Originally posted by emperorwings Balance off pvp then they can keep the pve how it is.
Bring PvE and PvP together in one cohesive holistic immersive environment within a dynamic factional system where players influence, change, control the world as it evolves over time so every server is entirely different in many aspects.....SANDBOXES
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Well said! I agree.
Uh, first off hes talkin the evolution of Everquest which was Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft. Also those were specifically Themeparks as players cannot change or affect the rides in a Themepark; They simply ride them as it is an Amusement Park after all, which has been obviously entertaining er rather amusing for many for quite some time, heh. They have no control over the rides, the landscape, the participants, the overall environment. They buy their tickets and hope to have fun and be entertained.
Sandboxes are comprised of sand wherein anything can be changed, affected, built, destroyed, etc...those inside the Sandboxes are co-creators as they work together or in spite of each other to create, build, destroy, shape the sand however they see fit and think of the collective playerbase on a particular server as being the custodians and chaperones so to speak. The playerbase should be given a collective say and policing options for players who need a time out, so to speak. Oh and btw sandboxes used to be free...heres hoping...
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
Erm that's not quite right, Vanguard has the same which isn't a surprise considering Brad.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
Again Vanguard follows the same system.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Only way to balance classes is to simply make sure they are not fixed nor catering to certain templates with several trees of skills and allowing the players to perform any role to some degree within a reasonable framework based on a players choices, decisions, actions over the evolution of their character.
Also, these roles shouldn't lie in rehashed, dated roles of tank, healer, dps, crowd control, etc...as this caters to dated content that will be mowed down like overgrown grass in a nice suburb, until the next expansion comes along the playerbase will simply dwindle and move on to one of the many new MMORPGs in development. Oh and if you hadn't noticed we are entering a new generation with some very bold ideas and design features being implimented and hyped up from many different companies.
Everquest Next better be radically different then its predecessors in many ways or its not going to last very long in this very dynamic enthusiastic MMORPG genre. This cannot be another Themepark in any way recognizeable and therein defined, as it will end up being resigned as such and therefore declined by many. Sandbox is what their saying and critics/skeptics are going to surely scrutinize what SOE terms as being a Sandbox.
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
Erm that's not quite right, Vanguard has the same which isn't a surprise considering Brad.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
Again Vanguard follows the same system.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Oh, and i agree with you.
I agree, Vanguard did it right, /thanks Brad. Unfortunately most people didn't play Vanguard, so I use EQ as reference. Its a shame, because had Vanguard been complete and polished, it would beyond a shadow of a doubt be the game I still play today.
Originally posted by Kuanshu
Originally posted by Dullahan
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
If anything has ruined MMORPGs it is catering to roles in any way, shape, or form.
Tanks: Why is PvE so trivial and dumbed down that MOBs are easily manipulated and stupified as they are attacking one target instead of strategically and systematically exploiting and undermining the weaknesses and strengths of a particular group/raid??? Envision this for a moment and you will ascertain exactly what I am referring to...its literally insane how long this has went on without any regard and yet people want this to continue? Are you freakin kidding me? WOW!
This is not how it worked. Mobs did attack other players if they overagro'd. Oversimplify it all you want, but a good agro system works. In EQ, mobs attacked multiple targets, not just 1, thus requiring multiple tanks.
Having every mob running around randomly attacking everyone would just be stupid and chaos. Theres nothing intelligent or innovative about chaos. Having to manage agro is an intelligent system, and although it could be improved upon, it provides a good, logical foundation for combat mechanics.
I wouldn't mind seeing some mobs that attack more randomly, but just having powerful mobs instagib players that are incapable of tanking does not a fun game make.
Healers: I can understand limited direct player to player healing and a player healing themselves, yet AOE or Group Heals are utterly ridiculous and inane to even consider in any kind of immersive sense whatsoever. AOE Morale boost of sorts makes sense, as does retreating and tending to wounds if the party gets overwhelmed. Anything that allows players to infinitely heal players and groups without any regard or limitation whatsoever is lame and makes everything simply too easy. This goes hand in hand with ressurection spells as well. Rez in combat? LOL! Come on people when are we going to get past this easy mode crap and accept a real immersive challenge.
