I am in favor of race/class restrictions and furthermore significant statistical differences between races (similar to EQ1) because it creates meaningful choices.
Furthermore, I hope that different races have different inherent (dis)advantages like night vision, faction settings, and interesting racial perks/abilities. To hell with balance, I want interesting.
Second point I need to make. MOST of you talk about another choice on that poll, namelly "They can use it, but at a penalty", meaning a gnome can pick up an axe and be a warrior, but he wont be as good at it as say an ogre. You want race difference, but to have that, you chose "Restriction based on lore" meaning he can not use it AT ALL. Pretty harsh. So continue to support NGE systems, only because you did not read the poll right. Long, flowing posts with arguments about who can do what best after 10 years training... and you did not even read the whole poll, nor understood the alternatives.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this in a previous post, so I'm sorry if it's a repeat...
Lore restrictions doesn't mean "if you are X race you can never play Y class." It still leaves room for everyone to play anything. It just means that it's potentially more difficult for X race to play Y class.
So, "Why not just pick 'with restrictions'?" Well, "with restrictions." might mean ,"you can only play specific class combinations." Kinda like saying you can't mix paladin and shadow knight.
Lore based could offer you both options/combinations. I am a Shadow Knight, who wants a burst heal, and uses dark powers to save the innocent.
It seems a little backwards, but it actually works. I mean, why can't the lore make anything possible?
I voted no restrictions... I understand the argument for restrictions. But here's my dilemma: I want to create a character of my choosing. Say I want to play a dwarf wizard... I understand dwarves usually dislike magic, so it's not normal for dwarves to be wizards. Isn't it within the realm of possibility that a dwarf might choose to be a wizard? We're talking about a fictional fantasy world here, why are racial class restrictions so vital to immersion in a fantasy setting?
How about instead of completely removing my choice of playing that character, my character suffers penalties for using that combination. Maybe I will be a less proficient magic user as a dwarf. Maybe I will have to be an evil dwarf and will be forced to play for an evil faction or won't be allowed to play among "normal" dwarves. Rather than remove freedom, adjust the lore to account for freedom. Create an uncommon sect of dark dwarves who have been exiled from the rest of the dwarf kingdom for their use of magic.
(Disclaimer: the "dwarf wizard" argument is just an example and can apply to any race/class combination that might be restricted. I don't mean to imply that dwarves can't be wizards, or that either "dwarves" or "wizards" are in EQN. I'll probably play some type of swashbuckling ratonga, if given the option)
I think it's silly to force racial class restrictions. As someone who loves reading fantasy fiction, and truly enjoys creating my own unique character, I see no reason why class restrictions are necessary for immersion. In fact, I find it more "immersive" when I can create a unique character that isn't bound to lore, and has the choice to break the rules of the lore.
I voted no restrictions... I understand the argument for restrictions. But here's my dilemma: I want to create a character of my choosing. Say I want to play a dwarf wizard... I understand dwarves usually dislike magic, so it's not normal for dwarves to be wizards. Isn't it within the realm of possibility that a dwarf might choose to be a wizard? We're talking about a fictional fantasy world here, why are racial class restrictions so vital to immersion in a fantasy setting?
How about instead of completely removing my choice of playing that character, my character suffers penalties for using that combination. Maybe I will be a less proficient magic user as a dwarf. Maybe I will have to be an evil dwarf and will be forced to play for an evil faction or won't be allowed to play among "normal" dwarves. Rather than remove freedom, adjust the lore to account for freedom. Create an uncommon sect of dark dwarves who have been exiled from the rest of the dwarf kingdom for their use of magic.
(Disclaimer: the "dwarf wizard" argument is just an example and can apply to any race/class combination that might be restricted. I don't mean to imply that dwarves can't be wizards, or that either "dwarves" or "wizards" are in EQN. I'll probably play some type of swashbuckling ratonga, if given the option)
I think it's silly to force racial class restrictions. As someone who loves reading fantasy fiction, and truly enjoys creating my own unique character, I see no reason why class restrictions are necessary for immersion. In fact, I find it more "immersive" when I can create a unique character that isn't bound to lore, and has the choice to break the rules of the lore.
The idea of making it harder or having a penalty to learn a class that is racially, culturally or religiously restricted is what MOST of the people commenting here who voted for restrictions are happy with. (how much of a penalty would be a 9999999 page thread so lets not go there)
Very few here expressed a desire for a hard ban.
