UNFAIR - What's wrong with that?

[zDocW]

<DIV>Not asking for a flame war - Just would like to see some opinions on something that puzzles me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A constant theme that seems to run through these boards is people complaining about the advantages of other classes. Monks will complain that they can't tank as well as Guardians, Sages will complain that they don't get the same chance to get rares from events as Alchemists. Fury's complain they don't heal as well as Wardens. People complain that their fluff spell isn't as good as a Paladin's. etc. etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why don't people look at their own classes in isolation? <STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffffff>Why should my enjoyment of a class depend on what another class can do?</FONT></EM></STRONG> If there are broken spells or abilities - sure that is an entirely different matter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like the idea of many different classes and abilities. If I feel that another class can do better in a way that would suit my playstyle I would change to it. I can't see the point of complaining about the abilities of another class. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the grass is so much greener on the other side - why don't people move to the other side - it is so easy.<BR></DIV>

[Yusonge]

One of the themes with this game is that it was stated all fighters can tank, all helaers can heal ect. That has been proven to not be entirely accurate and alot of people want what was promised. <div></div>

[Thesp]

<P>You're right when looking specifically at your own class in isolation, but when groups are looking for more players to fill open slots, they don't look at the classes in isolation. Take for example, your monk v. guardian analogy. Group_A needs a tank and there is a monk and a guardian of appropriate level LFG, other than class and level, assume no one in the group knows anything about either player. If the perception is that monks can't tank, then theres no way that the group will invite the monk. Clearly this isn't working as intended because from the moment SOE released information about the archetype tree, they said that all members of a given archetype would be able to fill the main role of that archetype, and for fighters, that meant being the main tank for a group. So in essence, it does affect you if you choose to play a class that is deemed inferior to another.</P> <P>Ok, so just re-roll and play that class. Well, thats not always a good option. Guardians and monks are very different in terms of playstyle and skills they use, maybe being a monk <STRONG>is</STRONG> the most enjoyable fit for a given players style. However, because other players have the perception that monks aren't tanks, that player spends most of his time LFG which is not enjoyable.</P> <P>In EQ2, each archetype has a job to do. When a certain sub-class can't fulfill that job (or the majority perception is that he can't fulfill that job) then there is a problem that needs to be fixed.</P>

[Joos]

<P>I just have one thing to say, I was in a group with 3 tanks, 1 dps and 2 healers, we died a lot. Before that we had  1 tank, a bruser and a monk, that group did great and the monk and bruiser could off tank the adds, so what role does the monk and bruiser play as compared to top tank, they do lots of damage.</P> <P>Based on this you cannot just replace one class with another strait up, I don't see the problem, play your class the way it works.</P>

[Dub]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yusonge wrote:<BR>One of the themes with this game is that it was stated all fighters can tank, all helaers can heal ect. That has been proven to not be entirely accurate and alot of people want what was promised.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Becuase if this were to be true, how fun of a game would this be? We would have 4 diff classes and thats it to keep everyone equal. They are all too close to resembling each other the way it is now. 

[Miral]

<P>well in reality, you can be exactly the same yet appear completely different <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> take the sorcerer subclasses for example... they are both about equally good at what they do, but one rains fire down upon the battlefield while the other sends out airborne plagues...</P> <P> </P> <P>the only problem I have with the classes really is how necromancers are pretty much a joke, even compared to conjurers...</P>

[Thesp]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dubel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yusonge wrote:<BR>One of the themes with this game is that it was stated all fighters can tank, all helaers can heal ect. That has been proven to not be entirely accurate and alot of people want what was promised.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Becuase if this were to be true, how fun of a game would this be? We would have 4 diff classes and thats it to keep everyone equal. They are all too close to resembling each other the way it is now.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is a common misconception of the archetype system. Just because classes can be balanced such that all fighters can tank that does not equate to all fighters being exactly the same.

[Dimidri]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Joosul wrote:<BR> <P>I just have one thing to say, I was in a group with 3 tanks, 1 dps and 2 healers, we died a lot. Before that we had  1 tank, a bruser and a monk, that group did great and the monk and bruiser could off tank the adds, so what role does the monk and bruiser play as compared to top tank, they do lots of damage.</P> <P>Based on this you cannot just replace one class with another strait up, I don't see the problem, play your class the way it works.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Too bad they weren't meant to outdamage Scouts, who, by the way, are supposed to be the best melee DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently, you kind of have to play your class the way it works, but it's not working properly, that's the point.</DIV>

[ghosthamm]