Clearly you didn't play Everquest. There was no infinite healing, group heals and powerful heals were very costly to cast.
DPS: Min/Maxers wetdream should be put to death once and for all. I know we can't get rid of math, yet can we get past catering to it entirely and resigning alot of our time/energy to it, in a game thats meant to be fun, exciting, immersive? Ya'll wonder why PvP and PvE have downsides to them...well here it is in a nutshell. This is why ZERGs exist and prevail, instead of sound strategies and tactics. Imagine a game that doesn't cater to hit points/dps and instead caters to life force, morale, strength, fortitude, stamina, and other mitigating/modifying factors like armor, gear, abilities, skills, etc..without dumbing down gameplay for all involved?
Pullers: Its time to leave Everquest and all MMORPGs since that cater to static (even pathing) MOBs who are so easily taunted and pulled at distances even the entirely oblivious have senses enough to be aware of the intruders/strangers that would often be smelt and heard before seen by certain MOB types. MOBs should be as aware as the best PKers yet even moreso as all MOB types, heck even player races, should have immersive sensory ranges based on type, as well as certain modifiers such as weather, wind direction, noise, stealth, etc... I can fathom a strategy where someone stealths and camoflauges in like a hunter and carefully pulls yet even the hunter shouldn't be aware of all that he is pulling without revealing theirselves. Its high time we bring real danger, vigilance, anticipation, excitement to MMORPGs, instead of dumbed down gameplay mechanics players easily manipulate and disregard so they can get some experience, loot, etc...
Some of those are good ideas, but it doesn't mean having abilities to isolate a mob should be forgotten.
Crowd Control: OMFG where do I begin here as this biggest peeves in PvE and PvP?!? It would be easier to tell you to go play Monster Play in Lord of the Rings Online as a Monster Player for a month and hell you could even have some fun as a Troll (BOSS) and I wouldn't have to go into detail here, yet I must digress. Slows, Stuns, Mezzes, Roots, Charms, Fears, Silences, Banishes, etc... and so on have been added ad nauseum to MMORPGs as it would be significantly harder for players to handle the ZERG (which caters to hit points/dps and damage modifiers) and onslaught of MOBs if they had to really use strategy and tactics instead of the usual hand holding/coddling casual players insist upon because it was introduced years ago in early MMORPGs. I am going to refrain from going on a massive tirade concerning crowd control until you take the time to put yourself in the shoes of the MOBs you have disregarded over the years and actually participate in some of it yourself. Lord of the Rings Online is F2P...go get on a Monster Player on a good active server for it until your screaming and crying for your MOMMA! so we can end any weak debate you could bring to this forum otherwise...Comprende?
Guys, Gals, Guys...this isn't Everquest....this is Everquest...Next!
I highly recommend you actually read about classic Everquest before you burden everyone with your ignorance. We don't have time to school you because you've been vexed by overexposure to WoW-clone game mechanics.
These references were to classic Everquest mechanics, which by and large don't even exist outside of Everquest, hence the reason games have become so easy, so monotonous and just painful to play.
LOL I am not going to even bother quoting you as I played day one of Everquest and until Asherons Call was released and returned a few times after that;
The fact a MOB could be taunted stupifies gameplay as we are not just simply talking about simply big oaf and primitive MOBs we are talking about Dragons and supposedly very intelligent BOSS MOBs and all immersion is removed and throw out the window once they are easily manipulated and overcome by tank, healer, dps, cc, etc....
If you honestly are going to try and get away with telling everyone Everquest didn't have OP healers you didn't play the same game I did.
I actually even beta tested Vanguard and wtf was Brad Thinking LOL...hey Brad if your taking a gander at these forums weren't you the one who boasted that a development team and an investment companies shouldn't produce multi million dollar flops and yet you said this as you were developing Vanguard and yet ya'll went ahead and released it half done and even admitted it later...GG what were ya'll thinking??? How hard would it have been to find investors elsewhere and/or ask for more time as you wouldn't want to end up being the flop that Vanguard turned out to be, until Sony came along and saved the day.
