Quick Fix vs. Complete Fix

[Kayle]

<DIV> <P>While I've been reading some very good suggestions, I think it's just a quick fix until we come to a few realizations.  For me, that realization is that with 6 priest classes, it's too much.  While it may settle the old EQ1 problem of looking for a healer, it causes worse problems in EQ2 because:</P> <P>a)  The classes just HAVE to fight over every little toy the other kid gets;</P> <P>b)  If one class healed for any more then it did, then the game becomes too easy when you start stacking priests; and</P> <P>c)  The quality of the class diminishes as a result of the quantity of priests and there goes your fun factor.</P> <P>These are problems we can't solve.  We have gone round and round with this since DoF beta started and the news trickled in about what was going to occur.  We saw the writing on the wall then.  We've talked about it since then.  We went full circle, exploring every utility, every spell, every stat on gear, every ounce of dps -- you name it.  And we STILL come back to the SAME conclusion that too many classes providing the same functions don't work in an MMOG -- for some of us.</P> <P>Go to any class forum and you will see same arguments with different names.  This has gone on for months now.</P> <P>I've honestly never seen an MMOG where players battled more out of game then in it.  It's as if the players are somehow responsible to come up with the solution and those who try are fair game for the next attack.  Throw defenders of the design into the mix and you have nothing but a bloody war.</P> <P>Maybe that's where the solution lies.  Take the solution In game, where it is war and take it OUT of the forums.   One possibility for achieving that would be to separate the class interactions between good and evil and then you would prohibit the use of those archetypes down a bit, while being able to give more meaning to the roles and the alliances that currently exist.  You would be able to implement the ideas suggested on these forums because you would not be able to group with opposing factions.  You could then build substantial roles within those systems because there would no longer be 6 of them to distribute functions for.</P> <P>I understand this presents different concerns for the lack of evil-based characters, but it could be a short-term difficulty if designed well, with incentives (leveling bonuses, etc.) and is not insurmountable.  Add the challenge of being able to attack the opposing alliance (in some zones, if not all) and then you have a true challenge instead of vying for groups.  PvE could be adjusted to add to the challenge of entering opposing areas.</P> <P>And to those people who hate PvP and are going to balk at what I just said, all I can say is, what do you really think the difference is when you're shooting down your fellow player on the forums anyway?  Leave it in the game, where it belongs.</P></DIV>

[ADW123]

<P>I agree. There are simply too many classes for each to feel unique and fun. They would've done better sticking with the class line up in eq1 where every class had something that they were good at, that other classes lacked. It feels like they added extra classes in where none were necessary, just so they could say they had a larger variety of classes to play. Many archtypes are so similar that it didn't make sense to split them up.</P> <P>Curaga<BR>55 Templar<BR>Unrest</P>

[mc10]

<P>some very good ideas....not all areas should be pvp...make them a quest target...</P> <P>could be nice to defend are towns.....could even have raids agains other towns......raids againt raiding party...</P> <P>it would be nice to have a fort to defend....could have one fort for say lvl 10 to 29..one for 30 to 45 and so on</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Meribor]

My reaction to these suggestions ... is just plain NO!!!! I left World of Warcraft for various reasons ... boredom being one and the fact that I personally don't care to pvp (I was on a non-pvp server).  Everquest II is a pve game and now has elements of pvp, but it is still primarily pve.  If someone that plays EQ2 prefers pvp, then they came to the wrong game.  If SOE starts balancing for pvp, then they'll be making a huge mistake since you can't balance pve for pvp or vice versa.  It's impossible to balance classes as it is, which is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion and why I think the revamp was poorly implemented since it homogenized the healing classes too much. This suggestion would also negatively impact me since I chose to go with an evil class in a predominately Qeynos-based guild when I replaced my templar ... and I have enough obstacles to overcome.  I also didn't care much for the separation of Horde and Alliance in WoW, but then that is supposed to be a pvp game with elements of pve. <div></div>

[Gcha]