<DIV>ok, i can understand focussing on your class, but allot of time the green monster rears its ugly face.  Instead of asking for upgrade fix , allot of times people cry nerf for other classes. Sure focus on your class, ask to be better, but I see way to many posts "this is unfair", "so and so overpowered" , "they get a ......?" , "Is so and so suppose to be able to do this?"  Prove your point, ask for what you want, but dont try and take it away from others.</DIV>

[Tomanak]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Thespar wrote:<BR> <P>In EQ2, each archetype has a job to do. When a certain sub-class can't fulfill that job (or the majority <STRONG>perception</STRONG> is that he can't fulfill that job) then there is a problem that needs to be fixed.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This is the key word, perception. This doesnt mean that the class can not fulfill that job or that the game is imbalanced. It means that players dont consider the classes equal. Nerfing one class over another will not change player perception. I think Templars are the best healers in the game, this doesnt make it so. They heal differently but not necessarily better. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As to those who took what the SOE marketing department said as gospel, is this your first computer game? If so I warn you, you're in for a shock. What the box says and what is are often different things. </DIV>

[Yusonge]

i think what alot are asking for is to do our job. I play a monk and as such cannot tank as well as other fighter classes. Im not asking for the best dps. I jsut want to do my job as a tank and hold agroe. Can we do that currently? In some fashions yes, but we do not do it as well as other fighter classes. If i am not to tank then why am i a fighter and not a scout? <div></div>

[Demothis]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zDocWho wrote:<BR> <DIV>Not asking for a flame war - Just would like to see some opinions on something that puzzles me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A constant theme that seems to run through these boards is people complaining about the advantages of other classes. Monks will complain that they can't tank as well as Guardians, Sages will complain that they don't get the same chance to get rares from events as Alchemists. Fury's complain they don't heal as well as Wardens. People complain that their fluff spell isn't as good as a Paladin's. etc. etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why don't people look at their own classes in isolation? <STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffffff>Why should my enjoyment of a class depend on what another class can do?</FONT></EM></STRONG> If there are broken spells or abilities - sure that is an entirely different matter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like the idea of many different classes and abilities. If I feel that another class can do better in a way that would suit my playstyle I would change to it. I can't see the point of complaining about the abilities of another class. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the grass is so much greener on the other side - why don't people move to the other side - it is so easy.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I see where you are coming frome and happen to agree that thiere is much unessesary complaining on the boards and alot of folks tend  to looking at thing 1 sided. Thing is, this game was pushed as being a game of balace.  Looking at the crusaider mont issue, this was somthing most people considered unfai, thing is this was placed in the level 20 fun spell slot, if this was else where there would have been no fuss over this thing. But these abilities where for mere fune and were not suposed to have any functional use , they gave it to 1 of the classes (crusaider) but gave no other class a functial level 20 spell. The devs even stated that this was unintentional, the only reason there was a huge out cry is because people took the crusaider over other classes just for the horse.</P> <P>Regerering to the sage remark, frankly I dont care personaly, but if you think about it, you have a system that has been in place for along time now, then a change that spits out rare comonents  giving you an opportunity to make more in game money. Being that sages have no refines or interms of thier own w/o the psudocrafting books, this throws a major disadvantage in thier directio, with a poor market for spells since day 1, I can see this as an honest complaint  For example why should lets say a provisioner have any better chance at getting a rare item that they cant even use, just because they counter corectly and get more chances at it then a sage? Things like this isn't crying nerf, but asking for a balance.</P> <P>And then the age old arguments about tanks, lord I just want this 1 to go away. I happen to agree, if the monk/bruiser can tank a white heroic ecounters as well as guardians on average, who cares. I personally think guardians should be better at epic mobs as they stand, epics dont miss much and hit hard. They can cerainly bring in epic mobs for other tanks in mind like the monk or bruiser and such but this needs to be a change to content not class Guardians are the sever end of the tank, but a brawler dose need to be able to handlegroup mobs so they arnt over looked at the high game. I know this isn't EQ1, but alot can be learned from EQ1. Ill look at rogues, druids, and monks. These 3 classesfell behind for an ecceptionaly long time and developed a verry bad stigma. These classes where so immalanced they would only be brough into a group out of friendship or raw desperation which isn't right. Then you had the bards which could bring an ungodly ammount of help, but oyu had to get them to 43 or so befor they came into thier own. No one wanted to group with bards in thier 30s becasue they brought verry little to the group in comparison to other character, thus you had a high drop iout rate of the class in that area. And post LDoN bards became gods,  LDoN groups alot of the time wouldn't go in w/o a bard after that level range becasue of the versitility of the class, and many classes where again over looked or taken just out of desperation. Rangers had a simmilar issue as the bard, they went though a nasty drop out range, but if you could get out of it  and top off your bow skills your damage output was paramont and you where taken above all other classes for DPS. They wanted to remove this type of issue from EQ2 from the start, which failed, but this is the promised they made, players are expecting this promised to be held, and SOE is going to try to deliver it. </P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Demothises on <span class=date_text>04-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:56 AM</span>