Vanguard LOL brauh you gotta give us better examples cuz shoulda been, coulda been, woulda been aint working cuz I ain't buying that...LOL
I really hope SOE breaks tradition and releases a title worthy of being called a revolutionary game changing sandbox MMORPG whilst ya'll sit there with your mouths open wondering wtf...until then we can sit here and go back and forth over what we all want
Oh and why not take me up on trying out Monster Play in Lord of the Rings Online...I dare you to actually take the time to play a Monster Player until your sick and tired of Crowd Control and come back here and tell me tooling MOBs with OP crowd control makes sense....come on why not...you could try it out until SOE unveils EQN
hopefully free form and no set classes. But if they do add classes i hope they dont mirror anything. Too much balance is as bad as having only one class of each role and no variety / flexibility whatsoever. And it will end up with many useless combinations and 1 cookie cutter build that everyone must have....which sucks
Im in for a SKyrim-esque system with no classes. Train what you like to improve proficiency with it, or mix and match as you like.
Ranger - I'd rather see this classes as a distance non-magical class for the majority of their dps. Keep them in paper bags. And make them learn how to handle agro management. Would be a cool class to be able to get some quick burn damage. Also through in a few utility spells to add some flavor. Side note: Ranger is the class that I have played the most, so don't think I hate rangers. I just see that they need some things to differentiate them
The term ranger has nothing to do with range attacks. This needs to end. Rangers are melee warriors first and foremost. I'd like to see just one developer get it right. Just one.
hopefully free form and no set classes. But if they do add classes i hope they dont mirror anything. Too much balance is as bad as having only one class of each role and no variety / flexibility whatsoever. And it will end up with many useless combinations and 1 cookie cutter build that everyone must have....which sucks
Im in for a SKyrim-esque system with no classes. Train what you like to improve proficiency with it, or mix and match as you like.
I am also waiting to see what Elder Scrolls Online becomes and its right up your alley with how you want the classes, skills, etc...real time combat...created by former developers of DAoC...sounds promising
Class system doesn't mean you have to be so structured ya'll should realize this and open ya minds some
I would not balance the classes. The idea that all classes need to be equal is ridiculous. There are many situations in combat. Not every class will do well in each situation. The idea is to make sure each class is useful in a group.
Most people do not understand that MMOs are group activities. Balance is only really necessary in soloing and one v. one PVP, which should not happen often in a real MMO.
Each class should bring something to their role in the group. PVE should be balanced on group play, not solo. PVP should be balanced on group play, making the group on group combat more important than toon v. toon.
Originally posted by Dahkoht I wouldn't - I hate bland balance crap players whine and insist on nowadays.
An EQ Druid could quad kite 4 even mobs solo and efficiently while a warrior at higher levels would often die to one even con at times.
You better have that warrior for any group content though.
Making every class "even" has helped lead to the bland crap we have today.
I love this person I couldn't have said it better:)
Horrible.
Gamers should be able to choose their race/class for RP and play-style reasons without fear of being gimped solo OR grouped. Any preferences for solo vs. group should show up only in AA/talent trees, so the player knows in advance what he is sacrificing.
FWIW there has never been a time when players didn't complain en masse, and rightly so, about stupidly designed MMO class imbalances. It simply design incompetence that an untwinked EQ1 rogue can't kill a single xp-giving mob above level 30 while kiting classes can solo to the level cap.
I would not balance the classes. The idea that all classes need to be equal is ridiculous. There are many situations in combat. Not every class will do well in each situation. The idea is to make sure each class is useful in a group.
...
Balance doesn't mean every class is exactly as useful in every fight in every situation, it just means that over time their value will balance out. ie, not one-sided in favor of say, Warriors, Clerics and Enchanters.
hopefully free form and no set classes. But if they do add classes i hope they dont mirror anything. Too much balance is as bad as having only one class of each role and no variety / flexibility whatsoever. And it will end up with many useless combinations and 1 cookie cutter build that everyone must have....which sucks
Im in for a SKyrim-esque system with no classes. Train what you like to improve proficiency with it, or mix and match as you like.