However not all of the polls gave that option.
Voting for NO restrictions puts your vote squarely in the camp that wants any class any race any time.
I voted no restrictions... I understand the argument for restrictions. But here's my dilemma: I want to create a character of my choosing. Say I want to play a dwarf wizard... I understand dwarves usually dislike magic, so it's not normal for dwarves to be wizards. Isn't it within the realm of possibility that a dwarf might choose to be a wizard? We're talking about a fictional fantasy world here, why are racial class restrictions so vital to immersion in a fantasy setting?
How about instead of completely removing my choice of playing that character, my character suffers penalties for using that combination. Maybe I will be a less proficient magic user as a dwarf. Maybe I will have to be an evil dwarf and will be forced to play for an evil faction or won't be allowed to play among "normal" dwarves. Rather than remove freedom, adjust the lore to account for freedom. Create an uncommon sect of dark dwarves who have been exiled from the rest of the dwarf kingdom for their use of magic.
(Disclaimer: the "dwarf wizard" argument is just an example and can apply to any race/class combination that might be restricted. I don't mean to imply that dwarves can't be wizards, or that either "dwarves" or "wizards" are in EQN. I'll probably play some type of swashbuckling ratonga, if given the option)
I think it's silly to force racial class restrictions. As someone who loves reading fantasy fiction, and truly enjoys creating my own unique character, I see no reason why class restrictions are necessary for immersion. In fact, I find it more "immersive" when I can create a unique character that isn't bound to lore, and has the choice to break the rules of the lore.
The idea of making it harder or having a penalty to learn a class that is racially, culturally or religiously restricted is what MOST of the people commenting here who voted for restrictions are happy with. (how much of a penalty would be a 9999999 page thread so lets not go there)
Very few here expressed a desire for a hard ban.
However not all of the polls gave that option.
Voting for NO restrictions puts your vote squarely in the camp that wants any class any race any time.
Wouldn't it be better to say "no restrictions, with penalties to certain combinations"?
It makes the world more tangible. All rules should have a lore/theme mindset in mind. The most successful MMOs of yesteryear (Vanilla WoW included) had that. It's helps keep you connected to the world, as opposed to seeing the game and your avatar as a vessel for various mini-games.
If it doesn't feel like a virtual world, they have failed.
You do understand that you might be limiting your ability pool right?
Let's say humans can only play 5 classes..
Warrior: 1 movement 2 defence 1 utility (just a guess)
Blademaster: 1 movement 1 offence 1 defence 1 utility
Rogue: 2 offence 2 utility
Wizard: 2 movement 1 offence 1 defence
Tempest: 2 movement 1 offence 1 utility
Total abilities pool: 6 Movement, 5 Offence, 4 Defence, 5 Utility (..now that I've added it all up, it does seem kinda balanced..)
Anywho..
I'm getting a feeling that most of the people who voted for class restrictions are people who prefer to PVE. Like, you want to have that special ability that no other class has and it gives you a sense of purpose in the group/raid.
I'm more of a PVPer and would like to be as versitile as possible. If they do end up restricting classes based on lore, as long as they add an option where I can pay extra money to make my own class, I'll be fine :P
i always hated it when game makers threw lore, story lines, and any kind of rpg element out the window just so someone could role some retarded class/race/diety/faction combo because that player just had to have some "special" combination even though there were 50,000 other combonations.
Yes, thats how we should start the development of this game. Screw lore and world rules. Lets have some souless unmeaningful story line so you can make your pixie deathknight/necromancer that prays to the nature goddess and you can call Deathsparkle Treehugger.
You do understand that you might be limiting your ability pool right?
Let's say humans can only play 5 classes..
Warrior: 1 movement 2 defence 1 utility (just a guess)
Blademaster: 1 movement 1 offence 1 defence 1 utility
Rogue: 2 offence 2 utility
Wizard: 2 movement 1 offence 1 defence
Tempest: 2 movement 1 offence 1 utility
Total abilities pool: 6 Movement, 5 Offence, 4 Defence, 5 Utility (..now that I've added it all up, it does seem kinda balanced..)
Anywho..
I'm getting a feeling that most of the people who voted for class restrictions are people who prefer to PVE. Like, you want to have that special ability that no other class has and it gives you a sense of purpose in the group/raid.