[Za]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zDocWho wrote:<BR> <DIV>Not asking for a flame war - Just would like to see some opinions on something that puzzles me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A constant theme that seems to run through these boards is people complaining about the advantages of other classes. Monks will complain that they can't tank as well as Guardians, Sages will complain that they don't get the same chance to get rares from events as Alchemists. Fury's complain they don't heal as well as Wardens. People complain that their fluff spell isn't as good as a Paladin's. etc. etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why don't people look at their own classes in isolation? <STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffffff>Why should my enjoyment of a class depend on what another class can do?</FONT></EM></STRONG> If there are broken spells or abilities - sure that is an entirely different matter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like the idea of many different classes and abilities. If I feel that another class can do better in a way that would suit my playstyle I would change to it. I can't see the point of complaining about the abilities of another class. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the grass is so much greener on the other side - why don't people move to the other side - it is so easy.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>For the same reason that in real life, no one wants to have less chance to succeed just because of race, sex, etc...</P> <P>It has everything to do with game integrity. I enjoy playing a cleric, I want to know that I have as much chance of succeeding in my profession of choice as anyone else. No, its not fair to say that if you want to have the most fun... you have to play x,y classes.</P> <P>Now, on that note, we can't all expect to have the same exact fun/success as the guy playing a different class... ie, I can't complain that my cleric can't nuke as well as a wizard, or can't melee like a scout. All classes should have their forte, the thing that gives them their edge. And no class should have such a large edge that it makes the game more trivial or less challenging for them.</P> <P>SOE's just trying to make sure that everyone gets their $15 a month worth. Not people that choose 1 class get $13 worth of fun, and others who just happen to like warrior classes get $18. (the use of warriors was purely random, didn't use em for any other reason)</P>

[Nitespi]

<P>Personally, I think EQ1 had the better idea, but didnt implement it well.  It always seemed, that in that game, there were more jobs to do.  In EQ2 theyve consolidated all needs into just 4.  </P> <P>I dont care so much WHAT my job is, I just want to HAVE a job, & have it make sense for my class.  Everyone wants to feel needed & important to the group.  By "balancing" at the archtype level, we get the feeling that all fighters are the same, & can do all tasks equally well.  When they cant, they feel cheated.</P> <P>In EQ1 everyone knew that clerics were the best healers, but the druids & shamen had secondary abilites that made going with one of those classes a suitable substitute.</P> <P>Now, if the cleric is the best healer, what does a druid or shaman bring to the group that makes up the difference?!?</P> <P>This holds true for fighters, scouts, & mages as well.</P> <P>Im not a game designer & dont know if they could change the dynamics of this game without screwing something up.  As a monk, in EQ2, would I ever be needed to pull?  As a druid, I certainly cant port.</P> <P>I just miss the days when being a monk FELT like being a monk.  Where my job could be handled by others, but not as well as I could handle it.  </P> <P>Diversity truly is the spice of life.</P>

[Syanis]

<DIV>As was pointed out somewhat above.... your group needs a tank. Now what class's do you look for? Most groups I've seen want purely guardian or beserker, in a pinch they will tak a paladin or sk. I've seen very few who will take a monk/bruiser (especially bruiser) as a tank though while they make take them as dps def not as the tank. I personally want nothing to do with a bruiser tank. I so hate fear taunt thing.... its extremely annoying to me. Now a group wants a mage... who do they go for first assuming all avail? warlock or wiz followed by a conjuror maybe.... necro.... and enchanters types are pretty much only if nothing else avail.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Needa healer? who do yah get.... templar  def if avail... if not that inquisitor will work..... grab that mystic for ward next.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Needa scout? grab that assassin/ranger or that troub/dirge if prefer buffage and lesser dps.... brigand will work if nothing else... swash? well they come in last.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It boils down to the simple fact that some class's are considered second or third rate and are shied away from when a group needs more members. Its very annoying if you happen to be one of those class's and you don't fit the generic group format... 1 tank... 1 heavy healer... 1 heavy buffer / backup healer..... 3 heavy dps.</DIV>