I am also waiting to see what Elder Scrolls Online becomes and its right up your alley with how you want the classes, skills, etc...real time combat...created by former developers of DAoC...sounds promising
Class system doesn't mean you have to be so structured ya'll should realize this and open ya minds some
yeah gotta wait for TESO launch and see how good it will be. As for the second comment, look at TERA, horrible class system limited to one role and one build. Look at Swtor, every class is mirrored to each faction. Thats what i dont want. Having a class system as a guide to what you would like to build is ok, forcing a single role is not ok. Mirroring either (in my opinion, of course).
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Agree!! Many people don't know just how amazing the classes in EQ were. For the most part each class had things they did that made them unique and gave them something powerful to contribute to the group. In eq the group was far more powerful than the sum of it's parts.
Originally posted by Dahkoht I wouldn't - I hate bland balance crap players whine and insist on nowadays.
An EQ Druid could quad kite 4 even mobs solo and efficiently while a warrior at higher levels would often die to one even con at times.
You better have that warrior for any group content though.
Making every class "even" has helped lead to the bland crap we have today.
I love this person I couldn't have said it better:)
Horrible.
Gamers should be able to choose their race/class for RP and play-style reasons without fear of being gimped solo OR grouped. Any preferences for solo vs. group should show up only in AA/talent trees, so the player knows in advance what he is sacrificing.
FWIW there has never been a time when players didn't complain en masse, and rightly so, about stupidly designed MMO class imbalances. It simply design incompetence that an untwinked EQ1 rogue can't kill a single xp-giving mob above level 30 while kiting classes can solo to the level cap.
EQ was a group based game. I played a rogue for 5-6 years and a rogue couldn't solo anything. All dps from the back and no survivability. But in a group I could burn mobs down faster than any other class. If you don't like it play another class. All classed don't need to be equal....
Originally posted by evilastro Thank god you don't work for SoE.
Yes because SOE have been doing a stellar job lately. Anyone who has played SWG will understand where i am coming from.
I played SWG and it was the best game I have ever played and I started gaming since 2001. No classes is a great concept, like the profession system in SWG...that was awesome, you get the most customized character you can ever imagine.
Wow, the thread has changed meanings since I first start, but interesting enough discussion. Just a caveat, my original intention was to see how you would make each class unique and desirable in a group. I personally love a class based system. Having a skilled based leveling system solely makes it easier for someone to mess up a character design and gimp them for group play.
I don't really want to try shouting /LFG Healer build skills in Complete healing, Shields, sorry no stuns. Or something like that. I played Secret World for a while, and trying to find groups when you don't have skills needed, especially for dungeons in that was a pain in the arse. In a class based system, every one is essentially equal when it comes to calling out your class and level. You might not always have the top tiered spell or item for your level, but the group generally knows what they are getting from you.
As for the person that said rangers aren't a ranged class, but a warrior that can melee, I agree. I was just suggesting something to make them more unique and attractive. I truly want EQN to be similar enough to EQ1, but with some things that that game hasn't accomplished adequtely. But I don't want it to be a basic paste and copy with some simple enhancements.
Comments
Bring PvE and PvP together in one cohesive holistic immersive environment within a dynamic factional system where players influence, change, control the world as it evolves over time so every server is entirely different in many aspects.....SANDBOXES
Originally posted by Dullahan
Honestly, I'd balance them very closely to EQ1. Sorry, but every other game did not have what EQ had to offer as far as every class having a distinct set of abilities.
EQ didn't just have the "trinity", it had no less than FIVE major roles which you don't see in any other game today.
Tanks, Healers, DPS, Puller, Crowd Control and then utility/buffer classes like druids/rangers or shamans/beastlords who could keep players buffed and keep everything snared or rooted while also providing dps and heals.