<P>Yup, good post Kaylena.  It truly is going to be very difficult to straighten this mess out now.  When you make a game with more classes and at the same time lessen or remove the importance of a number of activities and strategies you start with a basic conceptual problem.  Removing or diminishing the importance of such things as pulling, crowd control, kiting, fear kiting, transportation, res, etc., results in devs virtually having to dream up silly spells just to have something to give the excess number of classes.  As a result you have spells like the templar mez and translocate spells which don't belong with the class and which are simply given "creative" names to make them sound different than they are, and you have the trick and lotto spells which come close to making a templar a walking heal proc vendor rather than simply a healer, as the class should be.  God knows what they're going to do at higher levels when all the toy and trick spells have been used up already.</P> <P>Then you have this silly "balance" issue, which kills diversity.</P> <P>If it were up to me I'd combine half the classes (e.g., forget templar and inquisitor - just make them clerics and give them training choices to flavor their toon more offensive or defensive as they prefer).  Then, stop obsessing over balance which no one needs.  Put diversity back in and let people simply choose the type of class they like to play in the first place rather than choosing one thing and then complaining for it to perform like something else.</P> <p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:24 AM</span>

[Kayle]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meribor wrote:<BR>My reaction to these suggestions ... is just plain NO!!!!<BR><BR>I left World of Warcraft for various reasons ... boredom being one and the fact that I personally don't care to pvp (I was on a non-pvp server).  Everquest II is a pve game and now has elements of pvp, but it is still primarily pve.  If someone that plays EQ2 prefers pvp, then they came to the wrong game.  If SOE starts balancing for pvp, then they'll be making a huge mistake since you can't balance pve for pvp or vice versa.  It's impossible to balance classes as it is, which is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion and why I think the revamp was poorly implemented since it homogenized the healing classes too much.<BR><BR>This suggestion would also negatively impact me since I chose to go with an evil class in a predominately Qeynos-based guild when I replaced my templar ... and I have enough obstacles to overcome.  I also didn't care much for the separation of Horde and Alliance in WoW, but then that is supposed to be a pvp game with elements of pve. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>WoW has PvP servers specifically just as EQ1 had them.  If you boosted up the PvE factor in EQ2, it would challenge people of opposing factions in their originating areas.  As far as I can tell, what was the use in creating Freeport vs. Qeynos if guards outside the city gates just give you a dirty look yet take no action against you?  You can't even reduce your faction with Freeport enough to have guards attack outside the Freeport gates.  Yet if you enter their gates, you have no ability to fight them and get sent back home with a mere spell.</P> <P>If there is no conflict, there is no challenge other then beating up aggro mobs and it then becomes Freeport and Qeynos vs. the Environment.   The resulting problem is having 6 archetypes within one class system that accepts them all.  This decreases the function of a particular class when a programmer has to compensate for allowing all types to group and guild together without working toward a faction.</P> <P>It's quite possible that you could be evil and progress faction with Qeynos instead of Freeport if that is your concern.  It was done in EQ1 without PvP or betrayal quests.  Just as it was done in EQ1, the factions should be hard to attain.  I see no reason for having opposing cities if there is no penalty of consequence for interacting with them.  In fact, I see it far more detrimental to the overall game when they allow 6 archetypes to work so easily within the same system.</P> <P>There was a poll SoE took about a month back asking players how they felt about PvP and the choices included serverwide or server-specific PvP.  I have no doubt they've contemplated this already or they wouldn't have asked.  How they implement it is anyone's guess as they aren't telling.  I'm saying if they already gave it thought, these are my suggestions with regard to solving class mechanics across archetypes.</P>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kaylena wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meribor wrote:<BR>My reaction to these suggestions ... is just plain NO!!!!<BR><BR>I left World of Warcraft for various reasons ... boredom being one and the fact that I personally don't care to pvp (I was on a non-pvp server).  Everquest II is a pve game and now has elements of pvp, but it is still primarily pve.  If someone that plays EQ2 prefers pvp, then they came to the wrong game.  If SOE starts balancing for pvp, then they'll be making a huge mistake since you can't balance pve for pvp or vice versa.  It's impossible to balance classes as it is, which is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion and why I think the revamp was poorly implemented since it homogenized the healing classes too much.<BR><BR>This suggestion would also negatively impact me since I chose to go with an evil class in a predominately Qeynos-based guild when I replaced my templar ... and I have enough obstacles to overcome.  I also didn't care much for the separation of Horde and Alliance in WoW, but then that is supposed to be a pvp game with elements of pve.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>WoW has PvP servers specifically just as EQ1 had them.  If you boosted up the PvE factor in EQ2, it would challenge people of opposing factions in their originating areas.  As far as I can tell, what was the use in creating Freeport vs. Qeynos if guards outside the city gates just give you a dirty look yet take no action against you?  You can't even reduce your faction with Freeport enough to have guards attack outside the Freeport gates.  Yet if you enter their gates, you have no ability to fight them and get sent back home with a mere spell.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There were a number of discussions at the last Community Summit about instituting faction between the cities.   If they go along with what they said then this will be a reality eventually.   I don't PvP so if they have seperate servers I could care less but faction definetly needs purpose.   Interesting original post Kaylena.  Made me do some thinking.</DIV>

