EQ2 needs a new graphics engine, and they need to prune the amount of classes the game has. There are too many. It's a balancing nightmare.
I never want to see less classes in a game, I could care less if it's balanced or not. I'm so tired of games with 4 or 6 classes and then using some AA tree to make it seem like there is variety. Bring me back to the DAOC days where there are 50 unique classes.. now that is an interesting game.
I agree... the one thing I loved about EQ2 was the variety of classes, you could make some unique group builds with them.
I see that the developers from Everquest 2 and Everquest Next are creating a new game called Ashes of Creation and it will have the visions of games like EQ2, Vanguard etc. but set in todays graphics. The world will have full weather dynamics and ever changing environment. I cannot wait to try this game.
I see that the developers from Everquest 2 and Everquest Next are creating a new game called Ashes of Creation and it will have the visions of games like EQ2, Vanguard etc. but set in todays graphics. The world will have full weather dynamics and ever changing environment. I cannot wait to try this game.
Where have you been? Kinda late to this party.
I'm a little late ....but getting excited about this title.
EQ2 needs a new graphics engine, and they need to prune the amount of classes the game has. There are too many. It's a balancing nightmare.
I never want to see less classes in a game, I could care less if it's balanced or not. I'm so tired of games with 4 or 6 classes and then using some AA tree to make it seem like there is variety. Bring me back to the DAOC days where there are 50 unique classes.. now that is an interesting game.
That's your opinion, but it doesn't work from a balance perspective.
This worked decently in DAoC (which definitely did not have FIFTY classes... I played it) because it was a RvRvR game. Also, several classes in DAoC were pretty damn similar so it was not like you were changing to a different archetype. They basically had similar, but not same classes peppered across teh factions, with a few innovative standouts. Putting different classes across the Factions balanced things out a bit. It was also, predominantly, a PvP-focused game. People didn't need a raiding guild to zone in and go PvP. They didn't even need a group for that. It was like Alterac Valley in those mass PvP zones (and even many of the "leveling zones").
In a PvE game with capped raid/group sizes having 25+ classes creates a balancing nightmare because if a class is underpowered it has severe negative consequences for those who play that class. Unless you're content with people rerolling to the FotM every Expansion or major content patch... I'm not sure how you could say that.
The health of the game, fundamentally, is more important than a few people who just like having more of everything.
EQ1 didn't have 5 or 6 classes. WoW has more than that, with 3 Specs per class offering a lot more gameplay variety than the AA system in EQ2 does.
You're referring to games like Elder Scrolls Online, which is very different from games like EQ, WoW, EQ2, and even GW2 as it pertains to class design. This was done to appeal to ES fanbase, who naturally expect the game to be more like those games, and like being able to fill any roll on any class. When every class can fill every roll, naturally you don't design 25 classes since it would be an even worse situation than what I alluded to earlier in the thread.
I'd argue that ESO is impossible to balance well, due to its open-ended class/role system.
Comments
I agree...
the one thing I loved about EQ2 was the variety of classes, you could make some unique group builds with them.
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
This worked decently in DAoC (which definitely did not have FIFTY classes... I played it) because it was a RvRvR game. Also, several classes in DAoC were pretty damn similar so it was not like you were changing to a different archetype. They basically had similar, but not same classes peppered across teh factions, with a few innovative standouts. Putting different classes across the Factions balanced things out a bit. It was also, predominantly, a PvP-focused game. People didn't need a raiding guild to zone in and go PvP. They didn't even need a group for that. It was like Alterac Valley in those mass PvP zones (and even many of the "leveling zones").
In a PvE game with capped raid/group sizes having 25+ classes creates a balancing nightmare because if a class is underpowered it has severe negative consequences for those who play that class. Unless you're content with people rerolling to the FotM every Expansion or major content patch... I'm not sure how you could say that.
The health of the game, fundamentally, is more important than a few people who just like having more of everything.
EQ1 didn't have 5 or 6 classes. WoW has more than that, with 3 Specs per class offering a lot more gameplay variety than the AA system in EQ2 does.
You're referring to games like Elder Scrolls Online, which is very different from games like EQ, WoW, EQ2, and even GW2 as it pertains to class design. This was done to appeal to ES fanbase, who naturally expect the game to be more like those games, and like being able to fill any roll on any class. When every class can fill every roll, naturally you don't design 25 classes since it would be an even worse situation than what I alluded to earlier in the thread.
I'd argue that ESO is impossible to balance well, due to its open-ended class/role system.