They need to replicate this system in my opinion, but also add to it and give more classes to fill those roles. Diversity makes for more fun, but also promotes grouping and the sense of community that was found in EQ1. The lack of diverse roles has been one of the biggest drawbacks in sandbox games especialy, and I hope that is remedied in EQ Next.
Well said! I agree.
http://s36.photobucket.com/user/mhoward48/media/OnwYv97.jpg.html
Uh, first off hes talkin the evolution of Everquest which was Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft. Also those were specifically Themeparks as players cannot change or affect the rides in a Themepark; They simply ride them as it is an Amusement Park after all, which has been obviously entertaining er rather amusing for many for quite some time, heh. They have no control over the rides, the landscape, the participants, the overall environment. They buy their tickets and hope to have fun and be entertained.
Sandboxes are comprised of sand wherein anything can be changed, affected, built, destroyed, etc...those inside the Sandboxes are co-creators as they work together or in spite of each other to create, build, destroy, shape the sand however they see fit and think of the collective playerbase on a particular server as being the custodians and chaperones so to speak. The playerbase should be given a collective say and policing options for players who need a time out, so to speak. Oh and btw sandboxes used to be free...heres hoping...
Considering Smed has already talked about Druids having to prey to a god in a forest glade for certain skills, i would say you are wrong.
Oh, and i agree with you.
Only way to balance classes is to simply make sure they are not fixed nor catering to certain templates with several trees of skills and allowing the players to perform any role to some degree within a reasonable framework based on a players choices, decisions, actions over the evolution of their character.
Also, these roles shouldn't lie in rehashed, dated roles of tank, healer, dps, crowd control, etc...as this caters to dated content that will be mowed down like overgrown grass in a nice suburb, until the next expansion comes along the playerbase will simply dwindle and move on to one of the many new MMORPGs in development. Oh and if you hadn't noticed we are entering a new generation with some very bold ideas and design features being implimented and hyped up from many different companies.
Everquest Next better be radically different then its predecessors in many ways or its not going to last very long in this very dynamic enthusiastic MMORPG genre. This cannot be another Themepark in any way recognizeable and therein defined, as it will end up being resigned as such and therefore declined by many. Sandbox is what their saying and critics/skeptics are going to surely scrutinize what SOE terms as being a Sandbox.
I agree, Vanguard did it right, /thanks Brad. Unfortunately most people didn't play Vanguard, so I use EQ as reference. Its a shame, because had Vanguard been complete and polished, it would beyond a shadow of a doubt be the game I still play today.
LOL I am not going to even bother quoting you as I played day one of Everquest and until Asherons Call was released and returned a few times after that;
The fact a MOB could be taunted stupifies gameplay as we are not just simply talking about simply big oaf and primitive MOBs we are talking about Dragons and supposedly very intelligent BOSS MOBs and all immersion is removed and throw out the window once they are easily manipulated and overcome by tank, healer, dps, cc, etc....
If you honestly are going to try and get away with telling everyone Everquest didn't have OP healers you didn't play the same game I did.
I actually even beta tested Vanguard and wtf was Brad Thinking LOL...hey Brad if your taking a gander at these forums weren't you the one who boasted that a development team and an investment companies shouldn't produce multi million dollar flops and yet you said this as you were developing Vanguard and yet ya'll went ahead and released it half done and even admitted it later...GG what were ya'll thinking??? How hard would it have been to find investors elsewhere and/or ask for more time as you wouldn't want to end up being the flop that Vanguard turned out to be, until Sony came along and saved the day.
Vanguard LOL brauh you gotta give us better examples cuz shoulda been, coulda been, woulda been aint working cuz I ain't buying that...LOL
I really hope SOE breaks tradition and releases a title worthy of being called a revolutionary game changing sandbox MMORPG whilst ya'll sit there with your mouths open wondering wtf...until then we can sit here and go back and forth over what we all want
Oh and why not take me up on trying out Monster Play in Lord of the Rings Online...I dare you to actually take the time to play a Monster Player until your sick and tired of Crowd Control and come back here and tell me tooling MOBs with OP crowd control makes sense....come on why not...you could try it out until SOE unveils EQN
hopefully free form and no set classes. But if they do add classes i hope they dont mirror anything. Too much balance is as bad as having only one class of each role and no variety / flexibility whatsoever. And it will end up with many useless combinations and 1 cookie cutter build that everyone must have....which sucks
Im in for a SKyrim-esque system with no classes. Train what you like to improve proficiency with it, or mix and match as you like.