[Gcha]

The whole idea doesn’t bother me. I had a lot of fun in DAOC, for example. But I don’t see how you do this after the fact. With good and evil toons strewn randomly throughout guilds, what happens with the day comes that good and evil factions are meaningfully at war with each other.

[Stjarna Kvar]

I don't mind as long as there is a way to betray once they make the change. I wouldn't want my wife and I to not be able to play together, she's an SK, im a Templar.

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR>The whole idea doesn’t bother me. I had a lot of fun in DAOC, for example. But I don’t see how you do this after the fact. With good and evil toons strewn randomly throughout guilds, what happens with the day comes that good and evil factions are meaningfully at war with each other. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The factions have already been built in the system from what was explained to me.  A lot of them just haven't been "turned on."   I don't think they should be splitting players up like WoW does with the seperate cities.  It was one thing about WoW that annoyed the crap out of me.  Make it dangerous for me to walk my Qeynos based character into Freeport or more difficult for me to walk around Nek forest without getting jumped on.   There is a lot of stuff they can do with this.

[Nari]

Sadly, people would be just as unhappy if they added this system.  When I first came to this game, I was excited that there were so many classes.  Now, I think that is one of the weakest points of the game.  Some of the classes are too similar.  This leads to fighting about what other people have. If they had implemented Kaylena's system at the beginning with about half of the classes they have now, I believe this game would be a lot stronger.  As it is now, perhaps they should take a hint from SWG and call a "do over." <div></div>

[Kayle]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>There were a number of discussions at the last Community Summit about instituting faction between the cities.   If they go along with what they said then this will be a reality eventually.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Do you recall what the discussions were regarding factions, Radar?  I would be curious to know.  Thanks, I didn't know it was discussed.</DIV>

[SenorPhrog]

