but they wouldnt be support.. but support could work!
This is one of the reasons why I would wanna play a skill based MMO. You spec the way you want to without so much restrictions, wear and use whatever type of armor you want, mixing and matching. You're almost free to do whatever it is that you wanna do. An MMO with tons and tons of classes would be better off going as a skill based MMO.
There would be no balance or consistencey. I think there are concrete arguements for both designes. I however, perfer and think there is more of a challenged from a class perspective because of some resitrictions.
I agree with the need for classes... as if all characters could morph/ take on all abilities where would the challenge be. There would be no specialisation of skill sets and no need to team to complete large instances.
There was even a hint to this on this site, in regards to Champions on line, everybody is a superhero, and thus there is very little team action going on. The same is occuring in some respects in LOTR were the storyline adventures are not being utilised in a group/team dynamic, so they are about to alter these adventures so that they can be done solo.
But to many can spoil the fun also... what use is it to have say 10 styles of magic users, when they wold probably have some percentage of the skills of each different one, and just master in say one elemental plane... to much choice is not always a bonus.
No and yes.
Yes, meaning it's all about specialization making more interesting team gameplay.
No, meaning it's not about challenge at all. If you have 999k health, 75% mitigation, 999 DPS, and 99 HPS, you're still going to be challenged by the monster with the 0.75-sec spellcast that deals 2 million damage, and you're going to need a group for any monster harder than that -- it's just that without role specialization you're not going to have interesting groups because everyone will be the exact same.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
@ nate1980
It's refreshing to see forum users take the time to develop thoughts and not resort to TLDR posts and/or commentary.
Just remember that there is indeed a role for 'stat min/maxing'. It is a less evident aspect of skill. It's called preperation, and a game function should include this for immersion. Even in pure lore context, our adventurer wouldn't forgo weilding a mightier weapon when facing his doom lest he betray his heritage? Or would he? *queue roleplay* I just don't think it should be a 'clear' upgrade every time. I think there should be statistical choices, all similar, to allow the gamer to choose based not only off of stats, but visuals etc. and still be a valid choice.
Also, while I can embrace the aspect of a Paladin shouldn't be collecting chicken eggs around a farm, if the quest was done properly, perhaps the Paladin could be humbling himself to show the true meaning of his crusade: respecting the people he represents.
It can go many ways. But again, good post. A solid read.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
There's no such thing as a 'challenge' in restrictions. There's restrictions. Using classes, be it 3 or 7 or 24 or 90 each with 3 or 4 trees doesn't pose a challenge. It offers users a set path.
One's role should be defined by their own choices. A classless system with choices AND (a dirty word in MMORPGs because of the carebear ninny-fufu players out there) consequences.
Balance shouldn't be an issue any more either if a game designer would simply allow logic into their design. If you make the basic functions of the game functional, then it'd be a non-issue simply due to the fact plays could access (over exploit) the intended function.
Going classless would make players choose to play how they're best apt at playing. They could build a traditional role, a hybrid role, a focused role and a viable designer would make each choice functional therefore balanced. But this would take some outside of the box thinking but with games like CrimeCraft and Champions Online out there.. It'll be here.
Even a game like Alganon simply making classes more or less a role choice that a player can build upon is better than just trying to reinvent D&D.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
WIPO: Zero
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Enchanted gear has always been rare in any novel and any game you play, except WoW and its predecessors. Enchanted, as in armor that gives some kind of special protection and weapons that deal special damange. There's a benefit to doing things the traditional way. For one, it reduces the amount of min/maxing going on in game. The game then becomes more about what you prefer to wear, rather than having to choose between the family sword and some random drop in some dungeon. For two, it makes the game more believable. For three, it makes the game less gear centric. Gear centric games draw and fosters a greedy unhealthy community.
So min/maxing stats, such as Str, Dex, and etc. is one thing, but min/maxing gear stats the entire freaking game kind of defeats the purpose of it being a RPing game. Again, I'm not talking about RPG as in talking in character, rather I'm referring to playing the role you selected at the character creation screen.
Min/maxing happens, because as you said it's a skill that helps you beat a game. However, it shouldn't be the core of the game. It shouldn't be what people spend a lot of time doing. Using WoW as an example, min/maxing is unhealthy for that game. Look at the websites dedicated to it and theorycrafting. The game isn't even that hard, yet people feel the need to squeeze every last .01% out of their gear and excluded anyone who doesn't follow the same ideology.
Just one class / or should I say games should not be based on classes but on skill levels like Fallout (all of them).
retRA-11B
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
- General George Patton Jr
Hrmm... thinking out loud... 'enchantable' weapons? Weapons that level up for your usage only, based on how 'loyal' to them you are? That would be quite interesting indeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I generally prefer to not have classes at all, skill based builds are far more interesting imo, but if there had to be classes I would prefer more of them, with in depth multi class builds (including non combat options).