The term ranger has nothing to do with range attacks. This needs to end. Rangers are melee warriors first and foremost. I'd like to see just one developer get it right. Just one.
I love this person I couldn't have said it better:)
I am also waiting to see what Elder Scrolls Online becomes and its right up your alley with how you want the classes, skills, etc...real time combat...created by former developers of DAoC...sounds promising
Class system doesn't mean you have to be so structured ya'll should realize this and open ya minds some
I would not balance the classes. The idea that all classes need to be equal is ridiculous. There are many situations in combat. Not every class will do well in each situation. The idea is to make sure each class is useful in a group.
Most people do not understand that MMOs are group activities. Balance is only really necessary in soloing and one v. one PVP, which should not happen often in a real MMO.
Each class should bring something to their role in the group. PVE should be balanced on group play, not solo. PVP should be balanced on group play, making the group on group combat more important than toon v. toon.
@PigglesworthTWR on Twitter
Pigglesworth @ EQNForum.com, MMORPG.com, EQNextfans.com, ProjectNorrath.com, & EQNFanSite.com
Malcontent @ EQNexus.com & EQHammer.com
Horrible.
Gamers should be able to choose their race/class for RP and play-style reasons without fear of being gimped solo OR grouped. Any preferences for solo vs. group should show up only in AA/talent trees, so the player knows in advance what he is sacrificing.
FWIW there has never been a time when players didn't complain en masse, and rightly so, about stupidly designed MMO class imbalances. It simply design incompetence that an untwinked EQ1 rogue can't kill a single xp-giving mob above level 30 while kiting classes can solo to the level cap.
Balance doesn't mean every class is exactly as useful in every fight in every situation, it just means that over time their value will balance out. ie, not one-sided in favor of say, Warriors, Clerics and Enchanters.
yeah gotta wait for TESO launch and see how good it will be. As for the second comment, look at TERA, horrible class system limited to one role and one build. Look at Swtor, every class is mirrored to each faction. Thats what i dont want. Having a class system as a guide to what you would like to build is ok, forcing a single role is not ok. Mirroring either (in my opinion, of course).
Agree!! Many people don't know just how amazing the classes in EQ were. For the most part each class had things they did that made them unique and gave them something powerful to contribute to the group. In eq the group was far more powerful than the sum of it's parts.
Please keep the diversity of EQ classes
---
Ethion
EQ was a group based game. I played a rogue for 5-6 years and a rogue couldn't solo anything. All dps from the back and no survivability. But in a group I could burn mobs down faster than any other class. If you don't like it play another class. All classed don't need to be equal....
---
Ethion
I played SWG and it was the best game I have ever played and I started gaming since 2001. No classes is a great concept, like the profession system in SWG...that was awesome, you get the most customized character you can ever imagine.
Wow, the thread has changed meanings since I first start, but interesting enough discussion. Just a caveat, my original intention was to see how you would make each class unique and desirable in a group. I personally love a class based system. Having a skilled based leveling system solely makes it easier for someone to mess up a character design and gimp them for group play.
I don't really want to try shouting /LFG Healer build skills in Complete healing, Shields, sorry no stuns. Or something like that. I played Secret World for a while, and trying to find groups when you don't have skills needed, especially for dungeons in that was a pain in the arse. In a class based system, every one is essentially equal when it comes to calling out your class and level. You might not always have the top tiered spell or item for your level, but the group generally knows what they are getting from you.
As for the person that said rangers aren't a ranged class, but a warrior that can melee, I agree. I was just suggesting something to make them more unique and attractive. I truly want EQN to be similar enough to EQ1, but with some things that that game hasn't accomplished adequtely. But I don't want it to be a basic paste and copy with some simple enhancements.