I'm more of a PVPer and would like to be as versitile as possible. If they do end up restricting classes based on lore, as long as they add an option where I can pay extra money to make my own class, I'll be fine :P
i always hated it when game makers threw lore, story lines, and any kind of rpg element out the window just so someone could role some retarded class/race/diety/faction combo because that player just had to have some "special" combination even though there were 50,000 other combonations.
Yes, thats how we should start the development of this game. Screw lore and world rules. Lets have some souless unmeaningful story line so you can make your pixie deathknight/necromancer that prays to the nature goddess and you can call Deathsparkle Treehugger.
I want restrictions. In fact I'd prefer certain classes but I definitely would not like to see High Elf shadow knights and necromancers running around. Or Iksar druids and paladins.
Comments
I am in favor of race/class restrictions and furthermore significant statistical differences between races (similar to EQ1) because it creates meaningful choices.
Furthermore, I hope that different races have different inherent (dis)advantages like night vision, faction settings, and interesting racial perks/abilities. To hell with balance, I want interesting.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this in a previous post, so I'm sorry if it's a repeat...
Lore restrictions doesn't mean "if you are X race you can never play Y class." It still leaves room for everyone to play anything. It just means that it's potentially more difficult for X race to play Y class.
So, "Why not just pick 'with restrictions'?" Well, "with restrictions." might mean ,"you can only play specific class combinations." Kinda like saying you can't mix paladin and shadow knight.
Lore based could offer you both options/combinations. I am a Shadow Knight, who wants a burst heal, and uses dark powers to save the innocent.
It seems a little backwards, but it actually works. I mean, why can't the lore make anything possible?
I voted no restrictions... I understand the argument for restrictions. But here's my dilemma: I want to create a character of my choosing. Say I want to play a dwarf wizard... I understand dwarves usually dislike magic, so it's not normal for dwarves to be wizards. Isn't it within the realm of possibility that a dwarf might choose to be a wizard? We're talking about a fictional fantasy world here, why are racial class restrictions so vital to immersion in a fantasy setting?
How about instead of completely removing my choice of playing that character, my character suffers penalties for using that combination. Maybe I will be a less proficient magic user as a dwarf. Maybe I will have to be an evil dwarf and will be forced to play for an evil faction or won't be allowed to play among "normal" dwarves. Rather than remove freedom, adjust the lore to account for freedom. Create an uncommon sect of dark dwarves who have been exiled from the rest of the dwarf kingdom for their use of magic.
(Disclaimer: the "dwarf wizard" argument is just an example and can apply to any race/class combination that might be restricted. I don't mean to imply that dwarves can't be wizards, or that either "dwarves" or "wizards" are in EQN. I'll probably play some type of swashbuckling ratonga, if given the option)
I think it's silly to force racial class restrictions. As someone who loves reading fantasy fiction, and truly enjoys creating my own unique character, I see no reason why class restrictions are necessary for immersion. In fact, I find it more "immersive" when I can create a unique character that isn't bound to lore, and has the choice to break the rules of the lore.
The idea of making it harder or having a penalty to learn a class that is racially, culturally or religiously restricted is what MOST of the people commenting here who voted for restrictions are happy with. (how much of a penalty would be a 9999999 page thread so lets not go there)
Very few here expressed a desire for a hard ban.
However not all of the polls gave that option.
Voting for NO restrictions puts your vote squarely in the camp that wants any class any race any time.
Wouldn't it be better to say "no restrictions, with penalties to certain combinations"?
That would have been my vote.
It makes the world more tangible. All rules should have a lore/theme mindset in mind. The most successful MMOs of yesteryear (Vanilla WoW included) had that. It's helps keep you connected to the world, as opposed to seeing the game and your avatar as a vessel for various mini-games.
If it doesn't feel like a virtual world, they have failed.
i always hated it when game makers threw lore, story lines, and any kind of rpg element out the window just so someone could role some retarded class/race/diety/faction combo because that player just had to have some "special" combination even though there were 50,000 other combonations.
Yes, thats how we should start the development of this game. Screw lore and world rules. Lets have some souless unmeaningful story line so you can make your pixie deathknight/necromancer that prays to the nature goddess and you can call Deathsparkle Treehugger.
Did you play EQ2?
Did you follow it's "story?"
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.