<DIV>This is a quote from Ethec's wrap up of the summary and I'll provide the link to his article below.  He by FAR took the most detailed notes of anyone there that I know.  He pretty much sums up everything I remember.  Here is the whole thing <A href="http://eq2.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=612&meid=242" target=_blank>here</A>. <P>"The discussion moved towards improving faction... the faction system, that is. Prior to "Desert of Flames" - faction meant getting booted out of the opposing city or not being able to complete a set of centaur quests- the effect on gameplay was minimal. Many EQ2 gamers welcome the kind of faction we see in Maj'Dul- a fight impacts the game world, influencing interaction and mobs' kill-on-sight determination, yet a fight you can choose to avoid completely. Don't align yourself to any one of the four NPC "court" factions, and you're (relatively) free to move about the city unchastened. Being a loner in Maj'Dul means you'll miss out on the 50+ spells and item benefits a favored court can provide, however.</P></DIV> <DIV> <P>The gamers in the roundtable were anxious to see more in the way of variable faction and a more personalized world. Discussion centered around revising city betrayal and making each city more hostile to citizens of the opposing city; that is, kill-on-sight rather than just booting wayward players out of the city. Doubtless all players are leery of such changes; however, given this team's track record with design of zones like Maj'Dul, the effect should be minimal unless you choose to participate in... City vs. City (?) play. Worries about irrecoverable shards were allayed by the suggestion that a door-clickable shard could be instituted, similar to what you'd find outside an instanced zone like "Trial of Harclave" or "Icy Digs." High level raiders were excited about the new opportunities city raids could provide; low-to-mid level reps probably felt like completing Heritage Quests that involved opposing cities could become very costly. Still, efforts toward a more immersive environment are generally welcome, and the reaction towards further factionalizing the two cities was very far from negative.</P> <P>There's been confusion ever since the "faction window" was instituted about what mobs raise and lower which faction. It comes down to lack of information about which factions are linked to which mobs, and with the general repopulation efforts about to commence, we should see improvements on this front. Finally, while we're on the subject of cities, expansion lead Kyle "Glendril" Hill stated that the cities' citadels would be open to players "very soon." "</P></DIV>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kaylena wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Maybe that's where the solution lies.  Take the solution In game, where it is war and take it OUT of the forums.   One possibility for achieving that would be to separate the class interactions between good and evil and then you would prohibit the use of those archetypes down a bit, while being able to give more meaning to the roles and the alliances that currently exist.  You would be able to implement the ideas suggested on these forums because you would not be able to group with opposing factions.  You could then build substantial roles within those systems because there would no longer be 6 of them to distribute functions for.</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You have some interesting ideas there.  While I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about having so many classes, I agree with the idea of more separation between good and evil characters.  To me, it completely breaks immersion in the game world to have paladins and shadowknights or or necromancers in the same group.  I think if they are going to allow this, they should make group players of opposite faction pvp enabled with each other. :smileywink: That way you could group, but you would never know whether the knife was going to get pressed into your back.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

[SatinyCh]

<DIV>So, the point of the post is...you want things to work better so you can be un-retired, yes? Like, you'll start playing your Templar again?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SatinyChef wrote:<BR> <DIV>So, the point of the post is...you want things to work better so you can be un-retired, yes? Like, you'll start playing your Templar again?<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well I propably wont. I did see that grass is greener on the other side and as it is, my career as templar is over. I would delete and reroll if I wasn't lvl 60 artisan also (yeah, I know, I could make another in a few weeks, but I have no desire to grind). As it is, SoE's policy has carried fruit, the amount of retired templars is huge. As I already have an alt, I wont even be making another healer (another win for SoE). I might bring my templar back once my lvl 50 monk and lvl 27 conjurer hit 60.</P> <P> </P> <P>Untill that time, I wish you all well. I'll propably still be reading this part of the forums but otherwise I am moving on and letting my templar side rest in piece.<BR></P>

[Kayle]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SatinyChef wrote:<BR> <DIV>So, the point of the post is...you want things to work better so you can be un-retired, yes? Like, you'll start playing your Templar again?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You assume a lot, Reznor.  I retired it because I'm not raiding as much as I used to, which was every single day in here for 6 months straight.  I'm leveling alts (tradeskillers, in particular) if you must know and have a new character I'm playing with.  I still raid when they need the templar.  Before many people quit after the revamp, we were the best raiding guild on our server.  There's no point in raiding everyday now as there's nothing much to raid and I don't feel like grinding new people through old content - therefore, I put the label retired on it so I'm not bothered as much.  If the game changes, I may reconsider but not until then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point of the post was to make the game better,  Enough answers for you?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Btw, I posted this so I assume he meant that for me Timaarit.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kaylena on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:16 AM</span>

[Kayle]

<DIV>Thanks for the link, Radar.  From reading it, it seems that they started to go in one direction and for some reason decided not to.  I'm not sure if faction wasn't done yet or they purposely didn't complete it for other reasons.  Or maybe left some open-ends depending on what happened with the game.  I wonder if Ethec knows?</DIV>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kaylena wrote:<BR> <DIV>Thanks for the link, Radar.  From reading it, it seems that they started to go in one direction and for some reason decided not to.  I'm not sure if faction wasn't done yet or they purposely didn't complete it for other reasons.  Or maybe left some open-ends depending on what happened with the game.  I wonder if Ethec knows?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Unless he asked it on the side I was in the same room and I don't remember anything else being said about it.   The faction mechanic to me looks like it was just something their wasn't enough time to finish prior to launch but I'm just speculating.   Its a direction they are heading in and I can't really see a downside to it.